Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley: try to clarify |
→Marknutley: various |
||
| Line 667: | Line 667: | ||
::::::::* Fortunately, I don't hold the view that "all viewpoints are equally valid". I've explained that repeatedly.++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::* Fortunately, I don't hold the view that "all viewpoints are equally valid". I've explained that repeatedly.++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::* I know you don't, Lar. Unfortunately, some less sophisticated editors do, and this rhetoric plays to their misconceptions. That was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::* I know you don't, Lar. Unfortunately, some less sophisticated editors do, and this rhetoric plays to their misconceptions. That was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::* Gotcha, it's easy to get confused here about who is talking to who and about who given that other participants are in fact referring to me. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*I would think that a preconceived notion that the field is not level and that there is an uphill side very much undercuts any claims to neutrality. Of course there is always the problem that reality has a strong bias for reality... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::*I would think that a preconceived notion that the field is not level and that there is an uphill side very much undercuts any claims to neutrality. Of course there is always the problem that reality has a strong bias for reality... --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::*Be sure to distinguish between preconceived notions and your own self delusion. I hold no preconceived notions. I merely have made observations of the behavior of certain editors that suggest they view themselves as superior to others, and that they hold the upper end of the playing field, viewing it as moral high ground rather than unfair advantage. I am ''uninvolved'', but I am not ''uninformed''. Rather than chafing at reality, you would do better to convince those editors to change their ways. Mirrors may be involved. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::*Be sure to distinguish between preconceived notions and your own self delusion. I hold no preconceived notions. I merely have made observations of the behavior of certain editors that suggest they view themselves as superior to others, and that they hold the upper end of the playing field, viewing it as moral high ground rather than unfair advantage. I am ''uninvolved'', but I am not ''uninformed''. Rather than chafing at reality, you would do better to convince those editors to change their ways. Mirrors may be involved. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::*Do you intend to run for political office? Or is there some semantics hidden in that syntax? What you seem to say is that you think there are some editors who think they hold the high ground, but don't. If that's the case, why should there be a need to level the playing field? It is, of course, an easily observable fact that some editors are more productive and more knowledgeable than others. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::*Do you intend to run for political office? Or is there some semantics hidden in that syntax? What you seem to say is that you think there are some editors who think they hold the high ground, but don't. If that's the case, why should there be a need to level the playing field? It is, of course, an easily observable fact that some editors are more productive and more knowledgeable than others. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::* I thought my meaning was plain enough. A certain group thinks they hold the moral high ground, but actually do not. At the same time, this same group ''claims'' not to hold the high end of the playing field (from a tactical perspective) when in fact they do. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
In my opinion if someone baits another editor, and that editor responds in a less-than-civil manner, then both editors should receive corrective action. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
In my opinion if someone baits another editor, and that editor responds in a less-than-civil manner, then both editors should receive corrective action. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I have tried to [[Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 2#Fifty-fifty articles|raise this before]] and what I understood from the replies I received was that Wikipedia is mainly here to teach good behaviour and places no particular value on the contribution of careful, informed and accurate content. Indeed people who donate such material are of no particular value to the project and are "expendable", "because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I've contented myself mostly with reverting obvious vandalism and watching to see how all this plays out since then. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:I have tried to [[Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 2#Fifty-fifty articles|raise this before]] and what I understood from the replies I received was that Wikipedia is mainly here to teach good behaviour and places no particular value on the contribution of careful, informed and accurate content. Indeed people who donate such material are of no particular value to the project and are "expendable", "because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I've contented myself mostly with reverting obvious vandalism and watching to see how all this plays out since then. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
| Line 735: | Line 738: | ||
::::: Nod. We can never judge intent. Only outcomes. Perhaps there indeed was no intent. But the appearance given is that there was, and that a reaction certainly ensued. We do have rules and practices against baiting, and I guess what we require is that there not be an appearance of it, rather than that one's heart be pure. WMC fails the appearance test in my view. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::: Nod. We can never judge intent. Only outcomes. Perhaps there indeed was no intent. But the appearance given is that there was, and that a reaction certainly ensued. We do have rules and practices against baiting, and I guess what we require is that there not be an appearance of it, rather than that one's heart be pure. WMC fails the appearance test in my view. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: As regards "unbalanced", my view is that Marknutley has specifically acted in a manner for which he has received past censure - incivility in response to perceived "disagreeable" comments from WMC, and edit warring. For that reason I suggested the 48 hour block and extended 1RR restriction. WMC has also been on notice that violation of his 1RR restriction would result in a sanction, but my brief review indicated that this was likely an isolated incident - thus the 24 hour tarrif. As regards the language used by WMC, the same brief review indicated that he had been warned about referring '''''to''''' parties with differing philosophies in a demeaning manner, but nothing (that I could see quickly) about general tone. Unless it is suggested that the comments singly or as a whole can be regarded as personal attacks, then I feel that expanding the existing warning not to indulge in demeaning language to include comments to or about other parties would put him to the level that Marknutley is and is being sanctioned under. As I see it, not unnaturally, I think my review is balanced - but I of course realise that opinion may differ. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::: As regards "unbalanced", my view is that Marknutley has specifically acted in a manner for which he has received past censure - incivility in response to perceived "disagreeable" comments from WMC, and edit warring. For that reason I suggested the 48 hour block and extended 1RR restriction. WMC has also been on notice that violation of his 1RR restriction would result in a sanction, but my brief review indicated that this was likely an isolated incident - thus the 24 hour tarrif. As regards the language used by WMC, the same brief review indicated that he had been warned about referring '''''to''''' parties with differing philosophies in a demeaning manner, but nothing (that I could see quickly) about general tone. Unless it is suggested that the comments singly or as a whole can be regarded as personal attacks, then I feel that expanding the existing warning not to indulge in demeaning language to include comments to or about other parties would put him to the level that Marknutley is and is being sanctioned under. As I see it, not unnaturally, I think my review is balanced - but I of course realise that opinion may differ. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::: I just think it's a bit quibblish to slice the warnings to WMC, an experienced editor with thousands of edits, and many years here quite so exceedingly fine. He's been warned about his conversational style over and over, hasn't he? I don't see the difference here between demeaning reference and derogatory manner. For example, "Push the left button" is something I'd characterize as a demeaning reference, for example. So no, I don't agree. No further warnings are needed in his case, a sanction should apply. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*I have not had a chance to examine the evidence properly, but whatever decision is made should be made within the next few hours, not over the next few days. Letting this request go stale and making a block for incivility impossible would not be productive, unless long-term blocks/topic bans are being considered. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
*I have not had a chance to examine the evidence properly, but whatever decision is made should be made within the next few hours, not over the next few days. Letting this request go stale and making a block for incivility impossible would not be productive, unless long-term blocks/topic bans are being considered. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
** I support moving quickly, but not TOO quickly please. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
** I support moving quickly, but not TOO quickly please. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:12, 31 March 2010
This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:
{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested
= <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated
= [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
<!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
= <Your text>
| Additional comments
= <Your text>
}}
This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.
