LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) →What the fuck?: Hey, I think I have achieved equilibrium - neither side of the debate is happy with my actions! |
LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) Undid revision 353636165 by Q Science (talk)Please do not amend other peoples comments without discussion and agreement |
||
Line 940: | Line 940: | ||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
==== What the |
==== What the fuck? ==== |
||
Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia 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 |
Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia 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. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:06, 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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:54, 2 April 2010
This 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 = [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]] | 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> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # ... | Diffs of prior warnings =<p> # [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}} # [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}} # ... | Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) = <Your text> | Additional comments = <Your text> }}
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
- Lar (talk · contribs) Jehochman Talk 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jehochman (talk · contribs) ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Scibaby and enablers
Section for reporting created. Reporting process described. Editors asked to assist in reporting, in reverting edits by Scibaby socks, and in adopting edits that seem "good" as their own, as appropriate (dating so this is archived by bot) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Resolved – Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets created. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scibaby and enablers
N/A, already blocked sock master.
Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablersStatement by Scibaby and enablersComments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablersI don't think this is remotely actionable. We're a volunteer project and we cannot order anybody to do anything. Handling scibaby stuff is something I do from time to time, but it isn't an important feature of editing the climate change articles. --TS 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this here? WP has well-entrenched rules to deal with socks. I see nothing proposed here that would enhance the ability of anyone to directly address the socks themselves. What I do see is a proposal to issue warnings to anyone who supports an obvious sock. It has been said many times that Scibaby socks are easy to spot. That may be true to some people, but not to me. If there are definitive signs, I don't know what they are. If I see someone new proposing something I think is positive, I intend to support. If it turns out to be a sock, I strongly object to the notion I deserve a warning. This sounds like a backdoor proposal to create an entirely inappropriate policy. I propose that this entire section be struck. To the extent it is sensible, it is redundant. To the extent it is not redundant, it is anathema.--SPhilbrickT 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does Scibaby do besides readding paragraphs about bovine emissions? The diff you provided above shows an apparently problematic edit, but doesn't seem to be a huge problem, such as blanking or mass moving of article pages like Willy on Wheels used to do. Willy on Wheels was a huge problem for awhile but eventually gave up. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Current disruptionTo illustrate the problem: User:Frendinius is certainly not a new user. He is quite likely a Scibaby sock. He is currently pushing POV edits (some more subtle, some less) on a number of articles. In particular, he is pushing for the inclusion of two recent Scarfetta & West papers of limited applicability and essentially no weight into global warming. Can the neutral (and "neutral") admins here indicate if simple reversion of this obvious sock will be considered edit warring? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's make this concrete. The last thirteen confirmed socks of Scibaby are as follows:
His sock Waylon O. recycles a long-dead zombie argument renaming an article and falsely characterizes a Guardian news article as "idle comment." The Terminizer and Lunar Golf socks are used to attempt to edit-war the following summary statement out of the "Criticism" section of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change." The stated grounds; "No source supporting this claim," handily ignoring the extensive and authoritative discussion of IPCC's poor treatment of Arctic Sea Ice extent. The Trensor sock removed the summary of Hell and High Water (book) as "Improper, poorly worded summary" without any further attempt to explain this removal. He used the Xsten78 sock to make three disruptive edits: remove the entire section on global warming from Precipitation (meteorology), edit war to restore a section from James Hansen that has long been excluded on grounds of due weight. Wilson and Two and Wellpoint32 were used to troll various canards about the science onto talk:Global warming. JesseSimplex restored a bit of nonsense sourced to some blog or other and changed "reduce global warming" to "reduce the potential effects of global warming" in climate change mitigation. Fred Gharria and AnodeRays were used to dispute the hacking of the CRU against the reporting of all reliable sources. Clarke Simpson and Titulartitle were used to push minority science views and promote a political agenda at talk:Global warming. I seem to recall noticing that Moral Equivalent accidentally made a valuable edit, but only because the quote attributed to Schwarzenegger was probably not made when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law but a year or two earlier. Moral Equivalent's stated reason was nonsensical, however. So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits. He's a disruptive troll, nothing more. His presence, abetted by some editors, is a detriment to balance and discredits any legitimate criticism of our coverage of the social and political issues related to global warming. --TS 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Jehochman's proposal below: Unlimited reverts of suspected Scibaby socks is not a good idea and is a surefire way to drive new editors away from Wikipedia entirely. Do you really think it would have been acceptable to remove all of Chad Howard's comments to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? The accusation was stressful enough [13]. --Heyitspeter (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
