I am on a 1r parole broadly construed, i have been told i broke it at Steven Milloy
Bigk hex broke 3r on the article by reverting in blog and advocacy refs.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
I have been tidying this article up for a couple of days, removing obviously unreliable sources for a BLP BlogBlogPR Watch and tagging others such as this [11] Tagging deadlinks [12] fixing deadlinks using wayback [13] And also removing Primary Sources [14]. I was surprised that BK began to reinsert the obviously bad ref`s back in and reverted him. Note my edit summary [15]. BLP is quite clear on this, any content poorly sourced must be removed. Reverting these out does not count as reverts. That article is still full of primary sources which need to be removed. mark nutley (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to BK I never mentioned WP:LIBEL and i am unsure were that has come from. I removed sources which were a breach of wp:blp and wp:rs policy. The content was not in my opinion libellous and did not need removing, but i`ll go check, the sources however did need removing which is why they were removed and cn tags left in place. I did also remove content which had been sourced to blogs.[16] I would prefer for BK to explain why he edit warred blog and other crap ref`s into a BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by BigK HeX
I'm just amazed on so many levels....
A 1RR editor is reporting himself ... after three reverts?
And, it also seems pretty silly for this report to be submitted looking like this, and the editor apparently going off to bed or whatever.
I guess, most importantly, I have no clue why I'm in any report here, as I was unaware of any sanctions going on with the climate stuff. I'm somewhat annoyed to be in this request for enforcement, when, apparently, mark nutley's comments indicate that he is aware that this is new to me [since he "welcomes" me to this drama].BigK HeX (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there's an actual report to respond to, I'll say this. It was quite a while until it dawned on me that User:Marknutley was trying to refer to directives such as WP:LIBEL, as the justification of his actions. My slow realization was caused by the fact that he didn't actually remove any of the article material he deemed as contentious -- he removed only the citations for these allegedly libelous statements. Being that I was puzzled as to why he went around leaving the article less sourced, I asked him to explain on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen this editor's application of guidelines, and in many cases it has been pretty suspect, as, for example, the first source that I saw was a ref which basically was being used as opinion of the authors. Later, I stated that the publication in question (by a group called the UCS) is an RS for opinions of the UCS and he responds that they can't be used as an RS for the opinions that they hold. When I started editing, I thought there might have been a good chance that the refs could have been removed accidentally. Then mark nutley started deleting the refs only, still with little explanation as to why the refs needed to be removed imperatively (but the material previously supported by the refs was good enough to keep). I kept requesting an explanation, as I couldn't ascertain his thinking, but got very little even when he did start posting on the talk page --- I decided that very little was going to be forthcoming from User:Marknutley, based somewhat on previous interactions with him, which have made me very unsure of his level of English comprehension (which is also odd to me since he seems to be able to convey himself fine in English when he chooses to).
Anyways, it started to become clear that my disagreement could quickly escalate into a strange edit war over leaving the article less sourced, so I decided that it would defuse the situation to find alternative sources and start an RSN, which has indeed seemed to remove the contention discussed here. BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning Mark Nutley and BigK HeX
This is pretty clearly both a BLP violation and a 3RR violation by BigK HeX. The sources are not RS, in that one is a blog and the advocacy group cite is to a press release. None are acceptable for a BLP, especially when it is negative information. MN is in compliance of his 1RR due to the fact that he was reverting a crystal clear BLP vio. There is no such explanation for the reverts by BH. GregJackPBoomer!12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the real encyclopedia, MN would be fully in the right here, but this article actually resides in Bizarro Wikipedia, where wrong is right and right is wrong. In Bizarro Wikipedia, poor sourcing is encouraged, BLP doesn't apply, and enforcing BLP policy gets you blocked. In this particular example, MN removed blog sources for criticism, which is a big no-no in Bizarro Wikipedia. Blog sources for criticism are the foundation of Bizarro Wikipedia, where RealClimate is the New York Times and The Times itself is considered unreliable and unusable. Mark should know this, and I hope he gets a nice healthy block for his transgressions. ATren (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to BigK Hex - you welcomed yourself to the drama with your repeated insertion of weak disputed citations that were not WP:RS and your failure to follow good practice like WP:BRD. IMO you are the one most responsible for creating this report , that is why you are surprised to find yourself in this report. