Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive6
2over0[edit]
2over0 (talk · contribs) by Macai (talk · contribs)
Closing this procedurally, as this page is for review of editors actions as regards the provisions of the CC Probation and Macai has opened a Request to review his actions and the sanctions imposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 2over0[edit]
There are a few issues I'd like to bring up, so please bear with me. What I am presenting is abstract and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire thing. Preface As a preface, I am aware that posting this request is in violation of 2over0's sanction against me. However, I think it is acceptable for me to post this request because the point of the request is to contest his sanctions. I'd appreciate if I was not blocked again for the duration of this request's lifespan, so that I can participate in the ongoing discussion about it. I will, in turn, refrain from editing other climate change related articles, and even other requests on this page. What I was sanctioned for I've been accused of edit warring, and was blocked by 2over0 over it for two days. He also imposed a climate change topic ban on me that lasts two months. I believe he was referring to my edits to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on 03 April, 2010 based on the fact that it's the only article I've edited that day, as you can see based on my contribution history, and the fact that Short Brigade Harvester Boris commented on my page about how I supposedly violated 1RR. [6] Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for First and foremost, I do not believe that I was edit warring. If you take a peek at WP:EW, you will find that it describes "edit warring" as:
If you take a peek at EP:EW again, it also says:
So let's see if the edits I made were "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of edits and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." In my first edit, I offer up a compromise between the "leak vs hacked" argument by describing the incident as both.[7] This was not confrontational, I was not being combative (in fact, I was being compromising), and certainly not non-productive. I was not trying to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, nor was I trying to coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. Let's take a look at my second edit. In this one, I change the wording of the article to assert that scientists did some bad things as a fact, rather than simple allegations.[8] Okay, someone did not like this, so they changed it back. An outright reversion of it. Fair enough, I guess. Still, I wasn't being confrontational or combative, and I wasn't trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So I guess I wasn't edit warring here. Well, I guessed then that I should just cite my sources, then, right? So I did.[9] This I guess you could say is my revert for the day. Still not really edit warring. I mean, I wasn't combative, confrontational, or non-productive (I produced some sources for my original claim), nor was I trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So on to my fourth edit. In this one I change one use of the word "incident" to "scandal".[10] I wasn't reverting anyone's edit, nor was I acting in combative, confrontational manner, nor was I trying to win or manipulate any debates by being uncallaborative. So, so much for that. Finally, my fifth and last edit on April 3rd on this article, I bring back the term "Internet leak", since ChrisO said he was going for concision, and it's shorter than "publication on the Internet" by a margin of about two. Not really a revert, here. I mean, if you look at what he changed, this is a very minor tweak, was an improvement on ChrisO's edit, as evidenced by the fact that it's still there well over two days later.[11] In conclusion, I didn't edit war, and I didn't violate 1RR. Lack of proper warning I was spoken to briefly by Short Brigade Harvester Boris about how I am supposedly in violation of 1RR. He referred to the violations as "technical violations". I asked him how he figured I was in violation.[12] My final edit for the day was to inform him that I had made a response.[13] 2over0 blocked me and topic banned me for two months about an hour later. According to the probation's policies:
I was not given a warning, at least not in the common understanding of the word "warning", and if you want to be technical, certainly was not given a warning with a link to the aforementioned provisions. This means that he went against the way things are supposed to be done. You don't give someone a "warning" for speeding and then ticket them anyway for no reason. Figuratively, this is more or less what happened. Lack of sanctioning process While it may not be explicitly listed, the proper channels were not used prior to blocking and imposing the sanction on me. I was not informed of a sanction enforcement request, and I wasn't given the opportunity to explain myself or anything. Just bam, you're blocked, and topic banned for two months. Everyone else seems to have been at least given a chance to express their side of the story. Even the request concerning WMC involved him having a window -- three hours or so -- to respond. This sanction went through no process whatsoever. I had no window, at all. Relative heavy handedness compared to other sanctions WMC was given his third sanction, this time for 1RR violation, a 24 hour block.[14] Nothing else. On my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. WMC was consistently obstinate and angry, and was consistently let off much easier than I. Most users who did and said worse things than this got a warning or something of that nature. Let's contrast this with my case: on my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. I honored it, not wanting to cause a ruckus. Now, I've been given a two month ban on climate change. This is very frustrating, and I don't think it's fair. Why fast escalation for me, but not others? Ending argument I was accused of something I didn't do, and was reprimanded for it without getting the warning that I was entitled to by the very rules my punisher was claiming to enforce, without any way to explain myself, or any form of recourse, and was given a notably stiffer penalty than basically anyone else. This is an abuse of power, and should not be accepted. What I'd like to happen I'd like 2over0 to be barred from making further sanctions for a while. Not long, just a week or two as a token that abuse of his power like this is not tolerated. What the administrators will be deciding based on this long post Administrators will be deciding the following:
The decisions of the administrative board will be made not just by the way they respond to the posting of this request, but by the actions they take in response to it. @LessHeard vanU: I'm making this request so that administrators can collectively decide if they have to. Also, could you address the fact that no warnings were made prior to the ban? And the fact that this punishment is particularly heavy handed? Macai (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 2over0[edit]Statement by 2over0[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning 2over0[edit]Are you asking for lifting the topic ban on you as well? NW (Talk) 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Nsaa[edit]I've requested that 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) justified both the block and the topic ban at his talk page. As far as I can see this block and topic ban of user Macai (talk · contribs) is wrong and should be lifted immediately. We reason when we do actions like this, and when Macai is not even getting any kind of explanation on why, it should have been rolled back immediately. This looks like a misuse of the admin tools by 2over0. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning 2over0[edit]
AFAIK, Requests for enforcement does not form part of the Climate Change Probation area - whatever else, Macai should not be sanctioned for raising these issues there on that basis. As a general comment, I have no idea if all admin actions in regard to pages covered by the CC Probation (except obvious vandalism, yadda yadda) is required to processed through Requests for enforcement. If it is, a link to the decision would be appreciated. Until this is clarified, I am not prepared to comment upon the viability of 2over0's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
Peterlewis[edit]
Peterlewis (talk · contribs) by Ratel (talk · contribs)
Result: Peterlewis warned about reversion without discussion. Ratel warned about approach. Global warming conspiracy theory placed on 1RR restriction. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Peterlewis[edit]
Discussion concerning Peterlewis[edit]Statement by Peterlewis[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Peterlewis[edit]So Ratel is calling Peterlewis' edit "promulgating slur against a living person" on Peterlewis' talk page, and saying above that this is a "BLP violation and unsourced slur against Al Gore". Where's the BLP harm in listing among the "motives" that conspiracy theorists use, "A desire on the part of individuals, such as Al Gore, to promote their own agenda to secure financial benefits for themselves."
