Wikipedia

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2

< Wikipedia:General sanctions | Climate change probation | Requests for enforcement

William M. Connolley

edit

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #5 by Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs)

Recent Locking of articles for edit warring

edit

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Lawrence Solomon

Recently two climate change probation articles have been locked with the reason cited as edit warring, I spoke to the two administrators involved and noted to them that the articles were under probation and that I thought that considering the probation on the articles that if they were in need of locking, full protection for edit warring then they a report should be made as regards the editors involved as edit warring and article protection are two of the main issues that the probation was created to stop. Here on the 24th the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was locked for edit warring by admin User_talk:JForget . The admin User_talk:2over0 also locked Lawrence Solomon another climate change article on th 22nd January for edit warring here . I have asked both admins about the fact that locking articles under probation is worthy of a report here and I have requested this of both administrators here . Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles are now protected and editing differences are presumably being discussed on the talk pages (which is the purpose of protection), is there any remaining issue? --TS 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are clear and well-documented - one side wants to go with original research and ignoring core-wikipedia policy and my side disagrees with that way of doing things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you or Off2riorob or somebody else proposing the notification of protections please answer the question? I'd really like to avoid this section being turned into another bickerfest. --TS 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, imo the edit warring by editors that created these articles to be locked and protected for edit warring is exactly the reason that this probation page was created to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any Administrator that fully protects a climate probation article due to edit warring or such like should be required in future to make a report here as to what occurred to cause it and as to which editors were involved. This type of edit warring and article protection was what this probation page and conditions associated was created to deal with and such Administrator actions and the editors responsible for such actions should be reported here. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Requests for enforcement page - clear problems should be dealt with at the time of protection, especially if warning or removing a small number of editors could let the protection be lifted. I would think that there would be no problem with an admin seeking additional input and advice here (certainly I have considered filing, at least). If the same editors are engaged in problematic behaviours at several articles (hint: they are), that should be dealt with using individual reports; any such report would need to investigate thoroughly an editor's recent actions, so I am not sure what purpose would be served by adding to an already somewhat onerous enforcement burden. Did I miss the point? - 2/0 (cont.) 06:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if Administrators lock articles for edit warring then clearly if they do that this probation has been violated and a report should be made here, not considered but should be required to be reported here. This is my simple point. If you, as you did, fully protect an article with the reason as edit warring, then a report needs to be made, who has been edit warring? The editors involved could at least be recorded here and if another article is needed to be fully protected and the same editor is involved in that then a sanction could be applied. Anyway, I have brought my point here and that is enough for me, the next time it happens I will immediately go to the admin concerned and request him to make a report here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not - the last thing this topic area needs is to scare people off with intricate, idiosyncratic, and arcane requests. You remain free (encouraged, even) to establish the patterns you describe using your own resources. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tol

edit

Rto (talk · contribs) by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Edit war at Talk:Global warming

