Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Environment Project‑class | |||||||
|
The section of things to avoid states:
Maybe I am confused, but aren't the talk pages specifically supposed to be for making comments ABOUT the subject of the article? -- GoRight ( talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Valid point GoRight - I've removed the sentence - it was taken directly from the Obama probation but it has no real reference here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Dog article has one particular editor who wants to included a paragraph about sea level rise... caused by dogs... in the "Human Health" section. After being reverted by three separate editors in the space of an hour, he's added the climate change probation tag to the article. Can someone explain to me who gets to decide which articles fall under the remit of this probation? I fully support it by the way, but I don't think "Dog" should fall under it. (For what it's worth, I'm uninvolved in this edit war except for offering an opinion on the talk page.) Thparkth ( talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't try this here. Prodego talk 06:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You might want to include all the Category:Thermodynamics, Category:Statistics, Category:Meteorology + several others on the probation. I could make a list on those. 84.231.119.103 ( talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Presumably this kind of opt out User_talk:BozMo#NOTICE:_Climate_Change_articles is ok? In general I am not a great user of tools but I think making it harder for other admins to reverse them would make me less bold and I think I should be more bold. -- BozMo talk 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't edited these articles a lot, but I've been observing them for quite some time, and I'm not optimistic about this "probation" at all. I get the distinct feeling that it will be used as a weapon against those who are skeptical of AGW. I hope this is not the case, but we'll see what happens. Unit Anode 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Away on holidays at the moment, and trying to get my head around "probation". I noted the message in the Lindzen talk page that the Lindzen article is targetted by said probation. I can't see any reference to a discussion that explains why Lindzen's article is targetted. Anyhow, let's suppose its inclusion was a good idea, and let's look at what "probation" is. Basically, "probation" says that Wikipedia's fantastic codes of Wiki-chivalry, civility & assuming good faith, must be always observed, as must the more realistic 3RR policy. I look more carefully, and that's basically all it says. I tried harder, to see if it might say, "editors must act in good faith". But no, it doesn't say that. Just assume good faith. Does it say anywhere that Wikipedia's BLP policy must always be enforced at these pages? No, that doesn't seem to be mentioned either. Going on, I find no references to "NPOV", "NOR", "SYN" being enforceable at such pages. Basically, it says you can do what you like at these pages, provided you can remain cool-headed whilst you're doing it. Consider me strongly opposed. Alex Harvey ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Respected RFPP admin tedder suggested at my talkpage that it might be a good idea to encourage people to make page protection requests at a CC-specific venue, for instance Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change; I think it might work to take them here, but would like to hear other opinions. This would have the advantages that responding administrators would not need to bring themselves up to speed on the probation issues, increasing consistency of enforcement, and that there is a good chance that additional probation enforcement or monitoring would be required in such a case. I am loathe to create additional rules, but I also expect that any edit war in the probation area will be seen by at least one editor who is watching this page. So what do people think - should we take page protection requests at this or some other dedicated venue, or should we just encourage a few admins familiar with the issues here to watch RFPP and nip up the relevant requests? - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If these sanctions are going to be implemented then I assert that there is a need to assess both the efficacy and the neutrality of application of them on an on-going basis. This will necessarily require statistical analysis of both the administrative actions and the individual user behaviors both prior to and subsequent to the implementation of these sanctions. Before we get too far into this whole new process I would like to propose the following (rather than being WP:BOLD which has a tendency of being misinterpreted as being WP:POINTy sometimes):
I suggest that last one to legitimize the collection of some simple statistics regarding skeptical vs. warmer points of view in a given user's edits and thereby protect the underlying data from being viewed as being a WP:ATTACKPAGE in some user space some place.
I believe that assessing the efficacy and the neutrality of application of these sanctions is in the best interest of the project. Are there any objections to my pursuing this approach? -- GoRight ( talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless the proposed project is overseen by, and data collection/ analysis is done by a group of uninvolved admins the project should be userpaged. An editor with a strong pov on the subject should not be doing it or even be involved except as talk page commentator. Thus do it on a user subpage for your own fun ... or let other uninvolved users do the analyzing, etc. Vsmith ( talk) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. I go along with this, but make instead a very basic, obvious observation: for this process to have even the vaguest hope of success, any admin with a known bias must be considered "involved" and not be involved in enforcement.
