| Revision as of 10:21, 18 August 2010 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits →Article tags: um, no← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 October 2023 edit undoDreamy Jazz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |
| (573 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{mbox |
|
{{shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE}} |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Header}} |
|
|
|
| image = ] |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|imageright = {{#if:WP:GS/CC/RE | {{Ombox/Shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE|||| }} }} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
|
|
| text = This page, which was formerly used to request enforcement of community-mandated ], is currently inactive and is retained for ''historical'' reference. It has been ] by a ] and requests for enforcement may be requested at ]. |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
}}{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|User talk=|#default={{#ifeq:{{{category}}}|no||] |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|
] |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|
|
}}}} |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets == |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Following discussion at ]<!-- Please update when that section archives. -->, this section is established to list ''active'' suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace ]. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are ''probably'' ] of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified. |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{User|RigidRotor}} – reported by ] (]) 07:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
<nowiki> |
|
|
Format: |
|
|
* {{User|ExampleUser}} – reported by ~~~~ |
|
|
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} – reported by ~~~~ |
|
|
</nowiki> |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article tags == |
|
|
{{collapse top|1=All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Altered by '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' at 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC), per of The Wordsmith. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<small>Fake timestamp so this doesn't get archived prematurely: 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
I am getting sick and tired of people edit warring over things like {{tl|POV}} and other ] tags. Therefore, for a two week period, all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags listed ] or those that are related to those tags, broadly construed. This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus. If you feel that an article is not neutral, then either fix it or talk about it on the talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
Violation of this sanction will result in first a notification of the existence of this sanction, and then a block if edit warring continues. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as someone who's been entirely uninvolved in tagging articles, I have to say I find it annoying when people '''on both sides''' fight over tags and waste their time (and that of others) squabbling about it. The sanction is clearly necessary, so thank you for this intervention. However, it's ridiculous that it's got to the point of needing a sanction. A number of editors really need to raise their game. -- ] (]) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sounds like common sense to me. Edit warring over something like this is silly. Discussion on the talk page is usually the way to go for putting tags up in an article. If the editors don't agree then the tag gets put up until there is enough editors agreeing that the article is fixed and the tags get removed. Good call here. Good night everyone, --]] 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::From what I've seen of the tag warring, it often seems to be a matter of one editor slapping a "badge of shame" on an article against the wishes of the other editors. It's not remotely a productive way to operate. -- ] (]) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Fine by me. The underlying problem remains, of course - that tags are being used for hostabe and revenge, sometimes explicitly - but this is probably a good solution for now ] (]) 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Working on the underlying "waring" and battleground behavior would be a better effort. See ] which recommends applying tags. If there is a tag dispute, then there is a dispute to be peacefully resolved. Tags are less harmful <s>harmless</s> than mean spirited reverters (like WMC, who should be on self imposed zero revert by now). This proposal assumes the status quo is best for Misplaced Pages, which i find difficult to accept. This can be a better place when revert wars are disarmed. ] (]) 05:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I disagree with this unilateral move. Tagging an article as POV is entirely appropriate and the only way to get movement on some articles. I do not condone edit warring, but that is a separate issue from the tags, and can be appropriately addressed in other ways. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 10:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I support it. It gets rid of some of the useless bickering, baiting, and pointiness. Tagging is useful to mark articles where problems otherwise might go unrecognized. Fat chance of that in the climate change articles, where essentially any tag will be followed by a fierce discussion anyways. --] (]) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Tags are for the benefit of the readership, as well as editors. Disallowing a tag can (not always, but can) do the readership a disservice. Stats show that many readers do not visit article talk space. ++]: ]/] 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***Yes but nobody is disallowing tags. If there is either a consensus or no objection that a tag is needed on the talkpage then one can be added. At the moment tags are being used to fight battles and this needs to stop. ] (]) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* In general, I would suggest the presence of a tag is far less a problem than the removal of a tag. For POV tags especially, the fact that an editor believes POV exists should be presumed correct - no single editor or editors can decide POV is not a problem in an article. Tags are aimed at alerting readers to problems which might be in an article - they are not just for editors (who, presumably, are aware of article problems without tags.) ]] is useful here. ''In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV'' is sound advice. ] (]) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::In general you are spot on. I agree if a significant number of editors feel that an NPOV tag is needed it does not matter if there is complete consensus for it, the tag should be there until the issue is resolved through compromise. That is not the same as an editor slapping an NPOV tag on an article as part of a content battle, which is what is happening in climate change. ] (]) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lar's proposal, by contrast, is junk and would make things worse. Throw it out ] (]) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, Lar's solution is better than the original option. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Sounds like a thoroughly horrible idea, but I see no better way to save people from themselves. People keep getting dragged into edit wars over this. This can lead to enforcement issues or page protection. Neither of these really gets us to a better encyclopaedia. ] (]) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* @admins, Tags are for the readers benefit and are harmless. How does this proposal help Misplaced Pages? This proposal is becoming another edit waring tool. Just work on the people who are waring, that's the answer here. I see no benefit in any tag restriction proposal unless applied to a specifically abusive editor. A blanket restrictions hurts Misplaced Pages. Abandon these tag restriction proposal. ] (]) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Why did it suddenly become a problem?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
The WMC faction has been gaming the POV tags for months -- look at ] for an example. Now all of a sudden it's a huge problem because I tagged one of their heros, ]. I'm suddenly accused of "revenge tagging" (yes, really) because I tagged Mann for not having a single substantive criticism of the hockey stick even while the WMC faction is edit warring to include some guy's private rant in Monckton's BLP. This entire topic area is a parody of what Misplaced Pages should be, with the WMC faction constantly attacking the only two truly neutral admins here (Lar and LHvU) while obvious faction defenders like NW are creating new sanctionable offenses at the behest of the faction. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know what is inappropriate about adding a tag to an ] in which criticism from published books and newspapers like the WSJ have been suppressed for months. Similarly, I would like to know what's wrong with untagging an ] which hadn't had a single talk page comment in 3 weeks. Because those were the two things I did which triggered this royal proclamation from NW, and neither is problematic in the slightest. ] (]) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It would be nice if you could leave you hatred at the door. There is no "WMC faction", and if you think there is, you should have presented evidence of same to Arbcomm. Please try to avoid hijacking every thread with the same tired spam. You're accused of revenge tagging because you've quite blatantly done it ] (]) 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In 10 minutes, I found multiple published criticisms of Mann and his hockey stick, and until yesterday barely a whisper of controversy was in the article. I looked through the history and found your faction consistently deleting that criticism. So I put the tag up. Later I added the material, and predictably, one of your faction whitewashed it, keeping the source but not the details. So I added the tag again. This is how it's supposed to work, but ever since your faction got a stranglehold on this topic area, everything is upside down, and suddenly we have "neutral" admins decreeing that tagging is now an offense -- even though your faction has been gaming the tags on Lawrence Solomon for months. Typical Bizarro World enforcement here, where blatant POV pushing from your faction gets a pass while new transgressions are invented to squelch the editors trying to fix the damage you've done. ] (]) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::ATren, I'm getting very tired of these constant accusations of "alarmist factions", "whitewashing" and biased admins. I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way. Please tone it down. -- ] (]) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::See ]. ] (]) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See also ]: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Might be time to drop the stick or file that RFC you were talking about. |
|
|
:::::: ATren found trash by ] which he seems to think suitbale for inclusion ni a BLP. Which speaks for itself ] (]) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Seems to me that it would be just as appropriate as anything from . <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*It was the edit war yesterday that made me add this sanction, yes. I also remember this issue coming up on multiple other pages, including ]. The reason I added this sanction was not to protect my favorite version of any article (indeed, I did not know which articles had tags and which didn't when I applied it), but more because I felt generally frustrated with how they were being used as battleground ammunition. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I would agree that tag strikes are on the rise. I had a non-climate change article trolled by CC regulars, tag bombed and put to fierce scrutiny by a nomination for deletion deadline. This is after the drive by tagger offered no talk and tagged. The level of malicious intent toward others, is to be a cause for concern. ] (]) 13:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::He means ] and he is effectively calling me a malicious troll, not that I care. ] (]) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Wasn't there a here where a warning about the use of statements like "WMC faction" was the resolution? <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@The Wordsmith: I don't think that NW proposed that that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. In fact, that's ''against'' standard practice across Misplaced Pages. Tags should stay unless there's a concensus to remove them, not the other way around. In any case, I believe that NW's proposal is that all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags. ] (]) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Disallowance without a consensus was my read. ''"This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus"''... As I said before, I find that problematic. Adding should be easier than removing. Make adding a bit harder? Sure. But it needs to still be easier. ++]: ]/] 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Objection to Lar's proposed close=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I object to Lar's proposal of a quorem of two, given that both "factions," according to Lar, have readily available sycophants who will gladly support whatever nonsense their cofactioneers propose, without doing any substantive due dilligence. I propose that to add any tag, someone