edit

I am at this point an uninvolved editor on the subject, but at Talk:Global warming there is a massive edit war brewing with several editors removing comments by others, simply because they do not agree with them. User:McSly and User:Kenosis have removed several comments several times. I did reaad the comments, but they have been deleted again. Several comments on differant threads have been hacked using WP:Talk and WP:Forum as their justification. I must point out that the users who are removing the comments seem, to me, to not agree with the other editors' viewpoints anyway. Several other editors are involved in this case and I did warn that I would report the problem here if the deletions did not stop. So here we are.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for every removal, but talk:global warming has a chronic history of inappropriate content. As the article is under probation perhaps this issue, if it is an issue, should be discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. --TS 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but since we seem to be hitting several 3RR problems, it may be more sticky than all that.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here is the comment I removed . It seemed to me to be pretty obviously against the talk pages discussion policies and that's why I removed it. Was I wrong ?--McSly (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is, as TS says, a long history of people using the GW talk page as a venue for discussing GW itself, not for discussing improving the article. And of old arguements being constantly repeated. There is a fun wrinkle in all this: most (though not all) of the ill-disciplined chatter is from skeptics, who would like to butcher the page in various ways (yes, I know, you don't agree, you don't have to, I'm just giving my opinion of course). But they can't, because none of the talk page discussions ever come to any conclusion, becasue they always wander off into the weeds. I even wrote a teensy essay about it: User:William M. Connolley/For me/Musing on the state of wiki.
Meanwhile, how about someone semi's the article talk page? That would help a bit.
@JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unwatched that page, due to the tone and tenor of some of the users that regularly edit there. I have noticed frequently that talkpage comments are removed, often -- at least seemingly -- as much because the remover doesn't agree with them as much as anything else. This needs a stop put to it. There's no need to squelch dissent. UnitAnode 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. No-one is squelching dissent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're one of the reasons I quit trying to improve GW articles. And I distinctly remember you and either Kim or Boris removing talkpage comments several times after I'd asked you not to do so. That's the kind of behavior that chases editors away from the articles. It's a problem, and it needs dealt with. UnitAnode 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dissent is being squelched as it has been for years. Either way, talk page comments are indeed being removed by editors who don't agree with them, outside of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is akin to a little kid putting their fingers in their ears and going "La La La La" really loud so they don't have to listen to what is being said.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these removals are reckless. At one point I was informed that there'd been a local agreement that newspapers would no longer be considered RS. I didn't protest this over-turning of policy but I did request to see the special procedures that were in place, My request was deleted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What for? There's no question it's going on. I've even done it myself, though that was an IP and I moved it to their TalkPage to continue the discussion if they had a point to make and it seems they didn't. There is a slight drizzle of trolling and spam, but that's very easy to deal with.
I recently asked what was the point of the article and whether it was meant to be informative, it sure doesn't look as if it answers anyone's questions (I described the tests I've applied, the article failed them all). The section was archived 8 minutes after the last contribution. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, remember the WP:TRUTH needs no diffs because it is obviously true; actual evidence would be redundant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is degenerating already. In a last (and, I know, doomed) attempt to drag us back to reality: people seem too have the idea that any removal of talk page comments is outside of policy. This is wrong. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Comments that do not do this may be legitimately removed. "Dissent is being squelched" type comments seem to confuse free-speech in the sense of newspapers with comments on wiki, which is unhelpful. My prediction: this discussion, like so many at the GW talk page, will wander off into the weeds uselessly. Hopefully I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This discussion is degenerating already" and "drag us back to reality" could be taken as personal attacks towards good faith editors. The dissent is being squelched comments are also in good faith following WP:NPOV and have nothing to do with notions of "free speech" as they relate to governments. Your take on talk page comments seems to me, to mean that anything not agreeing with your own PoV on the topic is not an improvement to the article and thus can be removed at the slightest hint of clumsiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try collapsing nonsense comments instead of removing them. And people better be informing the editors on their talk page instead of WP:BITEing them and moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't nonsense. It was only clumsy and overlong. Ok to hat it, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant nonsense on the talk page. I collapsed in part for the personal attacks and informed the editor that they need to be discuss things calmly instead of just ranting and raving. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was unencyclopedic and clumsy (likely unknowing) with the PAs but straightforwardly in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was nonsense either. This was a reader much like any other, someone who would not be protesting a sensible and worthy article even if they didn't agree with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in and say I have noticed in the past, not recently, but I haven't looked at the article in question in a while, that the pro-AGW crowd has a tendency to delete others edits, prematurely collapse or archive them, or even edit other people's comments. In fact, one of that group was recently warned by an admin for that sort of behavior (on AN, not GW articles). I suspect that this tactic is usually done against newer editors who are less likely to complain and more likely to get themselves 3rr banned by restoring their own edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said many times, that's how it's done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still chuckling over the irritation and consternation expressed by the regulars at the Reliable Sources noticeboard after some of the GW regulars insisted that newspapers can't be used for GW articles. Actually, I'm glad that that happened, because it can be used forever as an example illustrating some of the kinds of behaviors that occur in Wikipedia.