I propose that all admins who intend to assist with climate change probation enforcements now voluntarily self-identify as (1) pro-IPCC / pro-RealClimate / advocate on action for fossil fuel reduction (2) a climate change skeptic; or (3) unaligned / centred / somewhat agrees with IPCC / disinterested / simply interested in enforcing Wikipedia's rules.
Those who self-identify as (1) or (2) should then voluntarily agree not to participate in the probation process.
Although not an admin, I will go first and put myself in category (2) since I obviously hold a strong point of view about various things (truth is, I fit better into category (3) but since I am regarded as a skeptic I would not be comfortable participating as a mediator).
Will others follow so as to make this process fair? Alex Harvey ( talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting responses.
ChrisO part 1 / Guettarda, you don't get the point. It's not about whether you can keep your admin decisions & POV separate, it's about whether you should. Example. Imagine you're a judge on a murder case, and the person murdered happens to be your wife. You may think you're a very logical person, and quite capable of keeping your emotions in a separate bucket. Fine, so you think you can do the case, but should you do it? No, you shouldn't, because (i), your judgement, even if accurate, will not have any appearance of credibility; and (ii) you may be wrong, and your emotions may not be in the separate bucket after all, and your judgement may turn out not to be accurate. An extreme example, sure, but for any admins with strong POVs, both (i) and (ii) apply here. Just as I agreed I shouldn't in principle mediate, neither should anyone else who has the appearance of a conflict of interest -- if that is you care about what the millions of Wikipedia readers will think when they see these discussions, and if you care about WP having any credibility.
ChrisO part 2, Republicans vs Democrats. I couldn't follow this at all, but what I'd say would be a good system is a panel that has 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats and 5 independents. That would work. Don't you think?
ChrisO part 3, Why are you making veiled references to likely outcomes of indefinitely banning users through this little ad hoc court you've set up? How is that helpful?
To those who asserted I "Assumed bad faith"; nonsense, I clearly proposed an honour system and laid down my weapons first, as a token of my good faith.
Tony Sidaway, who assumed, er, frankly nasty & devious intent after preaching the values of the AGF policy. That's fine, I don't care what you imagine; it clears the air and gives me opportunity to reassure you. Such is the value of honest dialogue, and you help to prove my point. So, here goes. Let me tell you that I will never be going to ArbCom for anything. My record of civility isn't up to scratch, and I've lost my temper too many times, and I publicly dare to question the very value of the AGF policy itself (OMG!). All of this would mean that if I ever went to ArbCom, I'd have no hope in hell of not being punished, however worthy my case. I am not stupid; ergo, I'll not be dicking around with ArbCom.
I am trying to propose a system here that will actually work. Alex Harvey ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an established process for proposing and approving changes to these sanctions? For example, I would favor including a restriction on modifying or removing someone's talk page comments without their permission, obvious vulgarities and extremely blatant PAs excepted, of course. I think that would go a long way towards improving the civility on some of these pages by blunting some of the pointy elbows. How can we get such a thing included? -- GoRight ( talk) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example, elsewhere I proposed suspending WP:BOLD which some editors were using to justify clearly controversial edits that broke the spirit of the peace. That garnered little support. I would say that the answer is that the existing process seems to be working pretty well (my thanks to the admins involved, and indeed to all those behaving responsibly) and there is little pressure for any updates at this stage William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Content RfC's are often important in helping resolve content disputes in contentious topic areas, such as this one. A major stumbling block, however, is when a content RfC doesn't attract enough participation in order to obtain input from editors other than the handful who happen to be focusing on that article at that time. Would it be possible, under this umbrella of climate change probation forums, to add a page, perhaps called the "Climate change noticeboard" for listing conflict dispute actions, such as RfCs? That way, editors interested in any of the various topics included in the broad Climate Change topic can have that one page on their watchlists instead of trying to put all of the climate change articles on their watchlists. Editors who want to invite participation to a discussion or RfC could post a notification to this central board inviting input by all concerned. Cla68 ( talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope this is the right forum..