Are we supposed to think that conspiracy theories about global warming do not include the most famous proponent of the idea? That somehow the conspiracy theorists would have avoided mentioning his name? Anyone with the least familiarity about the AGW debate knows that Al Gore has been accused of having ulterior motives by someone. It's a technical violation of BLP that Peterlewis didn't provide the source. It's kind of like not having a source for the statement, "George Bush is said to have known there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war" in an article titled "Iraq War conspiracy theories". All editors are warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Rather than engage in what looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, why not just do this: [23] It wasn't hard. [24] I'm sure it took less time than Ratel took to fight over this, and probably less time than Peterlewis did. Is Peterlewis aware of WP:BLP and WP:V? Oh, let me correct myself. It wasn't quite that easy. [25] Of course it would be reverted. As a BLP vio. Of course. We can't possibly say that there's a conspiracy theory about Al Gore, now, can we? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The rest is just noise. It matters not if you can find some bloggy or op-ed source to suggest that someone surmises the edit to be correct. That has nothing to do with this. Please stop with the red herrings. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Peterlewis[edit]
Any objection to a close as I outlined? This has sat for 4 days with no further comment. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Appeal by Macai[edit]
2over0 (talk · contribs) by Macai (talk · contribs)
Appeal unsuccessful, as consensus for overturning actions not found. Macai may appeal further to the Admin Noticeboard or the ArbCom Appeals Committee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
Not imposed by RFE council Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log
Statement by Macai[edit]Please bear with me There are a few issues I'd like to bring up, so please bear with me. What I am presenting is abstract and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire thing. Preface As a preface, I am aware that posting this request is in violation of 2over0's sanction against me. However, I think it is acceptable for me to post this request because the point of the request is to contest his sanctions. I'd appreciate if I was not blocked again for the duration of this request's lifespan, so that I can participate in the ongoing discussion about it. I will, in turn, refrain from editing other climate change related articles, and even other requests on this page. What I was sanctioned for I've been accused of edit warring, and was blocked by 2over0 over it for two days. He also imposed a climate change topic ban on me that lasts two months. I believe he was referring to my edits to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on 03 April, 2010 based on the fact that it's the only article I've edited that day, as you can see based on my contribution history, and the fact that Short Brigade Harvester Boris commented on my page about how I supposedly violated 1RR. [28] Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for First and foremost, I do not believe that I was edit warring. If you take a peek at WP:EW, you will find that it describes "edit warring" as:
If you take a peek at EP:EW again, it also says:
So let's see if the edits I made were "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of edits and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." In my first edit, I offer up a compromise between the "leak vs hacked" argument by describing the incident as both.[29] This was not confrontational, I was not being combative (in fact, I was being compromising), and certainly not non-productive. I was not trying to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, nor was I trying to coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. Let's take a look at my second edit. In this one, I change the wording of the article to assert that scientists did some bad things as a fact, rather than simple allegations.[30] Okay, someone did not like this, so they changed it back. An outright reversion of it. Fair enough, I guess. Still, I wasn't being confrontational or combative, and I wasn't trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So I guess I wasn't edit warring here. Well, I guessed then that I should just cite my sources, then, right? So I did.[31] This I guess you could say is my revert for the day. Still not really edit warring. I mean, I wasn't combative, confrontational, or non-productive (I produced some sources for my original claim), nor was I trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So on to my fourth edit. In this one I change one use of the word "incident" to "scandal".[32] I wasn't reverting anyone's edit, nor was I acting in combative, confrontational manner, nor was I trying to win or manipulate any debates by being uncallaborative. So, so much for that. Finally, my fifth and last edit on April 3rd on this article, I bring back the term "Internet leak", since ChrisO said he was going for concision, and it's shorter than "publication on the Internet" by a margin of about two. Not really a revert, here. I mean, if you look at what he changed, this is a very minor tweak, was an improvement on ChrisO's edit, as evidenced by the fact that it's still there well over two days later.[33] In conclusion, I didn't edit war, and I didn't violate 1RR. Lack of proper warning I was spoken to briefly by Short Brigade Harvester Boris about how I am supposedly in violation of 1RR. He referred to the violations as "technical violations". I asked him how he figured I was in violation.[34] My final edit for the day was to inform him that I had made a response.[35] 2over0 blocked me and topic banned me for two months about an hour later. According to the probation's policies:
I was not given a warning, at least not in the common understanding of the word "warning", and if you want to be technical, certainly was not given a warning with a link to the aforementioned provisions. This means that he went against the way things are supposed to be done. You don't give someone a "warning" for speeding and then ticket them anyway for no reason. Figuratively, this is more or less what happened. Lack of sanctioning process While it may not be explicitly listed, the proper channels were not used prior to blocking and imposing the sanction on me. I was not informed of a sanction enforcement request, and I wasn't given the opportunity to explain myself or anything. Just bam, you're blocked, and topic banned for two months. Everyone else seems to have been at least given a chance to express their side of the story. Even the request concerning WMC involved him having a window -- three hours or so -- to respond. This sanction went through no process whatsoever. I had no window, at all. Relative heavy handedness compared to other sanctions WMC was given his third sanction, this time for 1RR violation, a 24 hour block.[36] Nothing else. On my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. WMC was consistently obstinate and angry, and was consistently let off much easier than I. Most users who did and said worse things than this got a warning or something of that nature. Let's contrast this with my case: on my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. I honored it, not wanting to cause a ruckus. Now, I've been given a two month ban on climate change. This is very frustrating, and I don't think it's fair. Why fast escalation for me, but not others? Ending argument I was accused of something I didn't do, and was reprimanded for it without getting the warning that I was entitled to by the very rules my punisher was claiming to enforce, without any way to explain myself, or any form of recourse, and was given a notably stiffer penalty than basically anyone else. This is an abuse of power, and should not be accepted. What I'm hoping for I think this sanction should be lifted. It was unfair, heavy handed, and extreme. There was no basis for it. @Prolog Please address:
I'd really appreciate it. Macai (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) @2over0 Well, you have made many charges now, not just "edit warring". Your original ban really was for edit warring. Now you're shifting the goalposts. I know it might be taboo to compare this to a court room, but it's like charging someone with murder, but when the defense basically disproves that claim, changing the charge to rape, or something, and acting like nothing ever changed.
