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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)

Just to keep admins here informed: There was a brief tussle about an attempt to WP:SNOWBALL close this AfD. Because events were taking place rapidly, and because there was some division here about whether or not general sanctions cover that AfD, I brought up the matter at AN/I [1] I asked there that admins keep an eye on the page. The consensus at AN/I seems to be to keep the AfD open because "Snowball" doesn't apply. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is, of course, a sock problem at that AFD. Hipocrite (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at AN/I seems to be to keep the AfD open - that will be Let this train-wreck run its course, it doesn't really matter if it crashes at turn #2 or turn #7 since the crash itself an inevitability. and related William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowball always applies, except (as here) when it doesn't work. You can never know the result until you collapse the state vector. --TS 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, TS; no harm, no foul there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions regime has failed

There is now a huge volume of requests for enforcements here. The sanctions regime has become a tool for editors to fight each other. It is not a system that actually resolves any conflicts leading to better and more constructive cooperation between editors. Count Iblis (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Has fighting decreased on the article pages themselves? That is the measure of success. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the sanctions regime has improved the editor behavior related to the AGW articles. There are still some issues, but I would recommend giving the process some more time before deciding if it has been a failure or not. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's working as well as it can. I'd still like to see bolder use of the very broad admin powers and less discussion, but it seems to me that the probation is working, because partisanship is becoming more difficult. People are setting more realistic goals and finding common ground.

There are particularly promising signs of steadily improving standards of sourcing in the coverage of the social and political debate as well as the already world-class coverage of the science. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the emotional climate of these articles is gradually cooling down. I'm not convinced it's due to the sanctions regime itself rather than the natural ebb and flow of wikidrama. I do think it greatly helps that some of the instigators have been put on furlough. For my part I'm gradually tiptoeing back into the articles, but am prepared to step back again if certain unfavorable developments occur. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Count Iblis' point on the large number of outstanding requests for enforcement. I've been waiting for some time to find out when WMC's frivolous and retaliatory complaint against me is going to be resolved.

But to a larger issue, what are the sanctions meant to achieve? If it was to turn POV-pushing into WP:Civil POV pushing it's been a mixed bag. If it was to resolve the NPOV dispute, it's been a clear and obvious failure. I don't know what the current state of this topic space is, but I do know that the fighting is currently spilling over into the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN noticeboards. But maybe that's a good thing as it will attract more uninvolved editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its purpose? As with all probations, the purpose is to end warlike behavior and restore a collegial editing environment. This is a prior requirement to resolving any other disputes. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"collegial editing environment"? Then I would say that it's a failure. The disputes on these pages are among the nastiest I've seen on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And along those lines, I think the personal attacks and bullying that used to be rampant on the talk pages of some of those articles has noticeably declined. Revert wars have definitely declined also. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is the edit wars and PA have cooled down; however, it's not clear tome the articles are improving just yet with collaboration. The sanctions themselves are not always equitable, however they are timely. I still sense ownership issue and teamed sides. The waters still seam too hot for me to enter without fear of being bitten or attacked with an edit war or further PA.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear and obvious failure

In fact, the situation is so bad, one of the warring factions is refusing to even admit there's a POV dispute on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.[2][3] Any admins want to look into that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You previously said there was hardly a POV dispute on the article - you wrote "I think that mentioning the death threats in the lede is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Sure, it's notable enough to warrant mention in the article body, but not in the lede. To be honest, it appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists," and then clarified "Yes ... Fix these two issues [the title and the death threats in the lede] and my concerns about neutrality have been addressed." Are there death threats in the lede right now? IE - your only current neutrality concern is the title? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - The proposal to remove the tag, which I made, followed a long period of both article and talk page stability. Perfectly legitimate. It's a shame AQFK chooses to battle and edit war, and now play games, rather than discuss constructively. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if what you're saying is true, that's further proof that the sanctions have failed, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a normal editing dispute being resolved by discussion on the talk page. What exactly would you expect to be happening at this stage? --TS 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Normal? I've never seen a POV dispute so bad that editors are refusing to admit that there's a POV dispute and are edit-warring to keep the POV dispute tag out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As I point out on the article's talk page, The proposal to remove the POV dispute tag was made at 07:31, March 9, 2010[4] and implemented less than 4 hours later[5]. How did that give everyone enough to time discuss the issue, let alone reach a consensus? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it happens that a dispute tag remains on an article long after issues have been resolved. At some point, if there are still people who are dissatisfied, what takes place then is a discussion to see whether there is, despite this, a consensus that issues have been resolved reasonably. That's what is taking place: a dispute about whether there is any remaining dispute. If it should happen that only a small number of people are now dissatisfied and the great majority are satisfied, then such a small rump cannot hold the article hostage forever, and the tag will be removed by consensus. --TS 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the world has many time zones a 24 hour period sounds more reasonable than a 4 hour window. Most people sleep (or would like to sleep) around 8 hours a day.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit precipitate to remove it so quickly, although strong agreement formed almost immediately. In any case it will be put back if a substantive dispute remains. --TS 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was party to a POV tag dispute on Scientific opinion on climate change that preceded the sanctions, evidence that these are continuing would indicate the sanctions are not effective here. Because, it simply takes 3 or greater editors to have a POV issue for dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can convince enough editors that a substantive point-of-view dispute still exists, then the tag will remain until whatever the dispute might be about has been resolved. What's wrong with that?

