| Revision as of 08:16, 19 March 2010 editMacai (talk | contribs)632 edits →Evaluation← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,125 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{talkheader|search=yes|wp=yes|WT:GS/CC/RE}} | {{talkheader|search=yes|wp=yes|WT:GS/CC/RE}} | ||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot}} | |||
| == Appropriate? == | |||
| I'm wondering if this is considered appropriate? I've asked for a retraction, of course, but it was refused, rudely ] (]) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe it was appropriate given your constant rudeness and petty sniping, it was far less than i would like to say ] (]) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Wrong spot (move ? where?) == | |||
| I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. ] (] on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You missed where this was supposed to go, I think, TS. ] (]) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, it's my telephone. For some reason it posts comments intended for the main project page to this talk page instead. ] (] on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the help. I moved the comment to the appropriate part of the main project page and expanded it a bit. --] 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Considering admins uninvolved who are involved in the content discussion == | |||
| I am surprised by Stephan Schulz's comment . He seems to say he is uninvolved, even though he has been directly involved on the content issue, because he is not in a dispute ''with'' Ratel. To the contrary he made the original edit that started the dispute, and has stopped in to support Ratel's versions. Does the probation really mean to say that editors are uninvolved even if they are directly involved in the content dispute? ] (]) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Stephan shouldn't be commenting in the admin-only section in this request. Out of order. ] (]) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, he shouldn't probably comment in any of the admin sections for this enforcement page. He is obviously quite involved in CC articles (broadly construed, ooo look, arbcomspeak) ] (]) 00:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we do require editors to cow-tow to the letter of the law, it should cut both ways. The way the probation is written, I am uninvolved, and Ratel can expect a specific warning before sanctions are enacted. Now possibly we should reconsider how the probation is written, but one of my aims in commenting in that section is to recall the exact stipulations for the people deliberating. --] (]) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I should probably be clear in my statement here. I don't have a particular opinion on what you wrote, just that in general, I cannot consider you uninvolved in the CC article area. Not a bad thing, just my opinion. ] (]) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, I quite agree that I'm not common-sense uninvolved. But I am probation-uninvolved, weirdly enough. --] (]) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Stephan's comment that ] is not a suicide pact also appears to be a personal attack, unless I am missing something. Is he seriously saying that Ratel's comments are an acceptable and justified deviation from ]? Great, let's all attack the whole concept of AGF and just start lambasting everybody with the most offensive things we can come up with. ] (]) 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :By commenting as an admin in the "Results" section, Stephan is acting as an admin in this dispute, in which he is clearly involved. I'm going to report it to arbcom. ] (]) 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Stephan, I think you should take the high road and recuse yourself here. Admins need to be ''clearly'' uninvolved if the sanctions process is going to work. Even before this, Lar was stretching the limits of "uninvolved" to the breaking point; no need to make things worse. Keeping your conduct above reproach is always the best way. ] (]) 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lar? Sure, if you'll add that to BozMo, Jehochman and probably Lessheard. I'm fine having 2/0 do the whole thing, or having all of them, but this is hardly acceptable, especially not without noting the extent of his involvement. ] (]) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cripes man, Lessheard has probably been the best at following the probation. If he continues as he has, I totally plan to commend his efforts. ] (]) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That wasn't a complaint, against any of them. But what is this about Lar? Consider me half impressed that Boris can recognize an administrator blatantly involved in this very disagreement, only if he can also make an irrelevant jab at another administrator for something entirely unrelated. Personally I would like to see more uninvolved admins weigh in on this request, since the perceptions of LessHeard and Jehochman seem to be quite different. ] (]) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :(Re Mackan79): Nope, I have not said such a thing. But AGF has its limits, and in this field there are certainly some editors who have less than perfect encyclopaedic interest. Not to ride a dead horse to the market, but you do remember ]? --] (]) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Scibaby, right. That does not have anything to do with this request. ] (]) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's evidence that there is at least one long-term concerted effort under way to disrupt the climate change articles. That does not excuse, but contributes to explaining Ratels claims. It also means that LHvUs surprise at this is hard to understand for me. --] (]) 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see how the existence of an annoying, easily spotted sock puppet excuses violations of AGF and (worse in my book) not communicating on the talk page about non-trivial changes to an article that