Anyway, back to this edit war. I believe that in the past Scibaby socks were prone to leaving trolling and unhelpful messages on the GW talk page and I can understand their removal. The problem is that sometimes the removals get too aggressive and end up being bitey to newbies who may not understand what is going on. If it isn't happening already, I suggest that everytime someone removes a comment, that they also politely explain why on the editor's talk page, even it appears to be a Scibaby sock. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla, I can't find the RSN discussion which you find so amusing. Could it be the brief comment at WP:RSN#Proposed rule, which seems to propose giving advocacy groups and newspaper op-eds priority over peer reviewed journals? Seems odd, I'd be grateful for a diff of the comments of which you speak. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those socks are socks, but aren't always what they seem to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If comment removal is turning out to be too controversial, then, it might be better not to do it anymore. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a particularly sharp elbowed tactic when used by long term editors who ought to know better. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reviewed the complained of actions, and find that they do not comply with WP:TALK and indeed violate WP:TPOC; you do not remove other peoples comments unless they violate policies such as NPA, BLP and the like. I also find that arguing a mechanism by which good faith content related comment may not be removed for a certain time period is also a good faith attempt at improving the article - even if it has or is rejected by the community, that fact should be noted and the comment allowed to stand. Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I shall be blocking McSly (talk · contribs), Kenosis (talk · contribs) and 83.203.210.23 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) for 12 hours per the CCP. I would suggest that had comment not been removed under inappropriate reasoning (and WP:TALK is a guideline it should be noted) and simply responded to - or not - then these actions need not have been considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism - hold on. Which 1RR restriction would that be? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As far as I can tell, neither global warming not talk: global warming is under a 1RR restriction. The phrase is certainly not mentioned on the talk page, and there is no appropriate entry over at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... that would be the one only I was apparently aware of; my mistake regarding my skimming of the probation page. I acknowledge I am wrong about the specifics, but generally the warning about edit warring - and how 3RR is not an allowance per WP:3RR - indicates that the tolerance for revert wars is lower than most places, and I think my sanctions are in keeping with the purpose of the sanctions. I will correct my rationales at the various editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I shall not get involved in a discussion over adopting 1RR on GWP pages, since I hope to remain uninvolved for a little while longer.[reply]
Also, according to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications, neither Kenosis nor McSly were notified of the probation, let alone warned. Given that strict interpretation of WP:TPG has been the norm for a while (and overall quite helpful) on talk:global warming, I don't think these blocks are appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread/section has a strange lack of specifics, and a lot of claims about generalities. How about focusing on one archiving/removal at a time, and then discuss whether or not (in the context of what has been on t:GW) it was archived/removed correctly. That way it would actually be a learning experience instead of mudslinging, which is getting us nowhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's helpful to call any of these comments, of whatever stripe, mudslinging. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is what the above comments best can be described with. Notice that mudslinging here isn't a perjorative, it describes a situation where people aren't listening to each other, and instead throw bald assertions at each other. The assertions may be correct, and one side or the other may be in the right, but it isn't moving forward in any way or form. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call good faith comments on a talk page mudslinging. This is spot on the fuzzy, overbroad kind of thing that has brought forth these worries to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a lot of mudslinging on that talk page. Personal attacks are often intended quite sincerely and in the deepest of good faith. This doesn't make personal attacks acceptable. --TS 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring on the above comments. Stating for instance that "dissent is squelched" but not providing any diff's is a bald assertion that cannot be answered by much other than equal assertions. Talking about archiving/removals without any context of a specific thread/case is equally unproductive. We aren't getting anywhere. I would again try to ask for targetted discussions and specific examples, instead of this (yes i'm going to say it again) mudslinging at each other (and there is no specific target applied here, it is quite generic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's helpful to call good faith comments mudslinging either. What I'm seeing is a pattern of when someone makes a general observation, of asking for specifics, and when specifics are brought, each is dismissed as a special case, exception, or the work of an editor in disrepute. The issue here is that there's a general perception of one side trying to control the discussions (which in turn controls the content of the articles). Work on the perception if you want people not to allege grand cabals. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me. An anon ip just deleted another editors comments a few minutes ago. Another block please?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. It's just one of our resident trolls being a silly sausage. If you block the IP he'll just use another open proxy. --TS 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So semi t:GW. It has been often enough in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd it to stop anon antics. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how there is such great concerns about bitting newcomers / driving them away but none about biting regular contributors / driving them away. Looking at this case it appears that Kenosis a long time editor of this project was banned without warning. If this is the case these actions are inappropriate. Blocks are not to be used for punishment but to prevent damage to the project. Per WP:TALK Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Following this it seems reasonable to remove comments that are used for this purpose.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's protocol