But a word of caution: "two or three editors" may make a point-of-view dispute in a small-scale discussion, but typically as the scale of the discussion broadens over time the proportion of those perceiving there to be a substantive dispute may change, until those perceiving a dispute may find themselves overwhelmed by those who see no issue.

If the sanctions were aimed at reducing point-of-view disputes, they would be misconceived and oppressive. A diverse set of editors editing an article on a controversial subject will often encounter disputes over point of view. This is to be expected and isn't anything to be concerned over. How we resolve those disputes is what matters. --TS 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifications

As the log page isn't watched nearly so closely as this one, I am taking the liberty of advertising a discussion recently begun on the log talk page about the notification messages (the vast majority of which have been delivered by me). Recently I've been accompanying that message with a word or two about the discussion, and a few of the recipients have responded with their views.

• Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notice with comment?

Please go there and let's discuss what we do about this. --TS 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate?

I'm wondering if this [6] is considered appropriate? I've asked for a retraction, of course, but it was refused, rudely [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was appropriate given your constant rudeness and petty sniping, it was far less than i would like to say mark nutley (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong spot (move ? where?)

I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed where this was supposed to go, I think, TS. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my telephone. For some reason it posts comments intended for the main project page to this talk page instead. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I moved the comment to the appropriate part of the main project page and expanded it a bit. --TS 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering admins uninvolved who are involved in the content discussion

I am surprised by Stephan Schulz's comment here. He seems to say he is uninvolved, even though he has been directly involved on the content issue, because he is not in a dispute with Ratel. To the contrary he made the original edit that started the dispute, and has stopped in to support Ratel's versions. Does the probation really mean to say that editors are uninvolved even if they are directly involved in the content dispute? Mackan79 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephan shouldn't be commenting in the admin-only section in this request. Out of order. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, he shouldn't probably comment in any of the admin sections for this enforcement page. He is obviously quite involved in CC articles (broadly construed, ooo look, arbcomspeak) Arkon (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If we do require editors to cow-tow to the letter of the law, it should cut both ways. The way the probation is written, I am uninvolved, and Ratel can expect a specific warning before sanctions are enacted. Now possibly we should reconsider how the probation is written, but one of my aims in commenting in that section is to recall the exact stipulations for the people deliberating. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I should probably be clear in my statement here. I don't have a particular opinion on what you wrote, just that in general, I cannot consider you uninvolved in the CC article area. Not a bad thing, just my opinion. Arkon (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephan's comment that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact also appears to be a personal attack, unless I am missing something. Is he seriously saying that Ratel's comments are an acceptable and justified deviation from WP:AGF? Great, let's all attack the whole concept of AGF and just start lambasting everybody with the most offensive things we can come up with. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By commenting as an admin in the "Results" section, Stephan is acting as an admin in this dispute, in which he is clearly involved. I'm going to report it to arbcom. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I think you should take the high road and recuse yourself here. Admins need to be clearly uninvolved if the sanctions process is going to work. Even before this, Lar was stretching the limits of "uninvolved" to the breaking point; no need to make things worse. Keeping your conduct above reproach is always the best way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)