I have recently run afoul of the rules here and I would like to make some suggestions that hopefully can keep others from falling into the same trap. With the help of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here I've sorted out the source of my confusion w.r.t. what constitutes a revert. It appears to me that Help:Revert and WP:3RR are in conflict in this regard (a smaller change qualifies under 3RR than is implied by WP:Revert). The problem is that currently there is no path that leads an editor of an article under this probation to the 3RR definition. The warning one sees when one starts to edit an article on probation speaks only of WP:1RR, which ironically enough, provides no definition and among other things advises users to "See WP:Bold,revert,discuss cycle", which as I come to find out, is bad advice in this context. When issues arose, I used WP:Revert which I found on my own by poking around and later WP:1RR which led me further astray.
I would suggest:
This might help to avoid contention in the future. JPatterson ( talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This debate was not sufficiently listed across the articles and users which it affects. However, since it's passing into policy many articles and users have been warned that they fall under this regime. I therefore conclude that this debate never really gave a true and fair chance for the community to reach a consensus. Polargeo ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have quick question. The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is under a 1RR restriction. Does this apply to the talk page? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the proposal at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive4#Comment refactoring, and subsequent discussions at
User talk:LessHeard vanU#Comment refactoring and
Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Refactoring of other editors talkpage comments per previous discussions I have
added a subsection to the
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation page, per
WP:BOLD and consensus at the talkpages noted. Other than improvements to the grammar and spelling corrections, any proposed alteration should be discussed here.
I am also going to "adjust" the Requests page to reflect the manner of making a talkpage guideline violation request, so that may need reviewing also.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 10:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious to anyone who watches proceedings here that "tit-for-tat" enforcement requests are a major problem. You report me, most likely because there's already bad feeling between us, and I receive a penalty of some kind. Now I'm really motivated against you, and I scrutinize your every edit, ignoring the good and noting every one that is in any way questionable, until I have enough diffs to make a complaint of some kind against you. Maybe it's dismissed, maybe it's not - it's equally effective from my point of view as a weapon against you in either case.
This is the same issue that was raised by Guy on the enforcement requests talk page recently.
Would anyone disagree that this kind of warfare mentality exists on the enforcement page? That the people making complaints and the people being complained about are mostly the same people?
I would like to propose two simple additional rules. I would welcome any discussion on this.
1. Enforcement requests may not be raised by any editor who has received a sanction under the climate change probation in the last sixty days.
2. Enforcement requests which are judged by the closing admin to be unfounded and raised in bad faith should lead to the requesting editor being barred from raising further enforcement requests for a sixty-day period.
There is no great loss of rights involved here; raising enforcement requests is a privilege which is many, many steps away from the core purpose of editing Wikipedia. Anyone affected who has a good-faith, legitimate and non-trivial complaint about another editor should have no difficulty persuading some other, non-sanctioned editor to raise the complaint for them.
Any thoughts? Thparkth ( talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional rules can add complexity to a game. It is disheartening to assume folks would approach Wikipedia like an enforcement game with penalties. Consistently reminding misguided requesters that Wikipedia exist for content and the score is kept with article quality reviews ... while enforcements hurt everyone.
Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (
talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As has been noted in the Wikileaks Talk Page, Wikileaks is on Climate change probation, and this is a bit daunting to people wanting to edit the article, which needs a lot of work. Wikileaks only tangentially refers to Climate Change, as it used to host the ClimateGate emails. How can we get it off probation? cojoco ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I should note my edit here to the template used to create requests here. It is apparent to me that creating admin-only discussion sections is not-wiki. Admin-only conclusion sections, sure, but admin-only discussion appears to be located only in this one template. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The BLP Maurice Strong is now frequently targeted by the minions who take their cue from Glenn Beck and Fox. He is peripherally related to the climate change debate, but the rabid Right have vilified him as the master puppeteer behind the whole vast left wing conspiracy to establish world government through climate scare campaigns.
