Revision as of 21:52, 25 July 2010 editVanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs)2,640 edits →Evidence presented by Septentrionalis← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:26, 25 July 2010 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Evidence presented by Septentrionalis: reNext edit → | ||
Line 1,236: | Line 1,236: | ||
:Sounds like a content dispute, and unrelated to climate change - I'm not sure why you brought this here. Weren't you accusing him of sockpuppetry too? Oh, and the first Federal election in the US was in 1788 - years after the Revolutionary War - it is a valid argument to make that the war between the colonies and Britain wasn't a "war between democracies." You can disagree with that, but I don't think you should go around making various accusations against Mark because of ] - he's a real nice guy. ] (]) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | :Sounds like a content dispute, and unrelated to climate change - I'm not sure why you brought this here. Weren't you accusing him of sockpuppetry too? Oh, and the first Federal election in the US was in 1788 - years after the Revolutionary War - it is a valid argument to make that the war between the colonies and Britain wasn't a "war between democracies." You can disagree with that, but I don't think you should go around making various accusations against Mark because of ] - he's a real nice guy. ] (]) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
::But principally a conduct dispute; all those removals were of sourced information. He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Misplaced Pages (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions. | |||
::As for the content dispute: the first election ''under the Constitution'' was in 1789; but there were plenty of elections before the Constitution; see ]. ] <small>]</small> 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:26, 25 July 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk) |
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley
I notice that, weirdly, ZP5 has ref'd Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley under "inciviltiy". All of those requets were wrong, and none had anything to do with incivility. This case is likely to have quite enough confusion in it, what is the point in bringing in obvious irrelevance? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't followed the links and cannot comment on the content, but it says they are offered as examples of editors commenting about your behaviour, which presumably they did whether the charge was proven or not. It seems though that if that is the case, specific diffs of useful comments would have been better. Charges without specific diffs have been referred to on various boards as "mud slinging" I think. Weakopedia (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Removed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Looks like ZP5 has seen sense William M. Connolley (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, per WP:NPA, I don't see how comments like "weirdly" and "ZP5 has seen sense" address the topic at hand, which is your civility. As always, please stay focused on content and avoid discussing the users, which may help you avoid disruptive inappropriate comments WP:TALK. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- focused on content and avoid discussing the users - for someone who has jsut added 70 diffs *only* addressing user issues, that it deeply ironic William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it ironic, that you as the subject here, who purports to care about the project and the length of this case, has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles. But, may chose defend to the end, taking the community time with them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait. WMC asked a valid question, Weakopedia clarified, and ZP5 removed. Let's leave it at that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Err no. I asked why ZP5 added some obvious irrelevance; Weakopedia said something wrong; then ZP5 removed the irrelevance. There is no clarification in Weakopedia's comment, just muddying of the waters. Meanwhile, has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles is incomprehensible William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whether you found Weakopedia's comment to be helpful or not is a different matter, but the fact remains that nonconstructive back-and-forths have no place here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Climate Change RFE references
Would be easier (and more accurate) to simply link ALL of the filings with a summary of the case. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Easier who and for what purpose? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- For the purpose of not trying to equate scientific knowledge, no matter how inconvenient some of it is, with just one person. --Nigelj (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could you explain how your statement is relevant? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- For the purpose of not trying to equate scientific knowledge, no matter how inconvenient some of it is, with just one person. --Nigelj (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
ZP5's evidence
ZP5 has spammed so many diffs it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll begin at the beginning. The first two of his diffs are:
- . Someone asks if the page is suitable for PR; I say no, since it fails stability, having just come off page prot. There is no incivility there (while we're on the PR request, the reviews incomprehension of what ZP5 is trying to say - see Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientific opinion on climate change/archive1 - is instructive).
- No incivility there either.
