Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal

Climategate scandal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jhe_iv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. I also proposed blocking the article creator for disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_BLP_problems_at_Climategate_scandal. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That ups the ante - that's pretty clear abuse of tools in pursuit of pushing an agenda - you need to step aside here. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! That page is clearly forum shopping. There is a discussion in AfD for a reason. If the deletion is overturned as premature I hope your actions will be reviewed as well. jhe_iv (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the ANI section has been archived, and I've had an amicable conversation with Wikidemon at User talk:Wikidemon about moving forward with the content, and credit to him for being able to focus on that. I hope this might encourage others to think about how to progress the content issue, which a relisting of a clear fork under a contentious, previously-rejected title will do little for. AFD is always higher-temperature: discussing how to split and/or rename Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident should be done at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, using a WP:RFC if necessary. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: obvious POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

• Request / propose closure - following a very good and thoughtful discussion with rd232 on my talk page, the admin who deleted the article, I would like to withdraw it from main space to work on for a while in my userspace. Amidst all the other issues here, I see some constructive feedback and an indication of the community's feelings on the matter. It was premature for me to introduce the email controversy ("climategate") article in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion, as a boiled down version of part of the email hacking article with only a slight amount of new material, and I never intended for it to remain indefinitely in that form. Whatever the outcome of this procedure, the controversy article should not stand as a mini version of the hacking article. If this DrV succeeds it will leave things in that unfinished state, where the new article will either need to be deleted and recreated in different form (if at all), or thoroughly revised in mainspace, something hard to do given all the attention. Thus, no matter what the outcome here work needs to be done. The most collegial, efficient way to do that is for me to note all the useful comments people have made, and go ahead and do that. Rd232 and I are in agreement, and I would ask jheiv, who filed this DrV, to sign on too. I think rd232 gotten the message that many consider his IAR article deletion too bold. We don't need to go through five more days of DrV and win on procedure, with a losing article, to make that point. Closing now leaves the article deleted and in my user space for repairs. If I do recreate the article it will be called something not involving "climategate" (the naming issue is an entirely separate question), and it will be on the narrow subject of the emergence of the public controversy after publication of the files, which is distinct from the existing article's focus on the email hacking and the content of the emails that were hacked. If people think that is not an encyclopedic subject matter or that the two subjects should be treated in the same article, we can address that in a more focused way at that time. Anyone who wishes to discuss this directly is welcome on my talk page, or perhaps we could discuss that on this page's talk page. Thanks all, and if we're still here tomorrow, happy new year! Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing on -- For what its worth, as DRV submitter, I can sign on to this line of reasoning. My submission to DRV was not in support of the article (although I did support the article in AfD), but rather because the closure seemed a bit quick and "too bold" as has been said. If the DRV resulted in overturn, there is nothing that makes me think that the AfD would result in consensus and nothing that makes me think it would be a clear keep. I support closure provided Wikidemon is allowed to bring back the article into article space at a time which he determines. jhe_iv (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural break

(as article creator) The article was speedily deleted as a "POV fork". That seems to involve an accusation regarding a POV I was supposedly espousing, which I can assure you is not a POV I hold. I have repeatedly denied that I have a POV on the subject, and that the article is supposed to be a fork of something. A large number of editors seem to agree. Many to most of the delete opinions ignored or missed the point that this is a simple splitting of one article into a parent and and a child because they involve disparate albeit related subjects, that were growing unwieldy by being pushed into the same article. From the looks of it, the article was heading towards a "no consensus to delete", although it is a brand new article that, along with the AfD, has been around for only 12 hours. For an admin to speedily close it as delete, ignoring my rationale and the numerous people who have posted thoughtful rationales in support, seems to ignore process. There has to be an orderly way for people to bud single articles about multiple subjects into multiple articles about one subject each. It looks very much like people simply do not wish to acknowledge as an encyclopedic subject that there is a controversy / scandal arising from this particular climate change incident. There is such a controversy, as the sources describe and as a large number of Wikipedians have weighed it. For an admin to unilaterally overturn that by calling it a POV fork, before the discussion has played out, is to take a content position and use the tools to enforce it. This ought to be relisted to let the discussion continue, and resolved by consensus not fiat when done. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at ANI, the proper way to do what you claim to want to do would be to spin off the reaction section of the existing article in WP:SUMMARY style. You know this perfectly well, as can be seen from the way you referred to the existing article in your fork. The content of the article you created covered all of the terrain of the existing one, under a POV title. We call this a fork, and generally, when we're not avoiding WP:SPADE, we call it a POV fork. Rd232 ^talk 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the closing admin, above, has been calling for me to be blocked simply for having created the article, and engaged in some rather abusive accusations against me on AN/I. They've been completely unresponsive to my attempts to explain my good faith attempts at content edits here. Splitting single articles into two is part of the daily business of Wikipedia, and any admin who does not understand that should not be speedily deleting articles on that basis. They're too involved in the content matter, and really should not be exercising their tools here. This ought to be overturned as a simple process violation by an involved admin. Obviously I think the article should exist and should not be deleted, but whatever the outcome is it should be decided by consensus, not muscle-flexing by involved admins. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"abusive" accusations? such as? "involved"? how? Like your claim that it's not a fork, truth is not a function of volume. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, abusive. If you don't know what that means, Wiktionary is over here. I don't appreciate your hounding me with accusations of bad faith and calls for a block. You have a content position that you think the two articles are redundant, we get that. I disagree, and I created the second article as a distinct subject. I should only have to say that once, but you have repeated accusations several times that I am misbehaving, so I have to set the record straight each time. Please leave it at that, and learn to check your admin bit at the door when you go have a position on article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "hounding" you, and you're the one dragging the discussion of your behaviour into this DRV. I pointed readers to ANI initially. Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying and feel the existing article can not adequately cover 'whole topic of Climategate; I just wish the scope of the article you created were narrower and, instead of rehashing what's in the 'parent' article, would concentrate on the specifics of e-mails themselves and the arguments around them. There is so much more out there worth mentioning than the five e-mails listed. For example, there ought to be some place on Wikipedia where more (scientists') evaluations of what actually constituted Mann's "trick" can be presented - at least that from Steve Mcintyre. Doc15071969 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, and please respect other editors with whom you disagree. Mackan79 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The deletion was maybe not in process, but the closing admin was just doing the only obvious thing. A textbook case of fork (being POV or content fork, doesn't matter). The editors of that article should contribute to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article and expand the post-theft controversy section, but creating a fork cannot be allowed in any circumstance. --Cyclopia^talk 11:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The deletion was maybe not in process" is a very strong argument for restoring the article in itself. C'mon folks, let's try to play nicely here. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I am usually someone who strives for process being followed, because usually process is there for a reason. In this case, however, leaving a fork dangling seems much more problematic, overall, than quickly closing the AfD. Both things are not good, but we have to choose the lesser evil. In this case, the lesser evil for NPOV and maintainability is userfying the article unless it becomes something different from a fork -if it will ever be. --Cyclopia^talk 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per mackan79 mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as noted in my closure, the proper way to deal with issues of titling and article focus of the existing article (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident) is to discuss at the relevant talk page, doing an WP:RFC if necessary, and perhaps spinning off a daughter article if necessary. What should not be done is creating a blatant fork (User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal). Since a blatant fork is unacceptable, a relisting is unnecessary. Further discussion of the concerns motivating the fork, which may or may not be valid but wouldn't make a fork acceptable either way, should be elsewhere than at AFD or DRV! Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if only for the simple fact that the AfD was inexplicably ended prematurely. This does not seem like appropriate use of admin tools. jhe_iv (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, mostly per Cyclopia. Good application of WP:IAR. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No matter how long that AFD lasts, it will end in no-consensus with the article in the current form. That effort is better spent working on the article in userspace. Start an RFC in a week or two, which has the added benefit that the discussion can go longer than a week. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikidemon has already told us that "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ ". This article should never have been created and the action of the closer was, as Cyclopia has rightly said, the obvious thing to do. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of attempt to fork pov rather than deal properly and proportionately with both points of view in one article. . dave souza, talk 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This was a rather blatant POV fork and Rd232 took the best action in the circumstances (I would have been tempted to delete it outright but userfying is, as he said at the time, more transparent). --TS 13:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist It's a content fork, not a POV fork, not to mention that the AfD was closed prematurely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it's a content fork, not a POV fork" - so what? From WP:Content forking: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia..." Whether the fork was created deliberately qua POV fork (Wikidemon maintains otherwise) is irrelevant here - it's still a fork. Whatever's wrong with the existing article should be addressed there, and any splits from that article should be splits (WP:SUMMARY), not forks. Rd232 ^talk 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of obvious POV-fork. Rd232 acted in good faith and to the best interests of the project. Inability to gain consensus for disputed edits is probably the single worst reason for forking an article, it does not serve anyone's best interests including those of the warring parties. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. premature close; precipitate action. See Wikidemon's comments. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist. Highly contested AFD closed prematurely. No policy justification for cutting off discussion. If the case is as clearcut as the closer believes, that will be borne out by full discussion, and no purpose is served by cutting short discussion. If not, the close is very bad. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Dave Souza and Guy. Closing admin acted properly and in the interest of the project, especially the spirit of policy. There should be a single article that covers the event fully and in line with reliable sources, not one article to cover the facts and another as an excuse to trumpet the "scandal" (or "controversy") using blog bloviations, partisan op-eds and the like. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - looking over his rationale, I'd say I think Rd232 made the right call here. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedurally Relist - DRV is about procedure, not the merit of the deletion. {{db-same}}/WP:A10 specifically excludes content forks and says "For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion." The fact that we are here means WP:IAR was not the right call. However after 7 days I won't fault an admin for "Userfy on strength of arguments" even if a headcount shows "no consensus to delete" but "no consensus to keep" either. AFD is not a vote. Personally, I think I would recommend deleting and moving the article to its current location in userspace or to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Alternative article deleted at AFD for a limited time to allow merging or discussion by editors of the main article if they want to re-write the main article to look more like the forked version. Once it was deleted, I would put its edit history log in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Edit history of alternative article deleted at AFD for CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL compliance if necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - was forking, POV or otherwise, ever grounds for speedy deletion? Should it be (WT:SPEEDY is the place to raise this issue if you think it should)? Note: It's currently specifically excluded (see WP:A10), leaving only WP:IAR or WP:SNOW as grounds to close this AFD early. SNOW didn't apply. IAR probably seemed like a good idea at the time so I can't fault RD232 for making the call that this qualifies as IAR, even if by virtue of the existence and length of this DRV we now know it didn't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? WP:CSD is a procedure specifically for deleting under certain standard reasons. It is not relevant here. What is relevant is whether the article was created as a POV fork, which was my belief. At any rate it was undoubtedly a fork, and no amount of discussion over 7 days would alter that. The only thing the AFD or a relisting would achieve is much drama, time-wasting, and possibly a WP:GAME success by redirecting the previously-rejected title to the existing article. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have opened a discussion on at WT:SPEEDY#Actual practice and A10. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There seem to be few (if any) arguments in favor of restoring this page that are not procedural, so a relist would be pointless. Not providing a soapbox for a WP:BLP-violating POV fork of a current event article seems a worthwhile reason to shorten the usual AfD discussion period. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, of course. This is ridiculous. There was no justification for speedy here, other than the ongoing suppression of anything remotely critical of the pro-GW POV. We need to stop those who "ignore all rules" to push their POV. ATren (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Afd was closed by User:Rd232. If you're saying he has a conflict of interest and shouldn't perform administrative actions with respect to global warming articles (and looking at his recent editing history, I have to admit I just don't see it) you should go to wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Making accusations like this only poisons the well. --TS 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing is being suppressed. You want the content from the fork, for possible reuse? It's at the userfied location. You want to rename the existing page? Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. You want to discuss problems with that article? Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. You want to propose spinning off part of it WP:SUMMARY-style? Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. You think the talk page is dominated by people who disagree with you, and the wider community might support you? WP:RFC. Nothing justifies a blatant fork, and very little justifies talking about it endlessly. Rd232 ^talk 16:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my statement. Speedy deleting a contentious article during a debate that is favoring "keep", that sounds a lot like POV pushing to me. If it isn't, then perhaps you should avoid situations like this which give that appearance. ATren (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense. The article was an utterly blatant POV fork, using a POV title that was rejected elsewhere, incorporating sources that had been rejected elsewhere as disallowed by BLP. The fact that the nut brigade descended en masse to vote "keep" on tendentious grounds, completely ignoring Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and forking, is irrelevant - AFD is not decided by numbers. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Silliness. There were plenty of good sources, and your assertion otherwise simply proves my point that this decision is driven by the POV of a small group of editors. ATren (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it had some good sources. As Wikidemon himself said (at WP:BLPN) "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎..." Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse content fork that stemmed from a content dispute elsewhere. Good-outcome, strongly supported by policy.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article was such a blatant POV fork that no other verdict other than deletion would have been possible. Closing the debate at the point that it was closed saved everyone a lot of wasted time and unnecessary drama. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Excellent application of IAR. The article was a POV content fork, no other result could or should have occurred. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure: This is the reason that we have admins, rather than bots, close deletion discussions. The deletion discussion basically broke down along standard partisan lines from the global-warming battleground (Kind of like this one is starting to shape up). Regardless, the article as currently written is clearly an inappropriate content fork. Userfying it is a reasonable solution - it gives interested editors a chance to develop it in a way that might demonstrate its potential to be something more, though I'm doubtful that there is really enough distinct material to have two articles with such complete topical overlap. In any case, I don't see a lot of fruitfulness to relisting here; the close was justifiable, and we should probably limit the number of battlegrounds on which these skirmishes are being fought. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and prediction: For what it's worth, much of the objection here is over the extremely early, WP:SNOW-time-frame-ish closure, not necessarily the outcome. Had the discussion gone 14x as long, with 14x as many comments, with the comments being substantially similar to the ones that are already there, there would be a lot more acceptance of a deletion based on the merits of the arguments even if there was no consensus to delete in a head-count (AFD is not a vote). People like to be heard - if they are allowed to have their say they tend to be more willing to accept not having their way than if they think they are silenced. By short-circuiting the discussion to less than 24 hours thereby silencing those who don't check Wikipedia several times a day or only once every few days, it may leave those who favor keeping the image feeling steamrollered. Although deleting this particular image after just 12 hours may be seen as "the right thing" with respect to the image, I submit that it may have been the wrong thing to do when it comes to building a community of editors. On the other hand, we'll never know what would've happened if this had run 6 1/2 days or even 1/2 of a day longer - it could've made things worse, not better, from a community point of view. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  One must take into account the damage that would be caused by having two different comunities of editors developing separate versions of effectively the same article, with all the division, and the inevitable edit warring, while the deletion discussion continued. This has been short-circuited, yes, but it has led to a relatively sedate discussion of the merits of what, really, we new must happen in the end. The fork had to die and the quicker it died the less disruption would be caused in the meantime. --TS 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Another point to bear in mind is the high likelihood of external disruption. The development of the article has been influenced by open campaigning by high-profile bloggers, who have effectively sent their readers to Wikipedia to fight for The Truth. There is no doubt in my mind that had the AfD gone on for its full length, we would have been inundated with single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets and meatpuppets. There was already something of the sort going on; those !voting included IPs, new accounts, accounts with only a handful of edits in the course of months or years (i.e. probable sleeper sockpuppets) and so on. Nipping this in the bud avoided a great deal of disruption. And it would have been useless disruption in the first place, since the POV fork was so blatant that no verdict other than deletion would have been possible. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That essentially boils down to an argument that Wikipedia and its editors cannot be trusted with the community rules, so admins have to ignore them to save editors from themselves. The most likely outcome of an AfD process would be just what AfD is set up to do. The community would weigh in with its opinions, during which time a consensus would form or not, and article editors would have a chance to improve the article (brand new when nominated, 12 hours old when deleted) to address complaints. This WP:IAR deletion is a case in point why administrators ought to follow process rather than shooting from the hip. I created the new article in response to discussion on the talk page that the subject might best be split into a parent and a child article along subject matter lines, and did my best to extract some material to form the skeleton for the new parent article. Given the fuss, in hindsight I extracted too much information and should have built the new article from the ground up instead. But at the time I figured it best to start from a more robust version and allow editors to pare it down and allocate information among the articles as they saw fit. Unfortunately but not unsurprisingly given the subject matter I was instantly hounded by accusations of bad faith by editors who jumped to the conclusion that I'm advancing climate change denial. Not only do they have my motivations completely wrong despite my repeated assurances, they are misreading the article itself. On the one hand there is an existing article that, notwithstanding a lot of edit warring, acrimonious talk page discussion, and full page protection, is stable and nobody is trying to delete. And on the other hand there is the new article that is so upsetting to people that several have blanked it as a supposed BLP violation, an administrator convinced him/herself that it is so offensive it should be speedied despite consensus in favor of keeping it, and the deleting administrator is actually advocating on AN/I that I should be blocked for a week for having the gall to create it. Yet as pointed out, the two are to a considerable degree the same content! That's not a content fork, that's a perception of reality fork. The goal is not to have two articles with the same content, but to sort out two different subjects, each in its own article. That doesn't happen instantly. All this would get sorted out on the article talk page if people could just assume a little good faith, and read before they pounced. Maybe it would get deleted in due course. The deletion discussion itself would reveal ways to improve the article so as to be viable on its own, or conversely, it could yield new content and sources to merge back into the main article. That's the point of a deletion discussion, to work through things in hopes of improvement. IAR use of administrative tools in disputed cases like this is a slap in the face to the good faith editor, and only encourages misunderstanding and dispute. A process breakdown hurts everyone here. Whether you believe the "Climategate" controversy should be covered by a single article or a parent/child article structure, enforcing unilateral content decisions by administrative decree is not the best way to build an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear ChrisO, this is not a war, so it would be nice if you drop your personal attacks. I cannot speak for everyone else who is against your handling of the Climategate article, but I hang around Wikipedia for a long time and cannot qualify myself as a follower of a blogger. We are supposed to assume good faith here. Please do and say sorry now. Dimawik (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Chris0 - I'm not tuned into this particular external disruption, but that is certainly a factor. When doing extraordinary early closes where there is likely to be controversy, these things need to either be explicitly mentioned in the closing comments or elsewhere so it's clear to anyone that the disruption caused by an early close is much less than the predicted disruption of allowing it to go a full week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing early would have been fine, in my view, if at least there was a chance to get some comments. Even granting the above concerns, these discussions are not just a waste of time, as people may have provided some other useful ideas. Having voted delete I don't really care what happens here, but when someone closes it in under 24 hours, and simultaneously suggests that the author (who has something like 25,000 edits) should be blocked for a week simply for having written it, I'm thinking, guys, please put down the taser. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. That sort of treatment was fine for Stevertigo and Obama and accusations of National Socialism as there was a clear history there of similar disruption. But I'd hope someone like Wikidemon would be afforded a bit more latitude before calling for the noose. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony - it is highly likely that both versions would have had to be fully protected had this occurred. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, the spirit of the due process of deletion was clearly violated. Rd232 also owes the community an explanation of his reasons for the speedy deletion - which I think the WP rules do not provide for in this case. Dimawik (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - POV forks are not acceptable. You don't get to create a separate article in order to write your own preferred version. If someone thinks the "scandal" version has some useable material, please add it to the existing article and source it with references from reliable, non-partisan, mainstream sources. Not fringe publications, not Rush Limbaugh's radio show transcripts, not unsigned opinion pieces/editorials, not various blogs by climate-change deniers. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - its amazing what some people can get away with around here. WVBluefield (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist — And sanction those responsible. Deleting after 14 hours with a substantial discussion still going on is just reprehensible. Considering the damage Wikipedia's reputation has taken already from the fairly glaring edit wars and administrative overreach on climate articles, restoring some kind of order and NPOV is essential. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Put down the pitchforks and chill out. I'm only catching up on various XfDs, AN/Is, etc...just now, but it seems that this was an attempt to address a separate aspect of the Climate Research Unit debacle, namely the right-wing reaction. Is this any less analogous than our current pair of articles on the Watergate burglaries and the Watergate scandal ? How about a voluntary withdrawal of all XfD/DRVs regarding this, restore the text to some title less hackle-raising and go from there. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you compared the fork (User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal) with the original article (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎)? Also I don't see any particular content in the fork on right-wing reaction, certainly not that would justify a separate article at this point. Rd232 ^talk 20:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work. Watergate was a very long-running, complex historical case about which a huge amount of factual detail has been published. There is probably a good reason why the burglaries and the following scandal are documented in separate articles. There is no dispute that the burglaries happened or that there was wrongdoing by the parties involved. This incident, on the other hand, is barely a month old. Very little is known about the circumstances under which the files in question were stolen. No wrongdoing has been confirmed and the incident is currently under investigation. Although there are actually very few known facts, there is a huge amount of POV speculation. Right-wing blogs dispute that there was even a hack or a theft of the files (despite the university and police confirming it). They also claim that there was wrongdoing (even "treason" - sic) despite there being no confirmation of this. The context in which this POV fork was created is that (1) activist editors on Wikipedia have been seeking to water down or remove any material about the theft of the documents - which the fork purposefully omits; (2) the same activists want to use unreliable sources such as blogs to make claims about living people, which WP:BLP prohibits - the fork does this; (3) the same activists want to use POV terminology, describing the incident as a scandal, despite NPOV and naming conventions prohibiting POV article titles - the fork does this, of course. It is a blatant attempt to introduce material and terminology that was rejected in the main article because it violates NPOV and BLP. It's a very sleazy effort, all told. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The closure of the AfD in its current state is outrageous and clearly reflects the desire of the closer to enforce a particular outcome rather than allowing the process to run its course. A review of the closer's actions should be conducted and the premature closure should be undone in preference of allowing the entire affair to resolve itself through normal processes. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfying a blatant fork is not an outcome that requires a week of discussion, or that could possibly be in doubt. The other issues, on the title and content of the original article, should be discussed, obviously, on the talk page of the original article, not at AFD or DRV. The userfied page can be also be a jumping-off point for discussion, for those as wants. Rd232 ^talk 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I tried to look at the article so I could judge it on its merits, but I couldn't find the history. However, since I'm an inclusionist and feel it is better to err on the side of more information then I think we should relist it for the time being and let the apparently prematurely terminated deletion discussion finish up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal links to the userfied article at User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal. Inclusionism doesn't cover WP:Content forking. Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "climategate" article, while it needs a bit of polish, seems better than the "email hacking article," which, among other things, quotes the blog of the accused scientists as a defense, but doesn't disclose that the relationship so people could take that defense with a grain of salt. I'd say relist, wikidemon seems to be doing a good job, and if he needs some help improving it then all he has to do is ask. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you, or anyone else, thinks the fork is better than the existing article in whole or in part, then it can certainly form the basis of a proposed revision. Propose at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, I'm having a hell of a time getting well-sourced, relevant and consensus-derived information into the IPCC article. I think it is better for it to work out democratically and from what I've read the 2 out of 2 people said "keep" before it was speedily deleted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to get the edits you want into an article is not a reason for forking. WP:DR is that way, starting with WP:RFC. (PS "2 out of 2"? What page are you looking at?) Rd232 ^talk 23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Wikidemon is working on a revised userspace draft, User:Wikidemon/Climategate v2. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's absolutely terrible, worse than the first version, if that's possible. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - obvious POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural overturn and relist per Davidwr. WP:IAR (like WP:SNOW) should not be applied in situations where it will generate significant controversy. Of course, userfying may have been the outcome of the debate anyway. Wikidemon, can you back up your accusations of admin misconduct on Rd232's part with diffs that show he was involved before he closed the AfD? If you can, this should definitely be relisted. If not, then I still support a procedure relist but urge you to tone down your rhetoric. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse occurred after he speedily closed the AfD, and continues in the form of threats and repeated advocacy to have me blocked (a week, no less) as punishment for having created the article. I am not aware of any prior edits that would cast doubt on RD232' impartiality in closing the AfD. However, in taking that action RD232 involved himself in a content dispute, and having done so should not be waving around his administrative tools threatening to block those on the other side. The accusations of bad faith are not very swift either. Applying WP:IAR in such a situation is unwise, that's my point. There's a reason why procedural policies and consensus discussions exist, and it's to avoid the unpleasant consequences of administration by decree. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that comment clarifies your misunderstanding. My view of your actions in creating that fork informed both my AFD closure and my comments at ANI suggesting that your creation of a blatant POV fork should be treated as disruption. Closing the AFD did not magically make me "involved" and thus unable to comment on other admin aspects of the same issue! Anyway, this seems to be moot now, since the ANI section has been archived, and that's OK with me. If you're willing to work on your draft in userspace and then discuss it appropriately at the existing page (whatever direction you take the draft in - if you want to propose a wholesale replacement and retitling, go nuts), then further action is not essential at this time. (Certainly not blocking, which per WP:BLOCK should be preventative, and if you understand now what you did wrong, fine.) Rd232 ^talk 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climategate scandal break

• Endorse deletion It was a blatantly obvious POV fork. Cardamon (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/relist This whole thing makes me rather sad. I have a lot of respect for Rd232, but frankly... I think that you're loosing it, dude. Premateurly closing an obviously contentious AFD is certainly not a means of "reducing drama", at the very least! Anyway, let's all keep in mind that this is not AFDx2 here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist and let the discussion run its course. The deletion arguments were not uncontested and there was no valid speedy criteria. The fact that RD232 has a long history of partisan activity on articles is also problematic in this out of process action. Disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the time to respond to your first DRV in December. I take it your response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is a work in progress? Rd232 ^talk 00:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been too busy writing articles to do much at AfD until quite recently. But there was a link to this discussion at ANI where your inappropriate conduct and dramamongering was under discussion. I see you haven't learned anything from your prior misconduct being cited by numerous editors? I've also followed the dispute at Climategate (and the longer named article) for some time. Quite a lot of battling going on there by the usual interested parties. Following our rules would seem to be the way to proceed and I would think that admins would be especially careful to abide by our policies and guidelines, but clearly there are several who are more interested in advancing their personal interests. Some of them have had to be desysoped in the past, and others may need similar treatment going forward. We're an encyclopedia not a propaganda source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, as generalities, and let's leave it at that for this DRV. Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural overturn and relist per Davidwr and Mr. Willoughby. Quite a disruptive close, and the behavior of Rd232 (and others, I'm looking at you ChrisO and SJ) since has been even worse. Bullying only serves to make one look foolish. Arkon (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The page can obviously not be kept as a blatant fork, creating it was just gaming the system. This was speedily deletable under A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." Fences&Windows 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find this to be an interesting debate. I see people on either "side" of this issue who's opinions I tend to respect generally, so that makes me wonder what the deeper underlying issue here is. I've tended to avoid the "Climategate" related issue(s) to date, since I think that this is more of a media created issue then a really meaningful scandal (I'm fairly certain that this is the first comment that I've made about any article(s) surrounding the issue). Considering what I know of the character of people involved in this, it probably would be best to keep the article "userfied" for now, but to send this to some sort of dispute resolution. At least Rd didn't actually delete it, which I see as a sort of fig leaf here. Just skimming the content of the email incident article, and based on what I know from the news, there's obviously room for some sort of article along the lines of what this one was. If everyone could calm down, act in good faith, and develop this userfied article so that it's neutral, then I think that the issue could be resolved.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - While I did !vote for a redirect/merge, I don't see any reasonable justification for this early out-of-process closure. The discussion was ongoing and it's not at all clear that a consensus to delete was going to emerge. Nor is it clear that there won't end up being two articles: a very reasonable outcome of that AfD would've been a move to CRU document controversy or similar (analagous to what's been done to Watergate burglaries and Watergate scandal). I also find the conduct of the closing admin to be quite suspect. Oren0 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of a clear POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Any suspected POV fork can be transformed to NPOV content with faith. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The determination that the article was a "blatant POV fork" is one that should be made by community consensus, not administrator fiat. There is no deadline, and allowing a forked article to hang around for one week is, in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal. I'm sure that the community (mostly the admins) would have had to police the article and the AfD debate during the time it ran to prevent sock-infested POV trench warfare, but that is what we give them tools (block, (semi-)protect) for, after all. That being said, we are having the discussion here instead, which is a second-best outcome but making the best of a bad situation. I also seen no reason to believe that the closing admin acted in bad faith or against the interests of the project. I reluctantly endorse closure as it's clear that in the end it's all the same. — æk^Talk 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is a contentious topic. Perhaps a full discussion is merited, if only to get neutral and uninvolved eyes on the issue, and reassure all concerned that the different points of view are receiving due consideration. Nightmote (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Regardless of where you stand the actual article closing an obviovlsy contentious AfD after only 12 hours is inappropriate. If the article stands no chance then that will come to be whether in 12 hours or in five days, if not then not. Until then the community should be allowed to weigh in. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible compromise I strongly disapprove of the premature closure of this AfD. Given the building controversy over Wikipedia's handling of climate change it does real harm. However, I don't think a relist would accomplish much. As I understand it, Wikidemon, the originator of the Climategate scandal article, is rewriting it in his user space. I would encourage him complete that effort and repost it in article space if and when he feels it is ready. If the article's detractors are still dissatisfied, they can start a new AfD which should then be allowed to run its course. If he agrees to this, perhaps we can close this DR.--agr (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of obvious POV fork. The disruptive behaviour here and elsewhere will probably result in a GW ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GW RfAr has happened a little sooner than expected. Mathsci (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist; per WP:DP AfDs must run for at least seven days except in WP:SNOW cases. No opinion about the merits of the case, but it certainly does not fall under the snowball clause.  Sandstein  09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Admins are elected by the community to implement our rules and procedures, not to invent their own rules and procedures. Yes, there's IAR, but IAR does need a supporting consensus of some kind, and this DRV shows that there is insufficient consensus to support the closer's actions in this case. Let's have a proper discussion that lasts the due length of time, please.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It should have been speed'ied under A10 as an obvious POV-fork. It seems that some here think that because there was an AfD, it somehow "veto"'s a policy based deletion, which is a strange interpretation of policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I think it's a perfectly accurate interpretation of policy. The logic goes: Consensus trumps policy (see WP:IAR for reasoning); consensus evolves from discussion; therefore policy is not to be used to cut short good faith discussion between interested editors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus absolutely does not trump policy, particularly where the core policies of NPOV, verifiability and no original research are concerned. The very first section of WP:NPOV says: "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." It wouldn't matter if there had been a majority in favour of keeping the POV fork (which I don't think there was) - NPOV would have trumped that. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Further, I can understand how such a view can be reached if you only skim through what's said here, but it displays a certain ignorance of the facts surrounding these articles. That's not really a bad thing, since I think that this topic area would really benefit from wider participation (FYI: the email incident article is currently Fully Protected), but the suggestion that CSD#10 was applicable just flies in the face of reality. No one in the actual deletion discussions seriously considered CSD'ing it, as far as I can tell.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My A10 conclusion is based on reviewing both articles side by side, and noticing that while the content had been moved a bit around, they were basically the same (and the comments by the creator states much the same thing). Combine that with the rather obvious POV title, and it gets even more obvious. And as the final straw the discussions on the original article, where re-titleling had been a contensious subject, as well as several heated discussions on content shifts.... everything saying POV-fork. So yes, A10 applies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (in response to ChrisO) Well, ChrisO, my position is that yours would be a tenable point of view if it were up to individual admins to decide what's "NPOV", on their own authority, in contentious topic areas. But individual admins do not have that authority. It's for the community to decide.