he knows is under probation. But this has ventured pretty far afield - the idea that he without sin be the only administrator involved is a little silly because CC has generated so many admin requests that you're going to be hard pressed to find one who is uninvolved and interested. I don't think editing the same article, or even making edits on the same section under dispute is important, because the request isn't about content at all, just behavior. ] (]) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This issue is bigger than me. It's about what's happening to climate change articles on wikipedia. Global warming, like evolution, is a ''scientific'' subject with extremely strong general consensus amongst the practising scientists in the area. These same scientists about the way FUD Merchants are deliberately misleading the public, causing much fiddling while Rome burns. From a scientific point of view, the FUDders are peddling ] theories, and should ''not at all'' be given equal weight or time on pages concerning this issue, nor indeed during conversations like this, where we are misguidedly enjoined to treat them like learned colleagues with pristine motives. In just the same way, anti-evolutionists and creationists are not given equal weight and deference in debates on pages concerning the science of evolution. So there are limits to how much good faith should be extended, in this encyclopedic environment, to people with antiscience agendas on scientific pages — that is, if you want to have an encyclopedia worth the name. Now if this reasoning escapes any serious editor, I suggest that he/she has lost the plot about what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. ] 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Aside... "Global" means it's a global subject, science is clearly only part of the issue. ] (]) 17:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: At no point does a group of people being wrong or having an agenda excuse poor behavior towards a specific person, unless that person has demonstrated malice. AGF is simple. You're saying, "they're a bunch of fringe idiots who are subverting wikipedia's goals to further their own ends, and he agrees with some things that they say, so he is one of them, so AGF doesn't apply anymore," but AGF does not apply to groups, it applies to editors on a case by case basis. And don't attribute to malice what can simply be ignorance, stupidity, or honest disagreement. This is indeed at the heart of what's happening in climate change - people are identifying groups of editors that they lump others into, ready to attribute any mistake to deliberate wrongdoing. Collaboration cannot be built on a foundation of mistrust and quick, arbitrary personal judgement. In my opinion, any editor that is not communicating, is snidely insinuating, constantly calling others out on minor guideline violations, rushing to authority for help when a few minutes of calm discussion would do, grouping editors into ''us'' and ''them'' when we're all just jerks on the internet with too much free time, or trying to right all the evils in the world should move on to other topics that they don't get so emotionally attached to. As an aside, this is why I support a topic ban on CC for almost anyone who has edited a CC article or talk page. ] (]) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * ArbCom review has been . ] (]) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley == | |||
| == Comments by uninvolved editors need to cease == | |||
| Honestly guys, ]. <!-- How the f*** do we not have an article about this song!? --> Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. ] (]) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I have occasionally dipped my toe into the turbulent waters that are this page, but most of the time, I have refrained from doing so. The primary purpose for my doing so is to avoid the peanut gallery – in this case a set of editors who seem to turn up on every other request to either defend someone whose point of view they agree with or attack those whom they disagree with. I am not saying that this is true for every commentator, but for a good number, this is certainly the case. Therefore, I am asking that threaded discussion on ] cease. If you have something to add to the request, drop the diffs, add perhaps a few sentences of explanation, and ''leave it there''. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of the diffs, please do not post. Administrators are more easily able to come to a fair conclusion when they don't have deal with spin from partisans. | |||
| : The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It's |
::It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. ] (]) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :ec :I think the threaded discussion is "mostly harmless", with typically a couple of non-obvious points made amongst the face-off. I haven't seen any sign of uninvolved admins counting votes and think people with nothing to say (or who say nothing new) will realise what gets notice and what gets ignored. --] ] 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, NW, I see your point, but I can't get behind a proposal that starts out by "banning" uninvolved editors.--] (]) 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps "uninvolved" wasn't exactly the best word to use. If you take a look at the non-admin editors to the page, you have ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. With just a few exceptions, they have all been heavily involved in editing climate change articles. Perhaps that is to be expected with such a board, but it hasn't exactly helped matters. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's what I figured you meant, but still, not convinced it's a good idea. Maybe I need to actually patrol here for a bit and see if my opinion changes... --] (]) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :While the noise to signal ration is high, it has been the case that I have been informed by some of the comments - the standard reactions by some commentators can also be "tuned out" to a certain extent, although it would be wrong to disregard them. A diff that places an earlier diff into a different context, or an example of same behaviour earlier on another article, provides coverage that a reviewing admin could not hope to achieve. ] (]) 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that this most recent request, and AQFK's reception of it, only proves his own biases. Quite why an unjustified request that isn't going to be actioned should translate into temporary injunctions isn't clear - unless the injunction should be against AQFK for kibitzing ] (]) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not particularly comfortable with any suggestion of "muzzling" people, including the usual suspects. An open process where everyone gets their say seems more important to me than avoiding wading through a bit of noise. I do agree that people should generally just make their initial comment and if they feel a rebuttal to someone else is necessary, keep it with "their" comment rather than getting into a long indented argument. I hope no-one thinks that a bunch of people saying the same thing is going to have more weight than one person. It is going to be strength of argument that will sway admins, not quantity. Perhaps just an unofficial convention that if comment gets out of hand an uninvolved admin can collapse it or otherwise bring it to a halt, request by request? ] (]) 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Two edit wars at ] <s>today</s> that began yesterday, one of which continues into today == | |||
| :NW I applaud your out of the box thinking but I find that the counterpoint is often useful. Diffs sometimes can be looked at too quickly so having someone say "but that's not what they mean" can be quite a good thing. Perhaps some requests when things get excessive, but not an outright prohibition. "mostly harmless" per BozMo. ++]: ]/] 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Edit war #1 | |||
| : I think NW has hit the nail on the head. I earlier clumsily attempted to address this problem from the standpoint of the low quality of some recent enforcement requests, but the real problem (which I have discussed vaguely at various points) is that having a talking shop like this invites a battleground mentality. Despite an overall improvement on the articles, this warfare seems to be hardening and new warriors have been attracted by the noise. That is very worrying. ] (=] ) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Edit war #2 | |||
| :: There's a problem, but I'm not sure this is the exact fix, and I suspect that's a fairly widely held view. Can we brainstorm a bit? What if we just try restricting people to their own sections to reduce the amount of back and forth? ++]: ]/] 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin please lock down the article? ] (]) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by ] with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion ] so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to ] who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect ] (]) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It strikes me now that if there's more than one round of rebuttals, it will become very hard for an outside reader to piece together the timestamps to make sense of it, to "pick up the thread" as it were. ;) What about a formal section "Statements by others" where interested parties and outside observers would have a specific place to post their diff's, interpretations and proposals - separate from "Discussion concerning..."? Threaded discussion could then still go in, well, "Discussion..." but no "novel" ideas can be raised there. ] (]) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? ] ''(])'' 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that ] (]) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :* Err no, it wasn't 4, it was 3, and one was a sock. Have another go. And as for ''I just want to clarify'' - can you give this disruptive nonsense up and find yourself something productive to do? ] (]) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: ]. ] (]) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See ] (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that . His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently ] (]) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? ] (]) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I think tangential discussions and bickering should be collapsed by an uninvolved administrator. If anybody wants to read it, they can. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you maybe put a tag on the template under the section for comments by uninvolved editors? It's not self-evident how that section should be approached and that should help.--] (]) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating ] (]) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Fifty-fifty articles == | |||
| ::::::Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. ] (]) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Am I right in summarising that every case that is brought here is decided purely on the editor's behaviour, with no view to the content produced, or the accurate reflection of sources, or the application of due weight, or any contribution made to building a good encyclopedia? It seems to me that the band of anti-science and anti-AGW proponents that arrived on the climate change articles soon after the CRU hacking incident have taken to wiki-lawyering like proverbial ducks to water. When arguments about content go wrong, the combatants end up here and the issue is then decided on the basis of who has been the rudest, who has tip-toed around the behavioural guidelines the most daintily and who is best at winding ''the other guy'' up to the point where ''they'' break some rule somewhere first. I have seen comments recently from long-term contributors about having vowed not to get involved but commenting anyway, or intending to keep articles off their watchlists, or generally not wanting to touch climate change articles with a bargepole. | |||
| Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" ] (]) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that the evolutionary effect of this will be that, at some point in the infinite future, all the articles will end up a 50/50 mix of statements based on scientific research and ideas rooted in anti-science polemic. Global warming 'belief' may seem like a 50/50 political choice to some American voters at the moment as they have just been subjected to one of the most pernicious disinformation campaigns in history. But in the wider world, the science ''is'' settled and ''all'' relevant scientific associations and societies agree it is. 50/50 articles would be a travesty against the facts. Is this process designed to achieve 50/50 articles in a world where no one can truly judge the rights and wrongs of, say, political, religious or territorial debates? If so, I wonder if they really are the right process for this case, where the results of five to eight decades of worldwide scientific research need to be balanced against the noise made by well-funded special interest, business, political and lobby groups in a few very wealthy countries. --] (]) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :To be honest, Nigel, the assumption that you are dealing only with anti-science editors is one of the major problems. On ] you and a couple of others have been editing to remove all mention of any criticism of this term from the lead of that article. There is notable controversy, discussed in dozens of reliable sources. ] clearly states that the lead should cover notable controversies. Yet, it is now being continually removed without any suggestion of what would be appropriate to include. Does an editor truly have to be anti-science to see this as a problem? It seems to be your view, and that of some others, that disagreements over NPOV in this area must come down to pro-science vs. anti-science. That is a classic battleground mentality, and absurd. Writing good article is not a simple matter of documenting the science, or a majority view. The quality of our articles runs a huge spectrum, and almost always there are ways to make improvements. The fact that qualified scientists have certain points of consensus on climate change, meanwhile, does not mean there is a consensus on every related topic such as whether public skepticism is largely a matter of "denialism." That is a political issue, not a scientific issue, for which the scientific consensus is only one of many points. ] should not be treated as a matter of political controversy, but ] is. The articles address different issues, and will be written entirely differently. Black and white, undifferentiated views that treat all of it in the same manner are not good enough. ] (]) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's my take based on my experiences participating in Misplaced Pages, and that's that it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. First of all, we don't take sides on any issue. Policy requires that we edit neutrally. Neutral writing means that the reader cannot tell which side the writer is taking. When we press the "edit" tab, we're committing ourselves to that principle. Second, how well do we cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with other editors in order to produce articles that are complete and NPOV? Do we try to find common ground? Do we suggest compromise solutions? Do we edit war? Do we, in a civil manner, suggest alternatives? If you think of things in these terms, then it doesn't matter which "side" anyone is on. What matters is how well each editor works with others to build content and their commitment to NPOV. ] (]) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Everybody's in favor of neutrality. The problem is defining what "neutral" means in practice. I think the definition constructed in ] is quite good. ] (]) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's where my point #2 comes in. Because everyone has a different bias on what is neutral, that is why cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are necessary. So, when an enforcement action is requested, I think admins should be assessing how well the editor in question tries to work with ''everyone'' involved in any particular article. ] (]) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would prefer that the admins base their decisions on policy rather than personalities. We have ], etc. for behavior that is sufficiently uncooperative to merit sanction. ] (]) 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise is the foundation of how a wiki operates. You just said that it is difficult to tell NPOV. Well, that's how you tell if someone is trying to follow NPOV, by seeing how well they cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. It's not about personality at all. ] (]) 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: independent backup for what I'm trying to say. Notice that scientists fared poorly with the collaboration aspect. ] (]) 04:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Scientists fared poorly at collaboration? I don't see that in the article you cite - am I missing it? It is extremely difficult to succeed in science if you can't collaborate effectively. There is a rich literature on collaboration in science ( is as good a starting point as any). Of course, people with scientific training and expertise may find it difficult to collaborate on scientific topics with people who are enthusiastically ignorant or aggressively irrational, in the same manner that ] might find it hard to collaborate with ] on ]... I guess what I'm saying is that while there are individual "scientific" editors who are failures at Misplaced Pages's particular collaborative model, it would be a sloppy overgeneralization to assign scientists in general a lack of collaborative spirit when quite the opposite is the case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * Another excellent set of points made by