In short, ZP5 appears to have submitted a meaningless list of harmless diffs, rpesumably as mudflinging William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I'm puzzled at exactly what one is supposed to read into this diff from the list submitted by ZuluPapa5. Maybe he could enlighten us as to how this demonstrates problematic editing? MastCell 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Each diff demonstrates WMC objections with his "no" or "not" language. In each example WMC has written "no" or "not". Together they show he's highly objectionable in this single article. Would you have a suggestion as to how I could improve the presentation of this point? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you find a diff where WMC avoided "no" or "not" in his language, then I will remove it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- (a) attempting to ban the word "no" from wiki is unlikely to be fruitful (b) MastCell has already provided you with such a diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wait... so saying "no" or "not" is uncivil? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior, which is in contrast to Misplaced Pages guidance on WP:OWN and principles of WP:COPY. If you contribute, you must offer consent and compromise to other's reasonable changes without your OR. In addition, above all you must consent to civil means. I suggest providing evidence that shows collaboration to counter this claim. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. There is no need to compromise with wrong position, and such a claim is outright nonsense. And that does not change if the same nonsense comes up once or thousands of times, and disagreeing with it is no more false or uncivil the thousands time than the first time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consistently endorsing that WMC is the owner of the correct POV, is my cause for concern with Stephan Schulz. Such a view would produce climate change articles that have WMC's narrow POV. Generally, the false precendent here is that the owners of the correct POV are entitled to treating others badly to exclude their sourced POV, by some expert status, but for civility. This is the essence of authoritarianism. Thankfully, i have faith Misplaced Pages is better than that and holds a high value on civil behavior to achieve a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not "consistently endorsing the fact that WMC is the owner of the correct POV" - that's nonsense. I'm sharing with him and all the major academies of science, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature, a certain broad view on climate change. I cannot parse your second sentence. But simply attaching a source to a statement does not make it verifiable. The source also needs to support the statement. And it needs to be a reliable, non-fringe source, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consistently endorsing that WMC is the owner of the correct POV, is my cause for concern with Stephan Schulz. Such a view would produce climate change articles that have WMC's narrow POV. Generally, the false precendent here is that the owners of the correct POV are entitled to treating others badly to exclude their sourced POV, by some expert status, but for civility. This is the essence of authoritarianism. Thankfully, i have faith Misplaced Pages is better than that and holds a high value on civil behavior to achieve a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- How does using the words "no" and "not" violate WP:COPY again? I'm becoming more, rather than less, confused. MastCell 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior. WP:OWN stems from WP:COPY see WP:5 where is says editors do not own their content (to the point of tendentious). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- ZP5, I'd like to make sure I understand your concerns. Is your main point that WMC has made too many comments that use the words "no" and "not"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Try ... my concern is WMC and WP:OWN in case you didn't hear that. The "no" and "not" is symptomatic of an editor who demands rights to control the content without compromise. "Misplaced Pages contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the 'owner of a particular article." Would you, or any one else, suggest any other way to demonstrate WMC's article ownership concerns? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The title of your evidence section says hostile, not alledged ownership. I got confused by your evidence as the examples were not hostile or abusive. You probably need to consider changing the title of your evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically this subsection title "Example of WMC hostile edits in a single article" confused me a little. Anyhow, looks like the talk page throughout this arbcom is going to be endless arguing. Sigh.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- (e.c.) I agree with Lg and others who have expressed concern. As far as I can tell there are a few problematic diffs there, but they get lost in the dozens you posted, and it's still not clear to me what exactly you mean by "no and not". Perhaps you should organize and formulate your evidence in your private userspace before posting here. There is going to be a ton of evidence in this case, and we have to be sure to keep it as clear and concise as possible. ATren (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To me, excessive negativity is hostile, a bad karma king of thing. Who but an owner would require such uncivil means in wikipedia to work with others by abruptly negating their contributions, with revert first, talk later. I agree, the presentation can be improved. Thanks for the feed back. Think of the child who says "no, no, no you can not play in my sandbox", then calls you names. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You ask who, and I would say, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. A modern, advanced and complex scientific discipline, like climate science, is not equivalent a child's plaything. We do not all have an equal ability (or right) to be able to join in such a process without any particular knowledge or expertise. That right is earned by long, hard study, application, dedication, reading, practising, discussion and so on. The climate science articles are not a sandbox. --Nigelj (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where do WMC's rights to treat other editors uncivilly with personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and plain rudely biting newbies come from?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. I suggest you put something like this as a proposed finding of fact/principle later... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Surely wikipedia should prize "good karma" over scientifically accurate articles? Doesn't that go without saying? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again for IDHT, I have faith that Misplaced Pages prizes civility to produce a NPOV. Karma says ...where there is smoke, there is fire.