| Revision as of 20:50, 9 April 2010 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,032 edits →WMC and "septic": and don't call me surely← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,538 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}} | |||
| == Proposal == | |||
| I would like to propose a moratorium on requests for enforcement by partisans against other partisans. There seems to be a lot of tit-for-tat going on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) That's one idea. The other idea is to have them bring it here so that something can be done about it. However, one interesting thing about this area is that everyone is considered a partisan, as of some time right before their first edit. ] (]) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the point of the sanctions if editors can't use them to win content disputes against their opponents? In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all ] editors from '''both''' warring factions. The might sound extreme but please read the following post from Jimbo and ask yourself, "Does this situation sound familiar?" ] (]) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is quite an interesting opinion. Of course, even more than Scientology, Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate; it would be interesting that if a few of the more entrenched participants of either sets of opinion were removed from the area whether there would be the successful recruiting of adversarial minded editors. Perhaps it is the type of subject that attracts overly resolute contributors? ] (]) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate''" I don't see how it would be any worse than it is now. In fact, this seems to have slowed down quite a bit. ] (]) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why, thank you... ;~) ] (]) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all ] editors from '''both''' warring factions.'' Interesting idea. AQFN, what would be your response to those who say this should include you? ] (]) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This may not be the answer that you were expecting, but I can say this with complete honesty: I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against ] (or at least my understanding of it at the time). I try to write for multiple viewpoints (including the opponent) with weight expressed in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When you see edits which only express√ one POV, it's only because the other POV was already included in the article and I was trying to balance out the neutrality. My biggest mistake so far (that I am aware of) in terms of ] was when I cited ] to argue against "Climategate" as article title. I now believe that I was wrong because ] is a policy and ] is a guideline and you can't use a guideline to override a policy. Any other mistakes are probably minor and accidental. I'd welcome any disinterested and neutral party to examine my edits and I doubt they would find much wrong with them. ] (]) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against WP:NPOV." I honestly don't know how to respond to that. It's rare that I'm at a loss for words, so mark the date. ] (]) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::LOL. I told you that it might not be the answer that you were expecting. I suggest that you read the rest of my answer so you understand what I mean. ] (]) 01:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I do understand. That's what bothers me. ] (]) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's Jimbo's reply to my suggestion that CC be handled in a manner similar to Scientology.. ] (]) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I figured he'd eventually get payback for that. ] (]) 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == What the fuck == | |||
| {{anchor|What the F-bomb}} | |||
| ::<small>Moved from main enforcement page to talk. ] (]) 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::<small>Permalink before move: ] (]) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Misplaced Pages since about 3 hours before this request has been created? Do we now block people without a hearing? If yes, I have a couple of blocks I'm sorely tempted to make. In short, I consider this a major fuck-up. --] (]) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I was aware Dr Connolley was inactive, when I blocked the account. I had not expected WMC to respond, however, to the Request since it was apparent that he had violated his 1RR restriction and that he had used the terminology as evidenced by the diffs. What was he going to do? I would point out that the allegations of 1RR and unfortunate choices of wordings were contained in the Marknutley Request which WMC participated in - and to which he made no response, then. The reviewing admins, and the comments by others, addressed the content of the allegations, and not the contributor, and a decision was made and enacted. Should we have waited for when, or if, Dr Connelley returned to see if he had something to say and then block him for obvious violations of his restrictions? I would not be surprised if some editors would prefer that, and there may now be some questioning from that quarter about why sanctions are not made in such a way as to ensure that "naughty editors" are properly "punished". This admin, however, sees sanctions as preventative, and that is why I continued to make the block. ] (]) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''"naughty editors" are properly "punished"''" This has nothing to do with punishing bad editors. It has to do with ''ending the disruption''. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Perhaps you can explain to us, LessHeard vanU, how WMC's repeated acts of misconduct help advance the project? ] (]) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::They do not. His high quality content contributions to a number of topics do. I do not wish for what may be the case, that Dr Connolley has left the project, but I would wish to try and close down the avenues by which his actions have been disruptive. You may feel that the nett result of Dr Connelley's prolonged absence from editing WP to be beneficial, but I do not. They would, however, be vastly improved if he were to contribute in full compliance to not only the wording of his restriction(s), the probation, and Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, but also the spirit. Of course, if you feel that I am not acting in what I sincerely believe is in the best interests of the encyclopedia then I have nothing more to say - it would be a waste of both of our time. ] (]) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(after e/c, mixed msg, maybe) Noo, ''The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia'', full-stop. The camaraderie and mutual respect are choices we make, they are not overarching goals. The content is the once and future king. If we punish anything, it's ''degrading the content''. You can argue that WMC degraded content two hours early, and for that he has been blocked from editing. ] (]) 23:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LessHeard vanU, I'm not saying you're not sincere, I'm saying that these little slaps on the wrist have obviously not ended the disruption and that stronger action is required. A 48 hour ban is more appropriate and if this editor continues to be disruptive, the penalties should continue to escalate (4 days, a week, 2 weeks, a month, etc.) until the disruption has ended. ] (]) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"If we punish anything, it's degrading the content." Would that it were so. ] (]) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Franamax: ''The camaraderie and mutual respect are choices we make'' Actually, a more modest goal is that editors are supposed to be allowed to edit the encyclopedia without having to put up with an editor's repeated violations of ] and ]. To get closer to that ideal, we need admins to enforce policy with some degree of effectiveness. William M. Connolley's lengthy record of ] sanctions and blocks strongly indicates that isn't happening. Why do you suppose that is, Franamax? -- ] (]) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? That should be a manageable difficulty. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Like I said, I agree with the sanction, within a factor of four (upwards). And SBHB, note my choice of "punish" rather than "prevent". "egrading the content" is often a subjective judgement, but yes, an awful lot of people are intercepted at the door and asked to leave quietly (as in RBI). Whether or not the results meet your own expectations, not for me to say. ] (]) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry, I should have specified that my comments were in regard to the present ], which by design makes no reference whatsoever to content. And yes, I'm aware that vandals are blocked, etc. But we have reached the sad state where people have been taught not to "waste" their 1RR on such things as correcting factual errors. Hardly a recipe for improving content. ] (]) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate?'' I believe one of the edits in question was whether or not <s>to label some sources "conservative".</s> "glowing reviews" or "positive endorsements" was the proper wording for some book reviews. Scientific literacy had nothing to do with that explosion. ''We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science.'' Does that sentence indicate that you treat William M. Connolley with kid gloves that you wouldn't treat other editors with because there's one standard of behavior for editors you value as scientifically literate? Personally, I haven't found the more scientifically literate editors any more valuable than other editors on CC articles that are not primarily about the science of climate change. Other than helping with some background material, there is no advantage. But if scientifically literate editors believe they can get away with behavioral violations that other editors will be sanctioned for (because admins feel we ''need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science''), then there's a distinct disadvantage -- for Misplaced Pages. I assume you didn't mean to imply you've got one behavioral standard for the scientifically literate and another for anyone else. I hope you'll make that clear. -- ] (]) 01:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)<small>correction -- ] (]) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::Part of the problem is that editors like WMC ''know'' they will get preferential treatment, so they don't feel compelled to follow the rules. Any other editor with 10-odd requests against him (a significant portion of which resulted in warning or sanction) would have received significant sanction by now, likely a lengthy topic ban or even a lengthy block. Indeed, several editors who have ''fewer'' warnings have received longer sanctions. So what's the incentive for WMC to change? If all he'll ever get is the occasional 24-48 hour block and nothing more, I think he'll continue to repeat the behavior - he's already demonstrated that twice since this probation began. As Cla has said, what is needed is an ''escalating'' block length for each transgression until the problem is solved, one way or another. This is not a criticism of LHvU's close (I think any action is better than none, and LHvU's decision respected the admin consensus) but simply an opinion that it will likely not work. | |||
| :::::::::As for WMC's contributions, I think editors must be judged by their overall net contribution to the project, not just their article content. If an editor is so combative that he drives off other potentially good editors, then their net effect on the project may not be so positive; it may even be negative (if it were possible to quantify such a metric). ] (]) 02:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::JWB, if you assumed I don't hold a different behavioural standard for some editors, you're pretty much wrong. I have a deep respect for the editors who make this engine turn over, and I don't count myself among them. I know how to read a scientific "letter" and I know about four editors here I could go ask for clarification on the fine points of cosmology or atmospheric chemistry (plus some ]ers I could ask amything at all and get a great answer) - I'd rather see them all hang in there, same as the gnarly but excellent editors in history or geography or literature topics. We force people to use secondary ionterpretations, but we need them wut' can understand the primary interpretations too. Yes, there is a double-standard for me, if that thought comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. The crossover from ''science'' to ''society'' is just a management task. | |||