TICK TOCK. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Scibaby and enablers
I am not sure about the forum for this but having a more serious look at how we handle socks and trolls is needed at some point. --BozMo talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Scibaby is banned and any sock found should be blocked on sight. Describing anyone who subscribes to views expressed by Scibaby as "enablers" is unhelpful, unless there is evidence of collusion, since it should be AGF'ed as an individual expressing their viewpoint. Trolling, in any form, is a different matter and I agree that finding a way of minimising the disruption caused by such individuals does need review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC) It's probably out of scope of this enforcement area to implement truly effective measures against socking itself (although I am taken with the novelty of using this EA as a pretext to implement such, and I in fact have outlined measures that I guarantee would be effective, I think I'll pass) Suggest this be closed no action, although I concur with LHvU that if specific trolling activities are raised, they should be dealt with if possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Seems the points above regarding talk page semi-protection are worth considering. Scibaby disruption/trolling of talk pages is a problem and within the scope here. Seems such action should be considered and either be supported by or rejected as unworkable by admins watching here. I see it as a partial solution. Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Closed with no action. No action requested, discussion is continuing on article talk. (dating so this is archived by bot) 15:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I've listed this article for temporary protection on WP:RFPP because of what looks like it could turn into a lame edit war over the tag. Perhaps starting a discussion here (not on the merits, but on conduct) might help to thwart the warring (which is, of necessity on an article under 1RR, by multiple parties). --TS 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. A Quest for Knowledge has often said he spent a lot of time on the neutral point of view noticeboard. In view of that, I don't understand quite how he got the idea that the pivotal, "non-negotiable" neutral point of view policy was in any way subject to the quite ignorable and superfluous reliable sources guideline (hint: it's intended for people who don't quite understand the meaniing of the word "verifiability", which is also a key policy). So many newbies, so little time, and so we end up arguing the meaning of policies that we ourselves created and expanded, increment by increment, with people who have failed to digest them and think they know everything. --TS 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. That's the nature of a wiki. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
When I last looked there seemed to be neither strong consensus for or against the NPOV tag. I'm not sure where that leaves us. There have been many attempts to change the title of the article, and so far they have not been successful. The basic article content has been stable for some time, subject to added content as the various inquiries progress. There appears to be a sizable minority of editors who consistently describe the article content as lacking in neutrality, but despite extensive discussion they have not been successful in gaining consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the problem. There is a quite diverse set of editors involved. Over the past month, excepting wikignome work, the following people have edited the article:
In addition the following editors have each made at least one significant comment to the talk page:
This is a quite impressive number of page watchers, commenters and editors, and they represent a similarly broad range of opinions and biases. My first thoughts are that, if there are significant POV problems remaining, then there should be a strong enough consensus to drown out any opposition, resulting in steady improvement of the article. This steady improvement seems to be what is happening, but at the same time there is no consensus that the tag should remain. Perhaps it should not remain in the circumstances, but I don't know. Possibly a content RFC is the best way to take this. But I don't think there are any significant conduct issues involved, outside the recent mini edit war which prompted this thread. --TS 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) LHvU has opined that this malformed request may be closed and I concur. I believe it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to consider appropriateness of NPOV tags, although inappropriate conduct of individual (or groups of) editors within the dispute may be considered. No such conduct has been presented here that is specific to the CC dispute. Placement of tags should be discussed either on the specific article talk page, WP:NPOVN, or in a more broad discussion. Thus, closing as no action requested, not actionable, no action. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
TMLutas
TMLutas is requested to avoid soapboxing on talk pages, and to be careful that sources are accurately summarized or paraphrased. TMLutas is admonished to be especially mindful of Wikipedia:Civility and to be careful that full intent and context are conveyed when paraphrasing comments from others. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TMLutas