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Surely wikipedia should prize "good karma" over scientifically accurate articles? Doesn't that go without saying? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You ask who, and I would say, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. A modern, advanced and complex scientific discipline, like climate science, is not equivalent a child's plaything. We do not all have an equal ability (or right) to be able to join in such a process without any particular knowledge or expertise. That right is earned by long, hard study, application, dedication, reading, practising, discussion and so on. The climate science articles are not a sandbox. --Nigelj (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To me, excessive negativity is hostile, a bad karma king of thing. Who but an owner would require such uncivil means in wikipedia to work with others by abruptly negating their contributions, with revert first, talk later. I agree, the presentation can be improved. Thanks for the feed back. Think of the child who says "no, no, no you can not play in my sandbox", then calls you names. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The title of your evidence section says hostile, not alledged ownership. I got confused by your evidence as the examples were not hostile or abusive. You probably need to consider changing the title of your evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Try ... my concern is WMC and WP:OWN in case you didn't hear that. The "no" and "not" is symptomatic of an editor who demands rights to control the content without compromise. "Misplaced Pages contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the 'owner of a particular article." Would you, or any one else, suggest any other way to demonstrate WMC's article ownership concerns? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- ZP5, I'd like to make sure I understand your concerns. Is your main point that WMC has made too many comments that use the words "no" and "not"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior. WP:OWN stems from WP:COPY see WP:5 where is says editors do not own their content (to the point of tendentious). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. There is no need to compromise with wrong position, and such a claim is outright nonsense. And that does not change if the same nonsense comes up once or thousands of times, and disagreeing with it is no more false or uncivil the thousands time than the first time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior, which is in contrast to Misplaced Pages guidance on WP:OWN and principles of WP:COPY. If you contribute, you must offer consent and compromise to other's reasonable changes without your OR. In addition, above all you must consent to civil means. I suggest providing evidence that shows collaboration to counter this claim. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest this thread has long passed its use-by date? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- SHould we assume the arbs have read it? They maintain their usual cryptic silence so it is hard to know William M. Connolley (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Part II - the socks!
Re . Apparently I'm now responsible for some unknown individual creating socks to impersonate me: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. Strange days indeed William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate how uncivil behavior can breed further uncivil behavior (i.e. karma, with smile). Better responsibility with your POV, would benefit the articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're making excuses for sockpuppeteers? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I pray to make you aware of how your behavior affects others. The earth's future rests in civility before climate science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to all parties that this page is for the discussion of evidence, not discussion of each other. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That SPI request is languishing. Do we have no CU's reading any of these pages who might perhaps help out? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Since GoRight SPI questions have been brought up here, this is his response to the charges. ATren (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, you seem awfully eager to push this Cu ... a little too eager of you ask me. WVBluefield (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The point is moot, since the checkuser has been completed and the case archived. The socks in question were generally using open proxies to camouflage any link to existing accounts, so not much else can be said definitively. Perhaps we can move on? MastCell 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Odd how you keep on pushing an incomplete version of the facts MastCell. The checkuser did in fact find a residential IP used by the socks - and it was apparently not close to GoRight's location. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Should User:GoRight be unblocked and allowed to participate here?
User:GoRight is i.m.o. a good example of how a sceptical editor can develop into a "problem editor" from the point of view of other editors. Having him participate here could give a better perspective on how and why this happens. The tendency is to say that such editors who have been blocked are "disruptive editors". But I think we should look beyond that see if having better rules can make it less likely that editors start to behave in problematic ways in the future. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he wanted a Climate Change Arbcom case, and was caught in a vindictive ban while seeking one. His ban should be injuncted. He didn't bring this case. He's been on good behavior, he has a very strong respect for Misplaced Pages principles. His POV is irrelevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- GoRight has commented on this issue at his blog. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with CI. GoRight perfectly demonstrates how good faith editors are hounded for years and eventually banned for responding badly to the baiting. Though I'm not sure I support unbanning for this case -- it would probably cause too much of a distraction from the main issues, and he probably wouldn't go for it anyway given his comments on his blog (he indicates he fully intends to serve out his ban). I think it would be best to deal with GoRight's mistreatment here in a completely separate case, since it's bound to be very large in terms of evidence. ATren (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- GoRight's participation in dispute resolution was consistently unproductive and problematic - in fact, I think that was one of the major reasons for his ban. As such, I don't think unbanning him to participate in an ArbCom case is likely to help matters in any way. As best I can tell, his ban has been the subject of extensive review, up to and including the ArbCom ban-review panel, and so I'm not sure what stones are left to be productively turned over on the subject. MastCell 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If GoRight would care to draft something, I would consider entering it in this case. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly encourage you not do so, since it would perfectly fit the definition of proxying for a banned user. MastCell 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that if this user is banned and wants to contribute evidence that he should contact ArbCom and let them decide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- THat is the correct way to do things. ZuluPapa5, do not edit by proxy for banned or blocked editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks for the diff. I've had no contact with GoRight since he was banned. It's up to him, my motion is a place holder in good faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Corrections
