Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the purpose of the table at the bottom of this section?[edit]

[1]. --GoRight (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's most useful for stuff like this. I added Eric S. Raymond, which you'd think had nothing to do with global warming, to the probation, because there has recently been some edit warring over blog-sourced comments by the subject on global warming. Since this isn't the kind of article you'd espect to fall under the probation, I informed four of the most recent editors of the article (excepting myself, and obviously I'm already aware) that the article is now under probation. I logged the information here so that we'll know they've been warned that the probation is on operation on that and other articles, without having to scan archives and talk page histories and whatnot. --TS 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's what I assumed. Given this the link associated with me seems to fail that purpose. Just FYI. --GoRight (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link contributions or userpage?[edit]

Inspired by [2], it occurs to me that I come here for pretty much three reasons: to make an entry in the log; to check that a user has been notified; and as a source of handy catch up links to supplement perusal of recent changes related to Index of climate change articles. For the first two purposes, linking to Special:Contributions/ExampleUser is no more effort than linking to the userpage, but significantly more useful for the third. Then again, I very rarely read userpages, so I may be an exception here. Would anyone mind if I change the current links and boilerplate to this standard? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In recording my notification of McSly just now I used template:user. See what you think. --TS 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. We should use that if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nothing looks borked, but please fix anything I missed. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a laborious scan of related articles and updated the notifications today. Someone had used {{ip}} for an IP notification log entry and I like what it did so I've created a second log copy-paste template below the one that used {{user}} and updated all existing IP logs to use {{ip}}. In case anybody is wondering, my method of updating is to look at some recently edited climate change articles and talk pages and template anybody who has made significant contributions who isn't an obvious blocked sock. I'm also experimenting with looking at articles in the contributions list of notified editors, and that is productive too but it takes much longer to do. I may perhaps write a script to produce lists of people to template. --TS 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I made a snapshot of articles (and talk pages) under climate change probation at User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation. You can see everybody's recent edits to those pages using "Related changes." --TS 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a neat trick not everybody knows about. Click this link to see every recent edit to any article or article talk page under the probation. This is how I get my list of people to notify. It would also be useful for patrolling the probation area, spotting edit wars, etc. If you click "enhanced recent changes" in your preferences, it's even sexier. --TS 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using [3] and following the major contributors. Following your link just now, I see that Phil Jones (climatologist) is not on the index. Good work on that, and many thanks for the notifications. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automating notification[edit]

The notification process involves some very robotic editing which, naturally, is slow work for a human but much quicker for software. I have in mind a javascript bot which would grab the related changes stream, identify the editor who has most recently edited but is not yet on the notification list, and displays some diffs on the screen. The user then either confirms or rejects the notification, then the bot eithe sends the notification or adds the username to an exception list. This can be repeated until all editors in the probation area have either been notified or placed on the exception list.

The exception list would be there just to permit the operator to exercise discretion--to omit notification of someone who has already demonstrated his awareness of the probation, for instance. Using javascript should enable the bot to perform edits on the user's behalf, without serious security problems. --Tasty monster 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about this today, actually, though any solution coded by me would not be up for at least a few weeks. Are you interested in coding such a thing? There are plenty of semi-automated scripts, and your idea certainly sounds useful. It could also grab the contributors list (people editing that page are explicitly assumed to be aware of it) to filter out for instance me. I guess both you and I operate legitimate alternate accounts, though, so an exceptions list would still be nice. Do you think the list should be defined per run or maintained on some subpage? If the latter, the first task on launch would be to check the current list for manual additions. I have never dealt with the Bot Approvals Group - do you know if something like this would need to be run past them before going live?
My thoughts on automation only went as far as a tool that accepts a manually input username and page in the probation, checks against the list, and displays the diffs for approval.
As a significantly lower priority, it might also be useful to have an automated check of the current list against confirmed Scibaby sockpuppets so they can be trimmed from the list. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Unitanode's modes of address restriction[edit]

The following three comments were moved from the main page. The restriction itself is copied for context (diff):

