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

Collapses

Suggest that we collapse/hide requests (as is common elsewhere) as they are dealt with. Suggest that the admins and others who participate not be the collapsers, leave that to uninvolved folk who come by later. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Eventually these get archived off presumably. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not yield the prettiest layout in the world, but I gave us Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox based on AE, and set MiszaBot to autoarchive at 7 days. Both can, of course, be tweaked as desired. As none of the archives exist at present, it is just a sea of red. They just have a link to the sole archive over at Obama probation, so that box may be a bit of overkill.

Also, I would appreciate it if someone else were to check my syntax in case I missed anything. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I'm afraid I can't check the for you syntax as I don't use MiszaBot myself but it looked good from the outside. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Y The bot just ran - threads successfully archived. One week feels about right for how this board is going so far, but it is easy enough to tweak later. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Section titles

Suggest that maybe we need to put something in the section titles to distinguish one from the next or else we have multiple copies of the same title. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice... Should? Can?

Should there be an edit notice? That big template at the top maybe could go in a collapse box if it won't work well in an edit notice (I think edit notices are nifty so I have one User talk:Lar/Editnotice )... but I'm not sure it would work with a page that has slashes, the page would be at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Editnotice ... A quick test didn't show it. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for WP:AE, but displaying the template in the page header is also fine.  Sandstein  22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I don't understand edit notices very well, then. :) Maybe just collapse the template but leave it in the header. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify warnings

So there's a probation notice on a bunch of talk pages, there's discussion of an editnotice, there's an example of a general EW warning by 2/0 [1] which claims no authority from CC probation. These are all good, but they don't constitute the actual "warning" mentioned in this probation, right? The wording is the editor in question shall be given a warning...counseled on specific steps.... This to me can only imply an individual warning, as in user talk page or somewhere where you can demonstrate the editor must have seen the warning. Presumably this would have details on the problem and some attempts at communication. Note this is entirely separate from common-or-garden edit-war blocks or protections, but for this special enforcement, I thought individual notice ended up as part and parcel. Franamax (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The warning is Template:uw-probation, which can be referenced with: {{subst:uw-probation|PAGE NAME|Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation}}. This is already documented in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To constitute 'official' warnings, they must be logged. Whilst you don't have to use the boiler plate template to issue an official warning, you should make it clear to the user in question that they now come under the sanctions of the probation. Once this has been done, it must be logged at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications. I got the impression that GoRight's warning from the enforcement page was an official warning, but as nobody has left a warning on his talk page and it hasn't been included in the log then I suppose it wasn't. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did copy the text of the warning to GoRight's talk page but I didn't know about the logging requirement. --TS 11:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just copied the text and diff of the warning to the log. Hopefully that closes the loop. By the way, since GoRight had demonstrated awareness of the probation regime prior to his disputed edit, I think the notification requirement was functionally satisfied even if he had not been formally templated/warned. Isn't it the case that notification is intended to ensure that editors can't say "but I didn't know" when potential violations are raised? If so, I think the requirement was effectively met in this case without needing a formal notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They need to be aware that from that point forward, they could be subjected to sanctions, not that general sanctions merely exist. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- ChrisO (talk

Clarification

What should be done about things like this? Previously we've just removed the comment as a straight-forwards breach of WP:SOAP, but with the new "regime" i'm confused as to whether i should file a report, give a warning - and whether i should remove or hat the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the same editor vandalised WP:NPOV itself a short time ago. See [2]. Since s/he has just come off a block, a further block is probably needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a warning or a block doesn't really matter to me. The clarification needed is more on what the correct "new" way of handling incidents like the above is. These kinds of rants are rather common on climate change pages - so a clarification on this would be appreciated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has just been blocked for a week. I don't think there's anything in the probation that would prohibit normal refactoring of talk pages, per WP:TALK#Editing comments, which allows for the removal of "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". If an editor restores such material I'd advise against trying to delete it again. However, I think repeated instances of talk page soapboxing should be reported to the enforcement page as a form of disruptive editing, which this probation prohibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement action appealed by GoRight

For the record, GoRight (talk · contribs) has appealed the latest enforcement action against him. Please see WP:AN/I#Appeal by GoRight.

