Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive8
LessHeard vanU[edit]
LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
| Boldly closing this, as everyone seems to have moved on to other things. All editors are encouraged to work with the discussion process at the talk page extensively before moving to an RfC. On the other hand, when a number of editors have already commented on an issue, starting an RFC and insisting that it run the full thirty days before any action on a page can be taken is unnecessary. All editors who are considering filing requests for probation enforcement are encouraged to first speak with an uninvolved administrator. All administrators are encouraged to only revert and fully protect a page only in cases of obvious vandalism or BLP violations. NW (Talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning LessHeard vanU[edit]
Discussion concerning LessHeard vanU[edit]Statement by LessHeard vanU[edit]I have already requested review and comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, and noted the same on this pages talkpage and - after getting a little lost with the redirected talkpage - the article talkpage. Since this is an Climate Change Probation related article, I think this request is valid - but the input on the ANI page needs taken into account also in participants consideration. Plus, there is discussion at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Blog again that bears review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Re action requested; I fail to see why an issue in respect of one article that I am trying to admin unilaterally (per my understanding of both the admins remit and the Climate Change Probation allowances for admin supervision) should, if I were found to have exceeded my duties, extend to disbarring me from CCPe generally - unless it is found I acted so egregiously as to place my sysop status at risk. My actions generally within the CC Probation area are not being examined (yet) so I don't see why there might be good reason consider restrictions in that space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning LessHeard vanU[edit]Comment by SlimVirgin[edit]LHvU is acting as an uninvolved admin here, trying to get everyone to abide by the content policies and best practice, and so far as I can tell he is doing it without fear or favour. In the latest incident, William Connolley and Polargeo were trying to pre-empt the results of an RfC posted a few days ago. The RfC asked for fresh input to decide whether Bishop Hill (blog) (a climate-scepticism blog) should be merged into Andrew Montford (the person who runs the blog), or vice versa—or neither. Comments are still arriving, but WMC and Polargeo decided the RfC wasn't necessary and they've twice in the last 24 hours or so made the merge of their choice. LHvU reverted their latest effort, [4] protected the page, and has asked that the RfC be allowed to run its course. If any action needs to be taken it's against the editors trying to close the RfC prematurely. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by Fell Gleaming[edit]It looks like LHVD stopped an edit war, reverted out a page blanking that a user performed without consensus while a merger discussion was still ongoing, then protected the page. I don't see a problem? You're seriously asking for a ban for doing good work like this? Also, it appears WMC voted for this article to be deleted then, when that failed, voted for a merge and then attempted improperly to merge it while discussion was still ongoing. It appears he's simply upset over the outcome here. Fell Gleaming(talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Ratel[edit]Can we please have some rotation on the admins who oversee this area? Currently, we have at least 2 admins here who have quite strong feelings about the content. I infer this from their actions, although I'm sure they'll claim otherwise. Isn't there some way we can roster on other admins? Uninvolved, —I mean truly uninvolved— admins are sorely needed. My previous call for climate expert admins was derided as unworkable, so this would be the next best thing. ► RATEL ◄ 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZP5*[edit]This admin rightfully blocked WMC on March 2nd and April 2nd. As one of the few willing to stand up to WMC. By the other comments here, I am suspicious of WMC's motives. I've seen past cases were WMC rakes admins who make him realize the pain his caustic approach causes others. This request may be bordering on an abuse of this page, for which if WMC's past requests are examined closer, a recurring pattern may be seen. [5], [6], [7]. This admin has also closed many of WMC's meandering complains here. Outside admins should review the complainer's evasive history and unwarranted RFEs in this project when considering the issue raised. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Polargeo[edit]Give LessHeard a break. He thinks he was doing the right thing. Although he appears to be as misguided as Lar and Cla are on this. If he will undo his actions then that is fine end of story. As for banning me [8] from editing Bishop Hill after I made a single edit which followed consensus, I just feel a little sorry for him. The only thing I give a fuck about is making sure wikipedia follows consensus. If he is now banning me when I have never even been warned, never edit warred etc. etc. it just shows how much he has lost the plot. Polargeo (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please note Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input it is not an excuse to prevent edits merges etc. etc. etc. and LHvU is using it to do this completely against policy. He is using his admin tools against policy. Polargeo (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Other comments[edit]According to the regulation RfCs usually end after 30 days. The reg states that the nominator can close it earlier. WMC is not the nominator of this RfC. WMC used to be an admin and should know better. There probably should be an enforcement action against WMC. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Pretty straight forward misuse of admin tools. You don't revert and then protect except in extreme cases like major BLP violations. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Any enforcement involving WMC. Even one requested by WMC, wouldn't be right without Lar popping up as an uninvolved admin and requesting major sanctions against WMC. Sadly very predictable Polargeo (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by me[edit]
Comment by ATren[edit]How many frivolous requests does WMC get to file before he gets a ban on filing RFEs? ATren (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment (2) by SlimVirgin[edit]
Comment (2) by Polargeo[edit]
Comment on proposed closure wording[edit]NW has written The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once This is incorrect, please check the article history, WMC has edited it 11 times that i see in the article history mark nutley (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Collect[edit]Until we get Jell-O Instant Consensus, we are stuck with the existing rules - the 30 day rule is one of them. And, last I checked, there is always WP:DEADLINE as an essay. Moreover admins who opine here should also note if they routinely agree or disagree with any participants, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by dave souza[edit]WP:PREFER policy is that admins normally protect to the current version, but "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Under this policy, LessHeard vanU's reversion is clearly justifiable. However, it's arguable if there was such a clear point, and there's a sound tradition of protecting The Wrong Version. There was an emerging consensus, or at least a clear majority view, which made the merge and redirect (without any loss of information) justifiable. The RfC itself was valid, and could have continued whether or not the article was at present a redirect. On reviewing the circumstances, NW's proposed closure gives sound guidance for any similar situation in the future. Move stuff by ATren[edit][Moved from the wrong section - WMC]
Note added post-close by WMC[edit]Votes for The Wordsmith [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning LessHeard vanU[edit]