edit

As a result of this discussion with LessHeard vanU I suggest we develop a protocol for editors to follow when they encounter off-topic clutter on talk pages covered by the probation. The idea is that we'd make sure that newcomers who just happen to come to, say, talk:global warming and then post a thread about something they read on a blog would not be bitten, but would be politely informed of the reason why their discussion is inappropriate. People (including regulars) who persisted after warnings would be sanctionable here.

Traditionally such off-topic discussions have been archived in situ, but often they are unarchived for various reasons. Perhaps really egregious unarchiving might be seen as sanctionable. I suppose that could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

As LessHeard vanU says, the important thing is to get people behaving themselves because they want to continue contributing.

In any case, I think everybody should read the thread and then come back here and comment on his proposal. --TS 01:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful idea! As a technical aid, maybe something even simple as a "tag" around the off topic comment and when there are abundant tags among a few eds, then consider the collapse, remove option with consensus. The idea is the tag serves as a simple clean clear warning right in place. It could even link to a more elaborate guideline or policy reminder. (Yes, tag wars would be eminent, but then maybe even that discussion could be put to another place.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it ... a variation on these Template:Off-topic-inline, Template:Off-topic? for talk pages that would point to WP:TPG. The existing article tags maybe ok to start. Comments? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I took this proposal for additional comment here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag is better than removal. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template's done. I called it "Template:Inappropriate under talk page guideline", little long, but it's self-explanatory in the wikicode. If you want to adjust the message or update the documentation, feel free, if you don't know how, just post it here and I'll add it in. There are five actions:
  1. "remove", comment won't display, but still will be searchable.
  2. "collapse" collapsed, floated right, header is grayed out so it would be less intrusive.
  3. "tag over", prints "Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines." followed by an optional reason on top of the comment. Background is 10% transparent so you can still see what's under it.
  4. "tag", prints "[Inappropriate WP:TPG]" followed by an optional reason.
  5. "no action", doesn't do anything, except in the wikicode.
Error messages will print if you forget "action" or "comment". "reason" is optional. Examples are in the documentation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Seems really powerful, I pray for it's appropriate wp:civil purpose and application. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, do as you like, but I will most certainly ignore any such warnings when and where I feel it is warranted. Most of the time I see arguments archived in this way (and when I archive them myself, which I have done) it's a way to end a conversation which is spiraling down the hole; this is a good thing. but too often I see conversations archived as a tendentious way of shutting up editors (I assume as a means of enforcing page ownership) and I never put up with that. just an FYI, because I'm suspicious of this move on this page; I'll be keeping my eye on the applications of this template to make sure that it isn't abused. --Ludwigs2 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful though we all must be for making new tags available, I must question why this discussion is going on at "Requests for enforcement".
It is off-topic and should be removed forthwith. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What LessHeard VanU suggested--and it is well within the WP:TALK guideline too--is that off-topic material should be promptly moved to an archive page and the originator notified that this is not the purpose for which the talk page exists. Accordingly I have removed an off-topic item from talk:global warming , archived it , and notified the originator. I hope we can move towards more orderly use of the talk space. Needless to say, any edit warring over such archiving will probably end badly for all participants. Please raise issues arising from inappropriate archiving or unarchiving on this page. --TS 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with the idea that off-topic material should be removed (archive if you must, who cares, it is all in the history and no-one bothers with the archives). But you should note that this is directly contradicted by LHVU's second rationale for his block of K, which was that *any* removal (other than, one presumes, orderly archiving) of not-clearly-vandalism was blockable. So since people are being randomly blocked for failing to follow non-disclosed rules, I think you need to make the rules very clear. If the rules are "only material deemed archivable by TS or LHVU maybe archived early", then clearly state that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor sanity