Question: is AN/I the right place for appeals, or should they be appealed elsewhere? What is the standard practice for the existing Obama and Palin article probations? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:GS/CC says that sanctions should be appealed to ANI.  Sandstein  19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed that; thanks for the clarification. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At least I got something right. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about trolling

Why do edits like the following, from WMC, go unchallenged?

It was a scibaby sock, and is now blocked. You were correct. GR is an SPA so doesn't like the way they are put to the hiss of the world; he'll just have to live with it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice it as I was reviewing the sanctions page, and it seems little more than trolling to get a rise out of GoRight. I would have challenged it, had it not been a bit stale, so I decided to simply ask the question here. It seems that those (like Connolley) who believe that AGW is incontrovertible fact, are given much more leeway in such things, at least at first blush. UnitAnode 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would have been more honest to point out that you've added the bolding - it wasn't in what I wrote. As to the text: this is an attempt to explain (to TS, as I recall, though I could be wrong) why he has accidentally rubbed GR up the wrong way. "It was just an SPA" is commonly used as a justification for devaluing an account; indeed, TS used it as a justification for a revert. GR is an SPA (this isn't in dispute; it is self-admitted). Nor does GR object to being called an SPA (he can't, obviously). He just objects to the opprobium that SPA's invariably meet with William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, It's still a bit sharp elbowed, though. Up your game. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought GoRight's complaint about the loose use of the term "SPA" was quite valid, but I also think the essence of William M. Connolley's response (which was echoed by others in a slightly less stark fashion) made a good point. Lar put it as follows: " if you don't want to be called something, don't be that thing." William's way of making the same point skirted the bounds of civility in a way that is probably not appropriate in the context of a process that is intended to dampen down the tendency towards warfare on the global warming articles.

I would urge all participants in the editing of global warming articles to be on their best behavior, for the sake of Wikipedia. In particular, we should all know to be on our best behavior here. A little less "sharp elbow" and a little more civility would make the editing environment of the articles more pleasant, attract fewer trouble makers or at least make their behavior stand out by contrast, and reinforce the trust and good faith we must all build in order to realise the ideal of a collegial editing process.

This is especially important lately since many people are coming to the articles after being told untruths about how our global warming articles are edited. They're understandably angry and it's our job to absorb their criticism and correct misconceptions. I've seen some great examples of patience and forebearance from all parties, and I think we're so close to seeing a lasting improvement in conditions. I would hate to see that spoiled by careless words. --TS 12:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add the William Connolley turned up on my IP-address user page and started acting as if he owned Wikipedia. Fortunately, I've edited Wikipedia and I know he was barred as an admin - but isn't there some kind of rule about impersonating someone with authority? At the very least, if I had been a newby, then this was far from the welcome an experienced editor like William should be introducing people to Wikpedia with. 89.168.179.31 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request time period