This looks genuinely marginal to me. The irony that WMC is complaining when LHvU does appear to care about content is inescapable. So anyway here is my view (1) Revert and protect should really be reserved for vandalism and a request would have been better than using tools (especially against an admin where it invites wheel warring). (2) Polargeo and WMC do seem to be being rather impatient. (3) At the same time starting an RFC should not "gamed" by a minority against the consensus: RFCs are not very credible processes when there are already many editors on a topic (although SV and a few others are obvious fans of them) and the RFC process is not intended to give a right to filibuster. My suggestion is (1) for another uninvolved admin to take over the closer supervision which this page seems to need (2) that we give a general warning that starting an RFC on Probation pages where a sufficient pool of editors are involved is something we look at from a gaming aspect (3) that we clarify uninvolved admins using revert and protect against editors of good standing is undesirable. What do others think? --BozMo talk 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think, viewed standalone, this is one of the more ridiculous enforcement requests in a long time, and one would wonder what WMC was actually thinking. Viewed in a larger context, though, his starting it here and now actually makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately. (insert comment about me being "delusional" here) Close with a commendation to LHvU and 10 trouts to WMC, Guettarda, et al. With an admonishment not to do it again and this time we really mean it. No, really, we do. And we're going to be very very cross next time. So cross we may actually say we really REALLY mean it. Alternatively, some sort of sanction against WMC for mucking around could be proposed. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see anything sanctionable here, certainly not the sanction that WMC has proposed. Protection policy seems to permit reverting to the version of the page immediately before the controversy, and then protecting it. While RFC cannot be used to filibuster, it also appears to fall outside the domain of WP:SNOW, so going ahead with the merge anyway was certainly a bad idea. I suggest trouts all around and a word of caution to those who file frivolous
After reviewing all the evidence, I cannot find fault with Polargeo's edits, and as such, I don't believe that LHvU's action was necessary. I fear that the administrator tools have been employed a bit too much on this article. Blocks and page protection were handed out a bit too liberally for my taste, and I would prefer that the use of them be scaled back. I generally agree with Bozmo's views (especially numbers 1 and 3) and his conclusions, and feel that several general reminders do need to be issued. At this time however, I cannot support the involuntary removal of LHvU from the probation process. Perhaps he has made some marginal calls (at least, ones I would have not made), but I don't believe that he is sufficiently biased enough at this time to need to recuse himself. NW (Talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Can we agree to close this case with a result of trouts all around? The WordsmithCommunicate 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that admins, before closing, give "more stuff by ATren" above, a read. He makes some good points. I am completely uncomfortable with a result that admonishes LHvU in any way. He was right to do what he did. I recognise that consensus may go against me but I strenuously object. Further, I suggest that going forward we not allow Polargeo to comment in any uninvolved admin section of any future enforcement request, as by edit warring (and wheel warring) in the topic area he has completely scotched any notion that he is uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As a general observation: we shouldn't try to act like a mini-arbcom of sort. Admins here should determine if enforcement actions are needed and that's it. I don't think that reviewing the administrative actions which took place in the objective to issue a closure statement about them is worthy; they have not been particularly abusive and parties have been counseled, there's not much more we can do and it doesn't seem needed. Commending users or absolving them of wrongdoings is also not what admins have been asked to do here, it's not enforcement. Cenarium (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
![[9]](http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/657/tinfoilhatth0.jpg){kind=link}
William M. Connolley[edit]
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #18 by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
| William M. Connolley banned from Fred Singer by The Wordsmith - Ban successfully appealed and discussion carrying on in a following section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
This section needs to be expanded if this request is not to be declined without further action. As per the rules, it needs an explanation how these (or other yet to be added) diffs constitute "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith". Ben Aveling 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply to 2/0[edit]I did go to the talk page, [41] but when I saw WMC add six citation tags to the lead for Singer's career description—which was sourced and has been in the article for a long time—I felt he was playing games, and I have no desire to get involved in it. He baits, he insults, he harries, he feigns surprise, he tries to make people look and feel foolish. It's not honest debate and there's just no point in it. This is a BLP issue that's been going on for years. It needs to be sorted out, and I can't do that alone, so I came here. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Problem continues[edit]Even as this is being discussed, WMC continues with the same kind of editing at Fred Singer. [42] SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC) A request[edit]For the admins looking at this, a decision fairly soon would be appreciated. WMC has now taken to, in effect, vandalizing the article by removing the entire further reading section and the categories. [43] He posted on talk that the articles in FR looked like spam. [44] But they were just regular articles from the NYT, Guardian etc, some by Singer, some about him. This was shortly after he removed material in the lead from The New York Times that he think is "rubbish," [45] added his own unsourced opinion to the lead about Singer's early research, [46] and accused me of "writing lies" in edit summaries. [47] There's no point in trying to improve the article with this kind of thing going on. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]This [49] is the state of the FS talk page when SV filed this request. Notice how little attempt SV has made to discuss these problems. Notice the attempt by me to discuss the issues. This request is premature and should be dismissed as such. But the usual suspects won't, so let us look at SV's complaints. The main one appears to be that I edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic before we even say he is a physicist. To anyone at all familiar with FS, this is a very odd complaint indeed. Indeed, SEPP's own tagline is Founded by atmospheric physicist and global-warming skeptic S. Fred Singer; press releases, news articles, scientific studies and other materials available. - so even Singer admits that AP and GWS belong on the first line, and all we disagree about is the order of terms. SV insists that even mentionning GWS is bad. Does anyone really think that Singer is better know for his atmospheric physics? Try looking at what-links-to-Singer [50] and see what wiki uses him for. SV notes that this is a BLP, yet she has added a large number of claims that are sourced to nothing but Singer's self-publsihed biog. These are all dubious; they may well be correct, but who knows. SV asserts that which he anyway knows is correct - I'm sorry, but mid-reading is not a RS, and in this case SV's mind-reading is wrong, anyway. I don't know those things to be correct. Let us take one of SV's claims: He was later the founding dean of the University of Miami's School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. This appears to be sourced only so FS's selfpub bio [51]. I'm very doubtful that is a good enough source, ince contested. I could be wrong of course - in which case, the correct course of action is a polite discussion on the article talk page, rather than "going nuclear" so quickly. He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff [52]. I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? [53]. 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once. This looks to me like a clear case of SV fouling up this article with junk. I ask that *she* be topic banned for polluting a BLP with wrongness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and can someone revert the sock [54] and maybe semi the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I object to the assertion of "only partial defence". The indictment section contains 2 diffs:
Of those, the second is absurd - the assertion that adding a POV tag is sanctionable is manifest nonsense. The first is also absurd: the current version of the article, as protected by Bozmo, also includes this text, so it really can't be so terrible. The rest is just mud-flinging. And your consenus is what: you, Lar, LHVU? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Sorry, but the claim that Solomon's column's represent "the mainstream press" already shows that this complaint has no basis in fact. This has been to WP:COIN when Solomon's misrepresentations (to be generous) were fresh, and no problem was found. Singer has, for the last 20 years, been best known for SEPP and his stance against the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a significant source of his notability, and it has to be covered adequately in the article. The way to achieve that is to work with, not against, knowledgeable editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
When someone can show us the 8000 climate change articles that WMC edited, and the 200 editors (or whatever the number is) he blocked because of their edits to climate change pages, we might consider taking Solomon seriously. And arguing that saying Singer is better known as a physicist than a "skeptic" is ban-worthy is just plain silly. Singer is better known as a "skeptic". Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not about Solomon, it's about Singer and WMC. Two years ago I gave up on the Singer BLP because there was no room for debate with editors like WMC and Raul654, who insisted on emphasizing "embarrassing" (WMC's own words) claims that Singer believed in life on Mars (among other smear tactics). Raul has long since left this topic area, but WMC is still here fighting any efforts to fix Singer's bio. WMC's history on Singer's bio is there for all to examine, regardless of what Solomon says, and continued emphasis on Solomon distracts from the real issue here. WMC should be banned from Singer. In fact, WMC should be banned from all BLPs in this topic area because he's written extensively (and often derisively) about many of these people on his blog, and he seems incapable of putting aside his antipathy towards them in his activities here. Some recent examples: he recently fought to add the unqualified "Plimer is wrong" [58] to Ian Plimer's BLP based on opinion pieces, even though others (including ChrisO [59]) argued for more encyclopedic wording and better sourcing; he also added an association with Lyndon LaRouche in a skeptic's BLP, sourced to his friend Tim Lambert's climate blog [60]. I can find more if necessary. As SV says, these are the kinds of activities that get other editors banned, yet WMC gets away with it. ATren (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So then: ATren, Bozmo, Lar, JWB, AQFK, SP, LHVU all you lot: do *any* of you think FS is better known as a physicist than a GW skeptic? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit]There follows a list of the threads raised at WP:COI/N regarding User:William M. Connolley. I do this in the interest of not duplicating concluded discussions or reinventing the wheel. As of this writing, I have not read WMC's response and am offering no opinion at present. I only searched using the correct spelling of his name, omitted threads where he was not of primary concern, and made no attempt to track down any more general threads that may exist. If anyone finds additional relevant threads, please add them with the date and a brief, neutral summary and note that you have done so. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The 2009-12 thread looks relevant enough that I recommend reading it before commenting. The one from last month should still be fresh in everyone's mind, but re-reading it as well might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]However the admins decide on this case, I suggest that you explain your rationale carefully (not merely "per complainant" as one admin has declared). To establish a precedent that a partisan commentator can knock out a Wikipedia editor by objecting to their actions, as the complainant argues here, may not necessarily be in the best interest of the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZP5*[edit]Taking the side of precautionary safety here would be appropriate given the external complaints and many COIN issues raised on WMC. BLPs have greater rights than any editor who has a POV bias. I've seen others get disciplined for simple and fixable copyright issues, however this seems to be a persistent issue here, which should not be ignored. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I checked again about what would be sanctioned here with WMC since others seem to blind to it. As per Wikipedia:DISRUPT then "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of: disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." No wonder there is a perception of a lynch mob, the editor has extended disruptions over a considerable period of time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by BozMo[edit]
Comment by Ben Aveling[edit]
Comment by Thparkth[edit]A few pedantic points.
Given all this, I can't see any real substance to the enforcement request. Thparkth (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Ratel[edit]I suggest WMC withdraws voluntarily from this BLP, as LHvU suggests. It may not be a BLP for too long anyway. A lot of these sceptics are superannuated, retired academics finding the spotlight again by taking the contrary position to mainstream scientific thought, often for a price (this does not refer to FS). We get that. Bigger fish to fry, William. ► RATEL ◄ 15:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC) WMC adding "RealClimate" as a source for criticism to Singer's BLP[edit]Note that WMC has a long association with RealClimate, and though he quit several years ago, he still appears in their contributor list (page 2), and Gavin Schmidt still referred to Connolley as one of them as recently as mid-2009 ("...and our own William Connolley"). ATren (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Q Science[edit]I agree with many of the comments with respect to WMC's editing, but I don't think that a ban is appropriate. I find SV's claim that WMC should be banned partly because he made over 103 edits since 2004 amusing. Based on experience, it is likely that 30% of those were simply to revert vandalism. On the other hand, SV has made over 160 edits is just 4 days (from 05-13-2010 to 05-17-2010). Over 100 edits in 6 years verses 160 edits in 4 days. It is pretty clear which is more disruptive. Don't get me wrong, I agree with many (maybe even most) of SV's edits (no, I have not read them all), but this is not the way to make a better article. More than 5 edits a day (not counting vandalism repair) by a single editor is just too many. Not even SciBaby is this disruptive. At any rate, since WMC is no longer an administrator, I don't see how banning him will make this article better. In fact, now that SV has obviously taken over this page, I strongly feel that WMC should be encouraged to monitor the changes, not banned. Q Science (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by dave souza[edit]The basic reason given for this request is a dispute over article content, where SlimVirgin went to extraordinary lengths to avoid mentioning Singer's AGW skepticism in the first paragraph of the lead,[68][69] and came here rather than presenting a reasoned argument on the article talk page. I'm uninvolved, having not edited the article or the talk page, but would note the following. Singer's testimony of 2000 gives his self description as "the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).... We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment".[70] His views remain the same in his December 2009 article published by Reuters, Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle | Analysis & Opinion where he is described as "the President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia", and describes himself as a lead author in the first NIPCC report. In view of these statements, SlimVirgin seems to be attempting to whitewash Singer on the unwarranted assumption that due mention of his climate skepticism is a slur. All of which should be resolved by presenting evidence on the article talk page with the aim of improving the article rather than using the sanctions to win a dispute over content. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Stephan Schulz is NOT Uninvolved[edit]I tried to put a note to that effect, but Vsmith