While I'm aware that I'm supposed to assume good faith, I also feel that I'm being bombarded with accusations in the hopes that one will stick, and the sanction will be considered appropriate. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but that's what this seems like to me. Macai (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Statement by 2over0[edit]Posted using my alternate account (confirm). 2over0 public (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC) As a point of clarification, I do not believe that this appeal is in violation of Macai's topic ban. It would reasonably be construed to include participating in disputes at other sections of this page, but logically and morally we cannot prevent anyone from filing an appeal at an appropriate venue. It has been my understanding of the wording of the probation at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation that the intention is that nobody should be subjected to sanctions before having been made aware of the possibility. As Macai has continued to engage in the same sorts of edits that led to their first sanction, I do not feel that insufficient warning was given in this case. I am a bit busy over the next few days, but will make every attempt to make appropriate response here; the number and complexity of diffs here is fairly low, and I expect that this should be fairly simple to resolve. I was having a bit of a connectivity issue Saturday, and I see now that the full justification for this block and ban did not make it into the record. This was remiss of me, and for that I apologize unreservedly. The probation as currently worded encourages administrative action in the area of dispute, but does not remove my responsibility to ensure that everyone is aware of exactly why a particular action was taken. The next two sections are mostly copied from my records; if there are any formatting issues, I should be able to fix them in a few hours; anyone should feel free to correct them in the meantime. I set the block at 48 hours as a reasonable escalation of a previous edit warring block at the end of last November. I set the ban at one month full and two months article but not discussion (running concurrently) as a reasonable escalation of their previous one month ban that expired about a month ago, on 03-07. It is my understanding that enforcement of the probation does not require a thread here, though as always it is incumbent upon the acting administrator to understand any situation fully through careful perusal of the relevant diffs. If we would like to modify this aspect of the probation, either officially or as a gentle-editors' agreement, I believe Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation would be the best place to discuss this. Block[edit]Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation and #Article probation enforcement.
When this block expires, please be more careful that your edits: adhere to the Neutral point of view policy by carefully summarizing all relevant sources, especially when editing the lead; adhere to the biographies of living persons policy through careful consideration of you choice of sources and appropriate attribution; and adhere to any consensus expressed at the talk page. Particularly, please wait for and participate in discussion to ensure that all aspects of an edit are not contentious whenever someone makes a reasoned objection to any bold edits you make. This is a collaborative project, and requires input from many points of view if we are to produce the best encyclopedia possible. Thank you, Ban[edit]Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation and #Article probation enforcement.
You show a laudable ability and willingness to seek out sources, but you still seem to be approaching this topic area largely as a battleground. Probably in a different editing environment this would be only minimally disruptive, but at present editors in this topic area very much need to avoid antagonizing each other (Hipocrite, you might also take this to heart) and be more proactive in seeking consensus supported by accurate summary of the range of reliable sources. When this ban expires, please try to remember that there is no deadline - little is lost and much is gained by spending the extra time and effort to convince your fellow volunteers at the talk page, even if it means waiting a day or three or accepting wording that you may not find ideal. As a final note, I remind you that the Biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages and all edits concerning identifiable living persons; please be extra careful when making such edits that your text is fully supported by the best possible sources and is properly attributed. Regards, Further[edit]By "connectivity issues" I mean "I was running two browsers, including Flash in 32 bit compatibility mode, a lengthy document full of equations and images, an old presentation, a couple spreadsheets, an analysis package from 1995 or so with poor memory management, a curve fitting package that three software layers down still thinks that it is being run on a command line in 1972, and a dozen or so pdfs when for reason or reasons unknown something decided it would be fun to just hang unresponsively until eventually a reboot was acknowledged." After rebooting, I saw that my edits to Macai's talk page and the sanction log had in fact saved, but did not check that the version was correct; for this I apologize. I can be hard on a system, but it should not show up in my activities here. I stand by the block and ban themselves, though - Macai was made aware last time we were here that tolerance would be extemely low for anay further disruption. Nothing in the past month has been as blatantly anti-collaborative as copy/paste moving a page through move protection, but it is my opinion that a further warning would not be the best course of action here. I believe my analysis shows that the effect of Macai's continued editing in this area has been disruptive, both through blatant edit warring and through anti-collaborative tendencies such as treating the talkpage as a general forum, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, making personal attacks against their fellow volunteer editors, and failing to adhere to WP:BLP. If consensus here develops that some other sanction would better serve the encyclopedia, I would bow to that. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Should always topic bans be discussed here? on the issue of raising lengthy sections here before they are imposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the appeal by Macai[edit]These were not "housekeeping" kinds of edits. They were controversial reverts of the kind the 1RR restriction was meant to cover. I'm particularly concerned about this edit [50] because it violates BLP by having Wikipedia state in the lead that scientists "withheld scientific information", which sounds like it could be a serious charge. That part of the edit is sourced to a Telegraph commentary by James Delingpole (and even Delingpole's article [51] has "perhaps" and "may" strewn all over it) and a Wall Street Journal news story. I looked at the WSJ story [52] and can't find anything to back up "withheld scientific information". This is something I consider a serious BLP violation because of the first section of this [53] Der Spiegel article. There is simply no way that this could be considered anything but a contentious edit. So could this one [54] which came within hours of it. I don't think 2/0 should be deciding on topic bans and perhaps not blocks without going to this page for a discussion, but I don't disagree with either the block or topic ban, except that one month seems too short. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Nsaa[edit](as posted previously before 2over0 ansver above ) I've requested that 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) justified both the block and the topic ban at his talk page. As far as I can see this block and topic ban of user Macai (talk · contribs) is wrong and should be lifted immediately. We reason when we do actions like this, and when Macai is not even getting any kind of explanation on why, it should have been rolled back immediately. This looks like a misuse of the admin tools by 2over0. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Kenosis[edit]I was a bit surprised at the broad range of interpretations of 2/0's and Macai's respective actions, so I did some research of potentially relevant diffs.