Hi, Can someone point me to guidance on how long a request should stay open (is there even a guideline guidline). I notice that ArbCom requests must stay at leaste 48hrs. As I never have made a request, I am concerned about observations from other request which were closed on technical matters ... I would like to see the guidelines here. Sorry if I the missed obvious. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement pages on Wikipedia are simply pages to bring behaviour to the attention of administrators that infringes on various sanctions that either the community or Arbitration Committee have placed on an article or editor. There is no time frame - if the administrator is satisfied that the behaviour merits a further sanction (e.g. a block, page ban, editing restriction) then they are free to close the request whenever. Look at it like this; if an uninvolved administrator sees this behavour themselves they simply take action there and then - they don't go and request enforcement - This is why we don't have a time frame because some requests may be actionable straight away. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if we're going to have these requests structured formally, we need to have some minimum time periods here, and some agreement from more than one admin. The one that you closed (with sanctions) in less than 20 minutes probably moved way too fast. Especially when there are other ones on the page that have been open for a day or more with no sanctions contemplated.... ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think waiting until the subject responds should be the minimum (except for something exceptional), and if the proposed resolution is a general sanction, such as 1RR on an article for all editors, then the request should be open at least 48 hours to give a range of editors the chance to comment. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article-level sanctions are not allowed under the terms of the probation, just sanctions on individual editors. The probation reads: "Any editor may be sanctioned", my emphasis, and requires individual notification of the sanctioned editor(s).  Sandstein  11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see "at least until the subject responds" except for (a) really really egregious stuff, as you say, and (b) where the subject wanders off editing elsewhere clearly ignoring the request despite notification (which could be cleanly covered by saying "until the subject has had a clear chance to respond") William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, listening to the other party is a basic requirement of justice in any proceeding - audiatur et altera pars. In the case of a formal request on this board, no sanction should be imposed until the subject responds, unless he continues with the sanctionable conduct after being notified of the request.  Sandstein  11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If, as Sandstein suggests, article-level sanctions are not covered by the wording of this probation, I suggest that we update the wording to correct the error. We're not just facing naughty users, here, but a systemic problem pertaining to a set of articles. Sometimes we have to say "we don't identify a single culprit, but rather the editing environment is breaking down and so this article-level sanction is imposed in order to encourage civil discussion and discourage edit warring by multiple parties." --TS 12:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the wording is very clearly tailored to individual editors, with individual notification requirements and what not. To expand it to article-level sanctions would need a new community discussion and consensus. Some might feel that unlike individual sanctions, article-level sanctions ought not to be imposed as a discretionary measure by a single admin.  Sandstein  12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log you'll see listed already two cases of article-level sanctions: 1RRs posted at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The same admin who imposed those could quite justifiably have instead imposed full protection on his own cognizance ("unilaterally" to use a fashionable but emotionally loaded word) so I see this less onerous alternative as a matter of common sense, and would hate to see such sensible actions thwarted by appeal to unnecessary bureaucratic notions. We should not stand in the way of administrators, who are watching and posting on the talk pages in an administrative capacity, taking necessary steps to foster civil discussion and the development of consensus. That's a big part of what they're supposed to be doing. --TS 12:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. See below where I broke it out separately. Let's thrash this out and get to an agreement to do this, it's needful. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Decisions and logging