I hope one of the admins will remove Stephan Schulz's post from the "involved admin" section. He's clearly deeply involved in this situation as a whole, but he's also involved in the Fred Singer article in particular. Here are some of his recent comments on the talk page, dated May 15, where he objected to me posting articles by or about Singer from The New York Times in Further reading. Overall he's made 26 edits to the article between 2007 and 2010, and 33 posts to talk during the same period. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
View by Stephan Schulz[edit](in response to LHvU's view on how to proceed)
(in response to Lar's comment that he could represent WMC's views adequately)
(in response to I'm not sure what (he can fix it if he wants) ++Lar) To help obviously badly biased and heavily involved editor Lar out: Copied plainly misleading comment by involved editor Lar that as of 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC) can still be found below:
Comment by ChrisO[edit]Frankly, I'm getting the feeling that this is more of an anti-WMC witch-hunt than anything else. It looks very much like yet another case of "throw mud against the wall and hope that it sticks". I've criticised WMC's editing in the past but I can't see any substantive scope for sanctions in this particular case. I'm dismayed by the fact that SlimVirgin has (it would seem) made little or no effort to pursue dispute resolution but has jumped straight over to here in an attempt to obtain an instant ban. When these sanctions were enacted, they were meant to deal with egregious conduct or issues where dispute resolution had broken down. I don't see anything particularly egregious here and dispute resolution doesn't even appear to have been tried. Admins, if you impose sanctions in this case, you will be setting a very bad precedent - you will be telling everyone involved that there is no point in going through dispute resolution. You will have turned this process into an alternative to DR and you will encourage editors to think that you will ban their "opponents" rather than getting them to resolve their differences. The only sensible way to resolve this is to instruct all concerned to pursue dispute resolution and stick to the rules of BLP. If that breaks down, then it might be appropriate to consider the issue here, but surely not before DR has been pursued. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Alex Harvey[edit]I have withdrawn from BLPs for a while, largely from burnout, but I've had a look at this dispute. I think a topic ban of WMC from the Fred Singer article would definitely send the right message -- i.e. that BLP abuse in Wikipedia is not tolerated (although it usually is...), and that WMC is not above the rules and untouchable. It would also give WMC a chance, I suppose, to contribute constructively to other articles in the AGW space, even save some of his own time. I think it's fair to say that Fred Singer is not an area that WMC is interested in or especially knowledgeable. Frankly, I think it is a shame WMC doesn't spend more time writing his blog, and less time defacing Wikipedia & causing controversy here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Polargeo[edit](moved from uninvolved admin section by Lar as Polargeo is not an uninvolved admin under our definition)
I dispute your assertion that I am anti-WMC. While Dr. Connolley may have an issue with me, I have none with him. If any other name were attached to the pattern of diffs presented, I would advocate for banning them from the article as well. If you believe that I am anti-WMC, I counter that your belief may be due to not having a large enough sample size of interactions between us. I have had several negative interactions with Lar as well (I even opposed his Steward reconfirmation and he opposed my RFA), perhaps I am anti-Lar? I rather dislike a number of things that SlimVirgin does, including her habit of inserting herself into a discussion at the last minute and attempting to change everything (see WT:BLPPROD). I suppose I am biased against her as well. I supported views opposite to yours on Lar's RFC/U, so I am clearly anti-Polarego as well. I should probably withdraw from this entire area, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that I hate everybody. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Jayen466[edit]I believe SlimVirgin's request is justified. To be fair, WMC has on occasion deleted unsourced allegations against Singer, e.g. [72], [73]. However, this edit by WMC appears to add a self-published source (now defunct) to Singer's BLP, in direct contravention of BLP policy, which WMC is well aware of. This edit reinserts a ref to a site WMC is personally involved in, to contradict an opinion voiced by the article subject. None of the articles presented at the cited site actually discuss Singer, so this appears to be a case of using this BLP as a coatrack for conducting a scientific argument (as well as WP:SYN), rather than a reflection of Singer's reception. This appears to be WP:OR commentary. This edit as well as this is designed to diminish the subject, who continues to be described as an atmospheric physicist in the press. That's not how we write BLPs. These are simply random edits by WMC from the edit history; their nature, together with the above press cited by SlimVirgin, leads me to the conclusion that a topic ban is in order. --JN466 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Hans Adler[edit]This complaint is a farce. There may be some valid core, somewhere. Actually, I consider it quite likely given how abrasive WMC has been against myself in the past. But this valid core, if any, is impossible to see behind the thick mixture of fog, smoke, snow, sand, and locusts. I don't have the time to respond to anything that was said against WMC that was wrong, so I will just address one point. SlimVirgin quotes Singer's complaint: "In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians." [80]
Hans Adler 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
|
Request for revert of The Wordsmith's close of case "William M. Connolley"[edit]
by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
| WP:BOLDly closing appeal as successful. Discussion regarding WMC's editing of Fred Singer, and the consensus for action, to be continued separately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
TW closed the case against me above [87] with William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer. There is no consensus for this close. The majority of admins commenting opposed this close. Even those most strongly in favour of the ban - Lar and LHVU - agree there is no consensus. Indeed, even TW admits there is no consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
(added after the close) I'm fine with the close/overturn (I note apparent consensus for it, although I do not myself agree) but I want to go on record that these questions remain mostly unanswered. Repeated for convenience:
WMC answered one, indirectly, with this post
The rest remain unanswered. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
William M. Connolley (revisited)[edit]
by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)
| User William M. Connolley is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer, or the associated talk page, talk:Fred Singer, for a period of three months. (to expire 02:00 26 August 2010 (UTC)) ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Move the whole discussion to a community thread that deals with WMC's clear, citable conflict of interest against the climate change BLP articles and request a restriction that WMC is restricted from editing all such BLP articles. Climate change activists that have been involved in multiple issues at multiple BLP articles of his clear, citable opponents should not be allowed to continue editing any such BLP articles. It is not the revoking of this restriction that is worthy of discussion but its expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin seeing the ruckus over the restrictions on WMC, I reviewed his recent edits and see many problems with his contributions. I barely scratched the surface with my review, but found so many that I stopped to give my initial impression that sanctions against him are indeed appropriate. (Link to sandbox with full comments instead of diffs)