Please add this article — Maurice Strong — to the list of articles under probation. ► RATEL ◄ 06:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been accused of being a Scibaby Sockpuppet on multiple occasions where I have attempted to include reasonably sourced material. I hope this is not a method of silencing skeptics or to neutralize their ability to contribute, it is however quite obscene to be faced with this. Please watch who you accuse of being a Scibaby Sockpuppet, people may have a similar view to his (I haven't really looked at what his view is) and you may mistake them as being a him. 130.56.89.139 ( talk) 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Environment Project‑class | |||||||
|
The section of things to avoid states:
Maybe I am confused, but aren't the talk pages specifically supposed to be for making comments ABOUT the subject of the article? -- GoRight ( talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Valid point GoRight - I've removed the sentence - it was taken directly from the Obama probation but it has no real reference here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Dog article has one particular editor who wants to included a paragraph about sea level rise... caused by dogs... in the "Human Health" section. After being reverted by three separate editors in the space of an hour, he's added the climate change probation tag to the article. Can someone explain to me who gets to decide which articles fall under the remit of this probation? I fully support it by the way, but I don't think "Dog" should fall under it. (For what it's worth, I'm uninvolved in this edit war except for offering an opinion on the talk page.) Thparkth ( talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't try this here. Prodego talk 06:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You might want to include all the Category:Thermodynamics, Category:Statistics, Category:Meteorology + several others on the probation. I could make a list on those. 84.231.119.103 ( talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Presumably this kind of opt out User_talk:BozMo#NOTICE:_Climate_Change_articles is ok? In general I am not a great user of tools but I think making it harder for other admins to reverse them would make me less bold and I think I should be more bold. -- BozMo talk 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't edited these articles a lot, but I've been observing them for quite some time, and I'm not optimistic about this "probation" at all. I get the distinct feeling that it will be used as a weapon against those who are skeptical of AGW. I hope this is not the case, but we'll see what happens. Unit Anode 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Away on holidays at the moment, and trying to get my head around "probation". I noted the message in the Lindzen talk page that the Lindzen article is targetted by said probation. I can't see any reference to a discussion that explains why Lindzen's article is targetted. Anyhow, let's suppose its inclusion was a good idea, and let's look at what "probation" is. Basically, "probation" says that Wikipedia's fantastic codes of Wiki-chivalry, civility & assuming good faith, must be always observed, as must the more realistic 3RR policy. I look more carefully, and that's basically all it says. I tried harder, to see if it might say, "editors must act in good faith". But no, it doesn't say that. Just assume good faith. Does it say anywhere that Wikipedia's BLP policy must always be enforced at these pages? No, that doesn't seem to be mentioned either. Going on, I find no references to "NPOV", "NOR", "SYN" being enforceable at such pages. Basically, it says you can do what you like at these pages, provided you can remain cool-headed whilst you're doing it. Consider me strongly opposed. Alex Harvey ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Respected RFPP admin tedder suggested at my talkpage that it might be a good idea to encourage people to make page protection requests at a CC-specific venue, for instance Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change; I think it might work to take them here, but would like to hear other opinions. This would have the advantages that responding administrators would not need to bring themselves up to speed on the probation issues, increasing consistency of enforcement, and that there is a good chance that additional probation enforcement or monitoring would be required in such a case. I am loathe to create additional rules, but I also expect that any edit war in the probation area will be seen by at least one editor who is watching this page. So what do people think - should we take page protection requests at this or some other dedicated venue, or should we just encourage a few admins familiar with the issues here to watch RFPP and nip up the relevant requests? - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If these sanctions are going to be implemented then I assert that there is a need to assess both the efficacy and the neutrality of application of them on an on-going basis. This will necessarily require statistical analysis of both the administrative actions and the individual user behaviors both prior to and subsequent to the implementation of these sanctions. Before we get too far into this whole new process I would like to propose the following (rather than being WP:BOLD which has a tendency of being misinterpreted as being WP:POINTy sometimes):
I suggest that last one to legitimize the collection of some simple statistics regarding skeptical vs. warmer points of view in a given user's edits and thereby protect the underlying data from being viewed as being a WP:ATTACKPAGE in some user space some place.
I believe that assessing the efficacy and the neutrality of application of these sanctions is in the best interest of the project. Are there any objections to my pursuing this approach? -- GoRight ( talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless the proposed project is overseen by, and data collection/ analysis is done by a group of uninvolved admins the project should be userpaged. An editor with a strong pov on the subject should not be doing it or even be involved except as talk page commentator. Thus do it on a user subpage for your own fun ... or let other uninvolved users do the analyzing, etc. Vsmith ( talk) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. I go along with this, but make instead a very basic, obvious observation: for this process to have even the vaguest hope of success, any admin with a known bias must be considered "involved" and not be involved in enforcement.