  • Unitanode (talk · contribs) is required to address other editors by either their full account name or the designation shown on screen or a varient desired by the other party, after being requested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't our fearless administrators have better things to do? My sin was referring to Tony Sidaway (who abbreviates to "TS" in his sig) as "Sidaway." Aren't there more pressing issues of civility (take a look at WMC's contributions, for instance) to deal with? This is nonsense, and I want it noted here that I consider it such. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't complain at the time, but I thought it was off-putting the way you referred to me as "Hochman". That's fine coming from a coach, or a commanding officer, but not from you. Try "Jehochman", "Jonathan", or "Mr. Hochman" instead. I little civility can go a long way towards improving the editing climate. Jehochman Brrr 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys really are quite a funny lot. If nothing else, this last little kerfuffle has been chuckle-inducing in its inanity. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice with comment?[edit]

Tony Sidaway suggested I should comment here. I made an edit to the Climate change denial page, which is under probation, and he correctly dropped a template notice on my talk page to warn me about the probation. But the notice looked, at first sight, rather forbidding. As I said in my reply to him, my first reaction was that it was saying "Whoa, stay clear, danger here, you may be breaking all the rules" and I suppose given the emotion the topic seems to generate that is the right message.

But should we not assume that most editors have good intentions? I am concerned that we are short of new editors, and worry that we may turn them away from the project by reacting too abruptly to their first contributions. Yes, we always have to deal with vandals and people who see Wikipedia as a place where they can push their point of view, and yes, this cluster of articles is going to attract more than most. But should the warning be more muted, or have a more specific explanation attached? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note I got the same message and while editor Tony Sideaway seems to be making an effort to have this template interpreted as friendly as possible (kudos to him for that) I concurr it seems a bit heavy handed as it's being used. Shouldn't the notification apply only to those who actually make a disruptive edit? I had only entered a comment on the talk page BTW out of wishing to proceed with full caution before editing the actual article. I think the logic here is they want to make sure people have been well notified before the iron fist of punitive action drops, but as the above editor indicates it assumes bad faith on any edit. Batvette (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what would a better wording be? Unomi (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received the template and all I did was edit on the talk page of an article. Without wanting to put forward too strong a point of view here, I will say that in many many cases where we have an "article probation" situation the problem is not new editors to the area, but the established POV warriors. Anything that frightens off newbies may be counter-productive. Shouldn't the general message be the opposite: "Wow, thanks, you are a new editor on an article that we've had trouble with in the past. We really need fresh blood here, so please continue."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't realize it was fully automated, I first understood to have been put on Jimbos talkpage as an example. It might be better to modify the edit page itself to display a notification of the circumstances. I agree that those areas need fresh blood, but it is also an area which attracts a lot of single minded attention and considering the stakes new editors could be expected to be more interested in righting great wrongs than applying themselves to the 1 week course in Wikipedia policy that it would take to get anyone to even play along. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for the feedback. The message I get is that it feels like you're being told off. The templating, or the way I'm doing it, or perhaps both, are not doing much good for the editor new to this field--especially when it may be the first ever communication he receives on Wikipedia.

Unomi mentions the problem that the climate change articles do tend to attract single-purpose editors who may find it hard to acclimatize to Wikipedia, but I don't think this message will mean much to such people anyway. For the average editor, this message is a bit like throwing a bucket of cold water in his face. "Welcome to Wikipedia <splash>. Stormy weather ahead! <splash>." And so many recipients have told me they thought they received it because they'd done something wrong.