Nigelj. Now I've already explained to MacKan that the ] page is not about genuine scepticism —that goes in ]— but about the concerted and disingenuous campaign to obfuscate the fact that AGW is occurring, and it's bloody serious. That this campaign is taking place is undeniably true; we have ample sources for that. That's beyond debate. Now when we ''know'' that something is happening, the term used to describe it (denialism) is no longer a pejorative. Pedophilia happens, and calling a pedophile "a pedophile" is not hurling a pejorative at the person, it's merely describing his behaviour. Of course, the pedophile will be eager to tell you that ''he'' thinks it's a pejorative, but that's not material. So that's why we are editing to "remove all mention of any criticism of this term from the lead of that article". People caught red-handed doing something antisocial, like lying about science to further their own financial interests, do not get 50/50 time to make their fringe cases in ledes. Or else go to the articles on things like pedophilia and insert a sentence there saying that the term is "generally pejorative", and see how long that lasts. Lastly, ] is NOT a "political controversy", it's about how some groups are trying to mislead the public about a SCIENTIFIC issue, in exactly the same way the public was misled about the harm of tobacco smoking for decades (by some of the very same people, incredibly — watch ). ] 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters. == | |||
| ::Thanks. I guess my point is related to the "equal validity" and "weight" aspects of ]. These sanctions are being policed on the basis of editors' behaviour prior to being brought here, but the issue that almost always brings people here is one to do with ] weight in NPOV. The root problem we have is how to deal with fringe views: that's what leads to the short tempers that get people to here. --] (]) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The original purpose of these pages was rendered obsolete upon the acceptance of the ArbCom case, IMnvHO, as the effectiveness and neutrality of the process was placed as a consideration for the Committee to review, and was confirmed when the Proposed Decision clearly indicated a desire to supercede these pages and move toward using AE. I see that a worthy exercise in utilising the likely process that would be adopted at AE was trailed here, but I would suggest that it was quickly deprecated in that concerns and commentary quickly appeared in the ArbCom case pages (and elsewhere such as ANI?) and the remit of administrators able to enforce any findings outside of standard sysop provisions potentially open to challenge (and might be found surplus or even in conflict to sanctions or restrictions placed at the end of the case). I spent some little time and energy on these pages for a few months earlier this year, and I am immoderately proud of what was achieved here despite it not being able to properly fulfill its function, and would wish it to end with some dignity rather than be the venue of squabbles and petty arguments. I would prefer if this place could be left as reminder of what was hoped for, rather than the result of its failings. ] (]) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, and my contention is that some sort of ÜberAdmin or group of such people, or maybe Jimbo himself, needs to make a cogent decision about global warming and how the encyclopedia should approach the issue. Because currently the fringe views are masquerading as legitimate, and threaten to drown out the science. ] 00:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --] 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --] 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Per Tony. ] (]) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. ] (]) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. ] (]) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The comparison to pedophilia is just about like the comparison to Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism: inapposite, and considered by several reliable sources to be offensive. The fact remains that ''no'' reliable sources dispute those terms, no one disputes that they are significant phenomena, the terms are nearly universally recognized, and each of them is defined by specific positions that someone takes regardless of their motives. "Climate change denial" is different in all respects, in that it is disputed by numerous reliable sources, very few reliable sources even use much less discuss the term (and several state that they specifically avoid it), and the concept is predicated not on any specific position but rather on taking a position ''for ulterior motives''. Thus "Climate change denial," as we have defined it, specifically means someone who denies global warming ''dishonestly'' (as indeed William Connolley has specifically ). If that doesn't make it a pejorative, as at least two sources have specifically stated, I don't know what would. How specifically to say it is a separate issue, but one that is quite hard to discuss when editors constantly return to how vile the campaign is. ] (]) 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Responding to NW's question == | |||
| Please go back and read the probation terms. This isn't about content, and is just a distraction. If you have content problems, you have the normal channels you can use. ] (]) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to NW's | |||
| : How is this not FUD and ]? The articles are not going to devolve into a mass of wishy-washy bullshit. It hasn't happened in other contentious topics and it will not happen here. The process behind wikipedia works. Climate change is not going to be the beginning of the end of wikipedia. Is that seriously what you're afraid of? If it is, then calm down. Things will still be around tomorrow. I don't look at wikipedia on the weekend and it doesn't descend into anarchy while I'm not around to fix everything, although obviously that must be through the grace of god. ] (]) 05:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| :::<small>I myself am constantly amazed this project was ever able to survive before these pages were graced by my august presence. :) ] (]) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ''And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| which is a reference to: | |||
