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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 11 September 2010 (→‎Voluntary agreements: oh, yeah - so I did(n't)...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for list of formal and informal sanctions since the opening of the Arbcom case

First off, apologies for the repeated delays in finalizing a proposed decision for the Climate Change case. Each of the drafting arbitrators have in turn had to address real-world issues, in addition to reviewing a huge mass of evidence, not to mention the massive discussions on the workshop and dozens of other pages where this dispute has played out over many months. We appreciate the work of multiple administrators who have been reviewing requests for enforcement on this page, and recognize that they have continued to manage conflict in this area throughout the Arbcom case itself. In view of this, I am requesting at this time that administrators please assist us by creating a list of formal sanctions that have been applied within this topic area since 13 June 2010 (when the Arbcom case opened), as well as any informal agreements on behaviour on the part of any editor, whether still in force or expired during the life of the case. Please note that this isn't a request to discuss further these particular sanctions. Thanks for your assistance. Risker (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redundant with the log? We are supposed to (except for the informal agreements) log all actions here and I think most if not all the data you request is there already... please advise. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, curiously, what I hear periodically from various administrators includes considerably more than appears on that log. Whether that log is incomplete or inaccurate, or administrators have been acting on matters that have not specifically been raised on this noticeboard, or alternately that some administrators believe sanctions are in place that actually aren't in place, I am not sure. Hence the request to get things out on the table. There's no obligation for every behavioural issue to be brought here; people can still be subject to the usual range of behavioural sanctions for policy-based reasons without the specific issue falling under general sanctions, even if the behavioural issue takes place on a CC-related page. Risker (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear when I said "all actions" I meant those that result from a request here. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lar. That has also reminded me that we would like to know of page-specific sanctions as well, e.g., pages that required protection or had 1-RR or other restrictions placed on them. Those also might not be discussed here, but those who have been adminning and editing in the area are likely to be aware of them. I've added that below. Risker (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that what you also might be looking for is whenever any CC article was hard protected from editing and who was editing it at that time. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: I doubt that you will find very many sanctions for the time period specified. A couple months ago (or so) the Climate change probation grinded to a screeching halt as admins waited a ruling from ArbCom. As a result, most RfEs for the past two months ended being closed as stale or the editors worked out the issues among themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of active formal and informal sanctions

Please provide the following information:

  • Name of sanctioned editor
  • Description of sanction in less than 10 words (e.g., 1-RR limit, page ban from [[Name of page]], blocked for NPA, User agreed not to edit [[Name of page]]—informal sanction )
  • Date and duration of sanction, and whether still in effect
  • Link to the discussion of the sanction/behavioural agreement
  • Also may be included: Any page-specific sanctions, (page protection, 1-RR or other restrictions), with a link (where applicable) to any discussion.
Incidents here taken and reorganized below
Risker, I've had a look at the timeframe requested. The following is what has happened on the CC enforcement page, using the criterion of action taken (warnings, sanctions etc) concerning specific named individuals. I have excluded reports that were closed without action:
  • [2] Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect.
  • [3] William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect.
There also was a general prohibition on adding or removing tags to articles in the CC topic area, issued a week ago today. No individual editors were sanctioned, however. [4]
Hope that helps. I'm afraid I can't help with page protection or other restrictions since my visibility of the topic area is pretty limited. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any centralised record of what has happened on that score. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you don't remember that you were involved in at least three of them? I'll help you out by listing the article protections below and the editors who were involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ChrisO, that is exactly what I was looking for. Cla68, thank you for starting the list of article protections below; however, your comment to ChrisO wasn't particularly helpful. I'm just after facts here, and I'd prefer not to have people casting aspersions about each other, even vaguely. Risker (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thank you for reminding Cla68. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Risker, and a couple more articles have been added to the list below, one by me. Cla68 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added below the edit war leading to my protection of Hockey stick controversy in the second week of July. Perusing my administrative log, the only other actions from me that appear to be missing are a couple semi-protections and blocks related to Scibaby. Would you like those included as well? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncomfortable with use of the term "sanction" for people who voluntarily agreed not to edit in this subject area, on the assurance[5] that this was solely to be a sign of good faith, not a consent to a "sanction." Some of us, such as myself, were active almost exclusively in the talk pages and did very little editing in the articles themselves, and/or were involved in the workshops/evidence pages only as commentators. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The change to "voluntary agreements," and the note, fully addresses my concerns. Thanks very much. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full article protections