I propose that all admins who intend to assist with climate change probation enforcements now voluntarily self-identify as (1) pro-IPCC / pro-RealClimate / advocate on action for fossil fuel reduction (2) a climate change skeptic; or (3) unaligned / centred / somewhat agrees with IPCC / disinterested / simply interested in enforcing Wikipedia's rules.
Those who self-identify as (1) or (2) should then voluntarily agree not to participate in the probation process.
Although not an admin, I will go first and put myself in category (2) since I obviously hold a strong point of view about various things (truth is, I fit better into category (3) but since I am regarded as a skeptic I would not be comfortable participating as a mediator).
Will others follow so as to make this process fair? Alex Harvey ( talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting responses.
ChrisO part 1 / Guettarda, you don't get the point. It's not about whether you can keep your admin decisions & POV separate, it's about whether you should. Example. Imagine you're a judge on a murder case, and the person murdered happens to be your wife. You may think you're a very logical person, and quite capable of keeping your emotions in a separate bucket. Fine, so you think you can do the case, but should you do it? No, you shouldn't, because (i), your judgement, even if accurate, will not have any appearance of credibility; and (ii) you may be wrong, and your emotions may not be in the separate bucket after all, and your judgement may turn out not to be accurate. An extreme example, sure, but for any admins with strong POVs, both (i) and (ii) apply here. Just as I agreed I shouldn't in principle mediate, neither should anyone else who has the appearance of a conflict of interest -- if that is you care about what the millions of Wikipedia readers will think when they see these discussions, and if you care about WP having any credibility.
ChrisO part 2, Republicans vs Democrats. I couldn't follow this at all, but what I'd say would be a good system is a panel that has 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats and 5 independents. That would work. Don't you think?
ChrisO part 3, Why are you making veiled references to likely outcomes of indefinitely banning users through this little ad hoc court you've set up? How is that helpful?
To those who asserted I "Assumed bad faith"; nonsense, I clearly proposed an honour system and laid down my weapons first, as a token of my good faith.
Tony Sidaway, who assumed, er, frankly nasty & devious intent after preaching the values of the AGF policy. That's fine, I don't care what you imagine; it clears the air and gives me opportunity to reassure you. Such is the value of honest dialogue, and you help to prove my point. So, here goes. Let me tell you that I will never be going to ArbCom for anything. My record of civility isn't up to scratch, and I've lost my temper too many times, and I publicly dare to question the very value of the AGF policy itself (OMG!). All of this would mean that if I ever went to ArbCom, I'd have no hope in hell of not being punished, however worthy my case. I am not stupid; ergo, I'll not be dicking around with ArbCom.
I am trying to propose a system here that will actually work. Alex Harvey ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an established process for proposing and approving changes to these sanctions? For example, I would favor including a restriction on modifying or removing someone's talk page comments without their permission, obvious vulgarities and extremely blatant PAs excepted, of course. I think that would go a long way towards improving the civility on some of these pages by blunting some of the pointy elbows. How can we get such a thing included? -- GoRight ( talk) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example, elsewhere I proposed suspending WP:BOLD which some editors were using to justify clearly controversial edits that broke the spirit of the peace. That garnered little support. I would say that the answer is that the existing process seems to be working pretty well (my thanks to the admins involved, and indeed to all those behaving responsibly) and there is little pressure for any updates at this stage William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Content RfC's are often important in helping resolve content disputes in contentious topic areas, such as this one. A major stumbling block, however, is when a content RfC doesn't attract enough participation in order to obtain input from editors other than the handful who happen to be focusing on that article at that time. Would it be possible, under this umbrella of climate change probation forums, to add a page, perhaps called the "Climate change noticeboard" for listing conflict dispute actions, such as RfCs? That way, editors interested in any of the various topics included in the broad Climate Change topic can have that one page on their watchlists instead of trying to put all of the climate change articles on their watchlists. Editors who want to invite participation to a discussion or RfC could post a notification to this central board inviting input by all concerned. Cla68 ( talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope this is the right forum..