| :::Look, there is a serious risk of many articles becoming colored with misinformation or downright propaganda when you have a small group of honest editors competing, with limited time, against a phalanx of tendentious editors potentially in the employ of the selfsame industries discussed on pages like ] (I am not naming names and this is a suspicion, not an accusation). Are you really so naive as to think that these mega-corporations, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, will leave wikipedia alone, when it is usually in the top 4 hits on any Google search on any subject? Why should unpaid editors like me spend hours combating people who relentlessly and persistently rewrite articles to put their employers in a more positive light? Or if they are not employed to edit, why should unpaid editors, who support the scientific consensus, have to spend countless hours reverting and rewriting the ill-conceived bafflegab emanating from the rightwing talk radio and the conservative blogosphere? Something should be done to sequester this whole topic from those who have malevolent or misinformed motives, and there are more and more of them and less and less people like me prepared to spend precious time defending themselves on noticeboards such as this when the inevitable frivolous whaaambulance calls to authority are made. I notice some of you want to refocus on process here, but there are larger issues at stake. ] 05:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages needs editors who are willing to look carefully at articles, the available sources, and craft unbiased and informative content. It needs editors ''not'' to shoot from the hip in order to battle perceived enemies. You are unfortunately doing the latter. ] (]) 06:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ''The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")'' | |||
| :::::I'm talking about years of editing FUDdy rubbish and apologist twaddle from AGW-related articles. I'm not new to this. "Shooting from the hip" is not on the menu. ] 06:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::::::Right. Nevertheless, I suspect your approach is better suited on articles where the FUDdy rubbish and apologist twaddle is not the topic of the article, since simply removing it (and assuming the worst in those who disagree) tends to make for a less informative article. That's all. ] (]) 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ratel: I agree with Mackan79. While the issue you raise is one aspect, and an important one, of the larger set of problems with this topic area, your approach in dealing with it is decidedly not helpful. If you wish to continue editing in this area you are going to need to change your tone, and in fact, your entire outlook and approach, as they are not satisfactory. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++]: ]/] 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Reply to Nigelj; yes, you are correct. People editing here are permitted (privileged) to do so under the rules, policies and guidelines. In the case of Climate Change and related articles, these "limitations" upon the editing model are further emphasised by the restrictions of the probation - designed to ensure compliance with the editing ethos. In short, you may edit the pages in accordance to the existing NPOV, relying on and referring excellent third party sources, and if you are a rude fucker who enjoys twatting the nay-sayers, removing content simply on the basis on who included it, and calling them names then you are likely (I trust) to be sanctioned to the point you cannot edit the article. If you have a viewpoint that is entirely contrary to all reasonable pov, justify your stance because the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is beaming The Truth directly into your brain, but are prepared to discuss your proposed edits reasonably on a talkpage and to accept the consensus that is derived then you will be tolerated until you are gently told that your edits will never be included and it is suggested you find another medium upon which to expand your theories (which, being the conscientious soul you are, you go and do.) Being "right" about the subject provides no consideration against violations of the rules pertaining, same as if you are "wrong". IMO. ] (]) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'd like to see the requirement that people discuss their edits on the talk page be actually enforced - and when it turns out their edits have irrefutable flaws - like they misrepresent sources, and those flaws are made clear on the talk page, that continuing to make the same edit over and over results in actual sanction. I don't think this is likley, however. ] (]) 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward: | |||
| == Evaluation == | |||
| Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ] (]) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::] exists. --] (]) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for admin == | |||
| How is this probation working? I agree with {{User|Carcharoth}}'s that we should have an evaluation, perhaps 14 days from now, and decide whether to continue with this probation, or to refer the matter to arbitration. Does that sound like a good plan? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, . This is plainly in violation of ], without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. ] (]) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I support that in principle, though I think things would have to be a lot worse than I currently believe they are for me to agree with an assessment that the probation has failed. The quality of the science-heavy articles continues to show incremental improvement and attention is being paid to rigorous sourcing on the social, political and biographical articles. A lot of good editing has been done with a minimum of pain. ] (=] ) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == lights == | |||