| :::::::::All that said, my recent thinking is to ask WMC to voluntarily exit from participation on one article of his choosing for, say, a month - then demonstrate how it's quality has declined in his absence. ] (]) 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm sorry, Franamax, I can't remember -- which was the more scientifically literate position, ''glowing endorsements'' or ''positive reviews''? Is it more scientifically literate to keep or delete ]? Does science tell us whether or not "Climategate" is the proper name for the article? Ultimately, those are political (or political journalism or maybe even ]) questions. Many of the other conflicts in this area are also not conflicts about the science. If you are going to be granting more leeway to editors -- or even one editor -- on one side of those questions than the other side, you ''would'' violate the spirit behind our policies on neutrality, and you ''would'' also give incentives to editors on the favored side to cause disruption that will goad editors on the other side to react with similar misbehavior and get longer blocks and more topic bans. To repeat: You<s>'re</s> actually ''would be'' giving editors an incentive to be disruptive. It also amounts to a a kind of POV pushing by proxy. The less disruption and the more calm reasoning we do (except for some occasional levity), the more our consensus decisions on content can be reasonable and accurate, which is the only real way that Misplaced Pages's consensus system can address Boris' concerns. (It does require patience.) <s>If you can't refrain from putting your thumb on the scale in what amounts to a POV war, don't participate as an admin here.</s> If I've mischaracterized anything in your position, please correct me. It would be interesting to know if any other admins have the same position. -- ] (]) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC) ''I think the above sounds more like an accusation than an argument for where Franamax's position on granting leeway would inevitably lead. I'm not making an accusation, and I'm withdrawing the phrasing that sounds too much like one or adding clarifying words in italics. The purpose here is to help think through an idea. I'm busy this holiday weekend, and if I miss something, I hope this explanation adequately makes the distinction clear. -- ] (]) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)'' | |||
| :::::::::::<s>''Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all.'' Just what do you know about what "requisite knowledge" my professional or academic or avocational background gives me in this or any other area of the encyclopedia? And who are you to characterize it? -- ] (]) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)</s> Clarification accepted. <small>The wording '' comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire '' with the first, snarky "you" referring to me, led me to believe that the second "you", three words down the line, also referred directly to me.</small> -- ] (]) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::::I grant leeway to those editors who I feel bring extra thought to the proceedings and/or bring an ability to spew forth sourced verbiage which I can then read and pronounce as a ''good thing''. There are many such editors. In some cases, when those editors get upset I try as quietly as possible to get them calmed down and back to the typewriter, where the bread and water is provided free (for a small shipping & handling charge). I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through? (An old joke from when we used to say "Test facilities? We have hundreds. We call those 'customer sites'." ;) I've not attempted to influence CC content that I'm aware. My only foray was to indicate at the CRU-hack article that I intended to split the POV tags between article name and article content - and hey presto, a few weeks later it is renamed and appears to have no tags at all. Thumb on the scales indeed. (Oh yes, do keep in mind that "you" is both singular and plural in English, and I'll apologize if you thought I meant you as in the you pounding that particular keyboard, I meant ''y'all'':) ] (]) 10:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Leeway extends only so far. There are nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley" in the title in addition to the 10th one still on the complaints page. I've mentioned the list of sanctions against him in the GSCC log. There's been commentary in dead-tree publications about this editor's Misplaced Pages history. His violation of the 1RR sanction seems brazen, having done it twice in a short period and at about the same time filed a 1RR complaint against another editor that is very obviously without foundation. Continuing to extend leeway to the point where an editor may be willing to get some short blocks in order to keep doing the bad behavior is hurting the encyclopedia. Over on the complaints page, KillerChihuaha has just used the same leeway argument regarding Dave souza, whose user name is not in the title of any of the complaints in the archive. Except that in KC's reasoning, the leeway is peripheral to the main argument, it isn't the backbone of it or extended through a long string of different cases. ''I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through?'' I was pointing out where your leeway justification inevitably strays, not to specific past or present actions on your part. It's your thinking I'm addressing, not your past actions, and if that isn't clear above, I'll refactor. (Looking it over now, it isn't as clear as I thought it was, and I'm crossing out that sentence.) If one or more editors are to be given leeway because of their expertise, and if the editors with that expertise are on one side of a political issue (where expertise is not even decisive), Misplaced Pages is hurt -- whether or not an admin means to "put a thumb on the scale". It isn't hurt much if the leeway-granting is minor and rare and the leewayed editor stops the problematic behavior, but that isn't the case here. -- ] (]) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::''nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley"'' - exactly my complaint. Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit. So whoever whines more wins more. And if you think the low-blow, factually ridiculously wrong comments by Solomon and his ilk have more value because they are printed on paper, I can only hope you are referring to the increased value in ] usage. Bringing those up disqualifies you as a serious commenter. --] (]) 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Now, now, Stephan. The point was that this editor has taken up a lot of time and attention, and the long list of archived complaints and outside published commentary are evidence of it. The point wasn't that every allegation is true. Sometimes (not often enough) I think something is so obvious that I don't have to spell it out, but I think I could've been more clear there. The list of sanctions and the specific behavior I've mentioned are evidence that a lot of it is true. If ''Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit'' is a serious comment, then you and I definitely have a different idea of what a serious comment is. -- ] (]) 00:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If WMC has any sense he will walk away from this hellhole and never look back. Ultimately the articles will end up the way the Misplaced Pages "community" wants them to. If that community wants well-sourced articles that accurately reflect academic thought, that's what they'll get. If that community wants articles where the science is sourced from the popular press, where global warming is "just a theory" and there's a raging dispute in the scientific community, they'll get that instead. At the moment the tilt is clearly toward the latter approach. Editors who are scientifically literate in this field might want to stick around for a little while, but in the end we'll probably just find another hobby. It's a big world out there. ] (]) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: There is a large difference between "academic" and "scientific" thought. WMC left objectivity at the gate a long time ago, and his pattern of disruptive edits is not helpful to the Misplaced Pages content or community. ] (]) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That looks like a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith, please take care to be civil about other editors. The big difference I see between "academic" and "scientific" thought is that the former is a general field, the latter a specific subset relating to, well, science. Which is a relevant subject on the articles where I've seen a pattern of constructive and well informed edits. Diffs needed if allegations of disruption are being made. . . ], ] 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) | |||
| WMC has a continuing pattern of POV pushing and COATRACK forming across his edits. The most recent I saw is a good example, where, overriding a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, he subtracted a block of text on the grounds the source was a blog, and thus not a WP:RS: | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Watts_Up_With_That&action=historysubmit&diff=354362908&oldid=354362715 | |||
| Sounds superficially plausible. However, not only did it go against WP:CON, but this very brief article has '''three other blog references''' which are critical of the article's subject. WMC found no problem with them, but only the source which is critical of his viewpoint did he choose to delete. Further, the entire issue of WP:RS is a red herring in this case, as the source (a UK journalist) is merely explaining how he chose to use a particular phrase. Did WMC actually believe the source was unreliable in this case? Obviously not. It's a continuing pattern spanning thousands of edits; rather than attempting to improve and balance articles, any person who is critical of WMC's personal views on AGW must be discredited at all costs. ] (]) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, yes, a blog by a journalist who promotes fringe views on global warming, and who at present is the subject of a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission for misrepresenting a scientist he interviewed and so promoting a false impression of the science of climate change. Certainly a questionable source, a matter for editorial judgement. The article itself seems to be promoting those minority views, doubtless that problem will be resolved in due course. Please assume good faith and accept that WMC believed that was an unreliable source. Without checking out the other blog sources, remember ] allows careful use of blogs in some circumstances. . . ], ] 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your reasoning is flawed. The journalist was merely explaining he had used WUWT (the article's subject) as inspiration. WP:RS doesn't even come into play in this case. Do you honestly believe the journalist is lying when he claims he reads the WUWT site? | |||
| :: WMC's reasoning is clear. Journalist blogs are "reliable" if they agree with him. Journalists who disagree -- even those who work for large mainstream news outlets -- are "unreliable". Even this wouldn't be so bad if the point in question was a fact where a blog's lower level of "fact checking" would come into play. But in this case, that's totally irrelevant, and WMC's only motivation here was to ensure the only remaining comments about the article's subject would be negative. | |||