It seems to me the last two might be a potential issue--similarly to what's happened to several other editors here-- the question being "was the edit at 08:41 1 April a revert under the 1RR rules?". I imagine if one wants to be strictly technical under the terms specified in the box above the edit box in articles within the probation area, one could easily argue it is. It might be reasonable to describe it as "slightly dangerous territory" under the CC probation terms, since this was a direct extension of the wheel war that got both Marknutley and William M Connolley blocked. But it doesn't seem to me to be per se a 1RR vio. This is the general sort of situation I was referring to in my brief exchange of thoughts with JohnWBarber and Macai above, where I advocated a more in-depth discussion towards clarifying what criteria might be involved in the decision about what's a revert and what isn't.
These diffs, all in the lede of the article, raise significant NPOV and BLP issues, in addition to 1RR issues.
Comment by KimDabelsteinPetersen[edit]I'm a bit concerned that this seems to be getting a close, without admins reviewing the evidence provided by 2over0. If this closes this way, then you are setting a bad precedence for yourselves, no matter what you agree that the enforcement procedure should or shouldn't be. Because it seems that the closure will be "procedural error - overturn - sentence served". May i gently and in a friendly manner remind you of WP:BURO? It doesn't really benefit the accused (who doesn't know whether he did something wrong or not) nor the enforcement board (setting precedence) that this should close this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Macai[edit]
It should be noted that during Macai's first topic ban discussion, lengths of even a year and three months were proposed but the user was let off with a month and a strong warning not to edit disruptively again. It's been less than a month since his ban expired and the disruption, repeatedly making highly contentious changes/reverts, happened on the same 1RR article. After a quick look, the block and topic ban seem appropriate to me. Prolog (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we get this decided? Other views? Failing that I think I'll close as LHvU outlined regarding the ban itself, with my changes. Its been a few days. Note that there has been considerable discussion about process. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
1RR restriction on Global warming controversy incorrectly added, then fixed[edit]
Lar (talk · contribs) by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
Lar has just added a 1RR restriction (or at least a comment claiming that such a restriction exists) to Global warming controversy. The note claims that this is "per the probation sanctions logged here". However, there are no probation sanctions concerning Global_warming_controversy currently logged, and I see no good reason for a 1RR restriction on that article - the article is relatively quite, with less than 1 edit/day for April, and no contentious edits in the last weeks. A small amount of IP vandalism has been curbed by semi-protection.
I suspect this is a mixup. If not, I'd like to see an explanation. Also, I very much suggest that 1RR restrictions are announced in a page notice, as at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. It's not realistic to expect users to read all talk page headers before editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that, too. To be absolutely clear, the article in question has seen no significant edits since it was semiprotected over a week ago following ssome vandalism. I assume Lar intended to target some other article. --TS 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he has moved the tag to another article and I've added an edit notice. So this is resolved for now, although all admins should be aware of the possibility of adding an edit notice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Last edit to that article was a week ago. And no editor in that dispute had more that 1RR. Typically pointless action resulting from this probation. -Atmoz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was actually a simple error, that originates with Ratel's evidence (he mislabeled a diff). Discussion was about Global warming conspiracy theory - but the closing admin (Lar), just checked Ratels evidence, to be sure what the article was - and the error propagated. Hasn't it has been remedied? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you check my piped link, that's the article I linked to. And if you check the history, from 3 April until the 1RR restriction was put in place, there were a total of 13 edits by 10 accounts. There was 1 revert by Vsmith on 3 April, 1 revert by Ratel on 4 April, 1 revert by Peterlewis on 4 April, 1 revert by Vsmith on 5 April, 1 revert by JohnWBarber on 5 April, and 1 revert by William M. Connolley on 5 April. How would a 1 RR have prevented that? -Atmoz (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was actually a simple error, that originates with Ratel's evidence (he mislabeled a diff). Discussion was about Global warming conspiracy theory - but the closing admin (Lar), just checked Ratels evidence, to be sure what the article was - and the error propagated. Hasn't it has been remedied? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Last edit to that article was a week ago. And no editor in that dispute had more that 1RR. Typically pointless action resulting from this probation. -Atmoz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he has moved the tag to another article and I've added an edit notice. So this is resolved for now, although all admins should be aware of the possibility of adding an edit notice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It (the incorrect article being tagged) was a mixup on my part. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Comes from not making sure everything lines up, (see my talk for more...) Ratel's diff (which is to the correct article but went via secure.wikimedia) did not match his statement and I was following that link so as to not have to work on secure. Sloppiness on my part. I think it's sorted now. I think adding a note to the talk page is a good idea too. As for whether it was a pointless action or not... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley[edit]
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #16 by ATren (talk · contribs)
No action. Simply, if it had been any other editor than WMC there would not have been a Request . LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
Discussion concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]Since FG has joined in, I think this [63] is well worth examining. Yes, FG really removed a pic of the temperature record from the MWP article with the edit comment rv. Hockey Stick not relevant to article; other issues. That is not good faith editing; that is wanton destruction. This [64] is also distinctly dubious, it removes important caveats William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC) And FG's aggresive reverting at Willie Soon has got it protected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Comments By FellGleaming[edit]Three more civility breaches by WMC, all in the last few hours. I didn't bother to look back any further. [66] [67] [68]
Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC) ZP5* Comment[edit]Noticing the included PA "I suggest that someone like Cla - who for all his faults at least has some clue about writing without bias, and has a fair idea of what MN really means - goes in and rewrites the thing. Until that is done this fails the criterion for RFC listing; I've nowikied the tag ni the interim William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" (sorry, could not find diff) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety; (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Mark Nutley Comment[edit]@Bozmo, please check the history of the talk page in question. I had in fact already changed the text of the rfc based on comments made by both CLa and WMC. [redacted] I do not see how the wording was any differnet to other RFC`s i have done. And they have never been tampered with. It is mentioned in the RFC that two editors opposed this text, so i dunno were your coming from there mate mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Please try to keep up, Cla68. ATren stated that it's possible one of the editors he alledges WMC alienated would have reached his level of specialist knowledge. To do that, they would already have had to be at a semi-professional level before editing wikipedia at all, because it would take at least a decade to reach WMC's level of specialist knowledge. If someone wants to alledge that WMC has negative repricussions that outweigh his positives I'm fine with that argument (I disagree, but I'm not going to quibble). ATren, however, is arguing that he's driven away a single hypothetical editor who would now have positives that would outweigh his positives, which is nonsense. Do try to follow. Also, on Millhist - when you solve the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki article we can talk about the differences. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ssilvers Comment[edit]This appears to be yet another attempt by global warming deniers to prevent Connolley from insisting on accuracy in Wikipedia articles in the climate area. I have often disagreed with Connolley, and he can certainly be brusque, but he edits in good faith, whereas his accusers are nearly always POV pushers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Hmm. I propose to move this to a speedy close. AFAICT Mark had not understood the correct way to do and RFC (which would have been to request comments on whether a text block should be included, not to request explicitly in the RFC lede to overturn a decision by two other editors). WMC gave the RFC the best hope of survival by nowikiing it until it was reworded properly, and said he was doing this. His comment about Mark being incapable of phrasing it neutrally was a bit sharp but I think suspending the RFC pending appropriate wording was a no-brainer, and WMC did suggest Cla should do the reword. Obviously, Mark did not like it being WMC doing the suspension or the comment. Anyway I do not think it requires action here. --BozMo talk 14:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Marknutley[edit]
Marknutley (talk · contribs) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
| Open verdict, assuming good faith: Clarification is given to Mark Nutley that the scope of not raising complaints against WMC is site-wide excepting user talk pages, and the ban is extended until 12 May 2010. Mark should be more careful in the use of vandalism templates and formal processes in disputes, and make fresh efforts to assume good faith |
|---|
| 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 Marknutley[edit]
Note that MN, and now ATren, have tried to excuse the parole violation by nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. This is false. Lar asked for diffs Oh, and I also see that Nsaa is pushing and just adds "POV" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article - this is wrong; as you can see from the article talk page, where I discuss exactly this William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Note that NW has judged MN in violation of his civility parole [78] and MN has accepted this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) My feeling is that the from your glee club comment by Lar isn't just a minor bit of snark or indication of sharp elbows; it really is how he thinks. Given that, I think it is a fairly clear indication that he cannot possibly be considered nuetral in these matters (or, in the terminology that I've been using for a while, he is biased) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think you might turn your minds towards actually closing this one?
Discussion concerning Marknutley[edit]Statement by Marknutley[edit]With regards to the vandalism charges, i point you to WP:VANDAL which says the insertion of nonsense into articles which is what WMC did, [81] wp:vandal also says reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive which he also did [82] With regards to the comments on my talk page i did not call any person stupid, i called the situation stupid. I also did not try to sneak an RFE in, lar asked for diffs over what this was about, so i posted the diffs. @At KC, what you are saying is, that when i ask advice from admins over WMC`s disruptive behaviour then i am trying to get and enforcement done against him? If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. To suggest a vendetta by me is ridiculous, it is not me who is constantly being confrontational, it is not me who turns up at a newly created article and inserts junk. It stuns me that WMc carrys on with his crap and it is ignored, yet you suggest a topic ban for me for filing a COI report, laughable indeed. It is no wonder wp is going down the pan when a disruptive editor is given free reign yet when those who request he be stopped are the ones punished mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley[edit]
(Ironically, I forgot to uncheck the watch-this-page button from my minor spelling correction. FIXED!) Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by nsaa[edit]I'm amazed. How can this be
Comments by FellGleaming[edit]I think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Wikipedia is to create quality encyclopedic entries. From the diffs posted above, it is clear that WMC was, as another editor points out, "inserting shuck comments" in a disruptive manner. I am also shocked and dismayed that at least one administrator has openly admitted WMC receives special treatment in this regard. Returning to the issue of Knutley, since he did nothing but bring to attention acts which were clearly disruptive to Wikipedia, how can there be any discussion of action against him at all? User A disrupts WP; User B reports him...User B gets banned? To quote Shulze here, "what the fuck?" Nothing you could possibly do would have more a chilling effect on editors bringing to light such abusive actions. Had he brought a complaint without merit, that would be one thing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. FellGleaming (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Stephan Schulz[edit]If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. (Mark) Mark, the very point of your sanction is that people found your enforcement requests/complaints/whines about WMC to be not helpful. It may be counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia has survived for a number of years without your input. It will likewise survive for a couple more years without your input in this particular area. So your obvious, and strongly recommended, option is to ignore WMC and his behavior. If it really is so egregious as you think, someone else will do something. If not, take it as a sign that you erred (once again, as in the cases that got you banned in the first place) in your evaluation of the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ATren[edit]KC's proposal is completely unacceptable given the history of this conflict, which has been escalated by WMC's repeated mocking of MN. Either both should be topic-banned or neither. Also, MN is not in violation on COIN (he is not forbidden from filing there, it was understood at the time that he was sanctioned specifically from filing further enforcement requests. The wording, however, is vague so perhaps the intent was misunderstood.) nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. KC, you should review the history of this debate before judging. ATren (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