edit

It is good to see that off-topic cruft is finally being removed . This is exactly what we've been asking for for ages, over the screams of "censorship" and "suppression of dissent" from the ignorant. Its also what poor K has got blocked for doing; apparently what is "egregious edit warring" one day becomes highly laudable behaviour the next William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, TS had better watch out. According to LHVU's personal rules, which he doesn't seem to worry about enforcing willy-nilly, TS's edit was against policy and presumably a blockable offence William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in common with WP:TPOC, LessHeard VanU draws a distinction between archiving, hiding, collapsing, userfying, etc, and outright removal. See my full description of the archiving in the section immediately above. --TS 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be much more impressed when the removed/archived/compressed material does not always involve posts that are contrary to TS and Connelley's agenda-pushing, and I take exception to Connelley's claim that people who are willing to listen to evidence against AGW, rather than accept it as holy writ, are "ignorant." 69.165.159.245 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said at your talk page:
Your comment was archived because it wasn't about improving the article. The fact that most such disruptive material is added by people who imagine themselves to be climate sceptics does tend to make it look as if one view is being censored, but if you look at the page you will see that climate sceptics are vastly overrepresented in the comments there.
--TS 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC your comments are not helpful. Perhaps you're part of the problem rather than the solution? ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look in a mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your frustration, I really don't see the need for you to be so acerbic all the time. I very much sympathize with your general position within this topic, but Lar's point is quite legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think the block of K was good? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment was specifically addressing concerns I have about your recent civility, and was intended as a subtle warning from a sympathetic editor. I have not been involved in this discussion, or the events that preceded it; however, after a cursory review of what went on I would have to say that the block of Kenosis (if that is the one you are referring to) did not seem appropriate to me. I do not see any evidence of fair warning about the probation, although I suppose I could be mistaken (it was a very quick review, after all). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And how does my civility stack up in the great scales of justice against the person who blocked K, and the person who defended that block on the grounds that K had indulged in "egregious edit warring"? Why are you commenting on my tone, when you ignore these very real offences elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I noticed it, and I know that you are quite capable of rising above all that sort of thing. Two wrongs... -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you are right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The damage to Wikipedia:

I think people should look at this Google thread to see how many people believe Wikipedia has been hijacked by realclimate.org: http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACAWCENCA362&q=wikipedia+climate+change+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

Oh yes, we're really going to pay attention to the opinions of www.taxpayer.com, Frank Luntz, climategate.com, climatechangefraud.com and a whole pile of other fools William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the above are quoted in reliable, third party sources then "Yes". If not, "No". There is no suspension of proper Wikipedia practice regarding WP:RS, along with all the other relevant policies (including WP:NPA). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Our anon is not proposing any changes to any articles, so WP:RS is irrelevant. The anon is proposing that we modify our discussion based on what other people think of us. Since the sources that the anons link throws up are all obviously unusable, the anons point fails on its own terms, let alone any others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a wiki that caters to the likes of those people. Perhaps they should be directed towards Conservapedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(resp to WMC) If that is what the anon is going on about, then fine - we answered them; we stay with the consensus now existing. We can say that without evidencing our opinions upon the validity of the sources provided by the anon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChyranandChloe's protocol

edit
WP:TPG encourages "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Now, if WMC or MalcolmMcDonald posted a rant like this, we'd take him right up to ANI. Newcomers are naive. Tony said we should develop a protocol, a way of dealing with newcomers without biting them. I think this is just saving the remove until they're informed and warned. Because to remove a comment without, they're likely to conclude, however unjust, that this is censorship.

This is for individual comments:

  1. Ask. tag over their comment, and ask them on their user talk to be more constructive.
  2. Admonish. collapse their comment, warn them on their user talk.
  3. Abolish. If they duplicate a post, it's vandalism, repeating characters, revert. If it's something new, but still trolling or a PA, collapse and ignore. If edit war, block.
This is for threads:
  1. Ask. State that the thread is unconstructive and ask the proposer to discuss an edit to the article.
  2. Admonish. Tag the thread as unconstructive and warn the proposer on user talk to discuss an edit to the article.
  3. Abolish. Archive, collapse, or remove as we've done before. If it's disputed, take it to WP:AN or here, article talk is not for meta-discussion.