| :: Finally and most importantly, is his issue of ignoring consensus in this case, as the text in question had just completed being discussed on the article's talk page. ] (]) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Franamax: I think that's a great idea. SBHB: False dichotomy and assumes facts not in evidence. ++]: ]/] 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| To the suggestion that the problem is that WMC doesn't suffer fools gladly ("his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate"), well, welcome to the club, WMC, you are not alone in that sentiment. He is not the only person with that challenge but others manage to find ways to contribute successfully. Perhaps what WMC needs is a consigliere. Someone to intermediate for him, someone who does suffer fools at least a bit more gladly. This is actually something that has been suggested before, for various academics who have valuable contributions in their specialty to make. But failing that he has to learn how to get along. Content is king but he can't poison the environment for almost everyone else, even including many of those who agree with him about the science. ++]: ]/] 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Somehow I find it ironic when someone declares "content is king" and yet fewer than 10 of their last 500 edits are in article space. ] (]) 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure that less than ten of my last 500 edits were substantive article contributions and just above I expressed the primacy of content, I suppose you're referring to me then? Have either of Lar or myself gotten in the way of improving the 'cyclo lately? Or are we doing what we can to help it move forward? ] (]) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're being too modest. I make perhaps 150-200 of as being in article space. ] (]) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Minus the new classes that are given ] (which has some deep breakage I need to figure out) as a reading assignment and dude who wants to respell ]? Nope. Thanks though. I won't list the various other "things" I keep an eye on but they are sadly oriented toward various people-problems. I do want to find a new focus for doing actual writing, not quite there yet. ] (]) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Boris, do you also find it ironic when content editors comment on behavioral issues? Neither is ironic. -- ] (]) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: SBHB: False dichotomy. I can support content being king while not choosing to focus on content creation myself (at this time) The way to get good content is to make sure the whole enterprise runs smoothly and is focused on content creation, and that may require some to contribute other ways than purely banging out content. WMC, despite his knowledge, seems to be hindering that process more than helping it. You might be better served by reading what I say rather than taking swipes at me. ++]: ]/] 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''he has to learn how to get along'' Unfortunately, as of this point we don't have conclusive evidence that he has to learn that at all. -- ] (]) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm still ruminating on ] that those who contribute content, "according to the available reliable references are "expendable", because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I wonder what these articles will look like after the politicos and 'social scientists' have driven off all of those who actually understand the material, and so have the topic to themselves. --] (]) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Any single editor is ''in theory'' expendable. In actual practice there are some editors who have expertise or contributions that are so significant or so good that losing that editor is a measurable blow, and finding another editor who is "equivalent" would be a non trivial task. But viewing this at the single editor level misses the forest for the trees. What matters is the totality... no editor gets a free pass, regardless of the level of positive contribution. We make allowances, but we have to balance the needs of the entire project against the contributions of one editor and if an editor is being so disruptive that they are a net negative, something needs doing. Even if they are ''irreplaceable'' in their subject area. Unfortunate but this is a larger project than any one subject area. ++]: ]/] 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who is running the ledgers? And is your last sentence apropos anything? As I see it, we have editors with significant contributions all over the project, but who have less than perfect patience with idiots in their own field of expertise. I've not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall. --] (]) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The community as a whole runs the ledgers, in theory. And we are writing an entire encyclopedia here so yes, that remark was apropos something. As for your feeling you've "not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall", I suggest you haven't been . ++]: ]/] 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would that happen? The revisionist tending editors will not be able to propagate their viewpoint providing that there is one editor who not only understands and applies WP policy and guideline, but also complies with it themselves. Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources. We do not require editors to understand the primary source being quoted, or even the secondary source that originally notes it, since if it is the orthodox subject point of view there will be numerous third party references that can be understood - and let us be honest, the general readership is more likely to understand the explanation of the report upon the paper rather than the report or paper - for the encyclopedic minded editor. Indeed, some of the internecine wars over the validity of some paper or publication misses the point; editors do not make the decision over whether one opinion carries more weight than another, the reliable sources do. As long as you can point to a reliable peer reviewed third party source, then the content cannot be deprecated. How intelligent and well versed in the subject matter do you need to be to understand that? ] (]) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources.'' Like Stephan, you must be new around here. Glad to make both your acquantainces. ] (]) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I almost buy that idea, but I'm going to leave it at the checkout counter. This isn't like writing about a traffic accident where you just need to read some newspapers. Complex topics need explication, so familiarity with the subject matter becomes important. Not necessarily at the doctorate level, but familiarity. Especially when deciding on appropriate weight, mere existence in a RS doesn't signify "truth" or even validity. Science is built on disproving other people's work and outdated ideas tend to get left behind without a specific source saying "no-one in the field gives that any credence at all nowadays". Social aspects, sure - if you're writing about what newspapers said about the CRU emails, you just need the newspapers; if you're writing about the ''content'' of the emails, say the tree-ring data, you need to have some idea about what tree-rings are. Experts aren't ''essential'' for that, but they sure make life a lot easier. ] (]) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let's try to apply this 'anyone can do it' philosophy to ]. --20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''"but they sure make life a lot easier"'' - except when they don't, like in the case when an expert's downside is so large that there are literally half a dozen admins spending weeks of time trying to figure out how to accommodate this editor's refusal to adhere to even the most basic civility standard. And I'll note, the latest attempt, the token 24-hour block recently administered, . Not surprising. ] (]) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If I may suggest it, I think section headers with profanity may not invite the broadest desired participation. ] (]) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The header originated as a subsection of a Request on the mainpage, and since it was an honest expression of the editors reaction it was appropriate then - since the discussion has diverted into general philosophical it might be appropriate to change, but check with the originating editor. In essence, when it was created it was appropriate. ] (]) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I actually thought it was a bit more off-putting on the enforcement page, considering it should especially be protected from developing an environment where editors won't feel comfortable participating. A lot of us may be pretty bull-headed, but we should try not to make it a pre-requisite for commenting. A conversation that starts with "What the fuck" doesn't sound like it's going to be respectful to differing viewpoints. Obviously this single header isn't a major issue, but I'd nevertheless suggest it be changed by an admin, as I don't think editors are really entitled to control the section headers. ] (]) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Admin|Stephan Schulz}} does have sysop privileges, and he created the header. Why not drop him a request on his talkpage? ] (]) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::WTF? ;) I moved the thread here, then Tony S changed the heading, unless that ] is messing with time again. I'm still chuckling that Tony's whole contribution to the discussion was to say "fuck". :) ] (]) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == "Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets" == | |||
| It's not clear what the point of that section is, given that it won't be used as a basis for running checkuser or any other concrete action. So far it has only been used for joking around. (I heartily endorse joking around, but still and all...) Can it be deleted? ] (]) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Archive it, manually? ] (]) 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Creation of the section was the outcome of an enforcement action. Let's remove the jokes manually to an archive. If after waiting some additional time we find no use for it, let's archive the whole thing. ++]: ]/] 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Joking? ''I'' wasn't joking. You can see by Lar's response that he's making a mockery of Misplaced Pages and urgently needs to be blocked, preferably indefinitely. Earnestly, ] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Lar's approach sounds about right. I created the section when closing the relevant section, but did not participate in that discussion as I did not have any brilliant brainstorms beyond the current ]. If we get some use out of it, great, but I would say give it another two weeks or so before reclaiming that space. - ] <small>(])</small> 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jehochman: April Fool's is a couple days in the past now, joke's over. 2/0, sounds good to me. ++]: ]/] 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::April Fool's? That was ''purely'' a coincidence. But I can see that there is no chance of The Truth® being heard, so let's remove the subsection as you suggest. But remember, I've got my eye on you! (/me points at Lar/Scibaby) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The self report is gone already, and the rest of the section, if no other use comes of it? Wait a couple of weeks and then archive it, as 2/0 suggests. ++]: ]/] 03:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Well, OK, someone reported a suspected sock, a real one, not a joke. What now? I don't see any CU doing anything about it. (I'm not currently active as a CU here due to my role as an Ombudsman). So is this section working, or ???.... The report was several days ago, it reports an ID, but gives no detail and isn't signed. We may not need an SPI level formal report but a bit more to go on may help the CU if one turns up. ++]: ]/] 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason i marked it there was because there apparently weren't any CU's active, and that this one comes up extremely high on my scibaby detector. The current scibaby SPI is 2 days overdue. Which imho isn't good, since there always is a chance of false positives - and letting these be under suspicion for that long isn't (again imho) OK. --] (]) 11:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If we are going to have that section work - then either the SPI report needs to be dropped (and something similar needs to be here), or the documentation needs to be low, otherwise the "paperwork" simply gets too tedious. If CU was fast, then the section would have no meaning... It is only because its slow that i've marked up the user, so that the revert i made couldn't be confused as editwarrring. --] (]) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree we need low paperwork. But I think a bit more than just the ID might be good. Like a diff or 2, and a signature of who reported it so if there are questions they can be raised. I also agree it's not good to let stuff sit. There's a CU election coming up, I'd encourage those qualified to consider standing. ++]: ]/] 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, yes. I forgot the signature - that would be an oversight... i did follow the procedure requested there though. Diffs make rather little sense with Scibaby socks - since the contribution history is usually so small that it can be overlooked easily. --] (]) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Would you mind signing it, as a personal favor? Thanks. To the larger point, so far nothing's happened. Is that enough to conclude this section isn't needed? Should another sample be taken? Do we try flagging down a passing CU? If this section doesn't work we should scotch it, and instead ask to keep open a Scibaby page at ] instead, (which I realise now I suggested back when this subpage was being mooted... but then I was an active CU at that time) ++]: ]/] 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Signed. I think that if we want to change this, then the "enabling" thread should be reopened or rediscussed in a new one. There is a problem here, and it is one that is rather frustrating. --] (]) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to uninvolved admins == | |||