Lawrence Solomon
Hockey stick controversy
The Hockey Stick Illusion (1)
Christopher Monckton
The Hockey Stick Illusion (2)
Michael E. Mann
Robert Watson (scientist)

Individual sanctions

Voluntary agreements
Note: A listing in this section is not necessarily an indication of bad editing, and in fact may be a sign of the exact opposite.
Note: The original voluntary agreement clearly stated I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks) as that was now over two weeks ago for all who signed up it is clearly null and void. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following users agreed to remove themselves from the climate change topic area between August 5 and August 10:

  1. Kim D. Petersen
  2. ATren (nonetheless commented on a couple of pages)
    Where? ATren (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [20], [21], [22] NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is not a CC article. The second was clearly marked as a redaction to an obvious BLP vio, in which ChrisO added partisan smears to a talk page. The third I'll concede, though it was in error and if you'd talked to me first I would have reverted. I've just reverted it now. ATren (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sphilbrick
  4. Cla68 (on 24 August resumed talk page and BLP edits, announced understanding that this agreement had ended)
  5. Tony Sidaway
  6. Count Iblis
  7. ScottyBerg
  8. Scjessey
  • GregJackP signed up, but withdrew his signature two days later.
  • TheGoodLocust signed up, but was already under a topic ban that was to expire in November.
  • Zulu Papa 5 said he would not revert pages.
  • William M. Connolley said he would only edit talk pages after first agreeing to not edit any climate change pages, giving a reason that others had been editing talk pages as well (withdrew about 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC) citing the continued editing by others party to this case)[reply]
  • LessHeard vanU said that he would refrain from acting or commenting as an administrator in the area (until appx 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC), and until further notice) (after a couple of posts, he realised he could no longer be bothered to either not refrain/comment nor to update his withdrawal comment...)[reply]
  • dave souza 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC) moved here on understanding from Cla68 that "voluntary ban" had ended by 24 August (On 17 August made a minor edit to a disambiguation page, then that day edited to point out a clear BLP violation at one BLP, its talk page and related BLPN, but did not edit further when the violation was restored.)[reply]
  • User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris refrained from editing climate-related articles with, I think, one slip but didn't sign up or post to everyone's talk page making a big deal out of it. (Matthew 6:1-2 may help explain.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary
  • [23] Marknutley placed on civility parole; still in effect.
  • [24] Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect.
  • [25] William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect.
    • [26] WMC blocked for 48 hours for violation of above sanction. (said block was subsequently agreed to be invalid)

Topic-wide sanctions

  • [27] Article tags sanction added by NuclearWarfare: Addition and removal of neutrality (and related) tags forbidden on August 2 for a period of two weeks. Confirmed by admin consensus. Extended until closure of ArbCom case on August 17 by NuclearWarfare.