Recommendation:
I'm leaving for a trip out of town and will not be able to expand on this for a long time so do with it as you all like. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have no comments currently related to topic ban on the topic of "Fred Singer." My above comments were related to what I saw was proposed topic ban from "Global Warming." Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Some responses[edit]Some responses from me. I'll start with AGK's diff, because it is so easy to rebut; well, people have already done so (thank you) but I want to comment on it, becauase it is so bizarre that the discussion has got to a point where it could be considered problematic, let alone sanctionable. I think the fact that diff could be considered killer evidence makes it clear how far the anti-WMC tirade has ramped. The diff is [104] and the substance is, a global warming skeptic, retired American atmospheric physicist (bold added). That he is a GW skeptic is doubted by no-one, including Singer. It was in the version that Bozmo protected [105] so presumably can't be too bad. As to the word retired: well, I agree that it is arguable. We have a RS calling him retired [106], but there are shades of opinion on that; perhaps AP's don't retire, just fade away. Which makes it an issue that should be discussed on the talk page; it very clearly isn't sanctionable; nor a BLP issue. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Continuing (starting from the bottom of Flonight's diffs): [107] and [108] are hard to understand. Since when has removing unwelomce comments from a users talk page been sanctionable? And (to be frank) since when have attacks on me been news? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
don't derail the discussion [109]. Another odd one. Look at the section - it is about quite an important question: Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation?. If you look at the discussion of the Fred Singer question, above; or indeed TW's close (my talk page) you'll repeatedly see old edits brought up (in fact I suspect you've done the same, never mind, I'll get to that). I think I should be shown some credit for starting an explicit debate on this important matter, which needed clarifying. But (alas, as so many of these things do) it showed signs of degenerating in to the usual, instead of focussing on the question at hand. Hence my comment William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Next section: apparently, telling TW that I wouldn't waste my time appealling to him [110] is bad. Arbcomm (WMC vs Giano, oddly enough) decided that even gross incivilty against a blocking admin is not sanctionable. By comparison, my assertion that TW was unlikely to be worth appealing to (a view fully borne out by subsequent events) seems quite harmless. Deeply ironic [111]: indeed, it would be: SV has been notable in the course of this dispute for *not* trying to discuss matters on talk but escalating them off to probation. Also note how that comment continues in a perfectly reasonable attempt to discuss the issues at hand; and further note how SV has, indeed, failed to follow up and discuss these issues. So I think my assertion of "irony" is fully justified. Whitewash [112]: yes indeed, there is I think no other word for it. Ask anyone (outside the rather odd world of this probation) what Fred Singer is known for and the answer would be: Global Warming Skeptic, or Denier, or whatever you care to call it. Try asking google: SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project / Founded by atmospheric physicist and global-warming skeptic S. Fred Singer; press releases, news articles, scientific studies and other materials available. For some slightly odd reason the article now calls him an env skeptic instead; I can't account for that. Don't be lazy [113]: yes indeed. Lar knows the rules: which are, in case you don't Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above. (my bold). "malice" and "trolling" - sorry; can't see your diff. Which did you mean? Further reading [114] - yes, but you've failed to notice the talk page discussion of this, which explains why: the section was far too long and was being used as a workspace by SV. Dean of climate contrarians [115] - yes, that was indeed rubbish. He is, and is called, no such thing. SV is great at finding refs for things. But since she doesn't understand the subject, she doesn't know when those refs are wrong. In this case, she was jsut quoting, in good faith, something Andy Revkin had said. The problem was, Revkin had just made it up as a fun sound-bite, with no regard for accuracy. Having someone who actually knows the subject can be useful occasionally - did I ever mention that before? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC) @AGK[edit]A says William is quick to revert (a courtesy glance over his most recent contributions, filtered to show only mainspace edits, shows a lot of non-vandalism reversions (note that this corrects an earlier error in which he complained about my rollback, which he now says is flawless. Since we're on the subject, allow me to note that the vast bulk of vandalism correction on the Cl Ch pages that is done by "involved" editors is done by the science-side folk. The "skeptic" side folk rarely if ever trouble themselves with trivia like article maintenance).
That takes me back to the 15th, which is more than a week ago. Is that "a lot" of reversions? It doesn't look like it. Perhaps AGK could offer some guidance on how many are permitted per day before triggering his bad-boy filter. Nor do any of them look problematic, to me. But I think it is time to stop playing guessing games; if AGK think my actual reversions are problematic, rather than simply their numeration, I invite him to provide examples William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at AGK's diffs and they are, to be quite blunt, rubbish. WMC you are generally careful and accurate when you accuse others but I am not sure you can expect everyone else to live up to your standards is all very well but the level of AGK's stuff is just appalling.
I didn't see a need to evidence a statement like "William reverts a lot" (and it's laughable that he has done so, though me might presume that when I say 'revert' I mean 'edit war'). - well, when you said it I presume you meant "reverts a lot and this is bad". If you mean "reverts a lot and this is good" please say so and make yourself clear. Given that it was in a paragraph beginning The problem lies with... I assumed you meant "and this is bad". If "works badly with others" means "objects to baseless accusations" then I can only pleased guilty William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) WMC makes comments that are pragmatic and genuine. But he is also blunt and direct:
Well, that is enough tedium here. I'm off to t:LIA to talk about internal variability William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) @Flo, again[edit]The diffs that I added show that long time established editors that came to the Fred Singer article to improve it and expand it were met with hostility by WMC. - no, you haven't. I've rebutted all your diffs in the para above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Continuing: forum-shopping [140]: yes indeed; a fairly consistent pattern from SV: she rarely engages in substantive discuss on the actual article talk page, but constantly runs off elsewhere to try to get her way. Presumably the idea is that editors who don't actually know about the issue at hand are more likely to be persuadable by vague generalities William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Responses to WMC by others[edit]
(out) WMC, how does this level of irascibility help advance a calm, civil, and collegial discourse? Answer: it doesn't. It is this sort of interplay on the topic talk pages that many find problematic. Thank you for providing a clear example for us. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
New section, discussion continuing[edit]It is important to note that the diffs that I added were a sample of the problematic edits that I saw while doing a quick review of his recent edits.