| When arriving or departing the project page, could you look at open requests and either comment or action? If something hasn't been commented upon for a day or so, and there is no obvious consensus, then perhaps it should be collapsed as "no action" - unless you find something that needs addressing. ] (]) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Missing entries in Climate change probation log? == | |||
| On Febuary 27, Guettarda received a warning and on March 3, Nigelj was blocked and Unitanode received a warning. However, I do not see a record of these 2 warnings and 1 block in Climate change probation log. Unless I'm missing something, can someone please add this to the log? ] (]) 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking of warnings, should non-admin warnings be logged? For example I've had a chat with ] about 1RR ]. I can see both advantages and disadvantages of logging non-admin warnings. ] (]) 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::A warning made without input from "uninvolved" parties might not be suitable for inclusion in the log, since an entry may infer an "officialism" that might not exist. In Requests for enforcement there is a provision for noting previous warnings, which I take indicates that such notices are made outside of the the Requests process and are not necessarily found in the log. ] (]) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, thanks. ] (]) 21:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :(resp to AQFK) Thanks for the heads up, I have duly noted "my" warning. I shall bring the other matter to ]'s attention, it being "their" close. ] (]) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: The block of Nigelj and warning of Unitanode were enacted and recorded by LessHeard vanU (, ) on 28 February, and appear to still be logged. I suspect that the confusion is that I archived the request a few days after LHvU acted on it, and signed the header. Still, thank you for checking up on this - having an accurate record helps us make informed and proportionate decisions. - ] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Duh, it was my block and warning, and I recorded it, and did not remember when commented here? I might be taking "uninvolved" to an unnecessary extreme... ] (]) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Should always topic bans be discussed here? == | |||
| The current wording of the probation, to my understanding, encourages individual uninvolved (as defined ]) administrators to act independently to take any ''measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.'' Should we so desire, we could amend the wording to encourage or require that any topic ban or other lengthy sanction be referred to ] for discussion. I moot this question here. - ] <small>(])</small> 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for raising it. I think in urgent situations, acting first may be key but we should always bring it here for validation. First, if not urgent, but at least after. That's my thinking. ++]: ]/] 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not an admin (even on TV) but point out that the terms of the probation ] and ] say nothing about requiring noticeboard posting or extensive discussion before imposing sanctions. My reading of the discussion leading up to the probation was that the probation is intended to encourage admins to act quickly and decisively, not to require exhaustive discussion at a noticeboard before acting. ] (]) 04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with your interpretation of the probation as written. Nevertheless, I think the process that has evolved is beneficial and the moderating influence of several admins discussing among themselves (either first, or after when it was urgent) is a good thing. If things shift, that's OK too, that's why we're having this discussion. But I've always held back, made my views known, but left the actual enforcement to others. I guess I'm willing to change that if that's the consensus. ++]: ]/] 11:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree with that last part. By more-or-less making reporting at the noticeboard ("whining") mandatory, we have created a heavyweight process, and we run the risk that admins rely on these reports, so they don't get a global picture. In many other areas under probation, admins actively participate and monitor the articles under probation, and act without special prodding from one side (or the other). I think this takes a lot of the battleground mentality out of probation - actions are not (necessarily) initiated by an involved party and framed as an attack from the get-go, but rather by (hopefully) uninvolved and (hopefully) neutral people. --] (]) 12:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :IOW, 2/0 having followed the established rules and Macai having appealed the imposed sanction at the /Requests_for_enforcement page, should the process be changed to mandate an entry by the acting administrator at the /Requests_for_enforcement page prior to implementing the sanction? This is tantamount to saying that admins now need to request enforcement just like any other user. Please note that this has evident implications across the wiki. Other than that, I have no opinion on it so long as the rules are consistently followed. ... ] (]) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)<p>One more observation: <br>....... For those unfamiliar with the norm, an ordinary block is a "discretionary sanction", and normally no one other than the blocked user is notified unless the block might be controversial, in which case ] is the usual place. If the sanctions are related to a community or ArbCom decision regarding an article, group of articles, or editor, then there is a log page for that specific decision or ruling. For example, the Barack Obama log page is at ]. In this case, the sanction is noted at ], where 2/0 duly noted the sanction minutes after implementing it. It appears to me that the only thing 2/0 missed under the current norm was anticipating that the sanction of Macai would turn out to be controversial. An unanticipated controversy about a sanction is something that has happened many times before across the wiki, and will undoubtedly happen many times in the future. But the sanctioned user has recourse in every event, since such sanctions are appealable at ] and ]. In this case Macai chose to appeal here at the Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement page, at first requesting enforcement against 2/0 (which was declined) and then reformatting the request as an appeal of the sanction(s) imposed by 2/0. <br>....... As I indicated above, I've no objection to making it standard practice to give "advance notice and an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing where all can weigh in" to those who are potentially subject to escalating sanctions (as here), so long as the established rules are consistently followed. But please note carefully that the proposed new administrative procedural rule here has the effect of ''reducing'' administrators' discretion in a topic area under probation (i.e. an enforcement priority), as compared to the established procedure that has become the norm for discretionary sanctions imposed by admins. My impression is that a move like this should perhaps be under discussion in a wider forum such as ] or other wiki-wide forum. ... ] (]) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unlike Kenosis, I ''do'' have an objection to this - there has already been discussion, else there would not ''be'' a community sanction. The admins are trusted, otherwise they would not be ''be'' admins. Often, sanctions are discussed already - but this should not become ''required.'' In the rare occasion that a sanction is considered to be misapplied, it can be modified. But ''requiring'' discussion prior to any implementation is self defeating - we will be wikilawyered to death, and might as well not have these sanctions at all. I forsee endless bickering if this becomes a requirement, while those disrupting the 'pedia run unchecked. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Against administrative discretion === | |||
| I have previously requested that 2/0 refrain from taking unilateral action without discussion, because his record of enforcement is heavily weight against the "skeptical" editors -- I believe he's blocked or topic banned at least half a dozen skeptical editors for far less violation than WMC, and in fact he posted a lengthy ''defense'' of WMC here in defense of his repeated lack of action. I had actually begun to prepare evidence for an arbitration case against 2/0, and the evidence I had examined was compelling. For example, here is an abbreviated listing of his block log, showing his blocks related to CC articles: | |||
| * 17:44, 3 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Macai (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (WP:edit warring at Climatic Research Unit email controversy.) | |||
| * 00:10, 2 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked TMLutas (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Violation of climate change probation sanction; see User talk:TMLutas#Climate change probation Request.) | |||
| * 15:35, 1 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Marknutley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Marknutley) | |||
| * 19:21, 5 March 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Dikstr (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:Edit warring at Global warming.) | |||
| * 02:54, 28 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Marknutley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (WP:Edit warring at Rajendra K. Pachauri. See Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation) | |||
| * 13:55, 24 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked {{user|ClimateGate}} (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (usernameblock) | |||
| * 04:21, 23 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked HideTheDecline (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (usernameblock) | |||
| * 11:00, 22 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Jprw (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:Edit warring at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation) | |||
| * 18:54, 16 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked GoRight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive and tendentious editing and abuse of discussion and dispute resolution venues.) | |||
| * 21:32, 11 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Dcowboys3109 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:Edit warring at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident) | |||
| * 23:17, 2 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked ZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours (WP:Edit warring at Global warming) | |||
| I believe every single one of these editors edits from the "skeptical" side. He also imposed signficant topic/article bans against skeptics (JPatterson, Macai, Marknutley). In all that time, I don't believe he's blocked or banned a single editor from the non-skeptic side, and in fact, he posted a ''lengthy, diff-by-diff'' defense of WMC in one of his RFEs. | |||