Unilateral modification of active sanction

See this. I'm not sure a unilateral modification of an existing sanction is a good idea. Perhaps if there was a consensus for a clarification? I didn't revert it although the thought crossed my mind. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and consensus is at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GSCC_Revision and the preceding sections. I would suggest the discussion continue there rather than here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But their may be uninvolved people there! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the right place ... the question is whether ANI trumps this board. Maybe it does. Maybe specifically asking for consensus to modify this sanction here is the way to go. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did not see this discussion until just now. I reverted the modification of the sanction, and my discussion of that is on the ANI page. In short, I don't think one admin can come in and change the sanction unilaterally, I don't think ANI can overrule arb probation, the modification would have created problems of its own because it limited the sanction to CC related content, and we all know WMC is very clever about doing his thing just outside the lines so the modification would essentially nullify the sanction, and finally even if ANI is the place for that discussion to take place there was nothing that could be said to be consensus in that discussion. Minor4th 03:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollbacked. Despite what you may think of the sanction or its modification, you have no authority to edit that page. NW (Talk) 03:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You sure about that? Minor4th 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NW - please explain your actions and your warning to me, and what is your rationale for saying I do not have the authority to edit that page? In formulating your answer, I draw your attention to these edits in the same section: [28], [29], [30].[31], [32]. [33]. I do not believe you issued any kind of warning to ChrisO for repeatedly editing in that section. Please explain to me why ChrisO has authority to edit that page and I don't. Minor4th 09:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because ChrisO and Ncm were merely logging sanctions that had already been agreed upon by admins. You reverted an admin. Just a little different. NW (Talk) 12:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what you said was that I did not have authority to edit that page. I guess what you meant was I don't have authority to revert an admin, right? As a matter of curiosity and because there are apparently some policies that I am not yet familiar with -- is it always the case that a non-admin cannot revert an admin? If not, where is the line that is drawn because I don't want to step over it or ever come close again. I assure you I did not think that I was doing something prohibited and I guess I am still not entirely clear on the policy. Genuinely trying to understand here and not trying to argue or fight. Minor4th 13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NW, why did you say he didn't have the authority to edit that page? You were clearly out of line here. And since the latest wikilawyering debate, I think it's abundantly clear that every single word anyone writes in this conflict will be scrutinized for every possible nuance. You should retract your warning, which was ill-worded and ill-advised. Letter of the law is in effect here. ATren (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this unsupported rumour coming from that the CC probation has anything to do with ArbCom? It's a community probation. The community has given, the community can take away. AN/I is the primary community forum for this kind of stuff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the probation. It was community imposed. And the probation does state that admin enforcement actions can be changed only by consent of the admin imposing the sanction, ANI consensus or by appeal to ArbCom. In this instance, dragon's flight did not consult with the admin imposing the sanction and flat out ignored and acted contrary to the objections of two admins who were part of the original uninvolved admin consensus; obviously there was no appeal to ArbCom. DF cited consensus on ANI, but that is not accurate. DF was took a spattering of agreement as consensus, while discounting the the disagreement. In any event, there certainly was not consensus to modify it in the way that he did, which was to limit the sanction to content related to climate change. This effectively nullifies the sanction entirely and endorses the behavior that gave rise to the sanction in the first place-- WMC's removal of GregJackP's comment on an enforcement page, and the comment had nothing to do with CC content. Seeing FutPerf's endorsement below, I have to ask if he has really thought this through because the result is an absurdity. Since NW has reverted me and warned me for something, I would ask one of the other admins to look at the effect of the modification and NW's revert and consider restoring the sanction as written until the proper modification can be worked out in a sensible fashion. Minor4th 07:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems very much like wikilawyering, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to think that your ongoing campaign against WMC is inappropriate. I suggest you just drop it and wait for the outcome of the arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, to quote one of your cabal mates. Besides, there is no ongoing campaign against WMC and it is not helpful to keep trying to fit everything into that box. Did you have anything substantive to add or just commentary on editors? Minor4th 09:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the admins who formed the consensus for the sanction in the first place, I endorse the modification. And it doesn't matter where the discussion was held; we're not a bureaucracy. Everybody who needed to be aware of it was aware of it, that's all that matters. Fut.Perf. 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following -- everyone who knew about what was aware of it? Minor4th 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In my opinion the way this has been done and the wording used set a very bad precedent. It is simply not reasonable to make a blanket statement that user talk pages are not "climate-change-related pages". Some conversations on those pages will clearly be CC-related and will have a direct bearing on the user behaviour issues this probation was set up to address. In this case I agree with the eventual outcome in WMC's favour, but I don't agree with the argument used to achieve it. A thread on WMC's talk page notifying him of a sanction under the climate-change probation is, in my opinion, climate-change-related content in its own right, and entirely within the scope of the probation. Saying it isn't opens up a huge loophole and is logically inconsistent, no matter how many administrators form a consensus otherwise. Thparkth (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, and that was the sole basis for reverting the modification in order to give time to think it through and come up with a more functional modification if that is to be the result. Minor4th 13:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The "voluntary recusal" page has now disappeared off into the archives as Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 5, which seems regrettable, as it is an active document not an archive. I've edited today, before realising it was in the archives. Any admin that wants to fix that up in some way, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary editing agreements

Moved here from the discussion page of the arbitration proposed decision, as suggested by Dave Souza