Really we should do here what we would do elsewhere - there is no consensus, even among admins, so close as no consensus with a reminder to all to abide by the rules etc and that if we ever have to revisit the issue it will be bad for all. I personally feel that the easiest path is to enact a pageban on this BLP for WMC, but if consensus can't be established, and there is no current editing problem on the BLP, then there is no danger in closing as no consensus with a pledge to impose severe restrictions if this becomes an ongoing issue, rather than a once a year thing. Weakopedia (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
(comment responding to NW's comment in Uninvolved Admin Straw Poll section)We in the biz call rationalization "the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.". Anyone can rationalize anything. Please judge edits, not mental processes.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC[edit]
I am instigating this since it appears we are recycling the same discussion we had in the earlier full request, and I re-opened the discussion with a view to establishing what the consensus that was previously forming was. I also note that one or two sysops are time constrained, and whose preferences may be lost within the discussion so I am going to add them here italicised in case they wish certify or remove them, otherwise they will count toward the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we done here?[edit]I am not closing this one - I closed the original WMC request, and the Appeal, and restarted this discussion. Simply, I am too involved in the process (even to the point of ownership - witness this subsection) to review the poll and make a declaration of consensus. So...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
not the admin only section :)[edit]Non-admin here, I think I am out of the admin only section, but if not, feel free to move. With that out of the way....This needs to be closed. With or without sanction, there is simply no reason for this to be going 9(NINE) days after the original request. I have to say, you guys (people with the authority to hold people to the probation terms) have failed miserably here. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
(moved from above, was in response to "procedural but important point")
One outsider's view on WMC[edit]I have no prior involvement in the climate change subject area, neither as an editor nor as a sysop. So my evaluation of William M. Connolley's editing in this topic area was undertaken from scratch. I post my 'findings', for want of a less domineering phrase, here to give some indication as to my thinking on the proposals to topic-ban WMC—in the hope that they will attract concise, focussed comments on the issues herein (which I consider to be the central concerns in this evaluation of William's conduct). Much of William's editing takes place in the climate change topic area[142]. He seems highly driven when editing any article in this topic; and whilst that can often lead to a closed mindset and a fiery approach, it can also help to cut through a lot of the POVy junk edits that contested subject areas seem to attract. When first evaluating WMC, I looked for evidence that his approach to article content in this subject area was flawed. I looked for signs that he held a non-neutral viewpoint on climate change or any sub-topic, and let these viewpoints permeate his edits; and for signs that he edit warred only with those who hold a specific viewpoint. I found nothing of the sort. William's approach to raw article content is not at fault here. Indeed, it's hard to describe how more valuable an editor with his editing philosophy is when compared with a POV-pushing psuedo-lobbyist (hyperbole and hypotheticals, of course; this is not to say that any of his peers in this topic are so). The problem lies with how William works with others. 'Not well' seems to be the basic answer. He can be quite direct with those who edit in a way he finds questionable. Whilst, as I said earlier, that can be a good thing, at times it is borderline OWNy[143]. William is quick to revert (a courtesy glance over his most recent contributions, filtered to show only mainspace edits, shows a lot of non-vandalism reversions). Recently he reverted another editor with the suggestion that his edit was counter to consensus[144] even when such a consensus was not yet clearly formed (and indeed may yet form in favour of a conflicting position—cf Talk:Fred_Singer#Dean of...). WMC makes comments that are pragmatic and genuine. But he is also blunt and direct[145][146]. Too often does he bite, seem unapproachable, or appear to not desire compromise[147][148]. I would encourage anybody who reads this comment to undertake their own evaluation of William, if they are not already familiar with his contributions to this topic; you will doubtless conclude in the same direction as I have. My deduction is that William is presently acting, to employ that banal slice of Wikijargon, like a not-so-giant dick. I think he supports Wikipedia's mission too much to ever turn into a big enough dick for us to warrant banning him outright as an obvious troll, but that is not to say that until such a day his conduct would be sufferable. Topic areas like this need calm-headed participants; somebody as fiery as WMC cannot be categorised as such. And whilst he seems to be substantially influencing article content, there is no discernible improvement anywhere as a result of his presence. He is a net negative, I unfortunately must conclude. On that basis alone, I will support a ban from all pages relating to climate change, and recommend that it be of moderate length (two months being what I have in mind). William is not the only editor whose presence on climate change articles is detrimental. I dearly hope that enforcement threads will be opened over the coming days on certain other editors. And I apologise for the (probably excessive) length of this comment; as above, my hope is that the opinion I have adopted will be perceived as more fair if I outline my thinking in full. (Yes, I wear the 'naîve and proud' badge with honour.) AGK 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) [Note: AGK has silently updated this statement to correct an earlier error, as noted on his talk page [149] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)]
A good balance?[edit]I think there is good reason to stop WMC only from editing BLPs. Some are very quick to dismiss off-site complaints as partisan carping, but I think the diffs in these requests show that WMC has not adequately responded to the scrutiny. Abdicating all responsibility for the criticism does not work in WMC's case, because his edits have at times clearly shown an effort to harm reputations in a way that is not consistent with Wikipedia policy (some were before the probation, but the recent edits to Singer show the same). The fact that he does this while, as I understand, criticizing the same people on his blog, also suggests that he should be held to a much higher standard, which he is not meeting. In that context I think it is irresponsible to let him continue editing BLPs, regardless of anything else, and I think any person involved in this topic whose article was being negatively influenced by WMC would rightfully be upset. I think a good balance is just to prohibit editing on BLPs. Mackan79 (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit review[edit]
exit strategy[edit]Do we have an exit strategy for the current unstructured discussions happening on this page? How will we know when they are done and normal process can be resumed? Are there any outstanding decisions needing to be taken at this point, and if so what are they? If not, is there any reason everything on this page from "William M. Connolley (revisited)" down shouldn't be collapsed or moved to talk? I note that we are currently discussing a content issue which might be related to an enforcement request, but in no way forms part of a current enforcement request. Thparkth (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Marknutley[edit]
Marknutley (talk · contribs) by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
| 24 hour block, per last proposal by me - this matter does require resolving so I have acted unilaterally, but with the knowledge of the blockee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Marknutley[edit]
Note: H's diffs fixed up by William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently sanctioned for including bad sources.