To ensure fairness and prevent hasty actions, I recommend that sanctions be proposed by one uninvolved administrator, and then confirmed by a second. The second would close the thread, log the sanction, and notify the subject. This way we develop a bit more consensus to be sure that sanctions are proper before they are activated. (Normal one administrator actions to block per usual policy would still be possible if a speedier response were required.) Jehochman ^Brrr 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we do this? If an uninvolved admin sees behaviour themselves then they can sanction - they don't have to report it here so why should we require 2 admins to close a case when it's reported here? It doesn't seem logical to me. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a very substantial change from the community-endorsed probation, which provides for discretionary (i.e., unilateral) sanctions. I don't see a reason to change this now. Of course, in complicated situations, admins will normally leave a request open for some discussion before acting, but that is not required. There is always the possibility of an appeal if a sanction is imposed too hastily.  Sandstein  11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if a problem is reported it is quite likely to be ongoing, and therefore may need a rapid response. Taking Jehochman's approach could introduce unnecessary delays in such circumstances, so I don't think it's the best way forward. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. An admin can say "hold up, this is being discussed" to freeze things, without imposing actual sanctions, pending consensus. If someone persevered in the face of such a request, things would go much harder for them. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I read the proposal too fast but my support for it was based on this process assumption. If the action is a good one, a second admin will surely voice support quickly. I don't understand the resistance here, Ryan... you seem to want to act unilaterally, in great haste. Better to act with consensus (or at the very least a second voice in support), with all deliberate speed. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well what's the point in the sanctions then? What you're advocating could be done on AN/I for each individual editor without probation. The probation that the topic is now under gives administrators the right to impose sanctions as they see fit. There isn't a discussion requirement. What would you say if I went and sanctioned an editor off my own back without it even coming to the enforcements page? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is to put a process in place that works well. While it "could" be done on AN/I, sans templates, with the usual large horde of dramamongers and hangers on, instead of admins and other editors who have shown some interest in working this area, it wouldn't work well, if it worked at all. I sense most folk here are not comfortable with your approach, and want longer times before imposition in non emergency situations, and more discussion, not just a unilateral action. I could be wrong, here, and I am sure discussion will bring that out. But if we are going to have unilateral imposition of sweeping sanctions with less than 20 minutes of discussion, and no chance for the person affected to even speak up, I am afraid I will switch to opposition of this regime, and will start reviewing your actions with a view to reversing them. Shoot first and ask questions later, if at all, is not a good approach.++Lar: t/c 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question; What would you say if I went and sanctioned an editor off my own back without it even coming to the enforcements page? I'm content to let discussion run a bit when it comes here (not 48 hours as a minimum though), but if administrators see disruptive behaviour worth sanctioning, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to impose sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I implied this answer already... if you acted against an editor in ways that are not normal (not run of the mill blocking for edit warring or whatever) but that are contemplated by the regime in place here, (that is, they would be enabled once defense offered, consensus had been achieved, and so forth) and you did it rogue, on your own, without working the process here first (which is what I think you're saying), I'd take it to AN/I and ask for reversal. If you persisted in the face of consensus that what you were doing was wrong, I'd consider stronger action such as an RfC/U or a recall, or an arbcom case. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Above, Sandstein said "discretionary (i.e., unilateral) sanctions". Discretionary doesn't mean unilateral, it means regulated by one's own discretion or judgment. That means it is up to your judgement when it is appropriate to immediately impose a sanction, verses when discussion would be beneficial first. Use that judgement. Prodego ^talk 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'm outta here - I'm not investing any more time when you're already making threats of shopping me to ArbCom. The whole point of discretionary sanctions was to give admins more leeway - what your advocating is exactly the same as we had before. Anyway, I know when it's time to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on please, both of you. What is the normal practice with the Obama and Palin article probations? Are you involved with them? I suggest that you should seek to follow the same approaches and standards as with those probations - not least because they've been in place for some time and will already (presumably) have worked through these issues. Plus it would be a good idea anyway to have a consistent approach across the board. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable advice. I think Ryan's misreading or overreacting a bit here, though. Unless he really actually wants carte blanche. Which I don't think he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, these 3 (CC/Obama/SP) are worded mostly the same, with the exception that the CC set has the extra sentence "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." included. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Individual vs. article sanctions

Started a separate section for this to avoid muddying other topics.

It has been pointed out that the enacted provisions only provide for individual editor probation/sanctions, not article probation or article 1RR restrictions. As Tony said, above, that is an apparent oversight, and we should correct it, rather than standing on formality and not doing what will help matters. I'm not sure how best to effect such a change (my suggestion is to just "do it" and note that we are but that's me, I'm a descriptivist as far as policy goes) ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see individual administrators changing the standard rules of editing. If an article needs 1RR, that is something that should be thoroughly discussed here, or possibly at WP:AN, before any action is taken. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, is this and example of changing the standard rules of editing? --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... if we're talking about one admin unilaterally imposing, yes, I agree, not a good idea without more discussion than that. BUT, if we're talking about a more robust discussion/consensus process here (which I advocate, as do you I think), then I think this board can impose such on articles within scope. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that this page is a good venue to discuss such sanctions. The community at large set this up to handle problems. Anybody interested in editing these articles or administering them is likely to find and watch this page. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If we want admins to have the authority to impose discretionary article-level sanctions, which are not now covered by the probation, we need to get explicit community consensus for it through an open process. If we want article-level sanctions to be imposed after discussion and consensus, we might just as well stick to WP:ANI.  Sandstein  19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously admins are now, as we speak, imposing article-level sanctions, and I'm not convinced that we need further discussion on this. Such sanctions can be appealed to the admin, or here, or via dispute resolution. And more to the point, they're being accepted by editors on the relevant articles because they're seen as sensible steps that are in the interests of Wikipedia and fair to all. On whether this forum is no improvement on WP:ANI, I think it is, so far. There has been far less drama here and the decisions are focussed and progress quickly and without undue fuss. For the future, we also have a permanent, centralized record of the process by which the global warming articles are being tamed. This will be useful as a knowledge resource for other problem areas. --TS 10:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, and that works fine as long as nobody complains. The idea of article-level sanctions is very reasonable, I think, but we really need to get consensus for it first. As an arbitrator in the event of a complaint by a sanctioned editor, I would not be very sympathetic to a few admins deciding on their own, in this relatively quiet corner of Wikipedia, that they have the authority to unilaterally impose general sanctions on editors working in a particular topic. We have seen from the rejection of WP:Discretionary sanctions - which I proposed - that the community does not like this.  Sandstein  17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Tony's "accepts" is a bit overstated. I object to rules such as the one I point out above that impose consensus only editing and lock in a particular version of anything that has ever been contested on a given page. I am just not willing to test the resolve of the admin in question because the underlying point that precipitated the restriction is not, generally speaking, worth the risk of a block. When I asked that similar sanctions be applied fairly on other articles I was rejected. The haphazard setting of article level rules is a problem. You almost have to start every conversation on a new page with "so what are the editing rules for this page again?" --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What you see as haphazard I see as administrator discretion with reference to the editing conditions and available resources. To insist on exactly the same article-level restrictions on all articles covered by the probation seems unnecessary; ideally, only those on which edit warring has happened very recently and would otherwise be likely to resume should be considered for this restriction. --TS 09:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection: Global cooling