| :: I'm with the delicious TS on this one. ] (]) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <looks around, and reaches for the switch>'''''CLICK!!''''' ] (]) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Seems like we're having the eval now. :) I think we're doing some good. Whether TS is tasty or not is a different question and one I have no interest in. ++]: ]/] 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :In my view the probation works when there are clear standards of conduct, in which case the probation allows admins to apply them without a long bureaucratic process. I think that's a very good thing, and something we're much better having than not having. If the purpose is simply to give admins extra leeway to sanction editors for whatever reasons they come up with, then we have big prolonged disputes and it doesn't work as well. Of course I don't believe the latter is the intention, but there does seem to be some difficulty in articulating what the standards are. Whether that can be done is, in my view, what determines whether the probation is useful or not. ] (]) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Good observation. However, I see the risk that "clear standards of conduct" will a) concentrate on primarily shallow criteria and b) invite gaming. --] (]) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm seeing less revert warring. Also, I'm seeing less personal attacks from a few of the editors who had issues with following that policy in the past. ] (]) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::We shouldn't forget that the ultimate aim of this or any other probation is to improve the quality of articles. Keeping editors civil and cooperative is a laudable goal in itself, but we're not here to run a community - we're here to create a high-quality encyclopedia. I think it remains to be seen whether Misplaced Pages can cope, in the long term, with the huge amount of pressure from anti-science partisans on this issue. It's the old "civil POV-pushing" dilemma. -- ] (]) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Could you name an "anti-science" editor, Chris? I don't know of any editors who have stated that they are "anti-science." ] (]) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Cla68 has an excellent reputation for improving articles. Perhaps you, ChrisO could work with him to bring some of these articles to recognized standards of quality? I encourage editors to try working with somebody who may have a different outlook by finding common ground. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An example from this morning: user {{User2|JohnWBarber}} summarily removed my edits to the Background section of ], saying that my version is "ill-advised" and changing ''The ] is that human activity is causing ]'' (which the IPCC has stated) to the more equivocal ''The current ] is that human activity is contributing to ].'' He also removed a quote from a book that explains the origins of AGW denial, without giving any reason. That's what we're up against, every damn day. ] 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ratel, the point is that you can't go around saying folks are anti-science ''even if it's true'' (on which I am taking no stand in the present instance). It's against your own interest to do so. ] (]) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Editors who are not interested in climate science ''per se'' are editing climate science-related articles in larger and larger numbers. It's that simple. And it's not good for the encylopedia. ] | |||
| ::::::::We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I think it's good that editors who are not interested in climate science ''per se'' are involved since it broadens our perspectives. Even the contrarians are helpful (to a point, anyway) because they motivate scientifically literate editors to reinforce the material. ] (]) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} SBHB, you have a more tolerant disposition than I. Then again, maybe we should leave the science articles to these people, the ones who think science is a democracy and that their dislike of certain findings invalidates those findings? Abandoning the constant struggle to keep the rampant BS off global warming pages would make life easier for a whole lot of us. The fact that wikipedia tolerates this antiscience editing, and apparently even encourages it (per your statement above, and see also all the chatter here and on other pages about how my gruff tone is more important than my edits), is the reason why eminent climate scientists like ] refer to the "wiki model" with complete and utter scorn (hear him say that, about ½ way through ). ] 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Ratel, are you sure that your feelings on the subject aren't too strong to allow you to edit objectively? I'm trying to improve a ] article. I'm going to use the GA nomination forum to gauge the success of my efforts. Could you do the same for a skeptical topic, such as the ] or '']'' articles? ] (]) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hah, that's the second time you've asked me if my "feelings" about global warming aren't "too strong" to allow me to edit objectively. Now please back that up with an edit showing how I've tried to insert subjective material that would harm the wikipedia. Please! Go ahead. And if you cannot, please admit here that your tactic of questioning my objectivity is yet another ploy to silence opposition by provoking a topic ban, because that's how I see it. Not too subtle, are you? As I've said elsewhere, global warming is the most important topic on Earth at the moment. We are seeing huge climate changes, droughts and floods, all over the world, directly attributable to this phenomenon. Climate scientists are either in panic, desperate, or