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea. How about the section for "Statement by BigK HeX" contain just those statements. Regardless, it's pretty asanine to "request enforcement" of a sanction that I was unaware of ... but it's unsurprising that you miss that point. BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea, you accept your major part in this disruption and accept your editing was in the generally accepted style that is referred to here at wikipedia as disruptive edit warring. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MN has a point about some of the sources being introduced in this article. However, I question whether this is the right forum, as the article involves someone who comments on many subjects, not just climate change. Do we use these enforcement forums every time someone breathes a worth on the subject and there's an edit that is objectionable? Must every content dispute end up here? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ScottyBerg is right that this should not be used as a forum for every objectionable edit - as with every other article, one starts with clear edit summaries, escalates to discussions on talk pages, and pursues other elements of DR if discussions on talk pages do not reach a satisfactory conclusion. The other elements of DR include posting to content specific noticeboards (RSN, BLPN) as needed, but the usual escalation to ANI is supposed to come here instead of there. BigK HeX has not been aware of this board, and clearly isn't aware of the history, if astonished that someone self-reports (this is the third example I can recall OTTOMH). Frankly, I think a little more discussion at talk and noticeboards was called for before coming here, but others may feel it was inevitable that it would end up here, so why wait. --SPhilbrickT19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse told me on Nuke`s talkpage that this article fell under the CC probation. As such i have brought it here. BK mey not have known about the probation but i am sure he knows not to edit war, nor insert unreliable sources into a BLP. That is why he is here. I am here as i am a 1r restriction and want it clarified that i did not break it. I do not want another spurious block due to people not looking at the evidence properly mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you included your own edits because you wanted clarification that your edits were fine. And I'm not disagreeing that this is the right forum once the need for escalation occurs, as the article is clearly a CC article. My only point is that one shouldn't come running to this board whenever there is a dispute, but try to work it out through other means first. While it was mildly contentious, I thought there was some reasonable progress at the RSN, and it is possible that discussion on article and individual talk pages, as well as relevant notice boards, might have been sufficient to resolve the issue. Or perhaps not, but it is helpful to remember that this board is not intended as the first resort for disputes, but as an alternative to ANI when other options fail.--SPhilbrickT21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nor looked at the edits in question, but on a purely technical note, let me quote Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines from the probation conditions. I don't think this has happened here, and neither has Steven Milloy been tagged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes(to StS and SPh as well, just above). Especially if the article talk wasn't tagged. See my proposed close below. ++Lar: t/c22:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message." - I find that misleading, since the article did not, in fact, carry the appropriate warning message, either as an edit message or as a talk page banner. I suggest you strike that part to not leave a wrong impression --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would that it were so. Editors have been punished even where no clear notice exists, and told thatt they ought to have noticed motices which were not there (and which, in one case, were placed after the infraction), and not been cleared of wrongdoing. I take it you are proposing this as a change from current practice - it surely doe not represent current practice. Collect (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still somewhat incongruous with how things have happened before. Only a very few number of relevant articles are tagged with edit notices, and its not reasonable to expect all editors to read talk before editing, or to note a probation header if they do - do you go through all the boxes in the top? I don't. We have previously informed new editors in the region with friendly notice to their talk page, recorded at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Notifications. That seems to be a lot more robust. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point. But it seems I just can't satisfy you. Do you agree with the general theme of no sanctions for anyone? That's the important bit to me. Propose a close taking your concerns into account, here in this section, and if it's good, I'll copy it down and support it in lieu of mine. This needs closing, it's small beer in the grand scheme. ++Lar: t/c15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party" without further comments to be sufficient. Why use more words when less will do? It's obvious that he is aware of the probation now, and someone can put him onto the notified list. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making sure to notify editors is great (and certainly much more fair than hitting unsuspecting ones), but IMO a prominent Edit Comment Warning is likely still necessary on tangential articles like this one. For this case, in particular, Climate skepticism is only one facet of the many things that Steven Milloy objects to. So far, it seems the only true criteria for whether some future un-templated article falls into sanctions is whether it is prone to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the editors whose names I see in the various sanction requests on this page, and without some warning on the article, it this type of criteria seems subjective enough to snare quite a few people. BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should have been warned by MN (and the warning logged) about this after the first revert so you were aware. That apparently was not done. This whole thing needs to be closed no action but with some lessons learned. ++Lar: t/c16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It actually goes on the talk, which, if you are reverting, even once, you should be adjourning to immediately to explain why and justify. That's common practice everywhere on wiki, not just in this area. ++Lar: t/c16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by someone else though, it also may be common practice to skip the menagerie of boxes at the top of every talk page. Some sort of warning near the edit window itself is probably more foolproof, though talk page templates would minimally cover the bases (officially, anyways). BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The correct approach when one believes that an edit has been made contrary to WP policy is to notify that editor of the relevant policy and pursue the matter through the RSN, BLP, NPOV or 3RR noticeboards. For special cases like article probation and 1RR, the editor should be notified of this. From mark nutley's statement, this was not done and therefore this discussion thread is premature and should be closed. TFD (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly acceptable to complain to another editor after he has repeatedly requested input for a change of name when there is no consensus for it and to repeatly make the same arguments to people when it is clear they are not convincing. I have made my views clear on the name change and my opinion will only change if new evidence and new arguments are provided. I do not appreciate that virtually the same discussion is raised by mark nutley over and over again, requiring me to restate the same objections I had before. TFD (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Mark opened an RfC, but the current round of article title discussions, I believe, was started by someone else[21]. In any case, article talk pages are not the proper venues to discuss editor conduct. If BigK HeX has a problem with Mark, he should take it up at his talk page or file an RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning BigK HeX and Mark Nutley
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.
Suggest this be deleted for now, and restored by Mark when he has the details and diffs ready to share. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Has been filled in now, the above suggestion is no longer applicable. ++Lar: t/c22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message. Nevertheless I'm inclined to take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware and close this with an admonition that now he is aware and now he needs to be more careful and cognizant of the restrictions as next time ignorance will not be accepted, and no other action. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StS points out the above is a bit misleading; and he's right. The article talk wasn't tagged and apparently still is not. Here's my actual proposed close: (Arkon's endorsement should be disregarded as it is prior to this wording):
Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carries the appropriate warning message. In this case the article did not, and as of this writing still does not. That should be rectified by any concerned editor. We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party. BigK HeX is cautioned that such ignorance only works one time.
I agree with the gist of this but I am concerned that it reads as "You didn't know about the climate change probation, so you will not be sanctioned." To my mind this is insufficient; if I had come across this as a current edit-war in an AN3 report, I would likely have blocked BigK HeX for edit-warring regardless of the existence of the probation. I think any close needs to make clear that this pattern of editing is unacceptable in any Wikipedia article; that BigK HeX has not been blocked is due both to his ignorance of the probation and to the fact the edit-war was stale by the time of this report. CIreland (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a close, no action, as stale. At this point is there anything else we could do? I doubt it. I will do so barring any objection in the next 24 hours. ++Lar: t/c18:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 week (7 day) block, since the last three blocks (3 hours, 15 minutes, and 1 hour) did not seem to have any real effect. Extension of refactoring probation for six months, to end January 27, 2011.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
WMC was on conduct probation for refactoring/editing other editors comments until July 27, 2010. Less than a week after completing the probation, he has done it again. This shows that he has no apparent regard for the rules of Wikipedia or an understanding of why he was on probation in the first place.