TPG encourages remove, but some of you guys don't like that, especially when we get a round in circles discussion. LessHeard said remove should only be used on "NPA, BLP, and the like." I think this can be agreed upon. Roung in circles? I think this is where the discussion would be. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, removing should be a later stage option (for disruption) and tagging an earlier one. We must consider this too Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages ... what is important for civility is maintaining good faith and remember some infractions can be easily corrected and the Template can be removed. (Like when PA can be redacted or when the offender self-removes the distraction by being made aware.) In addition, what I notice about the tool, is that it seems simple to extend the initial tag to a whole thread by moving the close code, when things get really out of control. Appreciate your work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'd prefer if there was some option to partially refactor and refocus. My concern here (well-justified by what I've seen) is that some thread will have a potentially useful core idea that gets hijacked by a lot of cross-talk, and then the entire thread gets archived, leaving the person who started the thread feeling abused. ham-handed removals like that do more to promote conspiratorial talk than just about anything I can think of. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zulupapa, you got to realize that most threads don't start with good faith, especially when it begins along the lines "IPCC fun and games" or a commentary about how the editors are jokes. Discussion is a covenant often broken before we begin, and there isn't much we can do. This is why the first step is ask, people don't like being told what to do, and it is inherently their decision. Ask them in order to remind good faith.

Ludwigs2, hijacked? Yes, I know what you mean. Too often. But refactoring isn't a silver bullet, use for "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" under WP:TPG. Round in circles I don't think will be solved by tag your it, or a collapse-a-ton. I often want to blame the person's bad writing, or some people for raising PoV (all the time) and filling our heads with straw on some Amazon, rain-forest, or flames. I told the person that he was siding, that it was unwise tie up his comments like that, and most importantly to restart the thread with a clearer proposal. I think the person blew me off. When a thread gets off-topic and I care about it, I being my comment "My central point is... address this point." And if they fail to do so, I keep my comment short and say "You are not addressing my central point." When the person can put your central argument in their own words, that's when you know they're listening, and you're in an actual discussion. I don't know if I've answered your question on this one Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, feel free to blow it off and ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Kenosis

edit

I'd like to request that this thread be kept open for a week. I've received several emails encouraging me to reconsider my response to the block by LHvU. LHvU's block might have been hasty--perhaps erroneous-- but so was my response to it. As it happens, I've gone four years and 20,000-plus edits--many in controversial topic areas--with a clean block log, something I happen to value a lot. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at present and will need to wait until I'm finished with the pile of RL work that's currently on my plate.
..... As soon as I have several hours to get back to this, I'd like an opportunity to present a perspective that might possibly be useful to the ongoing discussion about WP procedures for the more out-of-control pages including heavy-traffic talk pages on controversial topics such as GW. It would also be appreciated to allow me a brief opportunity to comment on my own actions prior to the "1RR" block, the speculative way they were characterized above (e.g. as having removed or userfied comments "simply because they do not agree with them"), and about a couple procedural issues relating to a block-without-prior-notice under terms that were not part of the terms of the climate-change article probation. I expect to have an opportunity to spend adequate time on this later this week... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear it. A goodly percentage of the disruption in this topic area stems from disputes on the talkpage, WP:NOTFORUM, and personalizing disagreements over content. We need some way to keep discussion focused on improving the articles without stifling legitimate debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- unindent> I apologize for the delay here-- time is hard for me to come by at present. Firstly I'd like to try to get at least one thing straightened out if I can. Joihutton says, in this section reqesting sanctions against users who reverted his/her edits, that comments at Talk:Global warming were removed "simply because they do not agree with them". This is attributing motive, without having presented any evidence in support of this conclusion. Yet, it would appear the block of me and McSly was based in part on this admittedly very effective introductory paragraph plainly designed to seek a sanction against two editors who disagreed about how to maintain the talk page. I see no diffs whatsoever presented thus far in this thread--yet there have been two blocks to date based on this one thread.-- purported "1RR" blocks of me and McSly, without any advance notice relating to CC probation or EW generally, blocks which were kept in place without apology or reversal, but for which instead the reasoning for the sanction was changed to a general "edit warring" block which would have required prior warning. Of course, JoiHutton is fully entitled to his/her opinion on such matters. But this particular minor "edit war" plainly had two sides, with JoiHutton the only user who opposed removal or userfying the irrelevant bloated--even hostile-- commentary by the anon IP. Ultimately other users came in and somewhat cleaned up the irrelevant bloat by a combination of removal of the most extreme bloat and collapsing the rest.
.....If one looks over the diffs at the GW talk page beginning late 22 January 2010 and through 23 January 2010, it becomes a bit more evident what kind of content was either removed or relocated and userfied by me and McSly. Here are some diffs of relevant edits at Talk:Global warming leading up to LessHeardvanU's block of me and McSly. I will try to stick to the most reasonably relevant diffs within the cacophony of stuff that the GW talk page had become as of 23 January 2010. If there are any I've missed or gotten out of chronological order, please feel free to call them to my attention.