| Based on this history of biased enforcement I have requested (repeatedly) that 2/0 refrain from ''unilateral action'' -- I have no doubt that he is trying to act in good faith, but the record shows a definite bias. For a while, he did refrain from acting hastily, but this latest action seems to be another hasty act (whether warranted or not). So I am requesting that 2/0 formally retract his unilateral decision here and let the RFE run its course. ] (]) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : So how many of those bans do you think are wrong? ] (]) 14:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume this is the question you below accused me of evading? Here's my answer: by the standard set forth in their treatment of ''you'', they are '''all wrong'''. None of these editors had as lengthy a list of enforcement requests documenting long term, persistent bad behavior, yet they all got worse than you. Why are you so special that you get away with things for which others get long term bans? ] (]) 11:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think that just shows how appallingly bad your judgement is. "climategate" was username blocked; that block was appealled (twice) and upheld by totally uninvolved admins. If you're really going to whinge about such flawles decisions - why should anyone bother listen to you? You need to up your signal/noise ratio ] (]) 11:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :ATren, Rfc Admin Conduct is ]. This is the wrong venue. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's not clearly so in practice. Allegations are raised here all the time that one admin or another is unilateral or biased. ATren's have the advantage of being actually supported with information rather than being snide remarks made in passing. ++]: ]/] 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::And people '''will''' keep asking for vandalism blocks at ANI, too, but that doesn't make it the correct venue. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - ATren has raised a valid point. To WMC, the point is not that any of the blocks are wrong, but that they have all been directed at skeptics, whereas equal behaviour from climate change advocates has always gone unsanctioned. I know for a fact that 2/0 has been aware of said equal behaviour from advocates and has always chosen to turn a blind eye to it. I could find diffs, but I loathe these petty diff based witch hunts, so will not. I do think 2/0 is a good administrator who acts in good faith and is sincere and I'd have to note further that he's shown an enormous amount of patience to me, personally, so I must thank him for that. But it doesn't change the fact that he's clearly biased, that his blocks have all fallen in one direction, and he doesn't have the confidence of skeptics or neutrals on the climate change pages. ATren's observation should be supported here. Involved administrators -- those with a known bias -- should refrain from climate change probation. ] (]) 03:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ** If an editor is immediately and obviously identifiable as a "skeptic", then that tells me two things. First, their contributions are defined by advocacy of one side of a single controversial topic. Second, that advocacy drives Misplaced Pages away from the generally accepted state of expert knowledge in the relevant field. Both of those aspects are potentially problematic in terms of Misplaced Pages policy. It therefore seems reasonable to expect that "skeptics" might be sanctioned at a somewhat higher baseline level than non-"skeptics". In fact, an admin who neutrally and objectively applies Misplaced Pages policy is very likely to seem "biased" by people who misunderstand Misplaced Pages's particular definition of ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ***Do you believe WMC is not defined by advocacy of a position in this debate? Why is one advocate treated differently than another? And who's doing the "driving away" here? Probably dozens of good editors have been put off by the abrasive behavior of a small few on those pages: are you saying that all those good editors combined, who avoid these articles like the plague, are worth less than a single editor who twice tried to get the ridiculous POV phrase ''"The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else."'' into an article? Mastcell, how is such level of contribution considered "expert" in terms of creating great encyclopedic content, so valuable that all those other good editors who've been chased off are expendable? ] (]) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::*It's a big misunderstanding to see this as a debate between "skeptics" and "believers", with he truth, presumably, somewhere in the middle. The scientific position broadly described by the IPCC is the moderate middle-of-the-road opinion, accepted by all competent scientific organizations, the vast majority of scientists, and, if that is relevant, recognized by nearly all governments, including in particular those of the large, democratic, developed countries (like e.g. Norway, a major fossil fuel exporter ). The radical side of the debate consists of Gaia huggers and end-time preachers, not the scientific establishment. --] (]) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::* (@ATren) I'm not talking about WMC, or about any specific editor. I'm talking about the assumptions implicit (and explicit) in your summary. Specifically, the assumption that "skeptics" should be sanctioned at an equal clip as other editors seems misguided. Using that assumption as a basis to accuse an admin of being biased seems similarly misguided. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Further discussion === | |||
| *I think that any violation specifically relating to the probation should be noted here; Consensus between the uninvolved admins - informed by comment from other parties - makes for less contested actions. This need not be before the imposition of sanctions where there is obvious violation(s) of the probation and the tariff is either as previously advised or not of a duration of more than a few days - and in the later case longer sanctions may be imposed on the basis of being subject to review. If there are questions of interpretation of the probation or of appropriate duration of blocks or bans, then perhaps a discussion before actioning is appropriate. Simply, if the block and or ban is within both the terms of the probation and the general remit of the sysop then any notification will hopefully not draw too much more than a few "concurs".<br>The only other point I would make is that unless an admin is responding to serious violations of the probation - ones that would likely draw sanction outside of the probation area - unilaterally imposing blocks and bans without notification places another instance of the differing standards applied to admins and none sysopped editors; the latter '''have''' to use the enforcement process - I am for adopting as much of the same process for both types of volunteer, so to diminish any perception of differing status. ] (]) 16:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Killer Chihuahua. This won't surprise anybody, I've consistently argued that the probation is intended to strengthen and encourage individual admins and proactive measures. I also think that some aspects of the talking shop that has developed actively hamper the intended beneficial effects of such action by encouraging case-by-case dissection of sanctions. | |||
| :In other words, at its worst the talking shop reproduces exactly the same wikilawyering that has made the climate change articles and talk pages such a mess for so long. We need to be vigilant and make sure we don't let that happen. | |||
| :Some people have tried to recast the probation as a way of "leveling the playing field." That kind of thinking simply accepts and condones the battleground mentality. | |||
| :I don't think the case presently under discussion should be controversial. A previously sanctioned editor is perforce on a shorter leash than he would have been had he not already damaged the area under probation. ] (=] ) 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh dear, my telephone's Wizard Wheeze of the Day appears to be to remove all paragraphing. My apologies, and do feel free to refactor in a rhetorically pleasing manner. ] (=] ) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with LHvU. What is being advocated is NOT "always have a lengthy discussion FIRST" it is "have a discussion first if there's time and need, or at least a mention AFTER if it's urgent, if it's routine, etc." It is not a request for enforcement to bring it here, it's gaining consensus on what exactly needs doing. BUT, if consensus is to not do this, that's fine, I'll change my practice to conform. ++]: ]/] 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **Then you're (Lar) saying sanctions should be logged. Great, we agree. Log them. But "have a discussion first" is completely counter to the point of these sanctions. Have you all forgotten how and why these came to pass? It was because all these sanctions were independent, and ended up being endless messes on ANI. Then Sanctions, to be implemented by any independent admin at their sole discretion, were implemented. A place to bring cases to the attention of admins was later created, and now you want to bog it down with the exact same issues this whole procedure was set up to resolve! Thank you, no. We just got out of the bog. Lets keep our feet dry this time,a nd not make this another forum for endless committee debate. Puppy has spoken. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ****I think characterizing my position as calling for logging is inaccurate. ++]: ]/] 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *****"at least a mention AFTER" - that would be the logging bit. Yes, we should log. If someone forgets to log, we should take care of it and remind them. All done with what little you have said here which I agree with. Otherwise, not so much. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ***Adding: The whole point is that we already have consensus. That's why there is a community sanction for Climate change. Look, consensus for sanctions, all listed out and labeled! We don't need to re-evaluate the entire mess each time a problem arises. We need to apply the sanctions appropriately, log and move on. Done. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **** I don't think this bogs down the way that AN/I does, as it's a narrower audience, and the last part is restricted to admins only. AN/I tends to be a circus with all and sundry opining. If there is controversy about whether a sanction applies our practice here has been to discuss. Not just log. But as I say, if consensus changes, no worries. I will switch to enforcing and logging instead of suggesting. ++]: ]/] 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ***** We are also told to "] not to discuss each remedy applied anywhere, there or elsewhere. This page is only for requesting action, not for endless debate about each and every remedy applied. This is not consensus changing. This is what is. That you somehow misunderstood the purpose of this board, or scope creep has begun, is a problem - one we can nip in the bud. But that there is a probationary status, with each independant admin able to enforce by applying sanctions as they see fit, has already been ]. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ****** I don't think you addressed my point, which is that this process works. Far better than AN/I does. ++]: ]/] 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ******* Yes, it works fine, as a general rule. So please stop trying to change it, thank you. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ******** I'm not the one trying to change the practices at this page. Review the archives. ++]: ]/] 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ********* Since the archives '''only''' cover what's been brought to this page, and '''no''' other instance of applying sanctions, of course you see only instances brought to this page and discussed. You are saying '''all''' cases should be brought to this page, and that's counter productive, and a huge change. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ********** How many enforcement actions are logged that had no discussion here first? I'm curious as to how many there are. I'll review the log. ++]: ]/] 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *********** Yes, do. Make sure you review all the cases on ], and especially Sarah Palin, which doesn't even have a Requests page. Make sure to check every sanction on the Barak Obama log page. Check them all. Take your time. Compile a full report in your sandbox. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ************ We're talking about ''this'' sanction. Not Sarah or Barack. Preliminary results below. ++]: ]/] 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ************* So now you're saying special rules apply to Climate change, which don't apply to other Community Sanctions or ArbCom sanctions and probation? Please do link the discussion where that was decided. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **************I don't think there was one. Nor does there need to be, unless it turns out there's an issue. It's just how things have evolved ''here''. Seems to work ''here''. I'm not against changing it, I just think it's best to acknowledge how things are first before you start. So you're starting from the right premise, that you want to change the status quo ''here''. Hope that helps. As I said below though, I'm done. I want to hear from the other admins who have been here for a while, actually doing the actual enforcing. ++]: ]/] 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The basic message is this: just sort it out, and stop agonising about the details. If the probation should happen to make it ''harder'' to block or ban an obviously problematic editor, then the probation has become the problem and can be ignored. The longer you spend arguing over this, the less effective you are as administrators. You should be empowered by the probation, not hamstrung by the bureaucratic nonsense that has sprung up in its wake. ] (=] ) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Exactly, except I can see like a prophecy someone claiming discussion is ''required'' prior to any action, if we do not lay this silly idea to bed now. Call me cynical, but I calls 'em like I see 'em. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a non-admin observer, I would now proffer that if there is serious interest in a change such as this, which dilutes administrative discretion in a probation area already discussed by the community, it should definitely be discussed in a wider forum such as ]. If the issue is whether to modify or overturn the topic ban imposed by 2/0, lacking consensus here, it should perhaps be raised at ]. ... ] (]) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There appears to be some confusion. Discussion is NOT something "new", it is current practice here, which IS to discuss things in advance for the most part. We started the sanctions agreeing that we would modify things as we went along and this is what evolved among the admins that were most active here (LHvU, 2/0, BozMo and myself, I'd say). I feel like I'm repeating myself when I say that this current practice doesn't mean that discussion is ''always'' required, in advance. That's a strawman and I wish that argument would stop being used. Further I think it's a bit rhetorical to call what we have been doing "this silly idea"... it's been working fairly well, I think. But if consensus among the body of enforcing admins changes, great. Just be sure you know what you're getting. ++]: ]/] 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::RE ''"Discussion is NOT something "new", it is current practice here, which IS to discuss things in advance for the most part. "'' Actually, no. It's a page created for non-admin users to request enforcement. Admins don't need to request enforcement. What's being proposed is for admins to be recommended or required to do that. Further, 2/0 had ''two'' independent bases for implementing an escalated sanction, either of which would have been adequate grounds under current administrative norms to proceed with the sanction and simply log it in the required places, on the user's talk page and in the appropriate log (which he did, anything further being simply an administrative courtesy). The first basis for escalating sanction(s) is provided for by the community discussion leading up to the climate-change probation. This is in the terms of the climate change probation itself, which provides for escalating blocks in situations where an admin judges behavior to be disruptive. The second basis is specified in the sanction of the prior ] involving Macai, notice of the terms of which was given ].<br>....... Lacking a consensus among admins here or a unilateral action by another admin to modify or overturn 2/0's sanction, if the issue is still up for grabs it should be discussed in a wider forum, where, because of the implications of a dilution of administrative discretion such as is being proposed, it should receive the attention of the broader administrative community. ... ] (]) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You need to review the archives of this page. As I told Tony. We discuss things here. Time and again. You may not yet be aware of that but the archives will help clarify it. ++]: ]/] 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This speaks to exactly the point KillerChihuahua has been making, which is that the ''purpose'' of the probation is to provide an expedited path for discretionary administrative sanctions. If this issue and/or the question whether to modify Macai's topic ban can't be resolved by consensus among admins here, it should be brought before the wider administrative community which implemented the probation in the first place. And there, in front of a wider forum of admins, by all means argue that "this is the way we've been doing it over at Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, so therefore the terms of the probation should be so modified". ... ] (]) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I think there are two questions: firstly, should 2over0 have the power to ban a previously sanctioned editor for problematic behavior without further discussion? secondly, should this probation be altered to require discussion here prior to admin action? While I find both suggestions to be blatantly contrary to the interests of a well run encyclopedia by inserting an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, I would gladly accept the consensus of a deliberation by admins at ]. ] (=] ) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't agree those are the questions. The latter question is, more properly, should the practice here, now, be turned over to STOP encouraging discussion in advance. ++]: ]/] 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lar, quite often you behave in a cheeky way, and usually you get away with it. That's okay. To suggest that your own preference is now a norm, against the wishes and practice of other editors and admins, is too cheeky. You're free to continue discussion here. You're not free to abridge administrative discretion, encouraging which is the primary purpose of this probation. Stop being a cheeky bugger. You've gone too far. ] (=] ) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am sorry, I don't agree. It's not merely my preference, it's what ''we actually do here''. Policy at WP evolves by people doing things. Take a look at this page and the archives and you will see what the status quo is. Discussion, consensus, action. If we want to change that, so be it, but it's wrong to say it's not what we already do. We have several months of precedent. ++]: ]/] 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh please. Stop being so tendentious. If a complaint/request is brought here, we discuss it - but its not necessary in every freaking case. Now drop it; you don't have support for your very special view of how things are "actually done". ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Review the archives. I think you're starting to verge into unhelpful rhetoric now with the tone you're taking. "very special view"? "oh please" et al? I was glad to see some new faces here and I'm as open to change in process as the next fellow, but you have to at least start by acknowledging the facts on the ground of how things have been done here. And drop the snarkiness. ++]: ]/] 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since the archives '''only''' cover what's been brought to this page, and '''no''' other instance of applying sanctions, of course you see only instances brought to this page and discussed. You are saying '''all''' cases should be brought to this page, and that's counter productive, and a huge change. And yes, Please. There is a problem now with asking politely? I am begging you to end this silliness. You're brighter than this, usually. Please also pick '''one''' place on this page where you plan to make your argument,(s) rather than repeating yourself all over. You've said "read the archives" in at least three different places, and all the archives show is how instances ''brought here'' were handled - not instances '''not''' brought here, which you have been arguing '''must''' now be brought here. I disagree with this new requirement you have suggested, strongly. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I respond to responses. Can't help that it's sprawling around a bit but I'm not the only person who needs to pick one place, I guess. ++]: ]/] 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lar, I hate the term, I think it's childish if it means anything, but at this point I think an American would say that we have "called you out". The probation, indeed ''all'' probations, are intended to ''increase'' administrative discretion. If you feel that you and some friends have built a forum for limiting administrative discretion, that's interesting and I'm happy for you. But you're wrong. You have to do a bit more than discuss stuff to stop other people doing stuff without getting your imprimatur. This is not your kingdom. If it were, I'd dissolve it (for obvious reasons). --] 20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Second that. Can we be done with this now? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::For the record, TS's framing of this discussion, and especially the terms he used used, and the motives inferred, is completely off base. IMHO. ++]: ]/] 05:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Rhetoric === | |||
| Such rhetoric. Here's a link to the log. ] Looks like most, but not all, imposed sanctions came from here. I could be misanalysing. ++]: ]/] 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Super. So then please bring it into ], where the issue can be reviewed by the same community that implemented the probation, and proceed to argue how it's been successful this way in most cases so therefore the terms of the probation should be thusly modified. ... ] (]) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: This page is working fine. Feel free to bring the matter up at AN/I if you feel the need. ++]: ]/] 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally don't feel the need unless the local decision here is to change the terms of probation formed by the wider community, in which case I imagine I wouldn't be the only one interested. I said earlier that I don't mind such a change so long as the rules are consistently followed, though it's now much clearer to me than before that such a change would cause a substantial ''inconsistency'' with the very purpose of the probation, and that such a change would amount to this local group overruling the broader community. ... ] (]) 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It already has. ++]: ]/] 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : "but not all" kinda says it all. It is therefore not a requirement to discuss a sanction here prior to applying it. As I've previously stated, the idea that an admin must discuss a sanction that he is expressly empowered to impose, prior to imposing it, goes against the principle of administrative discretion which is the engine of all probations. --] 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't recall saying "must". ++]: ]/] 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great. Then we all agree. This is the page for non-admins to request sanctions; otherwise, Admins act at their discretion in applying such sanctions. All done now. Thank you all for your input. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Nope. See below. ++]: ]/] 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: What does "see below" mean? If you want to overturn administrator discretion, make a case for it in an appropriate forum. | |||
| :: And ''please'' stop saying that such an abrogation is the status quo and somebody who opposes it must broach the question. You know that won't wash. --] 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The status quo is what we do here. ++]: ]/] 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Opinion from one Arbiter, which may or may not have a bearing on the current discussion === | |||
| (after ec, being on a cell modem sucks) | |||
| I find this exchange (from ) enlightening | |||
| I asked: | |||
| :''To Carcharoth, who asks why this hasn't been handled via the enforcement process: As far as I can tell, this has not been brought to the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page, unless I missed it. If it had been it probably would have been handled, and probably close to how Guy suggested at AN. But the admins that hang there don't tend to cruise other areas looking for things, they wait for reports to be filed. Is that the incorrect approach? Does ArbCom wish that mandate expanded? If so please clarify. That said, Guy's proposal at AN strikes me as a good approach and if ArbCom chooses to deal with this by motion I recommend adoption of it. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 4 Aril 2010 (UTC)'' | |||
| and Carcharoth replied: | |||