Marknutley has a long history of poor use of sources. In this instance, he has decided that Salon's "war room" is alternatively an op-ed, or when challenged about why he believes it's an op-ed, that it is instead a blog. Salon has been frequently discussed at WP:RSN ([165]) with near unanimous "a reliable source, use with care," and, in fact, has a centralized discussion page at Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia which makes it pretty clear that Salon is a fine source, but should be used with caution when the only source for controvercial information about a living person. Marknutly, however, didn't go towards any of this (in fact, another, obviously reliable source was added to the article). Instead, his argument is that the specific article he mentioned was a "blog." Of course, salon.com columns are hosted in a blog-like format, but, per WP:BLPSPS, "news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." When this was pointed out to him, instead of discussing the topic at hand, Mark instead pointed to a discussion where Marknutley should not be stating that reliable sources are unreliable. He should especially not be doing so in an attempt to score points in unrelated discussions. This playing fast-and-loose with sourcing is highly problematic, and needs to stop. While I was hopeful I could work this out with mark on his talk page or the article talk page, Lar advised me that I was blustering, so I decided to just let someone else deal with it. Here you go, someone else. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Further, the prior prohibition should be clarified that source blessings by third parties must take place on-wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Important update: User has removed [167] from the bio of Indur M. Goklany, stating "You can`t use this document with the subjects address in it". The document is hosted by the subject on his own website - even if it was a problematic address, it would be ok to include, but beyond that, the address on the document is 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240, which is the address of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Please take action. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Marknutley[edit]Statement by Marknutley[edit]Any chance of letting me put up a defence? sheese mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) I hope i`m not to spirited and have not been more than the nine minutes :) Ok, i have been told time and again the blogs are not to be used in a blp. The salon.com piece is a blog, i asked hipocrite to show me on the article talk page for proof [169] that this blog is under the full editorial control of salon.com and that would have been the end of this, he choose instead to threaten me if he did not get his own way. [170] If you look at the following thread [171] you will see several experienced editors stating that a blog in the new york times is not suitable for use in a blp.
Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley[edit]I would suggest adding to the result Hipocrite's idea for getting sources approved on-wiki. That provides evidence of the approval (who did it and when). MN commented that "I`ll clear them in a way most expedient for myself."[174] Given his past, it should be in a way most expedient for WP overall, so long as it's not an unreasonable process. Having a subpage where MN posts his potential sources / removal of sources (if added), the page involved and the context doesn't seem unreasonable to me and makes the process transparent. Ravensfire (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Am I wrong, or is this just a content dispute? Did Mark revert too many times? Not that I see. Did Mark edit disruptively? Not that I see. Uncivil? Nope. This just seems to be a pile on to the ultra weird sanction that was created previously (really, approving sources before editing? It's a wiki for crissakes, the approval or non-approval would be obvious based on its removal after the addition). Carry on I suppose. Arkon (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC) First, note that MN's BLP defence is entirely spurious: the source was discussed on MN's talk page, and Lar's comment of 19:00, 25 May 2010, whilst not entirely OK'ing it, certainly didn't give a reason to remove it on BLP grounds. The conclusion must be that MN cannot be trusted to evaluate sources for either insertion or removal. Second, MN has broken his 1RR parole with these edits, as he admits [175] so the standard 1RR block should be applied in addition to the sources sanction tightening. Thrid, I don't see any problems with the way H worded his advice. MN is, as ever, remarkably stubborn and simply will not listen to advice - see the attempts to resolve this peacefully on his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not looked at all of the edits in detail, but purely in regard to the content this looks like very bad sourcing that clearly should be removed immediately. The source itself provides a longer quote which is much more diffuse, and certainly does not provide a definitive statement as presented in our article that the treaty "would 'impose a communist world government on the world.'" Speaking of "the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement," Monckton states, "They are about to impose a communist world government on the world" (this could not refer to Obama). He then says Obama is sympathetic and will sign the treaty. Our specific statement that Monckton claimed the treaty itself would impose such a government, or the strong implication that Obama is trying to impose this, are not in either case supported. Based on that alone, and considering this is a BLP I have a very hard time seeing how Mark could be sanctioned here. Mackan79 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1RR: it looks like LHVU is having trouble seeing the 1RR. So I'll do it in detail (this just follows what I linked to on MN's talk page, viz Your first removal was a revert (of whatever edit added that source). Your second is a violation of your 1RR parole. So the reverts are: second edit, marked as revert [176]. First edit, not marked as a revert [177] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
@Bozmo - A ban, for breaking the 1RR? Ok I guess, but I expect to see similar comments from you when this arises in the future. Arkon (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Thparkth[edit]There is no reason to believe that Marknutley wasn't acting in good faith here in his initial reversion. He might even have a point about how the same policies are interpreted differently by the same people in different articles. However this does not excuse disruptively breaking the 1RR to make that point. There is a clear breach of the 1RR restriction here and the admins might consider a short topic ban as an appropriate sanction, to convey the overriding seriousness of the 1RR restriction under this probation. I do not see a consensus for extending the restrictions on Marknutley to cover removing references. It is difficult to see what harm could arise from letting him remove questionable references in good faith, provided that he obeys his 1RR restriction, and others avoid the general prohibition on edit warring. Thparkth (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Polargeo, moved from Uninvolved Admins section[edit](No, Polargeo, you are not an uninvolved admin. Do not revert me again. If other involved admins move it back, fine. But so far we have consistently moved your stuff up. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
Comments by WIlliam Connolley[edit]MN has a 1RR violation. The notion of a "technical" violation in this case is meaningless. Either the 1RR paroles should be applied, and uniformly, or they should be abandonded William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC) More source-removal problems here [178] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC) And again [179]. This is yet another 1RR vio by MN William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) And another [180]. Given MN's aggressive removal of good sources based on his misunderstanding of policy, an extension of the santions to prohibit removal of sources is essential William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC) And another [181]. Paired with the one immeadiately above, this is yet another 1RR vio by MN William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Marknutley[edit]
Let's try for a quick resolution here. Proposed resolution:
Comments? ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Lar and/or Polargeo[edit]
Lar (talk · contribs), Polargeo (talk · contribs) by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