Discussion concerning TMLutasStatement by TMLutasThe true story starts in global cooling in this edit on December 22, 2009. To start the discussion of what is going on in March is grossly incomplete and should void this proceeding. I have made continuing references as to the history of this issue and its long nature. ChyranandChloe should have been aware of this and the extensive efforts I've made to patiently clarify existing rules so that the local majority on climate science pages ceases to use WP:RS to exclude peer reviewed papers entirely from Wikipedia due to some historically less than clear language in bullet point 4 of section 2.1. I will give a point by point. Please bear with me because this is the short version. 1. I am supposed to have "admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME". TonySidaway later clarified that he was not actually questioning my good faith with his statement "You don't get to make an end run around the neutral point of view by fiddling with the wording of guidelines". I accepted that and just let it drop. I responded strongly at the time as I viewed that statement as a set up statement in any attempt to go after me via sanctions. 2. The FAQ had been labeled as under discussion since February 3, 2010 (not by me) and had come to a conclusion on February 20, 2010. No matter what, Q22 needed to be modified. Either the discussion tag needed to be removed in case the discussion supported the current wording or larger edits needed to be made to realign Q22 with the WP:IRS 2.1(4). I sincerely had hoped that somebody else would have made the effort since the February 20th close. The result of the discussion was that individual papers published in reliable source journals were, absent special cases, to be considered reliable without a waiting period to assemble a citation index score (ie the impact or impact factor standard). Nobody had adjusted things at the global warming FAQ by the time that somebody, once again, used FAQ Q22 to justify blocking one of my edits on another page so I dove in to start a conversation to fix Q22. Somebody had to do it and nobody else was volunteering. This was no game, at least on my part. 3. TS said "I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight." in the relevant discussion and essentially ceded that the FAQ Q22 that he wrote that depends on WP:IRS instead of WP:WEIGHT was incorrect. 4. A fuller quote makes it obvious that I am being accommodating here "Let me repeat my position from last time. I'm open to some sort of FAQ point on excluding new papers so long as there's some sort of rule or guideline that actually supports the exclusion mechanism." This is after going several rounds of asserted reasons why something was true that, after actually reading the rule/policy/guideline/essay, were not supported by the cited rule/policy/guideline/essay. A few rounds of objections that don't pan out as real objections and one does tend to repeat. It's unavoidable. 5. This is interesting because my own talk page is being cited as a page under the climate change probation rules. That's just strange and I think inappropriate. But let me explain anyway since I'm doing point by point. TS in a prior edit in that thread attempted to define global cooling as exclusively a specific type of global cooling, an end to the interglacial and a new ice age instead of a more general definition of global cooling as, well, a planet that is cooling overall irrespective of mechanism. Cutting an argument's legs out from under it by changing the dictionary is the definition of Orwellian. It also upset me because that sort of action makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I was not saying that TS was beclowning himself as a personal attack, rather that by adopting that definitional jujitsu he was beclowning Wikipedia. In the heat of the moment, the 1984 references popped out. Had I not been on my talk page, I probably would have toned it down a bit. I view this point as evidence that what's happening with this sanctions attempt is a 'kitchen sink' approach, an attempt to stack up as many accusations as possible in the hope that something will stick and some sanction will be assessed. Kitchen sink approaches are, by definition, an attempt at psychological manipulation. 6. The subject of the thread was the recent Gallup polling on global warming. The four prior contributors (that I could see at the time anyway) to the thread suggested that an appropriate response to the gallup figures were to A. improve the "Simple-Wikipedia" version of the global warming page, B. a suggestion that the stupid people would ignore this due to the Dunning–Kruger effect C. a straw man that climate change skeptics are advocating "teach the controversy" something I've never heard elsewhere and D. A me too agreement that it was indeed a situation where the skeptics were engaging in "teach the controversy". I guess I could have opened sanctions threads on them all but that seemed a bit excessive. Instead I let them know that they were not in a safe space where everybody agreed with them and they could let their hair down and say what they really think about those they disagree with. In fairness if they are sanctioned for this, I would admit that I should be too. To date, none of the preceding 4 user accounts have any sort of notice for their pending sanctions threads. Selective prosecution or more kitchen sink? It's both. Regarding the notices, I did take the 2/0 warning seriously, calmed down, took a wikibreak and got a great deal more patient. No, I'm not perfect. That's usually not sanctionable, not even, I suspect, on probation pages. It's hard to take seriously WMC's warning on my commentary reverting his reversion. He was reverting a section stub, calling it "reckless". I had been polling on talk for two weeks prior seeking anybody who would admit that they didn't want a section at all. Everybody insisted that they actually had specific objections to this or that proposed text but nobody claimed they were against a 2000s section to go along with the 1990s section (and prior). So I stubbed it and got told "rv: be bold, don't be reckless. Read the policy" which was not quite helpful. Until I visited this page today I was unaware that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned for doing this sort of thing. It's unclear why this is included at all except as part of a kitchen sink approach. As for the first notice. I took it as an entry into the club. All the cool kids were getting them. As the first notice says, you could get that notice without doing anything wrong. I'll stipulate that yes, I did know that this probation existed. On to the additional comments: 1) guilty of changing a guideline (after 6 weeks of talking it out on the appropriate talk page), not sanctionable in my opinion. 