This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BozMo (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 8 June 2010 (→Torontokid2006: per consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:54, 8 June 2010 by BozMo (talk | contribs) (→Torontokid2006: per consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) ShortcutThis board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:
{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested
= <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated
= ]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
<!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
= <Your text>
| Additional comments
= <Your text>
}}
| Climate change probation archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||||||||||
| 11 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||
This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.
For Requests for refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.
Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets
Following discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.
User:ClimateOracle
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can anyone justify why this obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue editing? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, I reverted your comment. Please don't give details of behavioral evidence, since Scibaby is known to adapt to this when he knows how he is identified. The Wordsmith 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Abusive blocks are grounds for an RFE request here. Please reconsider the block. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
|
User:WavePart
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can anyone justify why this obvious sockpuppet (10 edits then semi-protected climate change articles!) is allowed to continue editing? Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Torontokid2006
| Editors are reminded that they should seek to provide relevant context along with evidence presented as part of a Request for Enforcement.
Torontokid2006 is advised to discuss content with other editors and seek to compromise, instead of edit warring. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Torontokid2006
Discussion concerning Torontokid2006Statement by Torontokid2006Hi everyone, I'm a little new to wikipedia but if it's possible I would like to file a counter-complaint against Marknutley as he was attempting to add tags, repeatedly, without consensus or looking at recent discussion. The sentence that he calls to question has been thoroughly discussed ] on the talkpage talk:Global warming and that is why I reverted his actions. I have told him numerous times ] to read the discussion and see for himself that a consensus had already recently been made and he did not need to add said tags (which served to only weaken peer-reviewed scientific evidence). Additionally another user User:VLB Pocketspup was attempting to vandalize the article by removing an entire section without any discussion! From what I have read in wikipedia policy, it is ok to stop vandalism. Here's one of the vandal's edits (Sorry, not sure how to make diffs)] the only comment he made was "removing the trash again". Here is another: ], he says "rv blatant rubbish". Again, he made no comment in the discussion before removing an entire section from the article. If I was wrong I will accept full responsibility. But I feel like I was protecting this article from vandalism and arbitrary tags that were against consensus. If I knew better the steps of making a complaint I would have filed one for User:Marknutley and User:VLB Pocketspup. In regards to my "6" reverts, 2 of them were on my own actions, 2 were on User:VLB Pocketspup's huge deletes, and 2 were on User:Marknutley's insistence to have tags that did not meet consensus nor take into account the recent discussion. Sorry, for the trouble. Have a good day. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Torontokid2006TK needs to be forcefully reminded that 3RR *does* apply to him, contrary to his assertions otherwise . Mind you, in normal times a 3rr violation would just be grounds for a std 3rr block, not a RFE. Hopefully a watching admin can simply assess whether a 3rr vio has occurred and make the appropriate block/warning William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Two of those reverts were reverting his own comments, the net change to the article of the two edits was zero as they cancelled each other out, so that is just four reverts. Two of the reverts were reverting 'vandalism' from an editor who has been subsequently blocked for vandalism, and I think that reverting blatant vandalism does not fall within 3RR, so that makes it potentially two actionable reverts. The two remaining reverts are debatable, but that debate really should take place on the GW talkpage until such time as someone really violates 3RR. That doesn't mean the remaining two reverts are valid, and it's never good to edit-war over tags, but it doesn't seem like this matter yet requires enforcement action. Weakopedia (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A strongly worded warning should suffice but I think this discussion here is a fairly clear warning in itself. I would have prefered a standard warning rather than through enforcement. The warning outlined above by Marknutley is not a warning regarding the reverts but is simply informing the editor of probation. Also Marknutley has not bothered to outline why any of the particular diffs are problematic and is just throwing in everything he can and leaving it for others to make the difficult judgement with the comment "I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment". This is a rather poor use of enforcement. (On a general note as an admin, Global Warming and its talkpage are pages I have never edited and Torontokid2006 is a user I have had no dealings with. Therefore although I cannot deal with him as an admin in enforcement due to the recent ruling I could deal with him as an admin per general wikipedia guidelines.) Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have interacted with TK2006 and find him to be a good-faith editor who though editing from a strong and obvious point of view, at least intends to follow wikipedia good practices and work within consensus. It's probably fair to say that he doesn't yet have the experience to always know what good practice is and make good judgments about when consensus has been established. In particular I think he is over-aggressive in repeatedly reverting to exactly the same language (albeit not exceeding 3R a 24 hr period) when others are attempting to find compromise wording, and he can be offensively dismissive of those other editors. For example, he has regularly used things like "if you actually read the source" as edit comments on his reverts, when the source only "actually" says what he thinks it does with a large dose of synthesis. Again, I believe this is mostly an issue of inexperience, and I'm sure most people see that and make allowance for it. I think some polite but firm and specific advice from an administrator about the standard of behavior expected in the climate change space would be enough to help him understand. As an aside, I wonder if the administrators reviewing this might consider extending 1RR to the "Global Warming" article - more talking and less reverting would probably have been a good thing there over the last little while. Thparkth (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If I was allowed to act as uninvolved as I would be per standard wikipedia guidelines I would agree with The Wordsmiths conclusion. Polargeo (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Torontokid2006
|