| Lar and Polargeo are cautioned to maintain proper decorum while editing the English Wikipedia. - Lar is strongly encouraged to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator from enforcement requests where sanctions are requested against or involving Polargeo as a party, for the next 3 months. - Polargeo is required to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator at the Climate Change general sanctions for the next 3 months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lar and/or Polargeo[edit]
Both more than active here
Discussion concerning Lar and/or Polargeo[edit]Statement by Lar[edit]Two questions here: Is Polargeo an uninvolved admin? Should posts by other then uninvolved admins be moved out of the uninvolved admin section? To the first: Several arbs have now opined that the conventional definition of involvement (editing in the general topic area as a first cut filter test) applies in the CC area. Polargeo edits in this area more than just to revert vandalism and the like. Therefore he's involved. Pretty cut and dried, in my view. Regardless of what the CC probation intro said. To the section: So is it appropriate to move his stuff? Is it appropriate to move anyone's stuff? I think so. Areas develop their own ways of doing things, in order to make things work. That's what we've been doing here, we have a section for uninvolved admins so that we can keep things straight. If consensus among the uninvolved admins is that we should change, and allow, then we should. But I don't think we should. Processes evolve because the people executing the process work better. Tagging everything placed incorrectly in that section doesn't seem workable to me. I step aside from closing this since it's about me (and for no other reason) and ask the other uninvolved admins to resolve this quickly so we can move on. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Polargeo[edit]This matter should be dealt with at the RfC and ultimately at arbcom if necessary. This is not the forum and I will not comment further here. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Lar and/or Polargeo[edit]Comment by Thparkth[edit]I think it's important to note that no actual harm has occurred here, other than to people's egos. I would like to see Lar and Polargeo agree a compromise on posting in the "Result" section, and undertake not to revert each other on this page. If that could be achieved, I see no need for any further action. In my experience, admins are actually human beings who have feelings that can be hurt, and who make occasional slip ups just like the rest of us. Of course they are expected to exhibit a higher standard of behaviour, but the atmosphere surrounding climate change on Wikipedia is enough to make anyone's halo slip now and then. As an example of a possible compromise, what if Polargeo was to use a disclaimer, like "Please note that some editors and admins consider me involved in this topic", when posting for the first time in the Results section of a new enforcement request? Thparkth (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo has admitted to involvement and has actually formally requested to be banned from this enforcement page - see my discussion of this on talk. Either he was sincere (in which case admins should abide by his request) or he was trying to disrupt to make a point. Either way, his involvement on this page is inappropriate. Lar is entirely justified in moving Polargeo's comments after Polargeo himself passionately admitted involvement just a month ago. ATren (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Willliam M. Connolley[edit]The Wordsmith has no credibility as an independent in these matters and should not be attempting to close this debate (and not just for his having failed so disastrously last time) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ATren[edit]This entire request is a farce. Polargeo has been disruptive on these pages for over a month, and Lar's actions, if anything, were too soft. Do I need to take Polargeo's actions to arbcom to get any sort of reasonable sanction? Really, the guy has made his antipathy for this process well known, has made his own involvement well known (pleading for a ban), and has been attacking another admin for over a month, yet everyone but Lar still refuses to deal with it. Does nobody (except Lar) see the elephant in the room here? No matter, arbcom will surely see it. ATren (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Note by Heyitspeter[edit]Apparently Lar has sought input from uninvolved admins at another venue. Assuming that's true, I suggest this be closed. Hipocrite appears to have opened this complaint after Lar ignored Hipocrite's advice, but Lar is obviously not closed to further input.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (Per Wordsmith's proposed close. Note that Polargeo edit warred iff Lar did.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I remind the admins on this page that there is an RfC on Lar's status as uninvolved, especially w.r.t. WMC. It seems to me that it would be highly inappropriate to make a 'ruling' on that issue before the RfC is over.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Vsmith[edit](moved up per comments below) Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Question for the admins from the peanut gallery[edit]Some of the variations on the proposed close for this request have Lar recusing himself, voluntarily or otherwise, from taking part in enforcement requests involving WMC. Without prejudice to whether or not he should do that, can someone please explain to me how Lar's possible recusal from dealing with WMC became part of the solution to this request, which after all doesn't name WMC as a party and which WMC has no involvement in other than as a contributor to the discussion? Thparkth (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Lar and/or Polargeo[edit]
Oh $!*&£%$. Not trying to answer any for now but is this the list of questions?
Other issues relevant noted above we will pull down if we agree. I would have a really really strong preference for an outbreak of peace and apology and not being forced into a headache on all this. Please can we take a 24 hour cool off and see if the two admins can work it out between them? --BozMo talk 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I propose the following resolution to this complaint:
--The WordsmithCommunicate 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have also been asked to clarify Lar's involvedness once and for all (or at least until the next dispute or DR mechanism). So, I will introduce a fifth proposed statement, which may be endorsed (or not) independently of the others, since it is more tangential and also more likely to go down in flames:
--The WordsmithCommunicate 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
--BozMo talk 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So in the interests of a rapid close on this slightly embarrassing affair (and also cos I am too lazy to go through edit by edit) can we get behind this proposed close:
I guess I am assuming that within 3 months some of the issues of involvement might be resolved by Arbcom (or not...). I am concerned generally about the issues of language and behaviour and suggest we ask for non interactions between Lar and Polargeo if that breaks out again but imposition of a "virtual squabble board" between two admins surely won't be necessary. --BozMo talk 07:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC) This distinction in implicits is too fine for me I am happy to endorse either. --BozMo talk 13:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has asked me to clarify my earlier comment regarding using RFCs to filibuster. So, I will state that RFCs can be a valuable step for resolving content disputes, including in the global warming area. However, when the result is exceedingly obvious, the fact that it is ongoing is not a reason to put a moratorium on getting things done. Lar's RFC is headed for a no consensus close, it can't really have any other result. So, I suggested that we not wait around for the RFC to formally end. This doesn't necessarily reflect my opinions towards RFCs in general. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
So, we do not need that bit do we. Taking the other change proposed gives:
I am the first endorser of this. The third endorser should action it. --BozMo talk 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
|
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Can anyone justify why this obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue editing? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, I reverted your comment. Please don't give details of behavioral evidence, since Scibaby is known to adapt to this when he knows how he is identified. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Abusive blocks are grounds for an RFE request here. Please reconsider the block. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
|