2) guilty of applying the guideline with the clause I added (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if anybody would protest or revert in case I got it wrong), not sanctionable in my opinion. 3) not guilty of using circular discussion. There is a clear beginning (why do we need to wait to include studies?), middle (oh, WP:RS 2.1(4) looks a bit strange, let's talk it out in WP:IRS there and then go back and apply the results to get better process at global cooling and incidentally global warming), and end (you can no longer use WP:RS 2.1(4) because the result of the discussion does not support your POV. If you disagree, work it out in talk over @ WP:IRS). The accusation that I exhausted my dozen or so conversation partners is very flattering, if untrue. I have not achieved consensus except on WP:IRS and if you look carefully you will note that the statements of regulars there are quite influential for 'my' win. In truth the win is theirs. The challenge to the consensus started off as a direct edit to 2.1(4) that substantially changes the meaning of my addition without any talk at all. I reverted once and said to take it to talk. Hipocrite has started an edit war which I declined to follow, leaving his version up for now (see, I can learn). So far his challenge to consensus here and here do not seem to be going well for him. It's early days though. I do need to correct myself as Q22 has now been revised to rely on WEIGHT and not on IRS so I guess that worked out as I hoped it would as well. As soon as I can finish with this business I will no longer have to refer to Q22 anymore as the problematic language is now only relevant to the current accusations. The problematic version of Q22 referred to the WP:IRS guideline, substantially quoting it. Of course any change to the guideline Q22 was trying to implement would have an impact on Q22. I finally and most strenuously disagree that walking down this multi-month path was unnecessary (not to mention that the characterization of the journey as wikilawyering and gaming is tendentious and untrue). There is a real issue of confusion with honest editors having divergent opinions of what 2.1(4) really means and the confusion seems to be centered on what the word source means. In hot topics like global warming these divergent opinions lead to much heat and very little light. That needs fixing and no matter which way it breaks, a significant number of editors are going to be uncomfortable with the result. Thank you for your patience. If anybody wants more detail, please ask and let me know where I should put it. TMLutas (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning TMLutasTL:DR? TMLutas really needs to summarise his response. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by A Quest For Knowledge Honestly, I have no idea of what's going on with WP:RS. However, if WP:RS is being altered to WP:GAME the results of the ongoing AGW dispute, this is an extremely troubling event. Changes to policies and guidelines potentially effect the entire project - over 3 million articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't comment here, but I suppose I'll make this metacomment referring to my response to LessHeard vanU's request. I don't think there is a conduct issue here. Although I would not subscribe in detail to TMLutas' characterization of the dispute, that's a minor quibble. --TS 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree somewhat with Tony. The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach: go an at such length, and with such persistence, that your fellow editors lose the will to live. While I broadly agree with TMLutas on the substance of the issue at hand,[16][17] his approach is not optimal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Sphilbrick I read the first diff (Gaming), then read the whole section leading up to it. Yes, it's long, it's tedious, and it's argumentative. But it's also illuminating. I read an honest attempt by multiple parties (notably TMLutas and Awickert) to explore exactly what should happen when there are more reliable sources than can reasonably be included in an article. A real problem, without an obvious answer, and they made excellent progress. Then TS said something to which TMLutas took offense—I'd say over-reaction a bit with my detached perspective, but easy to understand in the heat of the moment. Even without reflecting the passion, the response wasn't out of line nor did it fail civility rules, and both parties moved on. Most certainly, it was not an admission of Gaming, which is the sole reason for the inclusion of the diff. I haven't read any of the other diffs, but based on the first one, I'd say we ought to be handing out awards for successful resolution of a thorny issue, not talking about sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comment @Franamax - with respect to the cosmic ray paper, if you read the full discussion you'll see that the paper (which was a pre-pub) did not actually say what s/he insisted it said. And even after direct quotes were supplied to her/him, s/he continued to argue for the inclusion of the paper. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning TMLutas
|
Ratel
Ratel is directed toward WP:AGF and warned regarding making further assumptions of bad faith within articles covered by the probation. (dating so this can be archived by bot) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ratel