For Requests for refactoring of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.
Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets
Following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.
Scibaby and enablers
Section for reporting created. Reporting process described. Editors asked to assist in reporting, in reverting edits by Scibaby socks, and in adopting edits that seem "good" as their own, as appropriate (dating so this is archived by bot) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 ResolvedAttention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scibaby and enablers
N/A, already blocked sock master.
Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablersStatement by Scibaby and enablersComments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablersI don't think this is remotely actionable. We're a volunteer project and we cannot order anybody to do anything. Handling scibaby stuff is something I do from time to time, but it isn't an important feature of editing the climate change articles. --TS 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this here? WP has well-entrenched rules to deal with socks. I see nothing proposed here that would enhance the ability of anyone to directly address the socks themselves. What I do see is a proposal to issue warnings to anyone who supports an obvious sock. It has been said many times that Scibaby socks are easy to spot. That may be true to some people, but not to me. If there are definitive signs, I don't know what they are. If I see someone new proposing something I think is positive, I intend to support. If it turns out to be a sock, I strongly object to the notion I deserve a warning. This sounds like a backdoor proposal to create an entirely inappropriate policy. I propose that this entire section be struck. To the extent it is sensible, it is redundant. To the extent it is not redundant, it is anathema.--SPhilbrickT 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does Scibaby do besides readding paragraphs about bovine emissions? The diff you provided above shows an apparently problematic edit, but doesn't seem to be a huge problem, such as blanking or mass moving of article pages like Willy on Wheels used to do. Willy on Wheels was a huge problem for awhile but eventually gave up. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Current disruptionTo illustrate the problem: User:Frendinius is certainly not a new user. He is quite likely a Scibaby sock. He is currently pushing POV edits (some more subtle, some less) on a number of articles. In particular, he is pushing for the inclusion of two recent Scarfetta & West papers of limited applicability and essentially no weight into global warming. Can the neutral (and "neutral") admins here indicate if simple reversion of this obvious sock will be considered edit warring? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's make this concrete. The last thirteen confirmed socks of Scibaby are as follows:
His sock Waylon O. recycles a long-dead zombie argument renaming an article and falsely characterizes a Guardian news article as "idle comment." The Terminizer and Lunar Golf socks are used to attempt to edit-war the following summary statement out of the "Criticism" section of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change." The stated grounds; "No source supporting this claim," handily ignoring the extensive and authoritative discussion of IPCC's poor treatment of Arctic Sea Ice extent. The Trensor sock removed the summary of Hell and High Water (book) as "Improper, poorly worded summary" without any further attempt to explain this removal. He used the Xsten78 sock to make three disruptive edits: remove the entire section on global warming from Precipitation (meteorology), edit war to restore a section from James Hansen that has long been excluded on grounds of due weight. Wilson and Two and Wellpoint32 were used to troll various canards about the science onto talk:Global warming. JesseSimplex restored a bit of nonsense sourced to some blog or other and changed "reduce global warming" to "reduce the potential effects of global warming" in climate change mitigation. Fred Gharria and AnodeRays were used to dispute the hacking of the CRU against the reporting of all reliable sources. Clarke Simpson and Titulartitle were used to push minority science views and promote a political agenda at talk:Global warming. I seem to recall noticing that Moral Equivalent accidentally made a valuable edit, but only because the quote attributed to Schwarzenegger was probably not made when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law but a year or two earlier. Moral Equivalent's stated reason was nonsensical, however. So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits. He's a disruptive troll, nothing more. His presence, abetted by some editors, is a detriment to balance and discredits any legitimate criticism of our coverage of the social and political issues related to global warming. --TS 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Jehochman's proposal below: Unlimited reverts of suspected Scibaby socks is not a good idea and is a surefire way to drive new editors away from Wikipedia entirely. Do you really think it would have been acceptable to remove all of Chad Howard's comments to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? The accusation was stressful enough [13]. --Heyitspeter (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
TICK TOCK. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Scibaby and enablers
I am not sure about the forum for this but having a more serious look at how we handle socks and trolls is needed at some point. --BozMo talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Scibaby is banned and any sock found should be blocked on sight. Describing anyone who subscribes to views expressed by Scibaby as "enablers" is unhelpful, unless there is evidence of collusion, since it should be AGF'ed as an individual expressing their viewpoint. Trolling, in any form, is a different matter and I agree that finding a way of minimising the disruption caused by such individuals does need review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC) It's probably out of scope of this enforcement area to implement truly effective measures against socking itself (although I am taken with the novelty of using this EA as a pretext to implement such, and I in fact have outlined measures that I guarantee would be effective, I think I'll pass) Suggest this be closed no action, although I concur with LHvU that if specific trolling activities are raised, they should be dealt with if possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Seems the points above regarding talk page semi-protection are worth considering. Scibaby disruption/trolling of talk pages is a problem and within the scope here. Seems such action should be considered and either be supported by or rejected as unworkable by admins watching here. I see it as a partial solution. Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Closed with no action. No action requested, discussion is continuing on article talk. (dating so this is archived by bot) 15:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I've listed this article for temporary protection on WP:RFPP because of what looks like it could turn into a lame edit war over the tag. Perhaps starting a discussion here (not on the merits, but on conduct) might help to thwart the warring (which is, of necessity on an article under 1RR, by multiple parties). --TS 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. A Quest for Knowledge has often said he spent a lot of time on the neutral point of view noticeboard. In view of that, I don't understand quite how he got the idea that the pivotal, "non-negotiable" neutral point of view policy was in any way subject to the quite ignorable and superfluous reliable sources guideline (hint: it's intended for people who don't quite understand the meaniing of the word "verifiability", which is also a key policy). So many newbies, so little time, and so we end up arguing the meaning of policies that we ourselves created and expanded, increment by increment, with people who have failed to digest them and think they know everything. --TS 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. That's the nature of a wiki. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
When I last looked there seemed to be neither strong consensus for or against the NPOV tag. I'm not sure where that leaves us. There have been many attempts to change the title of the article, and so far they have not been successful. The basic article content has been stable for some time, subject to added content as the various inquiries progress. There appears to be a sizable minority of editors who consistently describe the article content as lacking in neutrality, but despite extensive discussion they have not been successful in gaining consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the problem. There is a quite diverse set of editors involved. Over the past month, excepting wikignome work, the following people have edited the article:
In addition the following editors have each made at least one significant comment to the talk page:
This is a quite impressive number of page watchers, commenters and editors, and they represent a similarly broad range of opinions and biases. My first thoughts are that, if there are significant POV problems remaining, then there should be a strong enough consensus to drown out any opposition, resulting in steady improvement of the article. This steady improvement seems to be what is happening, but at the same time there is no consensus that the tag should remain. Perhaps it should not remain in the circumstances, but I don't know. Possibly a content RFC is the best way to take this. But I don't think there are any significant conduct issues involved, outside the recent mini edit war which prompted this thread. --TS 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) LHvU has opined that this malformed request may be closed and I concur. I believe it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to consider appropriateness of NPOV tags, although inappropriate conduct of individual (or groups of) editors within the dispute may be considered. No such conduct has been presented here that is specific to the CC dispute. Placement of tags should be discussed either on the specific article talk page, WP:NPOVN, or in a more broad discussion. Thus, closing as no action requested, not actionable, no action. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
TMLutas
TMLutas is requested to avoid soapboxing on talk pages, and to be careful that sources are accurately summarized or paraphrased. TMLutas is admonished to be especially mindful of Wikipedia:Civility and to be careful that full intent and context are conveyed when paraphrasing comments from others. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TMLutas
Discussion concerning TMLutasStatement by TMLutasThe true story starts in global cooling in this edit on December 22, 2009. To start the discussion of what is going on in March is grossly incomplete and should void this proceeding. I have made continuing references as to the history of this issue and its long nature. ChyranandChloe should have been aware of this and the extensive efforts I've made to patiently clarify existing rules so that the local majority on climate science pages ceases to use WP:RS to exclude peer reviewed papers entirely from Wikipedia due to some historically less than clear language in bullet point 4 of section 2.1. I will give a point by point. Please bear with me because this is the short version. 1. I am supposed to have "admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME". TonySidaway later clarified that he was not actually questioning my good faith with his statement "You don't get to make an end run around the neutral point of view by fiddling with the wording of guidelines". I accepted that and just let it drop. I responded strongly at the time as I viewed that statement as a set up statement in any attempt to go after me via sanctions. 2. The FAQ had been labeled as under discussion since February 3, 2010 (not by me) and had come to a conclusion on February 20, 2010. No matter what, Q22 needed to be modified. Either the discussion tag needed to be removed in case the discussion supported the current wording or larger edits needed to be made to realign Q22 with the WP:IRS 2.1(4). I sincerely had hoped that somebody else would have made the effort since the February 20th close. The result of the discussion was that individual papers published in reliable source journals were, absent special cases, to be considered reliable without a waiting period to assemble a citation index score (ie the impact or impact factor standard). Nobody had adjusted things at the global warming FAQ by the time that somebody, once again, used FAQ Q22 to justify blocking one of my edits on another page so I dove in to start a conversation to fix Q22. Somebody had to do it and nobody else was volunteering. This was no game, at least on my part. 3. TS said "I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight." in the relevant discussion and essentially ceded that the FAQ Q22 that he wrote that depends on WP:IRS instead of WP:WEIGHT was incorrect. 4. A fuller quote makes it obvious that I am being accommodating here "Let me repeat my position from last time. I'm open to some sort of FAQ point on excluding new papers so long as there's some sort of rule or guideline that actually supports the exclusion mechanism." This is after going several rounds of asserted reasons why something was true that, after actually reading the rule/policy/guideline/essay, were not supported by the cited rule/policy/guideline/essay. A few rounds of objections that don't pan out as real objections and one does tend to repeat. It's unavoidable. 5. This is interesting because my own talk page is being cited as a page under the climate change probation rules. That's just strange and I think inappropriate. But let me explain anyway since I'm doing point by point. TS in a prior edit in that thread attempted to define global cooling as exclusively a specific type of global cooling, an end to the interglacial and a new ice age instead of a more general definition of global cooling as, well, a planet that is cooling overall irrespective of mechanism. Cutting an argument's legs out from under it by changing the dictionary is the definition of Orwellian. It also upset me because that sort of action makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I was not saying that TS was beclowning himself as a personal attack, rather that by adopting that definitional jujitsu he was beclowning Wikipedia. In the heat of the moment, the 1984 references popped out. Had I not been on my talk page, I probably would have toned it down a bit. I view this point as evidence that what's happening with this sanctions attempt is a 'kitchen sink' approach, an attempt to stack up as many accusations as possible in the hope that something will stick and some sanction will be assessed. Kitchen sink approaches are, by definition, an attempt at psychological manipulation. 6. The subject of the thread was the recent Gallup polling on global warming. The four prior contributors (that I could see at the time anyway) to the thread suggested that an appropriate response to the gallup figures were to A. improve the "Simple-Wikipedia" version of the global warming page, B. a suggestion that the stupid people would ignore this due to the Dunning–Kruger effect C. a straw man that climate change skeptics are advocating "teach the controversy" something I've never heard elsewhere and D. A me too agreement that it was indeed a situation where the skeptics were engaging in "teach the controversy". I guess I could have opened sanctions threads on them all but that seemed a bit excessive. Instead I let them know that they were not in a safe space where everybody agreed with them and they could let their hair down and say what they really think about those they disagree with. In fairness if they are sanctioned for this, I would admit that I should be too. To date, none of the preceding 4 user accounts have any sort of notice for their pending sanctions threads. Selective prosecution or more kitchen sink? It's both. Regarding the notices, I did take the 2/0 warning seriously, calmed down, took a wikibreak and got a great deal more patient. No, I'm not perfect. That's usually not sanctionable, not even, I suspect, on probation pages. It's hard to take seriously WMC's warning on my commentary reverting his reversion. He was reverting a section stub, calling it "reckless". I had been polling on talk for two weeks prior seeking anybody who would admit that they didn't want a section at all. Everybody insisted that they actually had specific objections to this or that proposed text but nobody claimed they were against a 2000s section to go along with the 1990s section (and prior). So I stubbed it and got told "rv: be bold, don't be reckless. Read the policy" which was not quite helpful. Until I visited this page today I was unaware that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned for doing this sort of thing. It's unclear why this is included at all except as part of a kitchen sink approach. As for the first notice. I took it as an entry into the club. All the cool kids were getting them. As the first notice says, you could get that notice without doing anything wrong. I'll stipulate that yes, I did know that this probation existed. On to the additional comments: 1) guilty of changing a guideline (after 6 weeks of talking it out on the appropriate talk page), not sanctionable in my opinion. 2) guilty of applying the guideline with the clause I added (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if anybody would protest or revert in case I got it wrong), not sanctionable in my opinion. 