KC, I think you did miss this; the diffs are there for you to read. He asked Mark directly for diffs in a flurry of edits by you, Lar, and WMC. By the time MN responded, he was responded to Lar's second request for diffs, which came in the same thread and was indented under your comment. Here is the diff which shows Lar directly asking Mark for diffs: "Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff?". In the next edit, three minutes later[84], Mark responded with diffs, but he put them at the end of the rapidly expanding thread. But the direct request from Lar was only 5 minutes old. Further, it was my understanding that the sanction against MN applied to complaints in this enforcement only, so if the intent was different, it's quite possible that MN had the same impression. Indeed, he has indicated above that he was unaware of any restriction on filing a COI/N. For reference, here is enforcement request that triggered the sanction from Geni. Note that ChrisO specifically requested "I suggest barring Marknutley from making any further enforcement requests", and that he uses "complaint" interchangeably with "enforcement request". ATren (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) BozMo, why are you not concerned about the time wasted by the editor who is now in double-digits in enforcement requests, has a long list of token blocks and warnings he ignores, and makes blatantly bad POV edits with no sourcing? ATren (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZP5*[edit]MN must appeal directly to admins for WMC issues, since by his CC sanction, he may not bring them directly here. There is no "sneak" .... it's the way to have indirect oversight on MN, so that WMC does not abuse MN's disabling probation terms. I find WMCs complaint on MN disability to be really unfair, when MN takes reasonable an appropriate steps to involve third parties. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The word "bringing" implies carrying to a venue of some sort. If it meant any page anywhere on WP, then it would prevent him from even responding to a WMC edit on an article's talk page, as that could certainly be construed as a complaint. Since this is being closed, the point here may be moot in the case of MN, but for future actions, I would suggest such bans be specified more clearly. FellGleaming (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Mackan79[edit]I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. On the talk page, WMC was accusing MN of incivility with his comments; when Marknutley then points out WMC's edits that prompted his comments, WMC accuses him of "sneaking in" an enforcement request. Besides that, how is WMC still accusing anyone of incivility while continuing to call editors bozos and septics (on his talk page, right, because that doesn't bother him). Topic bans should not result from silly gags. Mackan79 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. - those are Lar's words, not mine William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]Before closing this, I'd like for an admin to advise Marknutley that characterizing other editors' actions as "petty pov pushing"[85] doesn't help keep the temperature down on these articles. (Bad pun, sorry.) Regardless of whether it violates the letter of his civility parole it's not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Response by William M. Connolley to suggestion by LessHeard vanU[edit]The interaction ban sounds unlikely to be trouble free, and to cause endless bickering about the details, which are alarmingly vague. The menaing of words like "recent" and "major" are inevitably ambiguous. Oh, and I also protest that this has morphed into restrictions on me. If you want to do that, you should make a complaint for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You've [This was, I think, addressed directly to LHVU; but no matter it seems to apply to all] conveniently forgotten the violation of his civility parole William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley[edit]
I propose closing as "Open verdict, assuming good faith: Clarification is given to Mark Nutley that the scope of not raising complaints against WMC is site-wide excepting user talk pages, and the ban is extended until xx/xx/xxxx. Mark should be more careful in the use of vandalism templates and formal processes in disputes, and make fresh efforts to assume good faith". --BozMo talk 09:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
|
FellGleaming[edit]
FellGleaming (talk · contribs) by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
| FellGleaming is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. He is warned to be scrupulous in his representation of sources and his use of purported quotes from them. He is further required to respond directly to the substance of future concerns about his use of sources and quotations and avoid aggressive posturing. These are final warnings and further violations may result in sanctions. 03:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Request concerning FellGleaming[edit]
Look, I've unwatched all of the GW/CC articles except the scibaby SPAs. I go around and revert scibaby, and sometimes I forget to uncheck watch this page. Shockingly, this was one of the pages I scibabyverted - [88], and then didn't unwatch. Across my watchlist comes "original source says "leaked" emails," and I know - just know, that the edit will be problematic. Here's a link to the source [89]. Here's the source with every word but "hacked" or "leaked" or derivatives replaced with "..." ...hacked... That's right - the article that "original source says "leaked" emails" according to the edit summary uses "leaked" not even once, but used "hacked" exactly once. The edit summary was not just false, it was 180 degrees removed from the truth. This kind of behavior is part of why the atmosphere at these articles is poisonous, and why I quit them entirely.
FG has again misrepresented sources. In this edit he removes the text "he later said the story was a publicity stunt." which is sourced to "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." Here's what that article says about the incident - "A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.... "[The house sale] was the story which the PR people dreamed up after we had three months of the best sales that any puzzle had ever had," he said... "I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said, 'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No - I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't actually true." So, I guess I should revert him with the comment and continue to not report misrepresentation of sources? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) FG has again misrepresented facts in his responses here. He states that when he did this edit, the "source next to that claim" did not verify the claim, but rather, the second source following it did. This is false. Specifically, the source after the claim was (it's in the diff) "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales," which most certainly verifies the claim. When is this a pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Further, FG represents that this 15:02, 15 April 2010 diff is from "before I got involved." This is belied by the fact that this additional statement was filed at 14:44 15 April 2010, and that this 14:39, 15 April 2010 diff is from me. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Even further FG represents that "I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question." This is belied by the fact that FG's first post to the talk page in question in april is 15:02, 15 April 2010, but the edit in question is 14:29, 15 April 2010. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Still further FG now states "I immediately removed it as potentially libelous per BLP, posted a question on the talk page asking someone to explain the discrepancy..." FG removed the source at 14:29, 15 April 2010, then edited Sean Wilentz (14:32, 15 April 2010), then User talk:BozMo (14:55, 15 April 2010), then Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri (14:56, 15 April 2010), and finally, more than half an hour later, posted said "question," (which lacked a question mark, and wasn't a question at all) which was posted only after the content was restored. There's got to be a level where this constant stream of factual inaccuracies has consequences. Hipocrite (talk) Yet further still, at [90], specifically [91], Polargeo states "The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article." How many times? Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FellGleaming[edit]Statement by FellGleaming[edit]This is the version of the article before I edited: The source ref for the article line that describes the emails as "leaked", is below. Forgive me for modifying the original ref & cite tags, but I'm unsure how to escape the text properly: (ref name='AP 2009-11-21')((cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | date=2009-11-21 | publisher=Associated Press | url =http://www.startribune.com/science/70700047.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-11-24 | language = ))(/ref) Note the article title says "Hackers "leak" climate change emails". Again, this is the text before I made my edit. If the AP is willing to title the emails as leaked, why is that not good enough for WP?