We don't have a place to ask uninvolved admins to look at edit wars with a view to protection or other action to quell them.

The reason I raise this is because we now have on Global cooling what must be the lamest edit war ever: over the inclusion of a section containing only a title and a {{section-stub}} template. Perhaps just a calming word on talk will do. --TS 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We already have a long talk section; in fact we have the same thing, several times over. TML just doesn't like the answers William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to ask: WP:ANI, WP:RPP, WP:GS/CC/RE, etc. I'll take a look at it.  Sandstein  17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a formal way to ask on the latter page. The only template we seem to have is for behavioral stuff concerning a single editor. --TS 17:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, just because there is a template for editor sanctions does not mean that editors may not open threads the normal way.  Sandstein  17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know whether I may do something as an admin in a dispute that involves William M. Connolley, since I have made content edits to the article about him, William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Best to ask somebody else, unless Mr Connolley does not mind my taking action.  Sandstein  17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The dreaded cornflake of interest strikes again. --TS 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly safe to assume that S doesn't know much about me, or he wouldn't have written the above. User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats refers William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered protecting it last night, but decided that the edit history was better described as one new editor making occasional undiscussed changes + one editor aware of the probation frustrated by long talkpage conversations. I offered the latter advice at the time and warned them for 3RR just now, which has some hope of restoring a normal editing environment without protection. And TS - so far as I am concerned that is a perfectly acceptable and even praiseworthy use of this board. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution to that problem is confidence building. We're all too quick with the accusations and the snide comments, too slow to trust, and that's what turns controversial editing situations into arbitration cases. --TS 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, again

GoRight was unblocked with some kind of promise to be good; I forget the exact wording, but good he isn't being. He is now indulging in wikilawyering again over a photo he doesn't like [4] (also elsewhere on that page) and edit warring the pic out [5] (oops, and another revert since I filed this [6]) while claiming a spurious BLP exemption William M. Connolley (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The image in question comes from a clearly WP:SPS (i.e. it was uploaded by some random individual to Flickr). Flickr exercises no editorial control over the content uploaded, nor does it have a reputation for fact checking such things. As such it clearly fails WP:BLPSPS. Since there is no way to verify that this actually IS a photograph of Monckton (as opposed to some imposter), or that it has not been manipulated in some way so as to disparage and denigrate the man with an clearly unflattering image, I claim that it is obvious that this image violates WP:BLPSPS and as such is a clear violation of WP:BLP and it must be removed immediately. --GoRight (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole parcel of pictures in that group on flickr:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/matmcdermott/tags/lordmonckton/