One loose end: are the voluntary editing arrangements over? Unclear whether they expire at issuance of PD. See [34]. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think wise editors will extended their editing break until this decision is implemented. At that point our "good" editors will experience much relief, because their complaints will be heard and acted upon promptly, and not subject to stonewalling by the civil POV pushing that has frequently caused gridlock WP:GS/CC/RE. Those who engage in civil POV pushing are likely to get a rude awakening at WP:AE. That board is quite experienced at handling all forms of nonsense, and will be quick to issue sanctions.
Those who complain that this decision does not go far enough should wait and see what happens at WP:AE. Like other persistent conflicts, such as WP:ARB9/11, we will generate a lengthy sanctions log. Even if your favorite disruptive editor has not been singled out in this decision, they will most likely be dealt with at WP:AE. Jehochman Talk 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle, but the original notice seemed to imply that the voluntary restriction ends after two weeks. A number of editors are therefore acting under the assumption that the voluntary agreement is now void. I tend to agree with them. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in hearing ArbCom's opinion on the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Jehochman that AE is better at quick action against POV pushers of all stripes, AE does not stand up well in AN/I appeals with lots of established users. And if anything can be shown in this dispute is that parties who do not like to follow the 5 Pillars, will appeal each and every single enforcement restriction put on. So, the log will be double length, with sanctions and repeals/modifications. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think AE is a good idea, in theory, by theoretically exposing disputes to larger number of administrators. The problem was that the old enforcement board was overused in trivial disputes, so that may happen at AE too.
We're getting off-topic. On the voluntary restriction, I'd feel better about it if ALL editors and administrators currently involved in the pages backed off completely, just to see what happens. Since there hasn't been full compliance, I'd favor lifting these voluntary restrictions. Besides, if they really are voluntary, we shouldn't even be having this discussion and people should drift back as they wish. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that there's some language in the so-called "voluntary" agreement that threatens a block if people start editing again. See [35]: I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation. [Emphasis added]. Is this correct? Because if it is, we don't really have a "voluntary" agreement here. If it isn't, or if the agreement is no longer in effect, we need to know. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted the voluntary ban to be until the PD was posted, and then it would end for those editors not mentioned in the PD. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did too, but I don't like that language. It's coercive, and I don't recall noticing it when I signed on. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you voluntarily signed up to be banned if you edited despite signing, i interpreted that as a "protect me from myself" clause. Do remember how the agreement came about, it was simply not in any ones interest (imho) to make an issue out of what particular wording that agreement should have. As for the validity/reality of the agreement - that fell down rather fast, since it appears that people could just sign on and off as they pleased, and place their own terms on what they would agree on [which runs rather contrary to the idea - but thats a whole different issue]. I'm still keeping to that agreement (which means complete topic ban (excluding vandalism and including the GS/CC board and talk), since i've interpreted Jehochman as the "probation officer" of it, and he hasn't released it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)(User_talk:Jehochman#tick..tick..).[reply]
There seems to be a good faith dispute over whether the pledge is still valid. I don't like the idea of breaking promises, so I won't, but I'm confused over this. I signed on to this in the belief that the so-called voluntary ban would be over by now. I think that the "volunteers" should be released from our promise. I know, it's not a blood oath, but it's the principle of the thing. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Cla, I've amended the relevant talk page to note that and to remove myself from the list as of today. While my wish is to minimise my editing in the area in the immediate future, this frees me to deal with pressing BLP problems as in this case, see further discussion below. . . dave souza, talk 03:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the blocking clause in the agreement always there? If so then what is the point if editors can simply withdraw from it at any point (e.g. WMC)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It was there when I signed it. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite happy to continue with the voluntary restriction until the case has been closed (or abandoned). There are plenty of Wikipedia editors monitoring RecentChanges and I'm confident any egregious edits will be caught. Problem pages can be protected by administrators in various ways if things get out of hand. I continue to maintain a watchlist completely free of anything related to climate change. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on this thread

This section isn't actually about the content of the proposed decision. If the issue is resolved (is it?), then I'd suggest this section be archived. If it isn't resolved, then it might be good to move the discussion somewhere else based on Arbcom's preference that this page focus on improving the proposed decision. Dragons flight (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move to WT:GS/CC/RE where any remaining issues can be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking the ArbCom proposed Enforcement Process

Although the ArbCom decision is not yet final, the arbs commented on the existing Enforcement (GS/CC/RE) process:

In its months of operation, this sanctions noticeboard has successfully resolved many of the reports brought before it, but questions have been raised from time to time about procedural and other issues concerning its operation.