| :'' * To Lar: '''waiting for reports to be filed''' is the correct approach, but I would suggest someone does file a report at the page you indicated, as any resolution there is likely to be faster than any resolution here. Maybe ask Guy if he would consider refiling there? Hopefully Guy or whoever takes this on will take all the comments here into account (not just the ones they agree with). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)'' (emphasis added ++]: ]/] 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| There's always the danger of reading too much into one arb's reply but that seems pretty strong to me. Requests are brought here, and acted on, rather than admins cruising the pages like cops on a beat. Maybe other sanction pages work that way. I don't hang there so I don't know. But this one doesn't and at least one arb seems to think that's the right approach. Again. (and again) if there's consensus for change, I'm all for it. I'd like to hear from LHvU and BozMo who have done more enforcement work than I. ++]: ]/] 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :ArbCom is not involved in this probation. It's a community probation, not an ArbCom one. How do they come in now? --] (]) 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: You could ask them. I think they seem to be involved in everything. Even stuff started elsewhere. The above comment by C is a view, not a mandate. But it's supportive of how things have been done here. I'm done. If the consensus of admins actually doing the enforcing here is that the way that we've been doing the enforcing here is wrong, and needs to change, great, I'll be first to shoot first and ask questions later. I don't see it yet, but maybe the other admins actually doing the enforcing here just haven't spoken? ++]: ]/] 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::All he is saying is this page gets faster results than asking for ArbCom to do something, which is true. It has nothing to do with what you've been pushing. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Er, no, that's not how I read what he's saying. I used the term "looking for things" and he said "waiting" is better. What I am "pushing" (there's that rhetoric again, could you try using more neutral terms???) is the status quo here. And I'm not opposed to change. Just want to start from the right place. Hope that helps. As I said, I'm done. ++]: ]/] 21:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If you're not pushing for change that's okay. Your earlier comments seemed to suggest that you were pushing for change through the evolution of this page, which I read in context as having an effect on the viability of actions under the probation. Now that you have clarified that you do not intend to limit administrative discretion in any way, and that the talking shop is just that and nothing more, I am happy to drop the discussion. --] 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You are correct that I am not pushing for change. You and KC are. In this local eddy, the status quo seems to be that ''most'' requests get brought here and talked about rather than admins explicitly cruising the beat looking for things to do. It seems to work well. Maybe at Sarah and Barack's pages it doesn't, or it's not the norm, or whatever... I don't hang there, I'm happy to take your collective word for it. But here, it works. I happen to ''like'' the status quo as it is here, I think it works well. But I'm not wedded to it, and if there's a clear consensus for change (and just saying "we don't do that over there, we do this other thing" isn't a consensus), great. That consensus needs to come from the admins who operate here, OR it needs to be raised at AN/I or wherever and sought there. But I'm going to continue to respond to requests brought here, and criticise those who seem to shoot from the hip sometimes, until consensus changes. Which it hasn't yet. You, Kenosis and KC (one seasoned person, one person I don't know how seasoned, maybe just as much, and one admin) do not consensus make. I want to hear from LHvU and 2/0 and BozMo. They are the feet on the ground here when it comes to actually imposing blocks and sanctions and stuff. Especially LHvU. ++]: ]/] 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * The probation was intended to ''streamline'' the handling of disruption and give enforcing admins greater discretion. If we require every potential enforcement to undergo microscopic pre-emptive scrutiny, then we're going in the diametrically opposite direction. It's a bit perplexing that the probation, which was intended to ''increase'' administrative discretion, is now being used to ''constrain'' administrative discretion. In my experience handling other probations at ], there has never been any requirement or restriction remotely like the one being proposed here.<p>The appeal to consensus seems a bit off to me. You can't hermetically isolate this one page and claim that "consensus" or the "status quo" require prior discussion. It is appropriate to view this probation in the context of other such probations, both community- and ArbCom-imposed. In that context, the status quo quite clearly permits administrative discretion and does not require a prior formal request and discussion. Admins have a responsibility to take on board feedback about their actions, and if one of their actions is controversial to the point that consensus develops against it, then they have a responsibility to heed that consensus. But you can't look at this one page - which is not exactly an example of best practices on ''any'' level - and declare it the operational standard. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley == | |||
| This discussion brings to mind the paradox of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Instead of continuing the argument, how about bringing it to the attention of ] or arbcom and get a consensus? I'd do it myself but as a mere commoner and one who is involved in the general topic of the probation I'd rather the uninvolved admins do it. In the ideal world I'd prefer a joint, cooperative request for clarification -- "we have a difference of opinion on this, what do you arbs (or admins) think?" -- rather than opening yet another venue for arguing back and forth. ] (]) 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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 see different interests at play. Generally I think admins are free to enforce the probation without bringing it here. On the other hand, we've had quite a bit of discussion here, and we know that there are numerous admins with different viewpoints involved on this page. If an admin wants to take action that they know would be controversial with other admins, then I think they should bring it up here, since otherwise we can expect to see a break down in communication on this page, and a break down in the ability of the various admins to work together. If certain admins no longer have faith in the ability of the admins here to reach consensus, then perhaps this page should be abandoned. However, that seems likely to be a step in the direction of an arbitration case, so perhaps the question is whether that is wanted. In any case, I think while admins are free to act unilaterally, such actions should involve an assumption that their actions would be supported by uninvolved admins, a question which currently is evaluated on this page. ] (]) 08:03, 9 April 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Refocusing - when time is not of the essence === | |||
| I think it is pretty clear that from the above that people do not want to be in a situation where requesting enforcement here is slower than AN3 or more dramalicious than AN/I. We also do not want to go making dramatic changes to this probation without throwing the question open to the wider community. I am not, though, seeing any real resolution to the question of how to make best use of the RE board. Based on my limited experience at the Obama probation (warned a user following an AN3 report, then blocked and logged when they went back to edit warring; some weeks later, another editor opined at my talk page that the board was understaffed), we should future-proof the best practices against waning need or interest. I think we can all agree that blatant violations of #RR should be dealt with swiftly and uncontroversially. The civility and ] threads tend to wax a bit more argumentative, but there is a common refrain that we are letting requests sit open for far too long. For topic bans and sanctions of longer than say a week, though, there is little danger that an issue will go "stale". The precedent record for such bans is also smaller, making it more difficult to judge what action the community would like to see done. I would be open to throwing to ] the question of modifying the probation to require prior discussion before long sanctions are imposed, but I think I would prefer just to acknowledge amongst ourselves that the culture here is to take advantage of the wealth of interested opinions. This preserves the quick and targeted response goal of the probation while encouraging informed discussion of complex cases. | |||
| ::It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. ] (]) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Summary of advice for administrators acting under this probation: | |||
| * Consider the whole of the relevant diff log | |||
| * Act decisively but not rashly | |||
| * Requesting input from other interested parties can be helpful, particularly for long sanctions or complex cases. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Does that sound about right? - ] <small>(])</small> 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Two edit wars at ] <s>today</s> that began yesterday, one of which continues into today == | |||
| == Request for clarification re civility == | |||
| *Edit war #1 | |||
| Is ''This is pathetic, i fix the article, which you should have done instead of slapping tags on it and not i have to revert the fix, how stupid is that?'' considered acceptable from an editor under civility parole? ] (]) 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Edit war #2 | |||
| :Do you have a diff? I'd say it depends on the context, but almost certainly not. ++]: ]/] 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin please lock down the article? ] (]) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I was hoping for a reply from someone less biased. How about unfounded (and known to be unfounded) allegations of vandalism? ] (]) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do ''you'' have a diff? Or is this an entirely rhetorical example, since WMC hasn't provided one either. A general note, people complaining of civility ought to themselves be on their best behavior. Can you say you are, Mark? Can WMC say he is? I'm dubious | |||
| :::: WMC: Less biased than yourself? Than Mark? Who were you referring to? ++]: ]/] 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}} | |||
| I believe what you did was vandalism, that is my opinion. You believe it was not, that is your opinion. To insert the text you did was a deliberate shot at being ] disruptive behaviour is something vandals excel at ] (]) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I have already explained to you it was not vandalism, and directed you to ]. Now, if you wish to change our vandalism policy, then feel free to start a discussion, but it is most assuredly not vandalism. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Do YOU have a diff? I bet I'd agree if only I knew what was referred to. ++]: ]/] 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: diffs ] (]) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And now he`s done this He is being disruptive and i want something done about it ] (]) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: These are diffs of what, exactly? Isn't WMC correct that you are sneaking a complaint in via the back door? Analysis anyway | |||
| :::::* This edit summary from (rv: if it was notable, you'd be able to find an english-language ref. and one right-wing(nut) US senator is not news) is unacceptable. It is indeed a BLP violation, albeit a mild one. We should not be putting our personal views about article subjects into edit summaries BUT it is not vandalism. WMC knows better. | |||
| :::::* This edit is POV pushing. BUT it is not vandalism. I suspect it was done for humorous effect. But WMC knows better. | |||
| :::::* This edit is fine (and it's not vandalism either). Based on a quick review it seems that tag is very warranted. | |||
| :::::Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 21:55, 8 April 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) | |||
| :::: The above edit is MN violating his parole about complaints. Here is MN making an unfounded allegation of vandalism, subsequent to his accepting advice that he was wrong ] (]) 21:50, 8 April 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) | |||
