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

Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley

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

The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this most recent request, and AQFK's reception of it, only proves his own biases. Quite why an unjustified request that isn't going to be actioned should translate into temporary injunctions isn't clear - unless the injunction should be against AQFK for kibitzing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two edit wars at Phil Jones (climatologist) today that began yesterday, one of which continues into today

• Edit war #1[2][3][4][5]
• Edit war #2[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

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

Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by User:Peterlewis with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to User:M.w.denotter who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. Minor4th 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are [13] and [14]. Am I misreading something? NW (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. Minor4th 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. Minor4th 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Err no, it wasn't 4, it was 3, and one was a sock. Have another go. And as for I just want to clarify - can you give this disruptive nonsense up and find yourself something productive to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: User:A Quest For Knowledge/Phil Jones Content Disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Phil_Jones_Content_Disputes#Climategate_E-mails:_Were_they_.22leaked.22.2C_.22stolen.22_or_both.3F_If_stolen.2C_were_they_.22stolen.22_or_.22allegedly_stolen.22.3F (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that [15]. His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently [16] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Wikipedia, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --TS 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --TS 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Tony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. Weakopedia (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to NW's question

Responding to NW's question

And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?

which is a reference to:

The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")

I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward: Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--SPhilbrickT 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--SPhilbrickT 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PETARD exists. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin

I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, here. This is plainly in violation of WP:NPA, without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

lights

<looks around, and reaches for the switch>CLICK!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)