needs to get approval of said tag from a fully distant editor - that means no "uninvolved like lar" admin, but rather some random, saying that said tag is appropriate. Such editors can frequently be found at ], or ]. ] (]) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::<comment by GregJackP ><small>note added ], ] 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::: Insulting other editors about their disabilities? Do you kick cripples on weekends? Spit at blind people? ] (]) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Agree. Also note Lar's invalid moving of comments ] (]) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Half ], and half an attempt to cement factions? Horrible, effectively unpatrolable, and an invitation for honest mistakes to be blown into wikidrama. --] (]) 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Whether Lar is involved or not is beside the point. His idea is a formula for gridlock, and for every single Climate Change article being slapped with an unwarranted NPOV tag forever. That benefits only the most extreme voices on both sides, and is a formula for endless bickering and wikilawyering. ] (]) 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Article Tags=== |
|
|
|
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* I'm not sure there's necessarily consensus for this unilateral imposition among uninvolved admins. I'm not necessarily opposed but I'd like to see that consensus. I do have concerns about disallowing tagging which is a valuable and normally routine thing to do. ++]: ]/] 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think it is a good move and I support it. I also think under thr original probation terms this kind of unilateral action by an uninvolved admin was what people had in mind so it is legit. However, I agree since then practice has proven more about consensus. I would be happy providing a post hoc blessing in this case --] ] 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*After some thought, I have a compromise proposal to put forward that I think addresses the edit warring aspect without removing the benefit of appropriate placement or removal. It's my view that by default, it should be easier to place a tag than to remove it. It's unfortunately more complicated. Here goes: |
|
|
:: For the duration of this sanction, placement of a tag requires that two editors who participate in editing the article support it. (so that it's not just one person's view) Tags placed that do not receive such support are subject to immediate removal by anyone until they do. (thus if I placed a tag, it could be instantly removed, and only after talk page discussion including two editors that did edit would it be restorable without sanction... placing it of course would move me to involved :) ) Tag removal of validly placed tags cannot occur less than 24 hours after placement and cannot occur unless there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the problem identified has been resolved. Such consensus should be among a quorum of all the editors who have recently (within 2 weeks) edited the article in any way (even vandal reversion or typo fixes). Notification of editors that there is a discussion is permitted but not required. If notification is done, it should be per our standards, neutral, and it should be to all editors eligible to form that quorum, not a subset, excepting only editors already discussing the matter. |
|
|
:Smith away. ++]: ]/] 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Too subject to wikilawyering and too ], in my opinion. I would prefer the temporary blanket ban with exceptions once something has concretely been established to be a problem. The point of my sanction was not to prevent tags from being used at all, but to prevent them from being used as a battleground behavior. This modification I fear would not be able to hold up. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your proposal makes it exactly as hard to add as to remove. That's wrong. Adding needs to be easier than removing, per long standing practice. Modify your proposal to tilt that way and I'll support it. As written, sorry, but no. Consensus of course may go against me which is fine. ++]: ]/] 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We need to reduce the amount of time spent fighting over tags, since that time would be better spent doing... well, pretty much anything else. NW's proposal, while arbitrary on some level, at least promotes that goal. I'm concerned that adding several layers of bureaucratic criteria for tagging will ''increase'' the amount of time spent fighting over tags (since inevitably, people will fall out to arguing about whether criteria 1, subsection c has been satisfied, or the meanings of "quorum" and "consensus"). In that sense, I think this proposal, while well-intentioned, would be counterproductive. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Adding needs to be easier than removing. NW's proposal has the fatal flaw of that not being the case. I am open to other suggestions for ways to ensure that, while reducing edit warring but I cannot accept NW's proposal as written, it's counter to how we do things. ++]: ]/] 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I endorse NW's proposal that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. It is not ideal, but then again neither is Misplaced Pages, or Wikipedians. The proposal is a pragmatic approach and is probably necessary at this point. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*Announcement: This seems to have worked fairly well so far. Therefore, I am extending this to last until the closure of ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**The way things are going, you might as well extend it until the ]. It would probably be a shorter extension. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Worked? ... the articles are getting better because of this? ] (]) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not convinced it's working. I wasn't convinced it was a good idea to make it harder to add tags and easier to remove them (relatively speaking, with reference to the status quo ante). I'm also not comfortable with a unilateral imposition or extension. ++]: ]/] 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:For what its worth, I endorse the extension, so it is not unilateral anymore. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's not worth anything. Unilateral means "''Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others''", so this remains a unilateral act. Without discussion, or community consensus, there is no necessity for anyone to adhere to this unilateral, out-of-process sanction. ] (]) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Um, no. If this extension achieves consensus among uninvolved admins here, it will be enforced. You go against it at your peril. ++]: ]/] 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