3) not guilty of using circular discussion. There is a clear beginning (why do we need to wait to include studies?), middle (oh, WP:RS 2.1(4) looks a bit strange, let's talk it out in WP:IRS there and then go back and apply the results to get better process at global cooling and incidentally global warming), and end (you can no longer use WP:RS 2.1(4) because the result of the discussion does not support your POV. If you disagree, work it out in talk over @ WP:IRS). The accusation that I exhausted my dozen or so conversation partners is very flattering, if untrue. I have not achieved consensus except on WP:IRS and if you look carefully you will note that the statements of regulars there are quite influential for 'my' win. In truth the win is theirs. The challenge to the consensus started off as a direct edit to 2.1(4) that substantially changes the meaning of my addition without any talk at all. I reverted once and said to take it to talk. Hipocrite has started an edit war which I declined to follow, leaving his version up for now (see, I can learn). So far his challenge to consensus here and here do not seem to be going well for him. It's early days though. I do need to correct myself as Q22 has now been revised to rely on WEIGHT and not on IRS so I guess that worked out as I hoped it would as well. As soon as I can finish with this business I will no longer have to refer to Q22 anymore as the problematic language is now only relevant to the current accusations. The problematic version of Q22 referred to the WP:IRS guideline, substantially quoting it. Of course any change to the guideline Q22 was trying to implement would have an impact on Q22. I finally and most strenuously disagree that walking down this multi-month path was unnecessary (not to mention that the characterization of the journey as wikilawyering and gaming is tendentious and untrue). There is a real issue of confusion with honest editors having divergent opinions of what 2.1(4) really means and the confusion seems to be centered on what the word source means. In hot topics like global warming these divergent opinions lead to much heat and very little light. That needs fixing and no matter which way it breaks, a significant number of editors are going to be uncomfortable with the result. Thank you for your patience. If anybody wants more detail, please ask and let me know where I should put it. TMLutas (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning TMLutasTL:DR? TMLutas really needs to summarise his response. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by A Quest For Knowledge Honestly, I have no idea of what's going on with WP:RS. However, if WP:RS is being altered to WP:GAME the results of the ongoing AGW dispute, this is an extremely troubling event. Changes to policies and guidelines potentially effect the entire project - over 3 million articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't comment here, but I suppose I'll make this metacomment referring to my response to LessHeard vanU's request. I don't think there is a conduct issue here. Although I would not subscribe in detail to TMLutas' characterization of the dispute, that's a minor quibble. --TS 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree somewhat with Tony. The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach: go an at such length, and with such persistence, that your fellow editors lose the will to live. While I broadly agree with TMLutas on the substance of the issue at hand,[16][17] his approach is not optimal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Sphilbrick I read the first diff (Gaming), then read the whole section leading up to it. Yes, it's long, it's tedious, and it's argumentative. But it's also illuminating. I read an honest attempt by multiple parties (notably TMLutas and Awickert) to explore exactly what should happen when there are more reliable sources than can reasonably be included in an article. A real problem, without an obvious answer, and they made excellent progress. Then TS said something to which TMLutas took offense—I'd say over-reaction a bit with my detached perspective, but easy to understand in the heat of the moment. Even without reflecting the passion, the response wasn't out of line nor did it fail civility rules, and both parties moved on. Most certainly, it was not an admission of Gaming, which is the sole reason for the inclusion of the diff. I haven't read any of the other diffs, but based on the first one, I'd say we ought to be handing out awards for successful resolution of a thorny issue, not talking about sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comment @Franamax - with respect to the cosmic ray paper, if you read the full discussion you'll see that the paper (which was a pre-pub) did not actually say what s/he insisted it said. And even after direct quotes were supplied to her/him, s/he continued to argue for the inclusion of the paper. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning TMLutas
|
Ratel
Ratel is directed toward WP:AGF and warned regarding making further assumptions of bad faith within articles covered by the probation. (dating so this can be archived by bot) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ratel
To Jehochman: Would you clarify if it concerns you whether Ratel's comments on this page are true or not? He accuses me (and my ilk) of despising George Monbiot, an utter fabrication that I find particularly offensive. He adds that I am editing as part "of an anti-science, politically driven campaign." He adds that my "edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc." He accuses me of "anti-science subversive attacks" on the encyclopedia. Are these acceptable comments without evidence? Mackan79 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning RatelStatement by RatelI ask any admin present to please read the talk page carefully. You'll see that none of my actions is questionable, and that I have improved both the article and the Talk page. Mackan79's behaviour is what should really be under scrutiny here. This editor was opposed on the "pejorative" issue by not only me but several other editors, yet persisted and persisted in a dogged way in a situation where there was obviously no consensus for inclusion. His statements included threats to report opposing editors for alleged infractions and threats to "wait out" other editors and insert his version when we tire or lose focus. As to the lede, Mackan79 completely broke it by POV pushing in a not-so-subtle way, managing to expand it from the brief and clear explanation (that had stood there for about a year) to numerous paragraphs of woolly pap about someone he and other people of his ilk despise, left wing environmentalist George Monbiot, as if the whole idea of global warming denial is the work of this arch-enemy of the Right. Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc. The encyclopedia is frankly under attack by people with motives inimical to the spread of knowledge. The basic science of global warming is almost completely settled, ask any practising climatologist, but these anti-science subversive attacks continue and are getting more tendentious and persistent. Wikipedia needs to put all global warming-related articles into a special category that can only be edited by a restricted set of editors, or we face the danger of science articles being rewritten by non-scientists with flat Earth theories. What really takes the cake is when these fringe POV-pushing editors, hell bent on influencing science-related pages to show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible, start using noticeboards like this to report editors who actually represent the mainstream scientific opinion, in a shameful and scurrilous effort to hijack the system and use it against itself. On another note, I see that Mackan is a constant user, some might day abuser, of noticeboards and regularly reports people for opposing him in content disputes. Look at his edit history. This calls out for some sort of warning. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Ratel
Result concerning Ratel
I checked the first few assertions of this report and was not convinced. Administrators, please don't jump to process this too quickly. Mackan79, can you point out the one or two worst diffs? The warnings you cited are a couple months old. I want to see diffs showing bad behavior directly violating those warnings, not squabbles about content. Removing "generally pejorative term" seems like a possibly good application of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there a reference cited somewhere that says it is a generally pejorative term? I didn't see a reference, but I might have missed it. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Ratel is reminded of both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and is warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. Ratel is encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring. I hope this clarifies our expectations of compliance with policy, and the consequences of not doing so - and provides options should anyone test (deliberately or otherwise) their ability to do so. Comments welcome, but can we expedite this so we may conclude and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Marknutley
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Marknutley
- User requesting enforcement
- William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, specifically, civility
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [69] Incivil edit summary, incivil change of section title, incivil text.
- [70] Incivil edit comment, incivil text.
- [71] Incivil diminutive in edit comment and in text.