I think Jimbo's idea of welcoming the newcomer as part of the solution sounds promising. This seems like it might work. --TS 01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves us with the problem of when to inform the newbie that they're treading into contentious ground. After the 10th edit? After the 50th? I'd prefer to give everyone a message that is both welcoming and lets them know in an informal, non-confrontational way that these articles are under probation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Tony. This is a little hard to tell from my perspective. To a new editor this might be interesting information to an extent. If the point is that they are now on notice, though, then it may be a little foreboding. Is an editor then assumed to understand all aspects of the probation, such that minor infractions can be assumed to be willful? This is a little bit what makes me uncomfortable, like being given a lot of fine print and told, "by puncturing this wrapper you agree to be bound in full." Short Brigade's comment also suggests to me that we should perhaps separate the purposes of informing versus warning. As far as notifying, I might suggest something like the following: "Thank you for your contributions to an article relating to the topic of climate change! This is a form message used to notify editors of an article probation that currently affects this topic area, and can be seen here. The probation was placed to help promote a productive and collegial atmosphere within this topic area, and provides administrators with additional discretion to promote that end. Any questions about this probation may be posted here. Thank you again for your efforts to improve this part of Wikipedia." This isn't so literal about putting people on notice, but perhaps treads a little lighter (while formal warnings should probably be more specific anyway). Mackan79 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template really is intended to be a friendly heads up that, strive as we might, sometimes discussions here are less like collegial conversations on improvements to a quality reference work than like a flamewar. As much of the disruption (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, mostly) has occurred on talkpages, substantive CC-related edits there are considered reason to place the routine friendly warning. To speak from my limited experience with this sort of notification, the Homeopathy templates were applied by each "side" of the debate in apparent attempt to hasten the day the other sides were sanctioned away, while the Pseudoscience probation requires formal notice by an uninvolved administrator with specific advice on what types of edits will lead to sanctions. Here we are trying the notify everyone approach (big kudos to TS for all his work here; see above if some enterprising soul is interested in coding a semi-automated notification & logging script), which puts a bigger burden on us to make sure that the notice is not driving away productive contributors. The best practice that seems to be evolving here entails: notify everyone; provide friendly policy links and a suggestion for rewording or refactoring; provide a specific warning; escalating sanctions.
The current wording comes from {{uw-probation}}. I am not sure how actively watched that talkpage is, but we could either clone a friendlier specific notice for use here or take the wording discussion there (or both, using this topic area as a trial run). Tweaking Mackan79's proposal:
Okay, maybe the last sentence needs a little work. I like spelling out page links, but could really go either way with the piping. The major difference between this and the current notice is that it puts the fact that it is routine for everyone front and center, which seems to be the major point of confusion, instead of at the end. It also focuses a bit more on the fact that we like new contributors, and would be hard pressed to maintain and improve the encyclopedia without them.
We could also look into implementing the Pseudoscience model, though that has the potential for creating the opposite problem of insufficient warning before the big scary warning. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to ask Tony about this for a while now, ever since I checked the /Log page and thought "Gee that Tony sure is getting into a lot of arguments". :) When this was getting set up I paid particular attention to the "warned first" aspect, it got included, but I really didn't envision it turning out this way. I acknowledge the validity of the reductionist "if they edit once, give them the notice" approach since it does satisfy the wording of the community motion. However I had more in mind that editors can operate freely until they do something problematic, at which point anyone can give them a notice, and then they know for sure. Basically, one free pass and after that you pay to ride. If you never get on the bus, then we don't tell you about the tickets. If someone corrects a typo or fixes a ref or makes one comment (Jimbo being the example here), why are we bothering them? Or dreamily, if someone comes along and makes substantial edits that are NPOV and well-sourced, satisfy everyone, and only ever and always improve the articles, why would we tell them about our petty disputes, why wouldn't we just stand back and watch? Franamax (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point, but given the atmosphere around here I think it would be best to remove any discretion from the process. Otherwise I'll bet you a six of Pilsner Urquell that we'll have "why did you warn EditorX but not EditorY" type arguments. Building on 2/0's proposal above, how about:
Something light and informal that still lets people know that these articles are getting special scrutiny. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that language puts me in mind of a parish priest trying to attract young people to the church by talking about these hip new beat comboes with their long hair and their electric guitars. The idea of using informal and inclusive language is sound, though. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the last sentence, which gives me the urge to jump into my stock car and chew tobacco madly, that wording is pretty good. On the point above, I was seeing it as being a good-faith warning, as in if you see your neighbour straying, you let them know. I do see the point that the endpoint will be "notify everyone", it would have been nice to not jump there immediately. Or put another way, Tony, did you proceed to the current notification method of your own volition, or was there a discussion I missed? I'm not saying it's definitely wrong or anything, just wondering how it got this way. Franamax (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the last sentence was a joke, son, it was a joke... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can chew tobacco madly, but not for long. You end up sitting down being dizzy and nauseous. :) Franamax (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I probably started the trend. Someone (Chris Owen, I think) posted a template which had been used in other probations, and which implied that the posting of that template did not imply any problematic behavior. Earlier, I now notice, Ryan Postlethwaite had suggested notification of problematic editors only. Looking back I think the latter form of notification would have only worked if neutral administrators only performed it--otherwise there would be a notification-as-warfare which I hope we would all want to avoid. There was no explicit discussion, to my knowledge, of the distinction between the two policies and which one should be adopted.
On reading the template wording I proceeded to apply it liberally, and others followed suit. More recently (February 6 and afterwards) I became more methodical and used the method described here. While I was being pro-active and methodical, others took a back seat in templating, presumably because I left so few gaps to be filled. --TS 11:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the additional explanation and more inviting tone in SBHB's version, but I think we should mention explicitly that the notice is for everyone (unless we change that). Perhaps This is a routine message to let you everyone know? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it be "that lets everyone know"? Because if it's a notice to let everyone know, we'd be re-templating everyone. Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let? Yeah, it should - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist "Refactoring" ...[edit]