@Hipocrite: I had no idea that you are dyslexic, and had I known, I would not have posted the comment. Having said that, there is absolutely no call for the vulgarity, if you had let me know that I had inadvertently insulted you, I would have apologized and retracted. That in no ways excuses WMC's edit - he could have done the same thing by letting me know. GregJackPBoomer!21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@AQFK & ATren: It was not a swipe at Hipocrite. I an concerned that ChrisO has taken and continues to take cheap shots at other editors, particularly MN and had previously brought it to the attention of various admins (but without asking for sanctions). GregJackPBoomer!21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@LHVU: I understand your point, but WMC is well aware of the issue but chooses to ignore it. GregJackPBoomer!21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave: You're kidding, right? Does this [24] mean that you're more interested in comments such as the one ChrisO made now? In any event, the issue is WMC editing another persons comment without any grounds to do so. GregJackPBoomer!23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave again: Chris stated that MN was someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level. How is that appropriate in any manner? That does not in any way indicate that Chris felt that MN had "high intelligence" as you put it. Please, if you are going to be an apologist, do so, but don't then lecture us on civility. GregJackPBoomer!00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@KDP: He also removed the Chronicle ref. Surely you are not saying that the Chronicle is not a RS? It is read internationally in academia. WMC had no grounds to remove that reference, and it ties into the case here - he removes things that he does not agree with, regardless of the rules. It has to stop. GregJackPBoomer!12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris: Does that include your cheap shots and "gratuitous digs" at Mark and others? GregJackPBoomer!22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another diff to the prior warning section. BozMo brought this up on WMC's talkpage, where it was explicitly covered that WMC should advised the original editor, allow an opportunity to that editor to remove or redact, and only if no such redaction occurred should the comment then be removed by WMC. Clearly he is aware that this conduct is not acceptable. GregJackPBoomer!13:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me exactly what "sanction or remedy" has been violated here. I notice that you haven't specified; and the boilerplate says it can be declined without. Do please be clearer William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one else has mentioned it, I need to point out that 1 week (7 day) block, since the last three blocks (3 hours, 15 minutes, and 1 hour) did not seem to have any real effect is wrong. Lar's 1-hour block was overturned as invalid. BozMo removed his own 3h block as invalid and effectively admitted that the 15 min one was also invalid William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley
Tangentially related issue involving upset people and unrelated sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People might think it's ok to insult people for regarding their diagnosed medical disabilities - it's well known I'm dyslexic. Perhaps it seems that I've got this super tough exterior, and it's ok to poke fun about me mixing up words, or reversing letters. Oh, hahaha, let's laugh at the cripple. Let me put this not lightly - GregJackP can go fuck himself - forever. I walked away from the keyboard for hours after reading his outrageous shot at my disability, and Lar's disgusting, disreputable defense of it, but I didn't calm down - I'm just as furious as I was hours ago - so, in summary, Lar and GregJackP can go fuck themselves, and thank you for standing up for me, WMC. With that, I'm out for quite a while. Go fuck yourselves! Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, are you sure GJP knew you are dyslexic? I agree it would put the thing into a different light if he did, but without that it comes across as rather a lot more harmless. Fut.Perf.☼21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what's going on here or what sort of history there is between these two editors, but I interpretted GregJackP's comment to be a veiled swipe at ChrisO, not Hipocrite. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it started out from Greg picking up a typo Hipocrite had made in spelling a Latin word, with an ironic remark how one could interpret that as a sign of poor education, so yes, it was directed both at Hipocrite and at Chris in some way. Fut.Perf.☼21:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting completely out of hand. I suggest that an admin with no previous participation in this area indiscriminately block everyone who has participated in the case (yes, including me) until the committee announces its proposed decision. The fact that the blocking is indiscriminate means that there is not necessarily any imputation of misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like we're really going to find an uninvolved admin willing to block a couple dozen (or more) editors. We can't even find uninvolved admins to enforce these requests. As ChrisO has correctly pointed out, this page has completely broken down. Unless I've missed something, there has not been a single request that has been enforced since May, and already LessHeard vanU is proposing to do nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to everyone? Sit tight, shut up and wait for the ArbCom. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to come of posting requests on this page any more. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three points:
I've interacted with Hipocrite for many months, maybe years, and I had no idea he was dyslexic.
Even if he knew, the issue was a misspelling, not a transposition of letters, so what does that have to do with dyslexia?
Why is nobody outraged at what GJP linked to: ChrisO mocking someone's intelligence and education? Of course, ChrisO must know that Mark himself has a disability which might cause him to type carelessly sometimes, right? That attack by ChrisO was much more personal and vicious than GJP's comment. Does that mean MN can now raise hell and tell everyone to fuck off, like Hipocrite did?