If there was any ambiguity regarding whether the existing GS/CC/RE should be continued as is, the first two proposed remedies removed all doubt:

ArbCom Proposed remedy - Discretionary sanctions

Original here 1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Original here

2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE). However, any discussions already pending on the existing noticeboard when this case closes should continue to a result, and need not be re-started or moved to AE.


Background

First, given that Arbcom is proposing an alternative approach to resolving disputes, why does this proposal exist? The answer is while ArbCom has agreed to address the CC issue broadly, it does not intend to micro manage, and it does not intend to commit to day-to-day oversight of all editing disputes. In several instance, requests for more specificity have elicited the (paraphrased) response, "We think you can figure that out for yourself". My broad take-away is that the committee is directing a changed environment, but expects the community to pitch in a fill in the details. In my view, the message regarding the GS/CC/RE approach is that it has been inadequate, and additional authority to uninvolved admins is one way to restore an acceptable editing environment. While the proposed approach provides the broad outline of the desired new approach, it seems likely that minor modifications reflecting comity input, while retaining the overall spirit of the proposed remedy, would not only be accepted by the committee but welcomed.

In order to consider whether any modifications are necessary, it will help to briefly review why any process is needed:

There is a tension between the slogan of WP—the encyclopedia anyone can edit—and the multitude of policies aimed at ensuring quality. Policies requiring sourcing, balance, notability and a NPOV are in conflict with allowing anyone, anywhere to add anything. The community has evolved over time to resolve this tension by pushing for the BRD cycle, and empowering the community to sanction or even ban editors who fail to edit in concert with the five pillars.

In many cases, the existing process work adequately. In order to avoid gaming the system, an editor can general not be unilaterally prohibited from editing. While an editor can be blocked temporarily on the say so of a single admin, blocks can be appealed to the wider community, and stronger sanctions such as bans require consensus of the community. This mechanism helps avoid the possibility that single issue editors can effectively silence detractors. However, in some situations, such as the CC articles, the volume of reports to AN/I overwhelmed the community and alternatives were required.

Current Approach

The first attempted solution was the GS/CC/RE noticeboard. While the approach gave more authority to admins, in many respects, it simply relocated disputes from AN/I to a different board. (Not to imply this was a meaningless aspect, as it gave the possibility that participants, both editors and admins, might become acquainted with the individuals and the issues and be in a better position to render informed commentary on proposed sanctions.) Unfortunately, the continued need to propose sanction and get community consensus for action lead to uneven and incomplete enforcement. The bottom line was that the CC article editing environment was still not acceptable, so the ArbCom case was proposed and accepted.

General Goals

The goal of any enforcement mechanism is a balance between the rights of editors and the desire to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. Rights of editor includes both e right of an editor to continue editing if they are following the policies, and the rights of other editors to work in a collegial atmosphere. As long as we allow humans to edit, we need some level of bureaucracy, as some editors will invariably be accused improperly of violating policies, and the must be a mechanism to allow appeal of sanctions.

The requirement for community consensus to ban an editor provides and important safeguard, and it should not be removed without careful consideration. The ArbCom proposal simultaneously empowers admins to impose sanctions with less "red tape" and properly includes an appeal process if those sanctions are improper, but in my judgment, the appeal process (other than the originating admin) requiring an AE noticeboard or ArbCOm itself, will overwhelm the arbs. Accordingly, an additional step, allowing a consensus of uninvolved admins to overrule a sanction will help reduce the number of appeals needing arb involvement. While this proposal does include an additional step, and thus appears to increase bureaucracy, in fact, it may reduce it. Appeals reaching the AE noticeboard or ArbCom itself will invariably need substantial discovery and production of evidence. In the case than an admin unilaterally imposes a sanction, and declines to reconsider, it would be far easier for a few uninvolved admins to discuss it. Should they fail to reach consensus, then it should be subject to a more intense discussion, but should they reach consensus that the sanction was not warranted, there is no need to suffer the great bureaucracy of the AE noticeboard.

Specific Proposal

Conceptually, we could continue with this notice board and simply change the rules. However, given the substantial nature of the changes, it is best to create a new noticeboard, reflecting the new rules and the oversight of ArbCom.