Then:

See also: userfied to here. Shortly thereafter a discussion took place between Malcolm and Martin Hogbin about where the chart of objections to the GW article took place, from here through here to approximately here. The "chart of reasons to oppose the GW article" was removed from Martin Hogbin's page here, and reappeared on Malcolm's user page here. A review of the history of this conversation can be seen here. Note that the GW-article canvassing-for-reasons-for-opposition chart has now been removed and so has the bloat that I userfied to Malcolm's user talk page.

In short, a key 3RR by Joihutton was, at a minimum, missed right from the getgo:

  • here, *here, and *here. Yet, blocks were imposed upon two diligent users under a 1RR ruling, later changed to a general "edit warring" ruling with no notice-and-opportunity-to-be-heard whatsoever as is standard for all sanctions including blocks except within previously disclosed "discretionary sanctions" arising out of an arbitration. As a matter of fact, no rules whatsoever were followed here, and no move whatsoever has been made by any other admin except for 2/0 who requested to hear more about this situation, which unfortunately has required more of my time than I can presently afford to spend on this project.

Along the way, on this page, LessHeard vanU issues the following decree with the edit summary (violations of 1RR in all cases, and a major misunderstanding of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM by some) , proceeding to issue blocks to me and McSly only. Subsequently LessHeard vanU changes the reasoning for the block rather than rescinding it.

The problems I see with this action are, at minimum:

  • (1) 1RR was not part of the terms of the CC article probation. Even if it was, at least several more blocks of other users would properly have been issued.
  • (2) Changing the reasoning for the block retroactively is improper procedure, since the reasoning to which LHvU resorted would have required the block to be implemented according to established EW-block procedure.
  • (3) None of the block actions by LHvU fall within the proper range of "discretionary sanctions";
  • (4) According to the currently accepted rules for blocks, blocks for general "edit warring" are not proper without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, whether for 3RR or general "edit warring";
  • (5) None of the parties involved were given opportunity to present evidence to justify their actions--indeed the only "evidence" offered was the summary'statement by JoiHutton and some miscellaneous complaints and commentary about the situation at Talk:GW.

Before getting back to broader issues about maintaining out-of-control talk pages on controversial topics, I'd like to request that the WP administrative community consider the possibility of completely expunging the erroneous "1rr" blocks to me and McSly. Alternately, if this isn't feasible, I'd like to request that LessHeard vanU or another admin issue a one-second block with the edit summary to the effect that "Note:prior block was issued in error". I apologize for my hastily composed submission here. And thanks for considering my request. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the Probation

edit

by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

edit

by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Gavin.collins

edit

Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) by Dmcq (talk · contribs)

William M. Connolley

edit

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #6 by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs)

TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

edit

Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs), Marknutley (talk · contribs), William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #7 by BozMo (talk · contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2&oldid=1312969774"