RE: [4]. This restriction was not enacted as part of the climate change probation process as far as I am aware and so it seems inaccurate to log it here. I have restored the original logging of the sanctions made by Trusilver (and subsequently edited by 2/0) at WP:RESTRICT which was the publicly agreed wording and recording location. In the interests of not having two copies that I need to track and keep in sync due to unnecessary "refactoring" by others I am removing the version from this page. If the administrators here feel this is inappropriate I do not object to an administrator restoring it here as well but ask that they notify me of having done so. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent recurrences of this sort of thing I suggest editing of the Log of sanctions and Log of warnings be restricted to admins, and a notice to that effect be included at the head of those sections. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was inappropriate of GoRight to edit a section directly relating to him. For the record, this probation log states:

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely blocked by 2over0 [1]. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Unblocked 13:12, 6 February 2010 by User:Bwilkins [2] with conditions accepted by GoRight including civility parole and topic ban (three months each). Unblocking admin adds: " I would suggest that transgressions during that period would more likely lead to a more formal ban, rather than a simple indef. I would also suggest that contraventions after the specified period would bring us right back to where we are now. This conditional unblock is not permission to wait a few months and then return to negative patterns of editing." --TS 13:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

This came about directly from probation, and my edit specified the unblocking conditions. Unblocking conditions however do not constitute an ordinary community sanction - this was incorrectly logged by Trusilver. The final warnings section of WP:RESTRICT is where unblocking conditions are listed; which is the same publically agreed venue. What we have is GoRight engaging in the same pointy disruptive behavior that he was told to stop when being unblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This came about directly from probation ..." - Well, this is news to me and believe me I read every word. Perhaps Ncmvocalist can point me to the Request for Enforcement where this block originated? No? Hmmm. Note that the entry referenced above was originally placed here by ChrisO, [5], and later updated by 2/0. Fine, I suppose, but if you actually read what 2/0 said ([6] and [7]) he never actually mentions the probation. I don't particularly care other than Ncmvocalist is simply making things difficult to keep track of for no reason. In other words, his efforts here are not only unwanted they are actually unhelpful. I agree with Boris, only admins should be editing these pages. --GoRight (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you can find the most amazing things sometimes. See [8] wherein 2/0 directly states "I also did not invoke the probation in blocking GoRight, but it got logged there anyway; I am ambivalent about whether it should be, but I suppose since much of the disruption occurred in the topic area I can see the sense for historical reference.". --GoRight (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been here long enough to know that if you have an issue with any logging being present on this page, you discuss the issue directly with the person who did so, be it ChrisO, 2/0, or even Tony Sidaway. Instead, you brought it here, purely based on an edit I made, in what appears to be a sad attempt at making me involved in a separate dispute with you [9]; the fact of the matter is, I'm uninvolved, be it this sanction proposal that was enacted & imposed on you, or any future ones. This comment, among others you made (many of which were last year), suggests that you still have not gotten over it and it is a textbook example of a battleground mentality. Please cease your pointy and disruptive behavior, and act in a manner where further sanctions are not necessary. If you don't want the block or unblock to be listed here, take it up with them directly instead of wasting everyone's time - there would be no objection from me if it was all removed by the blocking administrator who knows what it was he was addressing, and/or the unblocking admin who knows what conditions they imposed upon you when unblocking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"be it