To Jehochman: Would you clarify if it concerns you whether Ratel's comments on this page are true or not? He accuses me (and my ilk) of despising George Monbiot, an utter fabrication that I find particularly offensive. He adds that I am editing as part "of an anti-science, politically driven campaign." He adds that my "edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc." He accuses me of "anti-science subversive attacks" on the encyclopedia. Are these acceptable comments without evidence? Mackan79 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning RatelStatement by RatelI ask any admin present to please read the talk page carefully. You'll see that none of my actions is questionable, and that I have improved both the article and the Talk page. Mackan79's behaviour is what should really be under scrutiny here. This editor was opposed on the "pejorative" issue by not only me but several other editors, yet persisted and persisted in a dogged way in a situation where there was obviously no consensus for inclusion. His statements included threats to report opposing editors for alleged infractions and threats to "wait out" other editors and insert his version when we tire or lose focus. As to the lede, Mackan79 completely broke it by POV pushing in a not-so-subtle way, managing to expand it from the brief and clear explanation (that had stood there for about a year) to numerous paragraphs of woolly pap about someone he and other people of his ilk despise, left wing environmentalist George Monbiot, as if the whole idea of global warming denial is the work of this arch-enemy of the Right. Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc. The encyclopedia is frankly under attack by people with motives inimical to the spread of knowledge. The basic science of global warming is almost completely settled, ask any practising climatologist, but these anti-science subversive attacks continue and are getting more tendentious and persistent. Wikipedia needs to put all global warming-related articles into a special category that can only be edited by a restricted set of editors, or we face the danger of science articles being rewritten by non-scientists with flat Earth theories. What really takes the cake is when these fringe POV-pushing editors, hell bent on influencing science-related pages to show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible, start using noticeboards like this to report editors who actually represent the mainstream scientific opinion, in a shameful and scurrilous effort to hijack the system and use it against itself. On another note, I see that Mackan is a constant user, some might day abuser, of noticeboards and regularly reports people for opposing him in content disputes. Look at his edit history. This calls out for some sort of warning. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Ratel
Result concerning Ratel
I checked the first few assertions of this report and was not convinced. Administrators, please don't jump to process this too quickly. Mackan79, can you point out the one or two worst diffs? The warnings you cited are a couple months old. I want to see diffs showing bad behavior directly violating those warnings, not squabbles about content. Removing "generally pejorative term" seems like a possibly good application of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there a reference cited somewhere that says it is a generally pejorative term? I didn't see a reference, but I might have missed it. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Ratel is reminded of both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and is warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. Ratel is encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring. I hope this clarifies our expectations of compliance with policy, and the consequences of not doing so - and provides options should anyone test (deliberately or otherwise) their ability to do so. Comments welcome, but can we expedite this so we may conclude and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
Marknutley
Marknutley is blocked for 48 hours for incivility. Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley
@LHVU: edit warring: MN has 5 reverts to H+E since the 28th: [75] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that MN is still refusing to admit his edit warring, and is claiming only three reverts (*only* three... well). But there are 5:
Also note MN's It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. - a glance at the history of that page will show that three different editors all disagreed with MN's edits. I can see no sign of MN understanding that his behaviour there was in any way at fault; hence asking for revert parole William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarknutleyI suggest the enforcing admins look at the context before each of the diffs WMC provides: MN was baited into incivility by WMC and Ratel. If MN gets a sanction, WMC and Ratel should get the same, especially given their history of incivility. ATren (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by MarknutleyWhat a pile of bollocks.
To recap, for weeks now WMC has done naught but insult me, frankly i`m sick of it and he will now get the same as he gives out. If he does not like this then tough tittys, perhaps he will learn to be more polite when he gets a dose of his own bullshit back mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) As lar says, i really should give some diff`s regarding WMC`s constant barrage of insults, so here you are [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] There you go, this is the majority of interactions between WMC and myself, and as you can see they are all sly insults and outright hostile mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding the accusation of edit warring above [94] You will not see 5 reverts in two days as wmc is saying.You will see three, all of which i believe are justified given the use of "conservative" to describe some of the sources. This is obviously not wp:npov and it is also being trashed out in talk. For instance this revert by ratel [95] his edit summary is blatantly false, there was no consensus to describe sources by political leaning, and to do so is just not on. So yes i reverted him per policy. His revert and WMc`s was against policy. It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) An OfferOk here`s what i`ll do. I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. However i would also want those who continue to belittle and insult me to actually get sanctioned for it, not to be told "be a good little lad now" and for it then to continue. I can assure you my word is good. mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) If i am to get a block would it be possible for it to be a voluntary one? As in i do not edit any articles in the probation area for the block length? I request this as i would like to continue to work on my current wip`s. I have made this deal before with 2/0 who agreed and as my word is good i would hope the admins here would also accept my word in this, thank you mark nutley (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning MarknutleyEr...
