Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive9

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)[reply]

Blocked as an obvious sock, possibly Scibaby. QUACK! The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And unblocked again, following an SPI that proved no connection to Scibaby, and a bunch of time wasted. The unblocker and checkuser assumed good faith - something that does not seem to have been done while blocking or bringing this request. Weakopedia (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Torontokid2006

User requesting enforcement: mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Torontokid2006 (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

[1] Rv 1
[2] Rv 2
[3] Rv 3
[4] Rv 4
[5] Rv 5
[6] Rv 6
...

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[7] Warning by Thparkth (talk · contribs)
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): up to you guys

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Not only is he massively over on reverts his removal of tags before consensus is reached is disturbing. I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment but i believe a 1r minimum is needed here mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Would someone be so good as to talk to this guy? Today he is on 3R`s on Global Warming Reverts WMC Reverts Arthur Rubin Reverts Verbel And accuses him of edit warring :) mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) BozMo got there already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, how about this RFE gets wrapped up btw, i suppose i was to hasty in bringing it to be honest mark nutley (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning Torontokid2006

Statement by Torontokid2006

Hi 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 [[9]] on the talkpage talk:Global warming and that is why I reverted his actions. I have told him numerous times [[10]] 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)[[11]] the only comment he made was "removing the trash again". Here is another: [[12]], 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)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Torontokid2006

TK needs to be forcefully reminded that 3RR *does* apply to him, contrary to his assertions otherwise [13]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, if you feel that he was simply reverting vandalism you might want to consider where it appears the vandal got his inspiration from as well as the comment just above yours. Was he actually being a vandal? --68.63.103.42 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excuse me? He was edit warring, i see no need to explain why the diff`s are problematic. And removing pov tags without reaching consensus first is problamatic. I also asked him on his talk page to stop edit warring and to self revert, he refused. And yes i leave it to the admins to decide a course of action, that is their job here not mine. mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Next time, if there must be a next time. Yes you should explain exactly why diffs are problematic. It is tough for uninvolved admins to just act on 6 diffs with out any explanation of why you think they are in breach of the rules. Polargeo (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, what do you think "He was edit warring and removing POV tags without getting consensus on the talk page" is? that is an explanation is it not? mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You failled to outline which diffs do this and which diffs do not and which bit of the talkpage consensus has not been reached on. You just presented 6 diffs with no detail. For your own sake I advise you to put together a proper RfE or just do not bother. It is not up to others to chase around for the answers. Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

1rr is a potential nightmare and should not be used liberaly Polargeo (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Result concerning Torontokid2006

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.

There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

I am inclined to deny the RFE per WMC; bring Torontokid2006 up to speed regarding 3RR generally, the CC Probation specifically, and bring any further edit warring to that noticeboard - only bring here again if they trip over one of the 1RR exemptions or probation related issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LHvU. This is a case where I would not make a 3RR block. I also see no reason to impose special sanctions just yet. NW (Talk) 14:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd add a gentle reminder that Mark does need to give a bit more than just the bare diffs... as it turned out, analysis of these showed not all qualified as reverts that "count". If Mark had tried to write the supporting material asked for in the request template, he might have realised this and structured his request differently. With three in concurrance I move for a close. Although I would like my reminder tacked on :) ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following closure:
- Editors are reminded that they should seek to provide relevant context along with evidence presented as part of a Request for Enforcement.
- Torontokid2006 (talk · contribs) is advised to discuss content with other editors and seek to compromise, instead of edit warring.
-The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - support wording by TWS --BozMo talk 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - support wording by TWS, striking out previous comment since Torontokid2006 has not yet "got it". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - support wording by TWS ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley

Marknutley, under a 1rr restriction on climate change articles, declares his intention of repeating a certain revert every 24 hours, without discussion. Without going through the motions, can an uninvolved admin please explain to him Wikipedia:Edit warring and gaming? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the edit comment here [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I got the time wrong" seemed like an odd edit summary, but this clears up what he meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? The edit summary to the diff I used is put these back for a few hours - indicating, as Stephan says, that MN intends to game the 1RR for this William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved administrator(s)