They're obviously of Monckton and some of them are nicer than the one GoRight doesn't like. GoRight, do you see any of those as acceptable? --TS 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether I like them or not. It is not a matter of whether this truly is Monckton, or not. These ALL would be absolutely clear violations of WP:BLPSPS and therefore a violation of WP:BLP which requires violations of that policy be removed immediately. As such the issue is non-negotiable. --GoRight (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have reported this matter to ANI. See [7]. --GoRight (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, I agree the photo is not flattering, but it seems pretty clear that it is Monckton, and that it has not been altered in any significant way. It's not a BLP violation; it's just a poor photo that we should try to replace. I think you should self-rv and stop this fight. There are many more significant things to focus on. ATren (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not Monckton is irrelevant here. Whether it has or has not be manipulated is irrelevant here. Neither of these are for us to determine per WP:RS. WP:BLP requires only the most reliable sources be used on WP:BLPs and images uploaded by random people onto a photo hosting service fail that test miserably. That's all I have to say here. I intend to keep enforcing the WP:BLPSPS restrictions, per the WP:BLP mandate that violations be removed immediately and without regard to WP:3RR until such time as this ANI makes a final determination on this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on matters. Did you know that our policy on images of living people is to encourage sourcing from flickr and the like? --TS 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is true then it needs to be reconciled with WP:BLPSPS because as it is written now WP:BLPSPS does not allow for this. To quote:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

Emphasis is mine. This seems clearly unambiguous. Please take any further discussion to the ANI page. I shall not respond here further. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, GoRight, I'm at a loss here. Claiming BLP on a photo is something I've never seen. Maybe if there were obvious signs of manipulation or something like that, you might have a point, but this is just completely unsupportable. The image is not good, but it's not a violation of anything. ATren (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of SPS as quoted above is unambiguous and it clearly covers images. Flickr is not a back door for including disparaging material into BLPs. If I am wrong I am sure that I will hear about it. Either way I seek to have neutral parties at ANI to make the determination. I shall abide by any community consensus that is reached at that venue. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a crap photo--really we could do better, even from the others in the same batch at flickr. There are one or two showing him in profile, and with a suitable bit of blow-up-and-crop, we'd have a decent picture. I don't really see that this would answer GoRight's concerns as expressed, but maybe a compromise could be reached. --TS 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for finding an alternative image. Another editor has already offered to look for one. But GoRight's claim of BLP is just facetious. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Or factitious. --TS 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps fictitious would be closer to the mark. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using an image from Flickr raises BLP issues, particularly when there's no dispute that it is an image of Monckton, but any time there are three or four CC-licensed images available, and someone deliberately or otherwise selects the least-flattering of them, an editorial decision has occurred. Something is being said about the subject, BLP is definitely in play, and it's reasonable to ask about that person's motivation. Thparkth (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what GoRight is claiming. He is claiming that a pic from Flickr violates WP:BLPSPS. I'm going to suggest that GoRight doesn't like the photo and that he is wikilawyering to get it removed by straining the interpretation of wikipedia policies beyond any reasonable interpretation. I'm going to suggest that this is exactly what got him blocked the last time. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked the photographer to allow us to use his images under a free content licence, and he agreed to release that one. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I see now that all the other images of Monckton in that pool are, though CC-licensed, no-commercial and no-derivative. Still though, that just means the editorial decision has been taken by the photographer (who was apparently protesting against Monckton and so hardly neutral) rather than a Wikipedia editor. Thparkth (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't actually need a photo right now. We could wait until a more suitable one becomes available. Just a thought. --TS 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to finding a better image. But it's exasperating to find us, yet again, chasing our tails because of GoRight's incessant wikilawyering. This has to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that my good friend ChrisO intends this statement in a pejorative sense of the term "wikilawyering". As such, I would again ask him to review WP:NPA for a third time. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this discussion has derailed into a discussion of the photo, which should be on the article talk page. You miss the point: the issue is GR breaking his unblock conditions by editwarring and wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would file this under "testing the limits." Not promising, but not actionable at this point. --TS 11:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: "Use the correct venue for these complaints, please. This talk page is not for complaining about other editors." [8]

Talk:Global warming#FAQ A22 edit war

Would someone else mind closing that section and editing the FAQ appropriately? The discussion seems to pretty much have exhausted itself, but I am afraid I have an opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dismiss the three pending cases

I propose that the two three pending cases (one of which was opened by me) be dismissed. They've all stalled and nobody seems to think further action is merited. Holding them open in these particular circumstances is unnecessary. --TS 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some uninvolved admins come in and actually look at these cases, closing them if that is the appropriate action William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware of these edits

Content disputes should be handled on the talk page of an article: Talk:Criticism of IPCC AR4. Address the content and not the editor.