- ...
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [72] Warning by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) (predates some but not all of the above)
- [73] Warning by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (and see previous)
- [74] Warning by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Comment redaction, civility restriction. Given MN's edit warring on Heaven and Earth (book), perhaps a revert parole too (on which, see-also "User:Marknutley blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at Rajendra K. Pachauri - [3]. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)" and "Marknutley is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)"
@LHVU: edit warring: MN has 5 reverts to H+E since the 28th: [75] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I note that MN is still refusing to admit his edit warring, and is claiming only three reverts (*only* three... well). But there are 5:
- [76] (marked rv)
- [77] (not marked as rv, but removes "conservative", which is a large part of the issue under dispute)
- [78] (not marked revert, but clearly is)
- [79] (ditto)
- [80] (ditto)
Also note MN's It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. - a glance at the history of that page will show that three different editors all disagreed with MN's edits. I can see no sign of MN understanding that his behaviour there was in any way at fault; hence asking for revert parole William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [81]
Discussion concerning Marknutley
I suggest the enforcing admins look at the context before each of the diffs WMC provides: MN was baited into incivility by WMC and Ratel. If MN gets a sanction, WMC and Ratel should get the same, especially given their history of incivility. ATren (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Marknutley
What a pile of bollocks.
- 1st diff [82] Incivil edit summary, incivil change of section title, incivil text. My talk page, i`ll do what i want on it. If i consider it boring then i`ll say it is. Also saying something is boring is not uncivil.
- 2nd diff [83] Incivil edit comment, incivil text. How is "dur" uncivil? And as said, if he acts like a bull in a china shop in his constant rush to insult and belittle me then he is being "bovine"
- 3rd diff [84] I remind him of this He was given fair warning and choose to ignore it, his problem not mine mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
To recap, for weeks now WMC has done naught but insult me, frankly i`m sick of it and he will now get the same as he gives out. If he does not like this then tough tittys, perhaps he will learn to be more polite when he gets a dose of his own bullshit back mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
As lar says, i really should give some diff`s regarding WMC`s constant barrage of insults, so here you are [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] There you go, this is the majority of interactions between WMC and myself, and as you can see they are all sly insults and outright hostile mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the accusation of edit warring above [94] You will not see 5 reverts in two days as wmc is saying.You will see three, all of which i believe are justified given the use of "conservative" to describe some of the sources. This is obviously not wp:npov and it is also being trashed out in talk. For instance this revert by ratel [95] his edit summary is blatantly false, there was no consensus to describe sources by political leaning, and to do so is just not on. So yes i reverted him per policy. His revert and WMc`s was against policy. It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
An Offer
Ok here`s what i`ll do. I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. However i would also want those who continue to belittle and insult me to actually get sanctioned for it, not to be told "be a good little lad now" and for it then to continue. I can assure you my word is good. mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley
Er...
- get the same as he gives out. If he does not like this then tough tittys, perhaps he will learn to be more polite when he gets a dose of his own bullshit back
??? No. Incivility in others does not justify responding with incivility. While I thought it rather cheeky of WMC to raise any sort of request here related to anything to do with incivility, given his own record of snarkiness, he is within rights to do so, and he has a point. The proper response, Mark, is to turn the other cheek, or to use the appropriate channels, assuming you haven't been blocked from doing so. Not to fire back with both barrels. I've put this here rather than in the next section, because I'm hoping you'll reconsider your response before we admins decide what to do. Will you? ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Lar i have supplied some diffs above showing WMc`s constant stream of invective. Yes i know i should turn the other cheek but then again i`m not jesus, were i come from turning the other cheek just means both of them get slapped. Yes i know you are right, but i will not kowtow to someone who refuse to even give me the most basic courtesy. mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- While I am aware that two wrongs do not make a right according to Wikipedia's policies, I would say that given Marknutley's rather agreeable demeanor for the most part, given his contribution history on talk pages, and WMC's propensity to be condescending, snide, and frankly just plain mean, I think the response is fairly reasonable. Taking that on board, I think that incivility can be less acceptable in some cases than others. If MN bawled out some new editor for making a minor error, that would be much worse than lashing out at WMC for being mean to him over an extended period of time. In other words, I think the fact that WMC really did provoke him might not excuse the action outright, but does act as an important mitigating factor to be considered. Macai (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not without considerable sympathy to your argument, Macai. However, in that case introducing evidence of provocation (be it condescending, snide, or just plain mean, whatever the case may be) that mitigates the responses tone, as a point by point refutation of the cited incidents, might be a good approach in Mark's response, rather than being belligerent. I can't imagine that finding this evidence would be all that hard, would it? Being the better man often works wonders (easy advice to give, hard advice to take, as I well know myself). ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Lar, WMC and MN have a long history of sniping at each other, and WMC has been uncivil to MN many times. In many cases WMC has mocked MN and treated him like a child, as he did here ("use the left button"). Yes, MN was wrong to respond in kind, but IMO WMC should get whatever MN gets. Also note, MN cannot come here to report problems because he was sanctioned from doing so, which kind of makes the playing field skewed if WMC can file a report after mocking MN and knowing that he can't file a report here. ATren (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Quite.
- However WMC HAS filed a report here now. MN would be well served, in his response, to detail, in depth, the various and sundry incidents of WMC's incivility to MN... WITH supporting diffs, presented as calmly and civilly as humanly possible (he might even seek assistance if it came to that, to get the tone right). There is nothing in the enforcement provisions that prevents sanctions being lodged against both parties, or even against the requesting party alone with no sanctions on the requestee, if circumstances warrant it. The ball is in MN's court, he has been invited to play (when he could not initiate such an invitation himself), the playing field is as level now as it can get given the circumstances. He should not respond with invective but with reasoned presentation of material. It is out there, is it not? (failing that, others such as yourself or Macai or whomever certainly could present it if they were so inclined) Present it. I cannot make myself plainer. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Re. "condescending": Sorry, but Mark is very often very obviously wrong about things he thought he read, and needs several carefully crafted explanations before he grudgingly accepts that. See [96] for an example. Pointing out that someone is wrong is not condescending. Pointing it out 5 times in a row may seem condescending, but really is necessary unless we want to let wrong information stand unchallenged ("to avoid hurt feelings"?). And also let me point out that saying "you are wrong" is not an insult, either, in particularly not if "you" are wrong....--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Per diffs, BozMo and I have previously warned MN regarding incivility and in particular when responding to perceived incivility - and that involving WMC. If diffs are provided of alleged violations by WMC (and other parties) then these can also be reviewed within this request, but that should not be regarded as alleviating MN's actions. Any alleged violations regarding this instance should be dealt with on an individual basis. It is not a matter of "evening up". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
WMC's recent incivility towards MN:
- [97] - "You have to forgive MN his background. When you say "paper" you mean scientific paper. He means something to wrap chips in".