I also want to point out that the reporting user is incorrect when he claims I have "been blocked for this before". I have never made edit to this article or a similar edit to any other article before, much less been banned for it. Further, I believe the assumption of bad faith, along with the general aggressive tone as seen above, and his instant and immediate reporting of me for a single edit, as potentially actionable in itself. There was no attempt made to engage me in discussion, nor respond with civility, AGF, or even, apparently, an accurate assessment of the situation. FellGleaming (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming[edit]
(undent) you are reading your blocklog wrong, [93]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I started trying to plow through this to understand what's up, but I ran into trouble when I got to "(because "good-faith" actors like this one here make it perfectly clear why I'd make a better admin than 99% of the spinless admin corps.)"... could we all try to be a bit more dispassionate please? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
OK I looked. Am I to understand that this entire request is over one word? I've read the analysis and I agree, the source cited supports "hacked" rather than "leaked" and the article should in that area use "hacked". Claiming otherwise wasn't helpful. Misrepresenting the source wasn't warranted. But that diff, taken by itself, suggests that discussion is needed and clarification of what the source actually said ought to be given, and that ought to sort it. H's reversion reversion (with a somewhat strident edit summary "This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans." ) should have resulted in discussion. Did it? I don't see it directly discussed, although I see WMC mentioned it (with insufficent context) in passing at Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Pointless_fiddling ... Doesn't bringing it here as an enforcement request seem a bit extreme? What am I missing? ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The definition of the term: " Leaked: to become publicly known through a breach of secrecy, e.g. The news has leaked." Describing leaked emails as leaked is not misleading, with or without a source. In this case, however, reliable sources already in the article described them using that exact word. Double verification. Further, even Mann's own op-ed describes emails that became "publicly known through a breach of security". Thus, though he specifically did not use the word, even this source verifies that the emails were leaked. Triple' verification. Had I attributed the word itself to Mann within a direct quote, that would be an error. But by standard rules of journalism, the statement "Mann said of the leaked emails, "xxxxx" " is attributing only the quote to Mann, not the preceeding adjectival phrase. There is no error here, no deception, much less any intent to deceive. The edit improved the article. FellGleaming (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
These are edits by Fell Gleaming which I believe are an attempt to prevent criticism of the article on Watts Up With That: [99] and [100]. Jack1956 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by William M. Connolley[edit][101] is pretty dodgy too. I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Thparkth[edit]This is a trivial complaint not worthy of any response, not even the mildest of warnings. It should be clear to even the most casual reader that the language FellGleaming changed was not directly attributed to Michael Mann. It is obviously outside the quotation marks. It is a real stretch to claim that FellGleaming's edit put the word 'leaked' into Mann's mouth. It is also clearly consistent with the citation given just two sentences earlier which unambiguously refers to a "leak" of the emails (incidentally the linked source is no longer available but a quick Google shows the same story available from many other sources with the same title.). Does that mean it was a good edit? No, I don't think it was. In this context, when we are summarizing Mann, it would be better to be consistent with the language Mann used in the article being summarized rather than being consistent with the AP story. But that's a judgement call - reasonable editors may legitimately differ. What's certain is that there's no reason to assume the edit - the one, single edit - was made in bad faith. It is manifestly unreasonable that one edit, a very minor one, made in apparent good faith, with no edit warring or breach of talk-page consensus going on, should end up here - not just as a component of a complaint, but as the entire sum of the complaint. It stretches my ability to WP:AGF about the complainant. Here is the process that should have been followed: 1. Revert the edit FellGleaming made. 2. End of process. Thparkth (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Question by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]Where and how exactly did I bait WMC? Diff and explanation please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reopening by MastCell[edit]I had intended to ignore Hipocrite's continuing his stream of combative, personal attacks on me (the behavior for which he was admonished here two days ago), but since MastCell has chosen to reopen this, I would like to call attention to these diffs
Further, I question why MastCell chose a diff that specifically excludes the very heart of this disagreement. I saw a claim that a person "had admitted to a publicity stunt". I clicked on the source next to that claim, and it said specifically he "denied a publicity stunt". Apparently the source next to that one contradicted the first, but Hipocrite was unwilling to accept that, and continued his stream of personal attacks even after being requested to desist. I have asked MastCell why he chose to characterize a diff that had nothing to do with the situation as "my explanation"; so far I have not received a reply on this issue. Finally, I point out that, once again, Hipocrite has chosen to engage in nonproductive behaviour for no good reason. I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question. I did not revert his reversion, nor respond to his insults, nor do anything but ask sincerely why the article said one thing, but the source another. See this talk page diff here, made before Hipocrite got involved: [User:FellGleaming|Fell Gleaming]](talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've answered your questions, but I don't intend to be baited. Do you intend to answer any of my questions? Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of this request? That we should sanction people for aggressively inserting baseless nonsense into Wikipedia? Yes please! Stamp firm and hard, never let the weeds of equivocation plant roots in the encyclopedia based on verifiability and the neutral point of view. There has always been a line in the sand: equivocate at your peril. --TS 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning FellGleaming[edit]
Here's my thinking. FG to be requested not to use quotes in ways that might mislead. Hipocrite admonished for bringing a rather picayune matter here straightaway rather than talking it out, and for the manner in which it was brought, which is unnecessarily combative. This matter is so small I can't see anything beyond that. Anyone else? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Also would like to consider that Weakopedia and possibly AQFK are banned from interacting with WMC. It's not the subject of this enforcement action, but I believe that their edits in WMC's section above constitute baiting and battleground-ish behavior. NW (Talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
|
99.141.*[edit]
99.141.241.135 (talk · contribs) by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