quietly defeated by the way utter idiots with venal motives have managed to sway public opinion to the point where essentially nothing has been done, and more and more people think the whole thing is a scam instead of the greatest emergency ever to face mankind. ] 01:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't take this the wrong way but I think you're proving Cla68 right. Really, it would be best for all concerned (''especially'' for you and others on "your side" of the debate) if you were to back off a bit on the hyperbole. Please consider it. ] (]) 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In response, I can only encourage you to listen to what the scientists are saying and pay a little less heed to inconsequential wikidramas. ] 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to gain at least a passing familiarity with what the scientists are saying. ] (]) 04:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Is sarcasm considered civil? -] (]) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Water off a duck's back to me, Atmoz. SBHB may be interested in climate change, but may not be familiar with the latest studies, all of which paint a more dire picture than just a few months ago. It's not looking at all good. ] 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sounds to me Ratel, that instead of wasting your time editing Misplaced Pages, you need to be camped out in front of the national legislative assembly of whichever country you live in with a big sign letting them know how dire the current situation is and what they need to do about it. ] (]) 08:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whoa, Ratel just went overboard there. You've proven Cla correct. Your comments are akin to that of a homeless man with a picket sign reading "the end is nigh". You might want to tone that down some. ] (]) 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley
Honestly guys, it's time to stop the bleeding now. Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. Jehochman 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this most recent request, and AQFK's reception of it, only proves his own biases. Quite why an unjustified request that isn't going to be actioned should translate into temporary injunctions isn't clear - unless the injunction should be against AQFK for kibitzing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Two edit wars at Phil Jones (climatologist) today that began yesterday, one of which continues into today
Can an admin please lock down the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by User:Peterlewis with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to User:M.w.denotter who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. Minor4th 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? NW (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. Minor4th 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? NW (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. Minor4th 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. Minor4th 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Err no, it wasn't 4, it was 3, and one was a sock. Have another go. And as for I just want to clarify - can you give this disruptive nonsense up and find yourself something productive to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: User:A Quest For Knowledge/Phil Jones Content Disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Phil_Jones_Content_Disputes#Climategate_E-mails:_Were_they_.22leaked.22.2C_.22stolen.22_or_both.3F_If_stolen.2C_were_they_.22stolen.22_or_.22allegedly_stolen.22.3F (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that . His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters.
The original purpose of these pages was rendered obsolete upon the acceptance of the ArbCom case, IMnvHO, as the effectiveness and neutrality of the process was placed as a consideration for the Committee to review, and was confirmed when the Proposed Decision clearly indicated a desire to supercede these pages and move toward using AE. I see that a worthy exercise in utilising the likely process that would be adopted at AE was trailed here, but I would suggest that it was quickly deprecated in that concerns and commentary quickly appeared in the ArbCom case pages (and elsewhere such as ANI?) and the remit of administrators able to enforce any findings outside of standard sysop provisions potentially open to challenge (and might be found surplus or even in conflict to sanctions or restrictions placed at the end of the case). I spent some little time and energy on these pages for a few months earlier this year, and I am immoderately proud of what was achieved here despite it not being able to properly fulfill its function, and would wish it to end with some dignity rather than be the venue of squabbles and petty arguments. I would prefer if this place could be left as reminder of what was hoped for, rather than the result of its failings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --TS 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --TS 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per Tony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. Weakopedia (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Responding to NW's question
Responding to NW's question
And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?
which is a reference to:
The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")
I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward: Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--SPhilbrickT 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--SPhilbrickT 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:PETARD exists. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for admin
I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, here. This is plainly in violation of WP:NPA, without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
lights
<looks around, and reaches for the switch>CLICK!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)