Proposed Process in a nutshell:

  1. Warn first
  2. Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate)
  3. Someone brings it to notice board if they are not themselves the uninvolved admin
  4. Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction, record or update notice board
  5. Appeal to: original sanctioning admin (either at notice board or at talk)
  6. Failing that: Overturn by consensus of uninvolved admins (nb, no consensus implies retain sanction) at notice board
  7. Failing that: Appeal to AE or ArbCom

Discussion

Can we talk about:

  1. Whether this meets the spirit of the Arbcom proposal?
  2. Whether the proposed modification is helpful?
  3. Other details that need to be addressed?

--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Note, the proposed steps are intended to be identical to that proposed by ArbCom, except step six is added partially as a safeguard but primarily as a reduction of bureaucracy. In all other repects, the intention was to exactly reproduce the ArbCom recommendation.--SPhilbrickT 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the long writeup SPh, you've distilled the essence nicely. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preempted?

Arbcom's proposed decision seems to preempt and replace community sanctions entirely. To avoid going through all this effort only to find it's void or needs an amendment to the decision, how about we solicit Arbcom's opinion, sooner rather than later, on whether they would let us do this. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the PD page, so the arbs will know this is here - just to be clear, I'm not proposing a minor modification to the GS/CC/RE process, but starting with the assumption that the broad outlines of the ArbCom process will be used—this is a discussion of a minor modification to the ArbCom proposal. (I reworded the header, as it could be confusing). --SPhilbrickT 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can do this here and now if we so choose, at this very board. All it takes is a consensus among uninvolved admins to change the approach. Has nothing to do with preemption. If and when ArbCom passes whatever they are going to pass, it would supercede this. But if we want to move things closer to what we divine ArbCom intent to be, this is a good way to do it. I think this is where SPh and I differ, I don't see starting a new board as needful, we can use this one. Even if it does have some baggage. Using this one seems more expedient than creating a new one. SO I think we should adopt this starting with all new cases as soon as consensus among uninvolved admins exists to do so. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets the spirit of the Arbcom proposal?

  • I believe it does indeed. It's almost exactly their proposal, but a bit fleshed out to make it workable, and with an additional step to take the appeal load off already overstrained groups. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the proposed modification is helpful?

  • Yes. I think we should adopt it. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other details that need to be addressed?