Someone please take a look at the recent edits of 99.141.241.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Talk:Hockey stick controversy and my talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- 2over0 has blocked the ip for a week regarding personal attacks and harassment - personally I would have emphasised the BLP concerns over pa's, but there was certainly harassment of any editor who was not behind their viewpoint. Anyhoo, unless there is a block overturn I think this can be marked as resolved and archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, fine with me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming (2)[edit]
FellGleaming (talk · contribs) by John (talk · contribs)
| closed as wrong venue as stands without prejudice on some or all issues being raised elsewhere or here | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning FellGleaming[edit]
48 hour block to prevent further disruption
This and this should also be read. Clear what this user is doing, at least to me. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning FellGleaming[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming[edit]
Statements by Fell Gleaming[edit]John has brought up two incidents. I will address the second one first, as it is most clear cut. I removed from a BLP a derogatory claim that was sourced to a blog, and in my edit, described it as "blogs as sources". Brigade Harvester immediately visited my talk, with the message "Please Stop Misrepresenting Sources" [110]. I pointed out that there was not only one blog in the claim, but two. SBHB subsequently admitted they were indeed blogs (see here: [111] ) but began quibbling over whether they were reliable enough to be used. I then visited SBHB's talk page, with a polite request for him to AGF and to self-revert his allegation. He responded aggressively, asking me which one of us should "take this to the enforcement board". (See: [112]) I am unsure what exactly he intended to ask for enforcement for, however, since he already admitted the sources were indeed blogs. How can I be sanctioned for calling a blog a blog? Incident Two. John, seeing SBHB's allegation on my page, made the same claim right below it, using extremely aggressive language such as "this won't be tolerated" (see here: [113]). His complaint was not over any edit I had made, but simply a statement I made on an article's talk page, in reference to a previous statement about the seriousness of Chernobyl. John's complaint seems unfounded on two separate grounds. First, regardless of whether or not he believes I summarized the source accurately, this is what a talk page is for. To lay out a controversial position before it becomes part of an article. If you state something in error, it doesn't hurt the entry. Nor (in this case) did I even have any intention of using anything from that article in the entry, and John knew that. This was part of a tangential discussion on whether or not the entry should be renamed. John's complaint thus seems to not be made in any spirit of improving the entry, but simply to "spite me" for our disagreement in opinion. Secondly, I don't believe my statement was in any way incorrect (though admittedly being on talk page, I used more dramatic language than I would have in editing an actual entry). My statement is above. The NYT article said: Indeed, the report concludes, "The largest public health problem unleashed by the accident" is "the mental health impact." Residents of the region, who view themselves as victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, are still beset by anxiety that has prevented them from restarting their lives. "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are ... "Early on there were all sorts of claims being made ..." The article states (a) the problem is "mental health impact", quantifying it as anxiety. It further states it was due to "fatalism" from "all sorts of claims being made". It further states (not quoted above), that victims should be provided "with realistic information about the minimal risks they face.". I summarized that as ""the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were." I think that's a wholly accurate statement -- though again, had I been writing this in an entry, rather than a talk page, I would have used much more restrained language. Other editors might disagree with my synopsis, but I respectfully submit that is a difference of opinion, and cannot be construed a statement of fact. I pointed the above out to John and asked him to admit there was no misrepresentation. John again responded aggressively, threatening enforcement action (see here: [114]). Finally, I note that, since I began writing this entry, some other claims have been made that have nothing to do with the original sanction I am accused of violating. I will defend myself against those if an admin feels its necessary, but I believe that, for clarity if nothing else, those should be brought up in a separate issue. Fell Gleaming(talk) 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment By Mark Nutley[edit]This article is not within the CC enforcement area, this request should be chucked out mark nutley (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
?Applicability[edit]Not sure this is climate change. Anyway I have to recuse because I work for a charity which is too involved in Belarus post Chernnobyl [115], but a general issue with the topic certainly exists with a very strong political pressure to paint a particular picture (downplaying the radiation impact, at least from our perspective) so I can see the problem on getting reliable sources which do not have secondary distortion to them. --BozMo talk 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
To keep everybody happy, and to keep the probation from appearing to overstep its terms of reference, I suggest that this request be closed and if any relevant issues remain a new request within the sanction area can be opened. I would add that while I agree that the probation should focus exclusively on conduct within the probation's scope, cases that seem to evidence problematic behavior of much broader scope may influence the types of remedy that can reasonably be considered. It would be pointless to craft a remedy that simply resulted in the refocusing of problem editing on other articles. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]Please don't close this quite yet. FG's interaction with me, briefly alluded to above, was on the Ian Plimer article which definitely falls within the probation area. He not only misrepresented a source (the U.S. Geological Survey web site is a blog?) but also spun my words to mean something that I did not say, which is a continuation of the "aggressive posturing" for which he has been warned. There are other examples of his misrepresenting sources following the closure of the last enforcement request involving him; see e.g., this exchange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by SPhilbrick[edit]I can't believe we are wasting our time with this nonsense. Let's close this and move on to some more serious.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning FellGleaming[edit]
|
Hipocrite[edit]
Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Nsaa (talk · contribs)
| No action. Non optimal conduct and comment, perhaps, but nothing sanctionable, and no further admin comments since mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hipocrite[edit]
It may also be wise to take a look at this User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#What_do_you_claim.3F.
2010-04-25T19:45:24 Nsaa (→Requests_for_enforcement: new section) Discussion concerning Hipocrite[edit]Statement by Hipocrite[edit]
Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite[edit]
Result concerning Hipocrite[edit]
|