- [98] - "use the left button" - treating MN like a child.
- [99] - "you're not reading" - mildly condescending, but relevant given the history of WMC belittling MN. ATren (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can we get some context on those ATren? Your 2nd link, for instance, where you state that WMC treats Mark as a child, which i to some extend agree that he does - is a response to Marks repeating the same question after 3 editors have already responded. I would say that Mark is suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that particular discussion - and the condecending tone came after Mark demonstrated that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- And ever more bull. If a question is not responded to it gets asked again. Tony says this [100] my response is how exactly is the use of this lot is justified by one ref, then wmc made his snide remark [101] so please don`t be saying i got answered 3 times when in fact i had not gotten a single response to that question. mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can we get some context on those ATren? Your 2nd link, for instance, where you state that WMC treats Mark as a child, which i to some extend agree that he does - is a response to Marks repeating the same question after 3 editors have already responded. I would say that Mark is suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that particular discussion - and the condecending tone came after Mark demonstrated that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like MN's behavior could improve if the root cause had been addressed in the previous dozen or so requests for enforcement with regards to WMC. Two wrongs don't make right; however, there has been a bad apple in the bunch for some time. WMC is obviously a bad example for MN to follow with regards to civility. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest everyone just drop it. Science-oriented editors need to recognize that they are held to higher standards of conduct than are the contrarians. That might not be "fair" in some abstract sense but that's how it is. Deal with it and move on. There's nothing to be gained here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least we have some "neutral" admins who always chime in on both sides equally... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Scare quotes, Stephan? I do try to be as even handed as circumstances warrant. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently we disagree about the definition of "even handed" or about what we perceive as the "circumstances". Going back over your contributions here, can you point out one situation where you advocate a lesser sanction for "team science" or a stronger one for "the sceptics"? How does the tally jive with your claim to be neutral? Or have you ever compared the positive contributions of WMC with those of MN? Just as a thought experiment, mentally remove all edits from both. Which changes would be even noticed by the world at large? I don't know what you think you are doing, but what you are doing is making Wikipedia a worse encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your first question is the wrong one to ask. Equality of opportunity != equality of outcome, and evenhandeness does not mean meting out identical sanctions to non identical transgressors. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I think that's why some people find your stated objective of "leveling the playing field" to be misguided. MastCell Talk 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of how unpopular that objective of mine is in some quarters, yes. Especially among those who happened to be on the uphill side of the field already. Nevertheless I do think equality of opportunity is a good thing to strive for. For if it is achieved the miscreants will have less externality to blame. In this case, I started out chastising MN, and rightly so, for no matter how grievous the provocation, we have every right to expect equanimity in behavior from all. But in looking into the matter further, I find that WMC has yet again sorely tried MN's patience, and it's no wonder he snapped, really. Doesn't excuse the snapping, at all, but it does call for yet another admonishment to WMC. Who, I note, has been admonished about this till the cows come home. So, something more beyond admonishment, then. WMC has been at the uphill end of the field for some time. But this is all well plowed ground. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is opposed to equality of opportunity, or to the concept of a level playing field. On the other hand, those terms are political rhetoric, calculated to play on a listener's innate sense of fairness. The danger in playing that game is that to an unsophisticated listener, "level playing field" means "all viewpoints are equally valid" (which is not the case here). The more substantial question is what a "level playing field" looks like in practice, and in the context of Wikipedia's policies and goals. MastCell Talk 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I don't hold the view that "all viewpoints are equally valid". I've explained that repeatedly.++Lar: t/c 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know you don't, Lar. Unfortunately, some less sophisticated editors do, and this rhetoric plays to their misconceptions. That was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. MastCell Talk 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha, it's easy to get confused here about who is talking to who and about who given that other participants are in fact referring to me. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would think that a preconceived notion that the field is not level and that there is an uphill side very much undercuts any claims to neutrality. Of course there is always the problem that reality has a strong bias for reality... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Be sure to distinguish between preconceived notions and your own self delusion. I hold no preconceived notions. I merely have made observations of the behavior of certain editors that suggest they view themselves as superior to others, and that they hold the upper end of the playing field, viewing it as moral high ground rather than unfair advantage. I am uninvolved, but I am not uninformed. Rather than chafing at reality, you would do better to convince those editors to change their ways. Mirrors may be involved. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you intend to run for political office? Or is there some semantics hidden in that syntax? What you seem to say is that you think there are some editors who think they hold the high ground, but don't. If that's the case, why should there be a need to level the playing field? It is, of course, an easily observable fact that some editors are more productive and more knowledgeable than others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought my meaning was plain enough. A certain group thinks they hold the moral high ground, but actually do not. At the same time, this same group claims not to hold the high end of the playing field (from a tactical perspective) when in fact they do. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of how unpopular that objective of mine is in some quarters, yes. Especially among those who happened to be on the uphill side of the field already. Nevertheless I do think equality of opportunity is a good thing to strive for. For if it is achieved the miscreants will have less externality to blame. In this case, I started out chastising MN, and rightly so, for no matter how grievous the provocation, we have every right to expect equanimity in behavior from all. But in looking into the matter further, I find that WMC has yet again sorely tried MN's patience, and it's no wonder he snapped, really. Doesn't excuse the snapping, at all, but it does call for yet another admonishment to WMC. Who, I note, has been admonished about this till the cows come home. So, something more beyond admonishment, then. WMC has been at the uphill end of the field for some time. But this is all well plowed ground. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I think that's why some people find your stated objective of "leveling the playing field" to be misguided. MastCell Talk 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your first question is the wrong one to ask. Equality of opportunity != equality of outcome, and evenhandeness does not mean meting out identical sanctions to non identical transgressors. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently we disagree about the definition of "even handed" or about what we perceive as the "circumstances". Going back over your contributions here, can you point out one situation where you advocate a lesser sanction for "team science" or a stronger one for "the sceptics"? How does the tally jive with your claim to be neutral? Or have you ever compared the positive contributions of WMC with those of MN? Just as a thought experiment, mentally remove all edits from both. Which changes would be even noticed by the world at large? I don't know what you think you are doing, but what you are doing is making Wikipedia a worse encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Scare quotes, Stephan? I do try to be as even handed as circumstances warrant. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion if someone baits another editor, and that editor responds in a less-than-civil manner, then both editors should receive corrective action. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have tried to raise this before and what I understood from the replies I received was that Wikipedia is mainly here to teach good behaviour and places no particular value on the contribution of careful, informed and accurate content. Indeed people who donate such material are of no particular value to the project and are "expendable", "because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I've contented myself mostly with reverting obvious vandalism and watching to see how all this plays out since then. --Nigelj (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Marknutley was pretty blatantly revert warring. He contended that the positive reviews should not be labeled as conservative because no source had said this; fine. But then Ratel presented a source saying exactly that at 1:33 on March 29,[102] but Mark kept reverting.[103] I have not read all of this discussion, and I'm not saying any of the discussion was ideal, but this kind of reverting needs to be strongly discouraged with sanctions. Mackan79 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. And sanctions are called for. But the remedy for revert warring is not snark. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- People seem to be afraid of clear fact-based standards, which is too bad, and I think results in a lot of the snark and coded language. Personally I like standards, and by mine the reverting here should have stopped when Mark's first argument was addressed. As to WMC's comments such as here, clearly these aren't helpful, but in this case I think it followed and didn't necessarily cause Mark's reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Tony's comment on Mark Nutley
What is annoying most people, I think, is Mark's determination to remove the characterization conservative from instances that are either well sourced, or as in the case of The Spectator, unimpeachably and (with good cause) proudly conservative. The polarization of responses to the book, with ideological conservatives treading a path quite distinct from the mainstream including most scientists, had been remarked upon by commentators and was made all the more remarkable in the context of the vehemence of the scientific response to the book.