I have recently run afoul of the rules here and I would like to make some suggestions that hopefully can keep others from falling into the same trap. With the help of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here I've sorted out the source of my confusion w.r.t. what constitutes a revert. It appears to me that Help:Revert and WP:3RR are in conflict in this regard (a smaller change qualifies under 3RR than is implied by WP:Revert). The problem is that currently there is no path that leads an editor of an article under this probation to the 3RR definition. The warning one sees when one starts to edit an article on probation speaks only of WP:1RR, which ironically enough, provides no definition and among other things advises users to "See WP:Bold,revert,discuss cycle", which as I come to find out, is bad advice in this context. When issues arose, I used WP:Revert which I found on my own by poking around and later WP:1RR which led me further astray.
I would suggest:
This might help to avoid contention in the future. JPatterson ( talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This debate was not sufficiently listed across the articles and users which it affects. However, since it's passing into policy many articles and users have been warned that they fall under this regime. I therefore conclude that this debate never really gave a true and fair chance for the community to reach a consensus. Polargeo ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have quick question. The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is under a 1RR restriction. Does this apply to the talk page? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the proposal at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive4#Comment refactoring, and subsequent discussions at
User talk:LessHeard vanU#Comment refactoring and
Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Refactoring of other editors talkpage comments per previous discussions I have
added a subsection to the
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation page, per
WP:BOLD and consensus at the talkpages noted. Other than improvements to the grammar and spelling corrections, any proposed alteration should be discussed here.
I am also going to "adjust" the Requests page to reflect the manner of making a talkpage guideline violation request, so that may need reviewing also.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 10:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious to anyone who watches proceedings here that "tit-for-tat" enforcement requests are a major problem. You report me, most likely because there's already bad feeling between us, and I receive a penalty of some kind. Now I'm really motivated against you, and I scrutinize your every edit, ignoring the good and noting every one that is in any way questionable, until I have enough diffs to make a complaint of some kind against you. Maybe it's dismissed, maybe it's not - it's equally effective from my point of view as a weapon against you in either case.
This is the same issue that was raised by Guy on the enforcement requests talk page recently.
Would anyone disagree that this kind of warfare mentality exists on the enforcement page? That the people making complaints and the people being complained about are mostly the same people?
I would like to propose two simple additional rules. I would welcome any discussion on this.
1. Enforcement requests may not be raised by any editor who has received a sanction under the climate change probation in the last sixty days.
2. Enforcement requests which are judged by the closing admin to be unfounded and raised in bad faith should lead to the requesting editor being barred from raising further enforcement requests for a sixty-day period.
There is no great loss of rights involved here; raising enforcement requests is a privilege which is many, many steps away from the core purpose of editing Wikipedia. Anyone affected who has a good-faith, legitimate and non-trivial complaint about another editor should have no difficulty persuading some other, non-sanctioned editor to raise the complaint for them.
Any thoughts? Thparkth ( talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional rules can add complexity to a game. It is disheartening to assume folks would approach Wikipedia like an enforcement game with penalties. Consistently reminding misguided requesters that Wikipedia exist for content and the score is kept with article quality reviews ... while enforcements hurt everyone.
Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (
talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As has been noted in the Wikileaks Talk Page, Wikileaks is on Climate change probation, and this is a bit daunting to people wanting to edit the article, which needs a lot of work. Wikileaks only tangentially refers to Climate Change, as it used to host the ClimateGate emails. How can we get it off probation? cojoco ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I should note my edit here to the template used to create requests here. It is apparent to me that creating admin-only discussion sections is not-wiki. Admin-only conclusion sections, sure, but admin-only discussion appears to be located only in this one template. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The BLP Maurice Strong is now frequently targeted by the minions who take their cue from Glenn Beck and Fox. He is peripherally related to the climate change debate, but the rabid Right have vilified him as the master puppeteer behind the whole vast left wing conspiracy to establish world government through climate scare campaigns.
Please add this article — Maurice Strong — to the list of articles under probation. ► RATEL ◄ 06:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been accused of being a Scibaby Sockpuppet on multiple occasions where I have attempted to include reasonably sourced material. I hope this is not a method of silencing skeptics or to neutralize their ability to contribute, it is however quite obscene to be faced with this. Please watch who you accuse of being a Scibaby Sockpuppet, people may have a similar view to his (I haven't really looked at what his view is) and you may mistake them as being a him. 130.56.89.139 ( talk) 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)