If someone under 1RR introduces or removes the same content every 24 hours and 1 minute, then they are not violating their restriction. However, they may still be edit warring since neither 3RR or 1RR is an entitlement. A request with details of the repeated instances, the challenges of the edits and any subsequent discussion might be made here if desired. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by me, separate section to keep Cla from having a heart attack

I'm not concerned about the edits - Mark has self-reverted. I'm concerned about the attitude ("I'll self-revert, then revert again when my 24 hours are up, nope, no discussion"). Please see the complete discussion at User_talk:Marknutley#1rr. Please note that I do not request a formal sanction - I request that someone whom he listens to explains WP:EW to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley (civility)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Furthermore, Your full of crap hipocrite [15] appears to be a violation of his civility parole. A while later he refuses to strike it after being asked to [16] and repeats the offence however what he wrote above is crap William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are full of it, is this a case of throw enough shite and hope some sticks? First my edit summary was about moving stuff to a new section, not to do with the see also`s. Did i get a chance yet to reply to hipocrite`s last comment? No i have not. So how do you know what i intend to do? Got a crystal ball? or perhaps you modelled it. WMC that is an out and out lie, when was i asked to strike it? And as hipocrite has not asked me to then there is no issue with it mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"full of crap" seems light compared to some of the crap that's come out of WMCs mouth and strikes me as highly hypocritical. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

As well as the above (you guys are full of it) we have What the hell are you on about? [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you open a separate request for civility issues if you think that's useful? I consider the original issue a simple matter that can be - constructively or destructively - solved without much discussion. Civility, on the other hand, is a general mess on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added a header. Mind you I only added this here because it was convenient to piggy-back on your report. MN still has a chance to redact and close this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been redacted mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean [18] - convention is to strike through not silently alter. But no, this is not done: the other 3 PA's remain William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WS asked me to remove it, i did. The rest are not PA`s i`m done here mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to LHVU (below)

What civility parole?: [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you've forgotten you guys are full of it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now here`s a funny thing, i`m not actually on a civility parole [20] mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider 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. binding? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't top-posting such a helpful mode of discussion? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is binding in a sanctionable meaning, although it may be that Mn might be placed under an official civility parole as his voluntary one seems to have fallen to the wayside. I also did note the use of "full of it", in the penultimate sentence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a less partial admin comment. Alas, they are all busy it seems. With an arbcomm case to play with, RFE is just so yesterday William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MN considers his civility parole to be binding [21], even if LHVU considers it binding in a non-binding sense, whatever that is supposed to mean. Although apparently he does not think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack. Let us hope that the admins here will disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you think me saying, "...I agree that "... is full of crap" constitutes a pa" means the opposite. I would also note that I am aware that Mn considers his civility parole binding, but I am also aware that he does not consider his choice of words constitute a personal attack. I cannot square the circle you are attempting to present to me, that Mn is under a civility parole by means of his personal undertaking and he has broken it by the use of terms he does not consider as being attacks. How can his word that he is under some restriction be used against him when he gives his word that he had not broken that restriction? I also would appreciate some other opinions in regard to this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this "crap" conversation still ongoing? Given it was removed as requested? mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question I am unable to satisfactorily answer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved administrator(s)

What civility parole? I have reviewed the logs and noted both the 1RR and "good sourcing" restrictions upon Marknutley, but cannot find and was unaware of a specific civility parole.
Under general WP:CIVIL, I agree that "... is full of crap" constitutes a pa, and am glad that it has been removed. Noting that an opinion is full of crap is unhelpful, but cannot be a pa since it addresses the content and not the commentator. Unless there is a civility parole, I would be minded to issue marknutley with a warning against further use of contentious terms for this and the "full of it" comments. However, "what the hell" is common terminology and would not fall under the WP:CIVIL umbrella as far as I am concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a civility parole is now in order. Mark seems to be losing his temper a bit too much. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard wording then: "Marknutley may be blocked if he makes any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"? Not really sure if it is worth it; it doesn't seem very different (more strigent) than the standards of WP:NPA, but if you want... NW (Talk) 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put user:Marknutley on civility parole and logged it. — east718 | talk | 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.