| :::::Analysis. I agree, the above is MN sneaking in an enforcement request all right. The vandalism allegation is unfounded indeed. You are not a vandal, WMC. Alleging vandalism against long time contributors is not helpful. At all. Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 22:01, 8 April 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) | ||
| ::::: 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) | |||
| {{ec}} | |||
| :::::@ Lar How is the tag warranted? If there has been no crits of the book then how can i add some? The article has been copyedited by a guy from the peer review section which is the first step tp GA status, he saw no issues with it. And WMC as i said it is a point of view, from my perspective you added that text to be disruptive, which as i said is something vandals excel at. And i am not sneaking in anything i am asking for help with wmc`s disruptive behaviour ] (]) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You've been told now by two admins, who are busily having a huge disagreement over the rest of this page, that you're in error. You might want to consider that accusations of vandalism or bad faith can be viewed as personal smears, and you're under a civility parole. You might also want to consider that asking me, responding as though you accepted my judgment, then coming here, is tantamount to forum shopping. And after you've considered all that, I suggest you strike your level 3 vandalism warning on WMC"s talk page. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I know what i was told, I also would like to point out it was lar who asked for those diffs. So were do you get forum shopping from? I`ll remove the warning but i still think he was being disruptive ] (]) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. ] (]) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I asked WMC for diffs. I asked KC for diffs. Heck I asked everyone. No harm no foul on that. But bare diffs of what WMC was talking about would have been far better than sneaking in an enforcement request, sort of, which used "not" the diffs I asked for as it turns out. | |||
| Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" ] (]) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| As for the rest you need to stop calling things vandalism. Seriously. Until you're competent at identifying vandalism you should avoid the term completely. Because what WMC is doing may be (in the view of some anyway) unhelpful, it may be POV pushing, it may be snarky mean spirited commentary, it may be poor attempts at humor or article control, I can think of dozens of descriptive terms here.... stop me before I go too far! ... but it is NOT vandalism. Write that down and pin it on your monitor, ok? Sooner or later if you keep calling things vandalism that aren't you are going to get blocked for a long time. ++]: ]/] 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Nods, by the time I saw your request MN had already linked and you'd commented on his difs. Same dif (heh, that's my bad pun!) ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters. == | |||
| OK, so now that MN has struck the vandalism charge (MN, I trust you know now that the vandalism charge doesn't apply in these kinds of cases) can we deal with what were clearly unhelpful edits by WMC? In addition to the diffs cited above, he continues the personal attacks (, , ). The last is yet another "septic" reference, something which he has been directly warned to avoid . Should I file a new enforcement report encompassing these recent diffs? ] (]) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :We are getting a very very long way from what this is about, when we consider a users talk page a probation area, and when such rather mild comments are seriously considered to be enforceable. My only real comment to this is "tsk tsk" (and that goes for WMC as well as you). --] (]) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: If calling someone a troll, a fool, and a bozo is a "mild comment" to you, what would you consider a serious breach of civility? ] (]) 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not unknown that an editor may choose to vent spleen within a thread on their own talk page where they've been informed of their current block. You have the option to unwatch the page. ] (]) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hey, AT, why are you evading my question in "Against administrative discretion" above? Was it just a "throwaway" complaint that you've now forgotten? ] (]) 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::AGF, WMC. Or don't you AGF for us "skeptics without the K"? What question are you referring to? {{unsigned|ATren, at a guess}} | |||
| :::: I thought you were pretending not to be a sceptic (see - no k? Geddit?). But I see you've found the cunningly hidden question ] (]) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC). | |||
| :::::I'm not pretending, I used quotes because I was referring to your oft-stated opinion that I am a skeptic, or perhaps even more accurately, one of those "k-less skeptics" (i.e. "septics"). ] (]) 16:12, 9 April 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) | |||
| ::Franamax, does that mean I can say whatever I want about anyone I disagree with on my talk page, even things I've been ''specifically'' warned not to say? If that's so, it's good to know. Now I know where I can go to vent my own frustrations. I assume that courtesy extends to all, so that (for example) someone like Marknutley, who has been in conflict with WMC, can simply go to his own talk page and release all frustrations he chooses? | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ::And what of the BLP vio in the edit summary, or the disruptive article edits (twice), both mentioned above? If someone like, say, Macai, were to ''twice'' insert "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the believers, and ignored by everyone else" into a an article about a book supportive of the theories of AGW, would he be extended the same leeway? Was Macai extended any leeway for his use the word "scandal" in the Climategate article, even though dozens of sources call it that? No, he was quickly topic-banned. Yet once again, WMC gets away with worse. When will the admins on this page stop pussy-footing around disruptive editors who do not happen to be "skeptics"? ] (]) 10:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Responding to NW's question == | |||
| MN's chanrges of vandalism - which he knows full well to be unfounded - remain unstruck at ], as do his attempts to sneak in an enforcement request against his parole. I'll serve him notice of this ] (]) 07:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I have already said i was not trying to sneak in an enforcment request, i supplied diffs which were asked for. My opinion remains the same with regards to your edit of the article in question, i struck the warning i will not strike my opinion of your disruptive behaviour as well ] (]) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to NW's | |||
| === Notice of pending unilateral action === | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The next time I see WMC use the term "septic" or "skeptic without a K" or any variant of it, broadly construed, whether on a talk page, or in an edit summary, or anywhere else onsite, broadly construed, he will be subject to a short block from me. This term is unacceptable when referring to others, and its use needs to be discontinued. Forthwith. Polite requests don;t seem to have done the trick. ++]: ]/] 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ''And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?'' | |||
| :Why is it unacceptable - that is something that i have never found out (not even from the enforcement request, that this relates to). What other words can't we use anymore? Can we get a ban on "Pro-AGW editors" and the like? (yes - i do find that quite uncivil and polarizing) --] (]) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::Do you not know what septic is kim? It has two meanings, one is an infected oozing wound, the other is septic tank, a place for excrement ] (]) 18:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually no, because it is "a septic" which rules out both of your interpretations. But i do know for certain, that WMC isn't using "septic" in either of the two meanings that you are stating. --] (]) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes i can see how dropping the "a" makes all the difference, what is his meaning then if you know? ] (]) 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Originally i thought it was a pun on ] - but apparently it is just a description that the septic in question isn't a eptic]] (or epticism]] - by dropping the you make it distinct. Most will read it exactly as septic - but will notice that apparently there is a difference. --] (]) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That is the most convoluted logic i have ever seen :-) but if you think that`s his reasoning then more power to ya ] (]) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| . - ] <small>(])</small> 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * Lar, that would be fine, and well within the parameters of the probation. I'm sure that if the action is controversial, it will be brought here for discussion after the fact, either by you or through an appeal by William, and the consensus of uninvolved administrators will be sought. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| which is a reference to: | |||
| In case this remidy is broadly applied, I'd like to note, yet again, for the record, that I have a not insubstantial case of dyslexia that requires me to spend not-trivial time running all of my main-space edits through a spell-checker multiple times. As such, I very well may have written septics at some point, and if I did it was a mere typo, and further, I will be unable to fix that going forward without undue burden. I consider myself exempt from this blocking threat, even if directly requested of me, but allow anyone to refactor any offensive typo I make into the obviously correct verbiage. Here from WMC's talk page, not watching this page, so any response to this must be made on my talk page if you want me to read it. ] (]) 19:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| :As I understand it, "Neutral Lar" intends this to only apply to WMC, not to all editors. Not only is this another triumph of form over content, it's still ok for "sceptics" (without a k!) to call others "liars" or "frauds" or "alarmists" or "stooges". --] (]) 20:07, 9 April 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.")'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward: | |||
| ===WMC and "septic"=== | |||
| 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) | |||
| See . He has used this term in a derogatory sense on and off wiki for 6 years now. Note the line ''"Which is why I prefer septic. Its close enough that you recognise the term. '''And it describes their style of debate quite accurately.'''"'' As that post is about the meaning of words (indeed, he quotes the dictionary for other terms), this is obviously a reference to: | |||
| :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) | |||
| Function: adjective | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Etymology: Latin septicus, from Greek sēptikos, from sēpein to putrefy | |||
| :::] exists. --] (]) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Date: 1605 | |||
| 1 : of, relating to, or causing putrefaction | |||
| 2 : relating to, involving, caused by, or affected with sepsis <septic patients> | |||
| 3 : used for sewage treatment and disposal <a septic system>; also : of or relating to a septic system <septic effluents> | |||
| == Request for admin == | |||
| Is there any other "recognizable" use for the term septic? Apparently not, but if someone can point me to a flattering connotation of this term, I'd be happy to AGF. ] (]) 20:25, 9 April 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) | |||
| : Apparently it is ] for American ] (]) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == lights == | |||
| ::And what about , where you lay claim to originating the term "septic" as ''"the malodourous end of the skeptic range"''? How does "malodourous" fit into your claim that it is not a reference to decaying waste?] (]) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <looks around, and reaches for the switch>'''''CLICK!!''''' ] (]) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Err shirley in view of Lar's comments above all this amounts to BAITing. You're trying to tempt me into using this word but I won't, ha ha. Come talk on my blog if you want to - or alternatively, go just up there, and tell Lar he is being silly. Then we can talk ] (]) 20:50, 9 April 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)