??? No. Incivility in others does not justify responding with incivility. While I thought it rather cheeky of WMC to raise any sort of request here related to anything to do with incivility, given his own record of snarkiness, he is within rights to do so, and he has a point. The proper response, Mark, is to turn the other cheek, or to use the appropriate channels, assuming you haven't been blocked from doing so. Not to fire back with both barrels. I've put this here rather than in the next section, because I'm hoping you'll reconsider your response before we admins decide what to do. Will you? ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Lar, WMC and MN have a long history of sniping at each other, and WMC has been uncivil to MN many times. In many cases WMC has mocked MN and treated him like a child, as he did here ("use the left button"). Yes, MN was wrong to respond in kind, but IMO WMC should get whatever MN gets. Also note, MN cannot come here to report problems because he was sanctioned from doing so, which kind of makes the playing field skewed if WMC can file a report after mocking MN and knowing that he can't file a report here. ATren (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Per diffs, BozMo and I have previously warned MN regarding incivility and in particular when responding to perceived incivility - and that involving WMC. If diffs are provided of alleged violations by WMC (and other parties) then these can also be reviewed within this request, but that should not be regarded as alleviating MN's actions. Any alleged violations regarding this instance should be dealt with on an individual basis. It is not a matter of "evening up". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC) WMC's recent incivility towards MN:
I suggest everyone just drop it. Science-oriented editors need to recognize that they are held to higher standards of conduct than are the contrarians. That might not be "fair" in some abstract sense but that's how it is. Deal with it and move on. There's nothing to be gained here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion if someone baits another editor, and that editor responds in a less-than-civil manner, then both editors should receive corrective action. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Marknutley was pretty blatantly revert warring. He contended that the positive reviews should not be labeled as conservative because no source had said this; fine. But then Ratel presented a source saying exactly that at 1:33 on March 29,[102] but Mark kept reverting.[103] I have not read all of this discussion, and I'm not saying any of the discussion was ideal, but this kind of reverting needs to be strongly discouraged with sanctions. Mackan79 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Tony's comment on Mark NutleyWhat is annoying most people, I think, is Mark's determination to remove the characterization conservative from instances that are either well sourced, or as in the case of The Spectator, unimpeachably and (with good cause) proudly conservative. The polarization of responses to the book, with ideological conservatives treading a path quite distinct from the mainstream including most scientists, had been remarked upon by commentators and was made all the more remarkable in the context of the vehemence of the scientific response to the book. Mark was trying it on and treating informed comments with contempt. And edit warring. If he's been warned about this kind of behavior in the past he should be told to stop trying it on. I've no doubt that he will now stop if told to do so firmly enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I do have a worry that pertains to the comparison between Mark and William. Obviously we'd much rather have intelligent, educated edits, so if an intelligent, educated Wikipedian complains about stupid and counter-productive edits by a Wikipedian who doesn't even pretend to know about the subject, and who further demonstrates his ignorance, it seems perverse to me that we would consider whether the intelligent, educated, specialist Wikipedian failed to demonstrate the necessary level of finesse required to avoid the the uneducated Wikipedian realising that actually learning about the subject he was commenting on would have helped Wikipedia. We absolutely must not drive intelligent Wikipedians away because they fail to waste much time with Wikipedians who choose to act in a stupid and annoying manner. Where it has been established that intelligent and appropriately educated Wikipedians are being harrassed by stupid Wikipedians or Wikipedians who have chosen to act stupidly as a tactic, we should act to protect our resources. Stupidity must die. --TS 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Do i need to start a new enforcement request? Edit-warringMark is clearly in breach of this Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, where both he and i were warned that edit-warring would result in 1RR or the like. A previous enforcement request here over edit-warring by Mark, was closed (by WMC incidentally), because the discussion had gone stale. Editwarring by Marknutley on Heaven and Earth (book) over "conservative" description:
That is not only edit-warring - but also quite close to a 3RR violation (by 6 minutes). There is some discussion on talk [108] (see above), where Mark is pretty much alone in his argument, and being quite incivil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley
This has been open far too long - closing per above. If we need a new case for aspects discussed but not agreed upon, someone please open one, but it is not fair to Marknutley to leave this hanging so long. The mentor idea might have some merit, but that discussion can continue elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
1RR violation
Declined. Not formatted, but more importantly the edits were a series which constituted 1 revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I wanted to bring a 1RR violation to your attention. It is discussed here: User_talk:Dave_souza#Edits_to_Climategate. After two requests to self-revert and discuss his edits on the talkpage Dave Souza continued to make changes to the article (many of which constituted reverts). He has yet to reverse them. With that, I'm off to bed. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
|
- They were not. The two strings of edits I cited were separated from each other by intervening edits. In any case, here we go again (note the following diffs are all different): --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Deliberate Baiting? Can someone look into this, please?