This is yet more evidence that a few problematic long-term editors have turned this entire topic area into a mockery. If the committee doesn't deal with ChrisO, Hipocrite and WMC at a minimum, nothing will be solved. But of course, they probably won't deal with them, they'll probably sanction people like MN, Lar, Cla and me -- the ones who are trying to fix this mess -- and give the troublemakers yet another pass. ATren (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent my comments about Marknutley's edits to List of wars between democracies (an article far outside this topic area). There is no disability I can think of - unless you count ignorance as a disability - that would cause an editor to claim here that the Greek city-states weren't democracies (where does he think the concept came from?), that 18th century Britain and America weren't democracies and that the Confederacy wasn't a democracy. You would think that someone wishing to write about a topic would make the effort to learn something about it first. It doesn't indicate anything about Marknutley's intelligence, nor about any disability he might have, but it does show that at least in this regard there's a serious gap in his knowledge and his willingness to research an issue beforehand, which is reducing his effectiveness as an editor. In the context of an RfC about an editor who's plainly been driven to exasperation by Marknutley's edits, that's a perfectly valid observation to make. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you are treating that topic and your disagreement with mark as a personal battleground. Commenting on the editor's supposed level of intelligence or knowledge is unacceptable and you should know that. Cla68 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Cla68, why are you jumping to this battleground assertion? It's assuming good faith to take it that Mark lacked knowledge of Greek history when he made that incorrect assertion, are you suggesting that Mark was fully aware that he was asserting nonsense? Mark's been given a lot of leeway on the assumption that he's getting things wrong by accident, which is as required by AGF. Please also assume good faith in ChrisO's attempt to communicate the problems in a discussion where Mark's interaction with another editor was at issue. . . dave souza, talk22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've heard it all -- ChrisO insulting Mark's intelligence and education was nothing more than Chris' assumption of Mark's good faith. Are you serious? Is this really what this has come to -- because that is a remarkably twisted, distorted bit of reasoning there and is unhinged from reality IMO. Did I misinterpret something in that post? Please correct me and accept my apologies if I have. Minor4th23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read comments more carefully, Cla68 and Minor4th, that says nothing about Mark's intelligence. As ChrisO also said, Mark's edits show "an absolutely abysmal knowledge of history", but many people of high intelligence know nothing of history. In my recollection, what makes dealing with Mark so frustrating is his confident and persistent assertion that his misconceptions are correct. So, please take more care to avoid making unwarranted accusations. . dave souza, talk00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And looky here, Dave criticizing GJP for correcting a misspelling at the same time he thinks nothing is wrong with making insinuations about another editor's intelligence! Yes, they are that blatantly hypocritical here in Bizarro World. ATren (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- I'm sorry for Hipocrite that he was hurt by GregJackP's commentary that was actually directed at ChrisO, but there is no way Greg would have ridiculed a disability if he had known. I think the assumption of bad faith on H's part is over the top, but I understand being upset even though it was an innocent edit on Greg's part. Greg's comment actually was more of a statement about how trivial and unimportant spelling errors are and not the sort of thing that an editor should be chastised about.
William M.Connolley should not be deleting other editor comments, and a week after coming off probation for exactly that behavior -- you really have to wonder what he's thinking. A warning is appropriate if he does not agree to an extended self imposed restriction, and if it happens again, I think Greg's recommended sanctions are appropriate.
I'm concerned about Chris' comments to MN, as ATren says that MN is also affected by a disability that might influence his edits. Either way an apology is in order for that from Chris. I think it's improper and mean -- sorry Chris, I assured you I would work hard to assume good faith on your part, and in that spirit, I am assuming you did not realize how your words came across or how mean that kind of comment can be and ask that you think about that if you're inclined to say something about someone's intelligence or education in the future. Minor4th01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above hatted discussion includes responses to offtopic assertions made by GregJackP in the request section above. Other than reminding GregJackP to read carefully, I see no need to repeat these responses. . . dave souza, talk09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a comment about WMC. He just reverted text that I had added shortly before in which I had replaced uncited text with sourced text. In his talk page comment, WMC states that he removed it and returned the uncited text because The Hockey Stick Illusion is, in his opinion, not a reliable source. There are two problems with WMC's statement, first HSI is a reliable source and to replace it with uncited text is against our guidelines. Second, and more importantly, WMC appears to have overlooked that there were two sources in that citation, the second one being to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Apparently, WMC simply reverted on sight without trying to discuss it first or even giving it a measured glance. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you do not consider it tendentious editing to keep inserting a particular reference that A) is redundant B) you know is more than controversial? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am i? Really? Thats strange... I though i was referring to the Hockey stick illusion, the book that you've been continuously pushing on various articles, and which has been removed with most of the same arguments again and again .... One of those arguments is that you are using it to reference things that aren't supported by the book - and as far as i can tell, this again, isn't supported by the reference - since the book only states that vS was one of the editors to resign and nothing about his role as a "newly appointed editor-in-chief" (one of the description of vS in the book is "Von Storch is a colorful character who once founded a club to defend Donald Duck against accusations of indecent behavious, and for some years was the editor of a Donald Duck magazine, Der Hamburger Donaldist.") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - William M.Connolley should not be deleting other editor comments, and a week after coming off probation for exactly that behavior --you really have to wonder what he's thinking. A warning is appropriate if he does not agree to an extended self imposed restriction, and if it happens again, I think Greg's recommended sanctions are appropriate. Minor4th13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FutPer -- would you please stop hatting off my comments and partial comments. I note various irrelevant comments above that you did not hat. Mine were not tangential -- they relate to they comment that WMC deleted and his stated reason for deleting it. Please restore my comment in full. Minor4th15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not GregJackP knew of Hipocrite's disability, WMC was probably aware of it. (See the hatted section for what that is.) Thus WMC's redaction of GregJackP's dig falls under, or close to, the "removing harmful posts" situation in which wp:TPOC says it is sometimes okay to remove a posting. Cardamon (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's little doubt that this is a knock at ChrisO (apparently in retaliation for ChrisO's knock at Marknutley), but is extremely mild compared to the stuff that typically goes on around here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely mild compared to the stuff that typically goes on around here"? That reminds me of the arguments we had about whether to mention the death threats against scientists reported following the CRU e-mail hack. People argued that they were not notable as, where they live, it's so violent that all kinds of people get death threats all the time. I don't think standards of unpleasantness should be continuously lowered always to make more room for the most unpleasant we can find. --Nigelj (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall anyone making that argument at the Climategate article, but that's way off topic. My point, if I wasn't clear, was that if we went around and removed every uncivil comment, lots of comments would have to be removed. BTW, I also point out that WMC's redaction itself contained a mild knock at GJP. Going in circles isn't helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think editors should be making gratuitous digs at other editors anyway. There was no need for GregJackP's comments and much trouble could have been avoided if he hadn't made them in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ref "Since no-one else has mentioned it, I need to point out that.." cmt above by WMC. I think everyone here, in ignoring the proposed remedy, has twigged that these blocks were (a) not for a remotely related offence (here was redacting talk page comments) (b) not therefore relevant in any particular way. Also, as he said, two were overturned and the third (being my first block) was procedurally dubious. --BozMotalk20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks don't need to be for the same reason. They are all related in that they are indicative of an editor who consistently has issues with following the rules. As I noted above, just about 12 hours ago, WMC removed sourced content and restored uncited content, apparently simply because he didn't like it, since I otherwise don't see any reason for the revert. Three other editors, besides me, have since upheld the inclusion of the sourced material, although they disagreed over one of the sources used [25][26][27][28]. So, obviously, WMC's blanket revert of what I had originally added was disruptive and unhelpful. In the context of previous corrective action taken with this editor, it shows that corrective action has not been effective and is still necessary. So, I would say that some type of more severe sanction is necessary here. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say that your attempt to smuggle in a source that are neither reliable nor supports the text is disruptive. And if you claim support from socks, it shows a complete lack of understanding of why we do not allow socking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Stephan Schulz says "if you claim support from socks", apparently in reference to the diffs Cla cited showing support for the inclusion (repeated: [29][30][31][32] )... which of those editors are socks? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 no point in placing finite periods upon restrictions if they are to be disregarded; it does not matter if a previously restricted action is made 1 second or 1 year after the period ends, there cannot be a sanction under the expired restriction. That said, I suggest that WMC be warned that a further violation of WP:TPOC, which this appears to be, will result in a sanction and the reinstatement of a restriction of any removal of any other editors comments from a talkpage (without their approval) for a further period of 6 months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I would point out that I first looked at WMC's talkpage, noted the way the discussion was progressing, and then put forward my proposal here. I am content to let it stand here until debate there concludes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC has shown basically zero indication of any intention to abide, he's wikilawyering. I think another 24 hours for WMC's talk