Mark was trying it on and treating informed comments with contempt. And edit warring. If he's been warned about this kind of behavior in the past he should be told to stop trying it on. I've no doubt that he will now stop if told to do so firmly enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mark's response is "bull", which I assume is a euphemism for bullshit. Well, perhaps Mark simply doesn't know that The Spectator is the proudest and most celebrated organ of political conservatism in the UK. I sometimes think that this is the tragedy of Wikipedia: that here we are not constrained by the bounds of our ignorance, but are free to comment endlessly on the areas in which our intellectual laziness makes us a liability. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- To which I add: it's just the way it is. The reason why so many editing sequences have this result in this area is because there are a lot of people editing articles on the subject who have neglected to inform themselves on the most basic facts of life. Perhaps this is why they are attracted here: they see somebody refer to The Spectator as conservative, and perhaps never having picked up a copy of The Spectator and not knowing anything about tbe magazine's history they think it's extraordinary to refer to it as "conservative". No educated person can think this way. There has to be a reason why some editors of these articles persistently come out with outlier opinions on uncontroversial statements of fact. --TS 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I do have a worry that pertains to the comparison between Mark and William. Obviously we'd much rather have intelligent, educated edits, so if an intelligent, educated Wikipedian complains about stupid and counter-productive edits by a Wikipedian who doesn't even pretend to know about the subject, and who further demonstrates his ignorance, it seems perverse to me that we would consider whether the intelligent, educated, specialist Wikipedian failed to demonstrate the necessary level of finesse required to avoid the the uneducated Wikipedian realising that actually learning about the subject he was commenting on would have helped Wikipedia.
We absolutely must not drive intelligent Wikipedians away because they fail to waste much time with Wikipedians who choose to act in a stupid and annoying manner. Where it has been established that intelligent and appropriately educated Wikipedians are being harrassed by stupid Wikipedians or Wikipedians who have chosen to act stupidly as a tactic, we should act to protect our resources. Stupidity must die. --TS 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Arrogance should be interred in the same pit. Not commenting on anyone in particular, but "We are right because we agree we are right, and we all agree we are all fine, intelligent people, and therefore we cannot possibly be wrong (and we can find any sort of recommendation - written by our intelligent friends - that endorse our view)" is the type of mindset that leads otherwise reasonable people to treat other people who do not fall within that (self)definition abysmally. Really, really, really intelligent people are always aware that they may be wrong, are willing to have their understanding challenged, and recognise that revelations can come from any source. They are also willing to explain, because a really intelligent person should be able to express themselves in a manner that any lucid individual can understand. I should know. I have had things explained to me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- LessHeard vanU, I see that you have used a quotation from my contributions to Wikipedia, or to other forums, to support your argument here. It is as follows:
- "We are right because we agree we are right, and we all agree we are all fine, intelligent people, and therefore we cannot possibly be wrong (and we can find any sort of recommendation - written by our intelligent friends - that endorse our view)"
- LessHeard vanU, I see that you have used a quotation from my contributions to Wikipedia, or to other forums, to support your argument here. It is as follows:
- Now would you like to demonstrate where, even for one minute, I said or represented any such thing? Or, perhaps, apologise?
- To clarify: I said no such thing. You have falsely claimed that I did. Stop that.
- If stupidity and arrogant intelligence are to be judged together, I will gladly be interred in the pit of arrogance.
- Look at the evidence. We explained, repeatedly, and yet Mark continued to act stupidy. Tolerance for that kind of feckless behavior has to stop. If you think it was simply about his having a good argument, why do you think he edit warred instead of arguing his point? --TS 23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Along the same lines as my recent comment on your userpage, I don't think it takes much intelligence to be able to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise, which are the primary attributes required to edit a wiki, along with being able to summarize/synthesize information taken from secondary sources. Now, were the all the parties involved in these disputes with mark able and willing to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise over article content, or was each individual dead set on getting their way? Did any of them bait mark or otherwise personalize the dispute? Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the evidence. We explained, repeatedly, and yet Mark continued to act stupidy. Tolerance for that kind of feckless behavior has to stop. If you think it was simply about his having a good argument, why do you think he edit warred instead of arguing his point? --TS 23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be fair to say that everybody involved was excessively fair to Mark, even though he persistently edit warred. I cannot demonstrate my confidence in the state of Wikipedia more wholly than by leaving the climate change area forever at this point. I have no dog in this fight. That's all you'll get from me. --TS 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Do i need to start a new enforcement request? Edit-warring
Mark is clearly in breach of this Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, where both he and i were warned that edit-warring would result in 1RR or the like.
A previous enforcement request here over edit-warring by Mark, was closed (by WMC incidentally), because the discussion had gone stale.
Editwarring by Marknutley on Heaven and Earth (book) over "conservative" description:
- Revert 1 - Mar 28 15:44: This is really the 3rd revert of that particular item - Mark is reinstating an edit by an anon, which had previously been removed by Tony[104] and Ratel [105]
- Revert 2 - Mar 28 17:38: Partial revert to remove conservative
- Revert 3 - Mar 29 15:22: Expanding conservative removal to several others
- Revert 4 - Mar 29 16:51: Revert back to #3
- Revert 5 - Mar 29 17:44: Same
That is not only edit-warring - but also quite close to a 3RR violation (by 6 minutes). There is some discussion on talk [106] (see above), where Mark is pretty much alone in his argument, and being quite incivil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- It`s already been thrown in with the supposed incivility junk mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- First of all i don't think it is "junk", secondly: No, it hasn't been addressed - it has been hinted at... Here are the diffs to show it, and the links to the probation enforcement that you feel that you can just ignore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Regarding the request for a 1RR restriction within CC related space, there needs to be diffs for the alleged edit warring before admins can consider the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is a reply to this by WMC above under enforcement action, "edit warring: MN has 5 reverts to H+E since the 28th: [107]" which I include here for completeness as it is in answer to the question but I have not looked at the edit history to check the claim (having said that whatever one says about WMC he generally adds up reverts pretty accurately). --BozMo talk 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have reviewed this previous closing statement, referred to by WMC. Since it appears that Marknutley (talk · contribs) has edit warred contrary to the statement I feel that a 1RR restriction should be imposed for not less than 3 months - I would suggest 6.