  I imagine that to you, it's blindingly obvious what's a POV fork and what isn't. Please accept that there are good reasons why normally, we let uninvolved admins close these things after due discussion.

  At issue here is not so much the close, which may be perfectly good, but the speediness of it. Why was it so desperately vital to delete this material that a lightning-fast close-and-deletion was appropriate? This is a question that the "endorse" side has failed to answer, but needs to--and the answer needs to take into account the fact that the close disregarded legitimate doubts expressed by good-faith contributors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment to Wikidemon [1] might answer some of your questions. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment to Wikidemon is a combination of self-justification, sophistry, assumptions about other editors' motives and experience, and derogatory commentary about those who disagree with you. It shows no inclination to recognise any fault or error on your own part, and nowhere does it actually answer any questions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (in response to Kim D. Petersen) I do not agree that A10 has anything to do with content forks. The current discussion about A10 on WT:SPEEDY accurately reflects my view.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The trouble is that there is no indications of a content fork, but instead two articles with the same information, and a POV title. That makes it a POV-fork, not a content fork. (as said: Take the two articles check if they are identical in content: Yes, Does it have a POV slant: Yes, Has there been discussions of such a title change in the original article with consensus against and a lot of discussion: Yes.) The other issue is whether there is material for a content fork (ie. could/should there be one), which i have difficulty seeing, since there simply isn't enough serious material outside of speculation in various Op-Ed's, this may change when the inquiry's (or criminal investigations) finish though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant overturn/relist since a contentious AFD should not be closed after only a few hours unless there is something really, really, harmful which needs urgent fixing. The WP:CSD#A10 criterion on duplicate articles has been raised as a reason to endorse, but if you read the policy, you will see that it specifically excludes content forks. With that said, the people arguing to keep the article will need to provide some pretty convincing arguments for why the page is not a content fork and which should not be deleted in the regular, slow (aka hanging, drawing and quartering) manner. For after looking at both articles, they appear to cover the same topic for no particularily good reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Per WP:DELPRO, the discussion was not eligible for closure. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural overturn and relist and let the original AfD run its due course. Admins are bound by rules and policies in our community, but the AfD was abruptly wrapped with the poor closing. If it is an obvious POV-fork, then the community speak out and decide as such. As long as it is not copyright infringed, there is no good reason to apply the unfit "WP:IAR" to the discussion. --Caspian blue 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist - People are displaying a lot of emotion about this subject. Everyone needs to calm down and talk. Also, there is what seems to be a big problem with sockpuppets pushing agendas on this issue.Jarhed (talk)
  • Yes, people need to talk. Why do they need to talk in an AFD of a blatant fork? Why not somewhere else, like Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, the page forked from? The content of the fork, being userfied, remains available for discussion and future use. Rd232 ^talk 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User:Oren0 has taken it upon himself to create Climategate scandal and Climategate controversy as redirects to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Rd232 ^talk 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. Frankly, I don't believe this to be controversial because these articles did previously exist, these are terms that are used in the media, and Climategate is already a redirect. Whether a redirect exists is a totally different issue than whether a separate article exists. It is worth noting that I didn't create the redirects through protection, nor would I have. Oren0 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - discussion ended too early. Somewhat to my consternation, some of those in favour of the deletion on the basis that it was a POV fork now are extremely reluctant to allow the POV merge to go ahead. There needs to be an article about Climategate (whatever term is used) at WP and the current article is about the alleged theft of the data, not about the storm the revealed data as kicked up. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be an issue for Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Use dispute resolution such as WP:RFC if necessary, not an AFD of a fork. Rd232 ^talk 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may do all that too, now. In the interim there is no merge, so the deletion must be regretted, and material risks being lost from article space. I could have lived with the deletion if the now existing article was subsequently allowed to accommodate all reasonable POVs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Content forking is not a substitute for Dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the current article is about the alleged theft of the data, not about the storm the revealed data as kicked up." - what article are you looking at? About half the body text of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is "reactions to the incident". Rd232 ^talk 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. That betrays your POV, I think, that you think the storm is about the data leak. Every last detail is documented; but the actual scandal is suppressed. Or, say I am wrong. We are intent on documenting Cyclone Charlie as "The wing flap of Butterfly Billy". Anyway, you were too damned quick for no good reason, IMO. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not my view that "the storm is about the data leak", and you have no basis for jumping to that conclusion. I haven't edited the article, and I resent the implication that I give a rat's ass what its contents are. All I'm concerned with is that an obvious fork of an existing article has no purpose hanging around, and a lengthy and acrimonious AFD (driven as much by the choice of the fork title being a previously-rejected title) would serve no-one, and ultimately reach the conclusion that a fork is a fork is a fork. You want to rename/edit/expand/split the existing article? Be my guest. Discuss on the relevant talk page, seek consensus, use dispute resolution, etc etc etc. Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're disinterested then you've shot yourself in the foot by doing this... A huge component of the problem here is that people have been carrying on a low level group edit war over where to include the "reactions to the incident" content. Just logically looking at it, it seems odd to me to have only one article titled Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The email leak itself was one event, that hardly encompass the follow on scandal (again, Watergate break in and Watergate Scandal make for an apt structural comparison here). By suddenly attempting to impose this "solution" on the participants you've made yourself a partisan.
          — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise by letting Wikidemon and other work on his proposal at User:Wikidemon/Climategate_v2 and when its 'finished' it can be added to Climategate scandal, Climategate, Climategate controversy or another title that's in accordance with WP:RS) as suggested by ArnoldReinhold (talk · contribs) above at 05:56, 29 December 2009. Also give the closing admin a warning for misuse of his admin tools this all to early closure as identified above. Nsaa (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Obvious POV fork, allowing the users to edit it in userspace was rather benevolent. I don't like IAR closes, but this is one case where it seems justified. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, keep article userfied while AfD continues. This situation has unfortunately gotten blown a bit of of proportion. I think the creator of the article and the admin who closed the AfD early both had good intentions, and it's unfortunate that accusations of bad faith were bandied about. Leaving that to the side, there is not a problem per say with closing the AfD as "delete/userfy" which is basically what was done. The close was done early though in an admittedly IAR fashion. That kind of thing can be fine, but when you invoke IAR in a possibly controversial manner you need to have community consensus strongly on your side (that's the risk inherent to IAR, and it's why it's okay that Rd232 closed early, so long as that editor was willing to face the DRV music if a lot of others disagreed). It's clear from the above comments that too many people object to what was undoubtedly an out of process AfD close to allow it to stick. Therefore we need to relist the AfD, let it run it's course, and then have it closed by an uninvolved admin. Letting this DRV run for a week is actually not a good idea I think, and I'm wondering if the closing admin would consider short circuiting the deletion review process by undoing their close. A compromise of sorts would be to keep the article in userspace during the (re-started) AfD, as it is indeed problematic to have two essentially identical articles with different titles (if the AfD ended with us keeping some or all of the content obviously it would be moved or merged back to article space). Many supporting a relist above argue that there was nothing wrong with letting the article exist while the AfD ran (hence a bad close), but similarly there is nothing wrong with letting the article exist only in userspace during the AfD (no deadline and all that). Perhaps this solution would mollify most involved parties and get us to a final decision about the article in a more expeditious and less drama filled fashion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note the regularity with which Rd232 keeps repeating his claim that the article was a "blatant POV fork" when, in fact, there was an on-going community discussion trying to determine whether that was, in fact, actually the case. This is clearly indicative of exactly why HE should not have been the one to perform the close. He appears to have an obvious POV on the topic that was under discussion which would make his closure an inappropriate use of his tools/position.

  As far as I could see there was no independent community consensus demonstrated in that discussion to support this assertion but WP:AGF requires that I give him a chance to explain his actions. So I will repeat my question from the ANI discussion (which TS took it upon himself to prematurely close): What was the basis of your determination that the article in question was a "blatant POV fork" based on an objective analysis of the community discussion as it existed at the time of the closure? --GoRight (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read both of them in some detail I still don't understand why on earth you think that the two articles discuss different subjects. I'm not alone in this. Aside from the tone of the descriptions of various parties the two are substantially identical - it is, as far as I can see, a perfect example of a POV fork. So, what distinguishes the "climategate scandal" from the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" and what independent sources do we have for there being two separate subjects? Guy (Help!) 10:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also puzzled by this assertion. Wikidemon himself said "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎." The material had been copied and amended slightly to express a clear POV (as with the repeatedly discussed, repeatedly rejected title). I don't see any way this couldn't be considered a POV fork. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is the same distinction which causes us to have two separate articles on the Watergate burglaries and the Watergate scandal. See Climategate as Rorschach test for some discussion of the polarised way in which the topic is approached by different sources. In any case, this is irrelevant to the matter of deletion as the proper way to correct a fork is to merge the material, not to arbitrarily delete one half. The matter is therefore not cut and dried and so early closure was improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no such distinction in this case; it's not a valid comparison. The two Watergate articles split the burglaries and the scandal because there is a very large amount of material covering the two subjects. Watergate burglaries is 69K; Watergate scandal is 53K. That's too much material to include in a single article. The circumstances in which the CRU e-mails were stolen are covered in one short section constituting five paragraphs at the start of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. That section constitutes about 3K of data. The rest of the article is about 30K. There's simply no way that there is enough material in either section to justify a content fork, particularly one that would be so grossly uneven. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the Watergate burglaries article was created as a separate exercise, not split from the other article. Arguably that's a POV fork too - there seems to be a cloud of that sort over it. But, POV fork or not, it should still get 7 days at AFD per WP:DELPRO where arguments of this sort may be picked over. Application of WP:STEAM is improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment William Connolley should not have a vote on this issue as he is involved in the ClimateGate issue personally.

This is user:Magicjava's first edit ever. Cardamon (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)</[reply]

Explanatory note: Magicjava's remark originally contained links to text versions of emails, giving evidence to support what he said. This has been removed, no doubt by Rleves in his recent edit, and presumably because of the very understandable privacy concerns.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We would allow the subject of an article to comment on its proposed deletion. There is no reason to bar someone with a more tangential connection to the article's substance from having a say. (And, of course, this is not a vote.)--agr (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]