ChrisO, 2/0, or even Tony Sidaway" - Actually, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am upset with any of these people. I am not. The matter had been settled, at least until you meddled. My issue is with your behavior, not theirs. None of this discussion would be necessary if you would simply MYOB and not make unhelpful "refactorings" to pages you have no business modifying on topics you are obviously ill informed about. You have a history of inaccurate transcriptions, see [10] and [11], so if in the future you feel the need to "help" with material related to me, please don't, we have things covered just fine. It is a simple request, please heed it and stop creating more work for everyone. I repaired your damage once, I won't revert it a second time but your willingness to edit war over it is duly noted (you were bold, I reverted, you edit warred). --GoRight (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How amusing that you continue to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've told TenOfAllTrades, SamJohnston, myself, and god knows who else to MYOB, when the entire problem is you to begin with. You're not doing anything that resembles repairing; your entire approach revolves around pointy editing, atrocious wikilawyering [12], edit-warring, tendentious editing, and other disruptive behavior; that is the damage everyone else is having to undo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MYOB seems to be an appropriate admonition for everyone involved. I would be more than happy to MMOB, but please note that if you had MYOB'd to begin with I would not have had to address your actions at all. Had you simply left things as they were, i.e. as the unblocking admins had set them up, rather than stirring the pot absolutely none of this discussion and a full day's worth of chasing down your edits would have been necessary. Why are you modifying the material at WP:RESTRICT at all? Do you have some formal role there? Why are you modifying anything on this log at all? Do you have some formal role here? --GoRight (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you didn't hear what I said before: "Unblocking conditions however do not constitute an ordinary community sanction - this was incorrectly logged.... The final warnings section of WP:RESTRICT is where unblocking conditions are listed; which is the same publically agreed venue [WP:RESTRICT]. What we have is GoRight engaging in the same pointy disruptive behavior that he was told to stop when being unblocked." "You have been here long enough to know that if you have an issue with any logging being present on this page, you discuss the issue directly with the person who did so, be it ChrisO, 2/0, or even Tony Sidaway. Instead, you brought it here, purely based on an edit I made, in what appears to be a sad attempt at making me involved in a separate dispute with you; the fact of the matter is, I'm uninvolved, be it this sanction proposal that was enacted & imposed on you, or any future ones." "You're not doing anything that resembles repairing; your entire approach revolves around pointy editing, atrocious wikilawyering, edit-warring, tendentious editing, and other disruptive behavior; that is the damage everyone else is having to undo." As Trusilver told you on User talk:Trusilver, but you refused to accept, "I want to caution you once again about returning to editing patterns that led to your original indefinite block." Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself doesn't make your points any more valid, and appears to be unhelpful. As for your response above, can yo point me to where the structure for that page is defined to substantiate your claim? Also, it does not address why you are moving things from the publicly agreed logging location to here.

I also note that you neglected to answer the equally pertinent questions: Do you have some official or formal role at WP:RESTRICT that requires you to meddle in the affairs of others? Why are you modifying anything on this log at all? Do you have some formal role here? These seem straight forward, please enlighten me. --GoRight (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you stop beating a dead horse and actually read what is said, you will find that all of your questions have been answered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of cutting to the heart of this matter, seeking to reduce the heat and improve the light, and deciding where things actually should be logged, I have asked 2/0 to weigh in, see [13]. --GoRight (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log&oldid=351195288"