A Quest For Knowledge
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge
- User requesting enforcement
- William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (1RR limit on this article)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [112] (clear revert)
- [113] (second revert in 24h (article is on 1RR parole. Not exact revert, but removes text recently added by [114]))
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1rr_violation - warnings by various
- User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1RR - attempt to resolve this. AQFK won't accept that #2 is a revert. nb: [[WP:REVERT says Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.. AQFK's edit very clears undoes the effect of one or more edits.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
std block; 1RR parole.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@AQFK: You say WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But no, it does not say that. It says what I have already quoted above: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. This is what you have done. It continues which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But you cannot quote merely one part of a conditional. The use of "normally" very clearly says that in other circumstances, it may not be so. the part that is absolute is Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits and this is what you have clearly done. I presume you accept at least that: you do agree that you have undo[ne] the effects of one or more edits? - please confirm this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
@MN: Am i reading this right? No. You aren't. The edits are not consecutive William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [115]
Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge
Statement by A Quest For Knowledge
As far as I understand the rules, not all edits are considered reverts, and reverting means reversing an article to a previous state. The first edit is a revert. The second isn't unless someone else had made the same edit. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been in the article. I told WMC that if he could provide a diff which demonstrated the second edit was a revert, I'd self-revert[116] but he failed to do so. The discussion can be found on my talk page here.[117] But my offer still stands: If someone can show that the second edit is a revert is a reversal to a previous state of the article, I'll be happy to self-revert. But at the point, I don't see how the second edit is considered a revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. If someone can show me a diff that demonstrates that I've reverted to a previous state of the article, I'll self-revert. Until then, I don't see how this can be considered a 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning A Quest For Knowledge
Well according to what Dave posted above WP:3RR#Application of 3RR policy which states that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." AQFK has not actually broken any rules at all as both his edits were consecutive. Am i reading this right? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, the two edits weren't consecutive, but the second edit is not a revert since it did not reverse somebody else's edit nor did it restore a previous version of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm sympathetic to AQFK's position on this – the "ration" of one revert doesn't fit well when trying to deal constructively with separate sections and issues and not reverting to the same version. The main issue is dealing constructively with making improvements, and while I don't agree with all of AQFK's edits they are evidently good faith attempts to do that. No case to answer as far as I can see. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be very interested to see what admins think of this frivolous nuisance complaint after the way I was batted around for a much more substantial complaint. The result there: All editors warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Now let's just see if the rules apply to William Connolley. On the face of it, this looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on William Connolley's part. The second edit replaces a phrase. It's impossible to improve the article at more than a snail's pace if the uncontroversial replacement of insignificant phrasing is going to be brought here as a 1RR vio. This edit by Kenosis 13:55 April 1 [118] similarly reverts the word "committee", amid other changes and comes less than 24 hours from this minor, uncontested, uncontroversial edit [119] at 15:42 March 31. Is it productive of a good editing environment to consider these edits by AQFK or Kenosis sanctionable reverts or is it instead obstructing a good editing environment? I suppose it's possible to game these kinds of tweaks to the article to slip in something an editor knows is going to be controversial, but if the "reversions" are nothing more than adjusting phrasing and obvious, uncontroversial "housekeeping" changes, then what is the practical value of a complaint here? Compare AQFK's and Kenosis' constructive work via these edits with the time William Connolley has spent wasting the time of the rest of us with this complaint. Meanwhile, the first report on this whole business has been issued by a committee of the UK parliament and we've got very little description of it in the article. We've all got better things to be doing with our time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- And here's a revert combined with the "reverting" of material as part of rewriting by another editor. [120] [121] both on March 25; and again [122] [123] on March 19; or by still another editor here [124] at 21:12 March 12 and here [125] at 12:22 March 13. Here's a similar set from January 6 [126] [127], just days after the 1RR sanction was imposed. I'm sure there are many more, but these are the ones I could pick out relatively quickly. None of these edits should be thought of as a 1RR vio, or if they are, then a general statement explaining the exact boundary is needed. We don't need to single out specific editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is ironic: William Connolley has done worse at Heaven and Earth (book): [128] (09:03 March 31) and [129] (08:36 April 1), and these were both contested matters and clear reverts, not housekeeping. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The second listed revert here does not undo the effect of the supposedly reverted edit here. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- To Franamax, I think that pattern happens all the time. Perhaps "a short review" is a biased phrasing, and perhaps "the first review" is biased as well. Those wondrous wiki moments come when someone is forced to bridge the gap. Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I do not see the second edit as undoing the effects of one or more edits, but more of an amendment to a small part of fairly substantial previous edit. I feel the difference between "first review to become available," and "a short investigation" as not materially effecting a change to the meaning of the remainder of the original edit, or placing a significantly different emphasis upon the deliberation concerned. Under my understanding of WP:Revert, there was not a second revert within a 24 hour period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Both candidate edits are doubtful. Reverting addition of text based on a primary source in the exact spot where primary sourcing would be acceptable ("Responses") is pushing the definitions. The alternative would be to correct the spelling of "parliamentray" and balance with other statements from the press release. As other sources become available, the EAU response can be put into proper integrated context, but they have a proxy "right of reply" in the nonce. It's encyclopedic to note what they had to say. Changing "the first" to "a short" seems pretty POV to me (the second candidate edit), since we have no good definition for "short" as opposed to "first".