I'm not raising a request for enforcement at this time, but I would ask admins frequenting these parts to keep a close eye on Criticism of IPCC AR4 and in particular edits made by User:William M. Connolley including those of early January. The initial edit is extremely POV, and probably constitutes OR to boot (per talk page there). Furthermore, blatant factual inaccuracies (IPCC criteria for non-peer-reviewed material, contradicts cited material) are included to support the POV. (for the record: I am not philosophically opposed to WMC on climate issues) ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I think Jay,ax is going to look very silly here. His claim of blatant factual inaccuracies is, itself, blatantly factually inaccurate William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) My search of the relevant documents initially turned up the exact same thing as Jay has commented on. I used the "site:" command in Google searching for "peer" at www.IPCC.ch and my first find was at page 10 of IPCC Meetings Session 28: "The credibility of the IPCC reports is based on the fact that they summarize and integrate existing research, which itself has been scrutinized through publication in peer-review journals." Now, I recognise that WMC is correct and other parts of ipcc documentation say that peer-review is not necessary to put material into the IPCC report, but with this much confusion and contradiction all round it would be nice if sober heads were worn by everyone. I am not philosophically opposed to WMC on climate issues either, but I do have serious concerns about the article and others in the same suite. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing Talk manners

I reverted a Collapsed talk here [9], [10]. While collapsing can be beneficial in some instances to keep discussions on topic, like any other tool, it can be abused to prematurely shut down discussion and obscure the talk with a spin (possible disruptively). I've looked for guidance for appropriate collapsing; however, there's little available ... is there any? I guess collapsing (and archive boxing) are primarily a notice board process, which has carried over to talk pages. Seems like most folks will not dispute reverted collapses on talk pages, while administrative notice board actions have higher formalities for "incident closure". Article talk is somewhat different from incident closure because the remedies differ for NPOV content v.s. admin actions on users. Would folks agree, that if collapsing or archiving talk is abused ... this could be a basis for an enforcement request? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. You edit comment isn't even close to acceptable: rvt disruptive close is pointlessly provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify the point ... It was to prevent a disruption to talk that was progressing productively. Can you (WMC) accept that closing without talk or motion (and second) can be disruptive? What would be an acceptable reason to reopen the discussion? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless. Your edit comment *asserting* that the collapse was disruptive was itself disruptive. However, if you want to witter on in that thread a bit longer it will do no more than waste a few electrons and clutter up the talk page pointlessly; I don't think anyone of moment is going to bother talk there much. We can let it die it's obvious natural death and bury it later William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me invite you for faith in the point that article can make it to peer review quality. I agree reverts in themselves can be disruptive; however, here ... peaceful talk has prevailed. Now this talk thread (before disruption) was about abusing the collapses ... would you agree this tool could be abused? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you mean by "article can make it to peer review quality". It looks like gobbledegook to me. The article is already WP:FA which is wiki's highest standard. Any tool can be abused; I haven't abused it; you have acted disruptively by pointlessly aggressive reverts and edit summaries. This discussion here appears to be pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it as a warning on a talk page, since I am not invited to yours. (FA was nearly 4 years ago, and the article talk page take tag invites improvements, unlike you have.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zulu, whenever you feel a discussion is prematurely collapsed, just revert it with a neutral edit summary and leave a note on the collapsing editor's talk page. If he/she refuses to stop collapsing talk page discussions that you want to keep open, report it to this board for admin review and possible action. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has the "Griefing" section not been removed as an attack?

Okay from reading the essay I gather that it describes a certain mode of disruptive activity on Wikipedia. That being so, why isn't this matter being raised, with diffs, on the project page? As it stands, it appears to of to be there solely to act as cover for a personal attack on an individual who, although he is not explicitly named, is clearly identifiable. So again,why has this attack not been removed? --Tasty monster 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)