In reviewing the earlier decision, I also noted that WMC is currently under 1RR restriction which he violated at Heaven and Earth (Book). As I am unaware of any other violations of the 1RR restriction I suggest that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) be blocked for 24 hours only.
As regards Marknutley's incivility, I was one of those admins who have warned MN over previous concerns and feel he has been sufficiently placed on notice not to repeat these instances. He has, and has again excused his behaviour as being in response to perceived baiting/incivility - which was not considered reason previously also. Under the circumstances, I think a 48 hour sanction should suffice to indicate that this behaviour is inappropriate. If Marknutley is able to come to some arrangement where he may be mentored regarding his interaction, then that is good going forward - but outside of the consideration of this Request.
Finally, WMC is already under notice that he may not use derogatory or demeaning terms on talkpages when referring to skeptic inclined editors. I think that this should be extended to include using any derogatory/demeaning terms or phrases in interactions with or about other editors within CC related talkpages. However, since this is not explicit in any notice to WMC that I can find then I propose no other action relating to the comments made by WMC on CC article talkpages relating to this request.
If this is agreeable generally, with perhaps some discussion relating to the tariffs, then we can expedite this; someone can propose a closing statement in line with the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)- Seems kind of imbalanced to me. I find myself in agreement with Cla68, above about the civility matter. The diffs show WMC has been baiting and generally being disagreeable. He has been warned about this repeatedly. If Mark is to earn a block for this, I think so should WMC, who presumably is much more mature than Mark, and has been around far longer, and as a former admin, surely knows better. I'm fine on the 1RR restriction on MN though. 48 hours (civility) for MN, as you suggest, and 72 for WMC (48 for civility and 24 for edit warring), would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not convinced about the "baiting" which assumes the intent was to provoke a reaction. Disagreeable is another matter. --BozMo talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nod. We can never judge intent. Only outcomes. Perhaps there indeed was no intent. But the appearance given is that there was, and that a reaction certainly ensued. We do have rules and practices against baiting, and I guess what we require is that there not be an appearance of it, rather than that one's heart be pure. WMC fails the appearance test in my view. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- As regards "unbalanced", my view is that Marknutley has specifically acted in a manner for which he has received past censure - incivility in response to perceived "disagreeable" comments from WMC, and edit warring. For that reason I suggested the 48 hour block and extended 1RR restriction. WMC has also been on notice that violation of his 1RR restriction would result in a sanction, but my brief review indicated that this was likely an isolated incident - thus the 24 hour tarrif. As regards the language used by WMC, the same brief review indicated that he had been warned about referring to parties with differing philosophies in a demeaning manner, but nothing (that I could see quickly) about general tone. Unless it is suggested that the comments singly or as a whole can be regarded as personal attacks, then I feel that expanding the existing warning not to indulge in demeaning language to include comments to or about other parties would put him to the level that Marknutley is and is being sanctioned under. As I see it, not unnaturally, I think my review is balanced - but I of course realise that opinion may differ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just think it's a bit quibblish to slice the warnings to WMC, an experienced editor with thousands of edits, and many years here quite so exceedingly fine. He's been warned about his conversational style over and over, hasn't he? I don't see the difference here between demeaning reference and derogatory manner. For example, "Push the left button" is something I'd characterize as a demeaning reference, for example. So no, I don't agree. No further warnings are needed in his case, a sanction should apply. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not convinced about the "baiting" which assumes the intent was to provoke a reaction. Disagreeable is another matter. --BozMo talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems kind of imbalanced to me. I find myself in agreement with Cla68, above about the civility matter. The diffs show WMC has been baiting and generally being disagreeable. He has been warned about this repeatedly. If Mark is to earn a block for this, I think so should WMC, who presumably is much more mature than Mark, and has been around far longer, and as a former admin, surely knows better. I'm fine on the 1RR restriction on MN though. 48 hours (civility) for MN, as you suggest, and 72 for WMC (48 for civility and 24 for edit warring), would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have reviewed this previous closing statement, referred to by WMC. Since it appears that Marknutley (talk · contribs) has edit warred contrary to the statement I feel that a 1RR restriction should be imposed for not less than 3 months - I would suggest 6.
- I have not had a chance to examine the evidence properly, but whatever decision is made should be made within the next few hours, not over the next few days. Letting this request go stale and making a block for incivility impossible would not be productive, unless long-term blocks/topic bans are being considered. NW (Talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I support moving quickly, but not TOO quickly please. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone else thing is it worth trying appointing ATren as a parole officer? Just a thought. In general I am sure Mark feels he is only giving as good as he is getting on civility but an eye for an eye is not a recipe for Sicilian peace; and I am sure others in good faith see him as escalating. I guess sooner or later we will have to convince him to stop. --BozMo talk 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? And take Mark up on his offer, too. But I think examining WMC's behavior in this before we close the books on this one has a lot of merit. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I indicated, this is an excellent idea going forward - but I am inclined to strongly indicate what the consequences of not finding a resolution to these behaviours will be; it makes the alternative more appealing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- We should discuss with ATren if he is happy to do this. It is a kind of last resort for an editor we would rather keep. If we are prepared to, the form of consequence could be a suspended (for say three months) sentence of the form immediate 1 month topic ban for any comment in violation of whatever rules we want, with edit summaries not forgivable but a rider than ATren or MN have a 24 hour period to withdraw by strikethrough of MNs talkpage comments by either of them. And if we do this we make it clear than "provocation" is no defence. ATren gets a big barnstar if it works. Probably not now but the option exists to appoint someone WMC respects (?Boris) to do the same thing with his talkpage edits. --BozMo talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
1RR violation
I wanted to bring a 1RR violation to your attention. It is discussed here: User_talk:Dave_souza#Edits_to_Climategate. After two requests to self-revert and discuss his edits on the talkpage Dave Souza continued to make changes to the article (many of which constituted reverts). He has yet to reverse them. With that, I'm off to bed. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Malformed, obviously. And not clearly valid, per DS's talk. Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below applies, unless someone cares to tidy this up William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)