page discussion to result in an acceptable outcome (an undertaking by WMC not to mess with comments of others from WMC, subject to whatever clarification and codicils necessary, taking into account, for example, SPhilbrick's astute observations about the tension between PA policy and this specific issue is the only acceptable outcome I can envision at this time) or else we need to reimpose the original sanction, this time either indefinitely or for a considerably longer period. Even BozMo seems to be having little effect on WMC. ++Lar: t/c15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On inspection, I see no direct information from WMC to the editor whose property was changed, with attendant advice on what exactly was wrong with the post. I understand why the post could be problematic, but no-one has a right to arbitrarily remove talk page content because it's "pointless" sans a personal explanation of why it is so. (FD: I also use other editor's spelling and grammar, among many other factors, to assess their level of skill) (FFD: I have no clue where apostrophes go) I would propose that WMC be enjoined from any changes to other editor talk page comments in the CC area, up to but excluding ArbCom pages. If WMC finds talk comment objectionable, they can find someone else to fix it. The injunction to run at least until closing of the current ArbCase. There's been enough dancing in front of the jurists. Franamax (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two quibbles, 1) Maybe WMC will come around, as I said before... it could happen! 2) This is shorter than the 6 months I think LHvU has in mind (and which I was going to support as well) ... unless we posit that the case is going to take more than 6 months to close. Hmmm... No, please no. So I think fixed term of 6 months is better. Otherwise, since it's what I proposed, I'm fine with it. ++Lar: t/c18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To yours: 1) that boat sailed already; 2) when the AC descend from the hill, all will be re-evaluated. This is a community-enforced board and will surmount AC findings, but it must work in step. Anything more than "next few days" needs to have the exceptions laid out clearly, such as obvious or covert vandalism, BLP &c. I may act unilaterally after some reflection, but I'll accept two months of no changes at all to other editor comments, regardless of AC remedies or edit content. I find the lack of discussion with the original editor to be egregious. Franamax (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes probably, but call me an optimist. 2) The last one was 3 months, I prefer to lengthen rather than shorten but accept 2 months to get us to a close expeditiously. ++Lar: t/c20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I would support some sort of ban on WMC redacting talk page comments without first having notified the author and given a reasonable time to react to warning. --BozMotalk20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed WMC has chosen to remove the thread from his talk page [33] without acknowledging any issue, so I'll support a measure prohibiting his redacting of other editors' comments. The way he did it in this case was unproductive (as was the stink that was raised about it by others subsequently), it was not covered by normal talkpage etiquette and apparently also against special rules that had been agreed here, and if it bears the danger of raising such a stink, it's a matter of common sense he just shouldn't do it and leave it to others. Fut.Perf.☼08:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call consensus. There are no dissenting uninvolved admins, all agree that some sort of measure prohibiting redaction is needed. Some feel notice first would suffice. Most agree that it needs to be a complete prohibition on all manipulation of other editor's comments. There is disagreement about the exact time but I sense that 2 months is a figure that all would agree to. Can someone draft their view of consensus and implement? ++Lar: t/c13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC is restricted from all CC pages (except arbitration pages) until ArbCom renders a decision. Enough is enough. This melee has to end. I will hand out similar restrictions to any other editor who needs to disengage, for the good of the encyclopedia. This restriction does not imply fault or blame. It is done to help restore order. JehochmanTalk22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse from further input on this particular request, (without prejudice to recusal or participation in others) except that I applaud JEH saying he will abide by consensus. ++Lar: t/c22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will abide consensus. I think it will be better at this point to continue the discussion, and restore the status quo ante, meaning that I will remove the restriction. Any administrator is free to reimpose it or another restriction. WMC is free to volunteer on the attached talk page. It would be my preference that he do so, but to be clear, there has been no "deal" offered nor accepted. JehochmanTalk23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure retaliation. No warnings and a snarky comment to do something useful (as if the article that got to GA status, the one in PR, and the new one going through GAR isn't enough). He is attempting to divert attention off of his inappropriate actions, and should be sanctioned for misuse of this board. GregJackPBoomer!19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning GregJackP
Retaliation, pure and simple. WMC has done it before; when I filed a request against him a while back, he turned around and filed one against me. Of course, nobody will do anything to an untouchable, so I suggest this be closed as spurious. ATren (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning GregJackP
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.
As requested, GregJackP is kindly asked to go do something useful and refrain from gratuitous snarking. WMC is kindly asked to avoid escalating stuff unnecessary through AE requests. Fut.Perf.☼20:40, 3 August 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.
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive10