However, I see no technical violation here. It's worrisome that an editor could use the technique of reverting one edit in a dispute with one editor, then go on to make a POV change to related text the same editor might object to - one inference could be an intelligent reading of the "rules", forcing a choice of last-RR revert onto the opposing editor. I've also heard that stuffing beans up one's nose works well, up until you go to the doctor. Franamax (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley, per Marknutley Enforcement request
William M. Connolley blocked for 24 hours in respect of 1RR violations, and warned not to use derogatory words and phrases in respect of other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Since this matter has already been discussed in the Marknutley section above (at time of writing), but not forming part of the actions resulting from the closure of that request, I would re-open that aspect of that section here - in an abridged form. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by William C. ConnolleyComments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley
Comment -- I realize a "collegiality" directive may be too much to ask, but I would like to see a final warning for WMC to cease edits that mock or insult another editor. The two I refer to are stuff like "MN thinks a paper is something you wrap chips in" and snarky replies suggesting he doesn't know how to open a link in a browser (I cited diffs in the last report, archived above). I thought previous warnings would have covered such abrasive language, but there appears to have been wiggle room in previous warnings, so I agree with Lar below that there needs to be a comprehensive warning to refrain from any edits which address the editor (as opposed to the edit) in a demeaning way. ATren (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Kenosis above and Bozmo below, are calling these repeated violations of William M. Connolley's 1RR restrictions technical violations. They aren't "technical" in the least. A "technical" violation would be an edit where Connolley would have been trying to abide by the restriction but maybe came in a few minutes too soon because his clock may have been off or he was performing a "housekeeping"-like edit to modify phrasing without changing the meaning in any significant or contested way -- which is the kind of edit that A Quest For Knowledge made and which Connolley has used to accuse AQFK with as a 1RR violation. Connolley did none of that here. He disregarded the sanction personally tailored for him and did it twice. A 24-hour block is ridiculous. Connolley has been given at least three restrictions of various types and warned once. If he hasn't been listening after all that you need to get his attention with a two-by-four. A block of at least 48 hours. He shouldn't get a volume discount. Bozmo thinks an apology would do. But forced apologies have no meaning to either party. Getting him closer to a topic ban will. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning William M. Connolley
I screwed the pooch on this one by misreading the month - check the history here. The relevant reverts are [136] and [137]. The talkpage just after the second revert is here and does not show a strong enough current consensus to justify IAR on not waiting two more hours. Ratel asserts a consensus in the archives when reverting Marknutley here before WMC's second revert. Support 24 hours unless I am missing something still. I might not be around this weekend (fingers crossed), so consider this my endorsement of whatever consensus indicates. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) At least 24, preferably 48 for the edit warring. Plus (taking up unfinished business from above) a comprehensive warning to stop being snarky and start being collegial, broadly construed. No more "warned about this but not that" get out of jail free cards will be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have enacted the 24 hour block, as this was the single definitive period that was agreed by all admins but one. I have also given a warning over the further use of demeaning or derogatory words or phrases with other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
What the fuck?
Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia 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. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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 Wikipedia'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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 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 Wikipedia 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? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Dave Souza
Request concerning Dave souza
- User requesting enforcement
- Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dave souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [138] String of edits, some reverts.
- [139] Revert to restore these edits, prior to discussion on talk.
Example of a specific series of three removals of the sentence "some newspapers, [etc.]," so that the presence of a violation is less ambiguous. Two within 24 hours, three within 2.5 days:
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [143] Warning by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Sorry if this is bothersome (I imagine it is). All I would like to see is a self-revert and a discussion of the individual edits on the talkpage prior to their reinsertion pending some sort of consensus, and a future commitment to this process where the edits are contentious (as here). If administrators think something else is warranted I would support it.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Dave Souza made contentious edits to the article and edit warred to keep them in place rather than discussing them first. I believe that a collegial environment necessitates adherence to the latter course of action and am filing a request to enforce the choosing of that path over its tendentious alternative.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [144]
Discussion concerning Dave souza
- Dave's change: "Newspapers and bloggers variously alleged" to "Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and newspapers for allegations" [145] is not a revert to either version presented in Heyitspeter's diff
- Heyitspeter's blind revert re-inserted inaccurate information and grammatical errors. His "warning" was a request that Dave re-insert the same erroneous and ungrammatical material. Since you are responsible for your own edits, even if they are reverts, the only problematic behaviour I see here is HiP's insertion of inaccurate info and grammatical errors into the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shorter version" changing the word "newspapers" to "politicians" is not the same as moving "newspapers" from the first to the ninth word in what is arguably a different sentence. The latter edit is not a repeat of the former. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Dave souza
As far as I can see, HiP's timing is in error – I made a series of edits introducing new material and correcting material unsupported by references, not reverting to older versions, and discussed the changes on the talk page both before and after the edits. HiP reverted without discussion, I noted this on the talk page, then having checked the timing, undid HiP's disruptive reversion to incorrect material. If I'm in error in my counting, do please undo any relevant changes, but I won't be available for quite a while to do it myself. . dave souza, talk 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Dave souza
Result concerning Dave souza
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.