  • I think details can be addressed as they arise, this is good to go from my read. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about adding extra layers of bureaucracy, and more places for those with a mission to fight their causes. But I'm also worried about '1. Warn first': Warn by whom? During the heights of the 'Climategate' POV wars, I received some very pointed and quite aggressive 'warnings' on my talk page from some of the anti-science warriors (mostly from ones now blocked, barred and editing elsewhere, if I recall correctly). It seemed a standard tactic for some, if you're getting nowhere in the public discussion on an article talk page, try to split off your main opponents with ad hominem threats on their personal talk pages. I don't see why we should be opening all these doors for wide-ranging, separate, parallel discussions of a given content issue, in advance of any possible future concerted attack on the article space. Article talk pages and arbitration's discretionary sanctions ought to be enough, and if they prove not to be, surely we can work out what's missing once we've tried them out or a while. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning and all would be from an uninvolved admin.
This suggestion seems to be an attempt to reconstruct the original discretionary scheme as agreed on in early January. I have no faith in the commitment of the community to fully support such a scheme, which has been actively opposed by participating admins for nearly nine months. In particular I'm sure it would break down the minute a pushing point came along.
I suggest it's a little late for that and the discretionary sanctions will be better in every way. In particular a standard process that has been used in several other problem areas seems the way to go. If the discretionary sanctions pass, I expect the motion closing down this probation will also pass. --TS 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, either I'm not following your point, or you failed to understand the proposal. When you suggest that "discretionary sanctions will be better in every way", I ask, better than what? This proposal IS the discretionary sanctions proposal, with a minor modification affecting only the way in which an issued sanction can be overturned. --SPhilbrickT 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't discretionary sanctions because there's no reason to suppose that it will be followed any more than the previous discretionary regime was followed. That regime lasted less than two days before being overturned in favor of a discuss first regime. If you don't believe me, take a look at the wording of the probation. You'll have to admit that it was discretionary, but you wouldn't believe that from the way it has been operated for eight months. It's time to have arbcom order things, because the community failed to keep to its own agreed plans. --TS 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the PD is that one of the motivations for bringing disputes to AE instead of a separate board is to get a wider range of admins involved. I think that's a very good idea. In my view one of the main reasons for the failure of the GS/CC/RE board is that it became something of a walled garden. Few fresh perspectives being introduced. People might also behave better if they were in a place right next door to the arbs instead of being off in a separate corner. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with Boris on this. I think the proposal might have been good if it could have been implemented right away and we might still need some kind of interim measure for enforcement while the arb case is getting settled. I think it will be quite some time until the decisions are final and enforcement is taking place under the arb decision. A month or longer. How about implementing something like this right away until the arb case is settled?Minor4th 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implement the mechanism here, now. Move it to an appropriate AE board when the Arbs issue their final ruling. But there's no need to wait on implementing the mechanism. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything to implement it, if you're serious. Just stop discouraging admins from taking discretionary action. --TS 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is essentially the sanctions regime as originally approved by the community before it was hijacked to become a debating society and Synanon. Therefore it doesn't require action to implement. Just do it. Whatever is done here will be overridden by the arbcom decision soon enough, so there's no point in making a big deal over it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really. But even if it were, the key difference is the ability to appeal to other uninvolved admins, here. That feature is important, as without it, we get into a whoever gets to the scene first regime. ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB makes an interesting point that the wording of the respective process isn't all that different. However, the practice under the GS/CC/RE approach was to post a request for a sanction, which required evidence spelled out, and then was followed by a discussion period, statements by those named, comments by others, both by editors (involved and uninvolved) as well as uninvolved admins. After some debate (and quick decisions were usually excoriated), an admin would apply a sanction generally if there was consensus or close thereto. I looked briefly to see if that discussion period and finding of consensus was required, and I do not see it. My guess is that the approach was presented as if it was copying the AN/I approach to a separate board just for CC articles, and the AN/I approach generally does include quite some commentary from various parties in all but slam-dunk instances.
So perhaps it is correct that we have the authority to follow the proposal right now. I wouldn't want to be the first admin who unilaterally topic bans an editor to see if it really can be done. However, if it really is the intention that is can be done right now, a positive word from an arb would help.--SPhilbrickT 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Boris is over-egging the pudding when he says the probation was "hijacked." However it was conceived as a discretionary system but was not executed as one. That failure, I think, is what led to the really terrible battleground situation that has brewed on the enforcement page over the months. Rather than encouraging admins to take action (as the drafters of the arbitration proposal think is necessary) the probation as executed gave an incentive to ordinary editors to pile on during the discussion phase, and the administrators did not take adequate steps in page management to stop that. The result has been growing polarization and frustration. Admins who stepped in to take action were actively discouraged and some seem to have drifted off. I don't think we have that many more active admins in the area than we had last year. --TS 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead? Or just resting? No activity in a week suggests that while there might be merit to the idea, the will to implement isn't there. The case hopefully will close rendering this all moot. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to judge arbitration time scales, but I think it would be perfectly feasible for the arbitration case to move through the close vote within the next seven days. The votes are substantively in for all the major findings and remedies, and only some aspects of enforcement remain as serious obstacles to closing. --TS 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it looks like some of the arbitrators want to go for an "at wits' end" solution, which could take a bit longer when they get down to seeing which remedy to aim at whom. --TS 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley

[36] Honestly guys, it's time to stop the bleeding now. Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two edit wars at Phil Jones (climatologist) today

Can an admin please lock down the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters.

The original purpose of these pages was rendered obsolete upon the acceptance of the ArbCom case, IMnvHO, as the effectiveness and neutrality of the process was placed as a consideration for the Committee to review, and was confirmed when the Proposed Decision clearly indicated a desire to supercede these pages and move toward using AE. I see that a worthy exercise in utilising the likely process that would be adopted at AE was trailed here, but I would suggest that it was quickly deprecated in that concerns and commentary quickly appeared in the ArbCom case pages (and elsewhere such as ANI?) and the remit of administrators able to enforce any findings outside of standard sysop provisions potentially open to challenge (and might be found surplus or even in conflict to sanctions or restrictions placed at the end of the case). I spent some little time and energy on these pages for a few months earlier this year, and I am immoderately proud of what was achieved here despite it not being able to properly fulfill its function, and would wish it to end with some dignity rather than be the venue of squabbles and petty arguments. I would prefer if this place could be left as reminder of what was hoped for, rather than the result of its failings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --TS 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --TS 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]