HIP, I appreciation the corrections; however, technically best to talk here so others may not be tempted to invade my space. Clerks, I am ok with HIP edits. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. Heyitspeter, it's better to discuss perceived errors in someone's contribution rather than edit it for them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah this was discussed on my talkpage. tl;dr: I'm sorry about that. Selftrouted. (And one of my 'corrections' was incorrect!) --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz evidence
The evidence on Stephan Schulz is illuminating, could you provide a diff? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a link about the SS. I hope this link makes it clear that that is not an appropriate way to refer to someone. But I suspect you are looking for the source of Cla68's evidence on the main page - not that your request makes this clear. Cla has provided a (mislabeled) link to the diff in the attribution of the quote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies. In addition, I found your original diff Cla68. Stephan Schulz you may remove your misunderstanding. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which misunderstanding? And please, if you absolutely need to edit text someone has replied to, use strikeout or leave a clear comment. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies. In addition, I found your original diff Cla68. Stephan Schulz you may remove your misunderstanding. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Partiality
I notice that JWB has put in his evidence against PG:
- User:Polargeo, an administrator, has been repeatedly disruptive... This complaint resulted in sanctions for disruption on the WP:GSCCRE page
This seems curiously partial: somehow, the "sanction" that Lar received in the same RFE doesn't deserve a mention. Could it perhaps be the case that JWB is happy to excuse behaviour from "his side" that he considers sanctionable in others? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still in the process of adding evidence on Polargeo, and I don't consider the evidence to be final until the deadline for submitting evidence passes, so what's there now should be regarded as a draft. I may add to and subtract from it. Somehow, somehow, I feel there will be someone out there who will be alleging violations of some behavioral policy by Lar. Quite possibly you or Polargeo or both or someone else. Hasn't Polargeo already done so? I have limited time and a lot of concerns. And I have no obligation to bring up complaints against all editors, now do I? I'm sure that somehow ArbCom members will get wind that editors would like them to look into Lar's actions, and that is very likely to happen without my assistance. Since you seem to have a standard that complaining editors here need to complain about everyone, I eagerly await your complaints about Polargeo's behavior, and his complaints about yours. As it stands now, I don't know of any behavior on Lar's part that warrants an ArbCom sanction, and I'm not going to waste my time investigating Lar based on your recommendation. You're already wasting my time. Surely a scientifically knowledgeable person such as yourself has better things to do on Misplaced Pages than pester editors with contrived standards of fairness. Personally, I'm much happier dealing with content than making complaints about other editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're already wasting my time. Hmm, interesting comment. Obviously you don't regard that as incivil. It isn't clear to me why calling you out for clear partiallity is a waste of time. Surely a scientifically knowledgeable person such as yourself has better things to do on Misplaced Pages than pester editors with contrived standards of fairness - Thank you for the ack; however I'm not seeing the "contrived" aspect. I think your vehemence here is a tacit acknowledgement of a hit. Personally, I'm much happier dealing with content than making complaints about other editors - then I suggest you do so William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- @WMC, I think the proper way to respond is to present the evidence you think is missing. This is where each side argues their own case; to expect a balanced treatment is unrealistic. @JWB, the "you're already wasting my time" comment is unhelpful, as is the sarcasm in the following sentence. How about if both of you pull in your horns and focus on presenting your own evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't sarcastic. I do believe there's a scientifically knowledgeable person behind that keyboard, just as I believe he's pestering about contrived standards of fairness, and who doesn't believe he's wasting my time? I'd be quite happy for him to edit some science article related to climate change. The bald facts are much more bizarre than any sarcasm I could scare up. Oh, look at the time. Got some diffs to gather. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am more than happy with JWBs diffs. They are a good cross section of some of the complaints I have had with Lar's actions as an enforcement admin. Yes they are clearly a smear to discredit my integrity but I genuinely believe Lar's actions in CC enforcement to have been motivated by misconceptions and an attempt to push forward his preferred version of CC articles through attempting to eliminate those who he personally regards as disruptive (ie the "science cabal") Lar then ends up with a rag tag bunch of supporters some of whom are exactly the sort of nutcases he then ends up having to deal with in sanctions. It is a terrible situation. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whom are you calling a "Nutcase"? mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly not you Mark Polargeo (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whom are you calling a "Nutcase"? mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am more than happy with JWBs diffs. They are a good cross section of some of the complaints I have had with Lar's actions as an enforcement admin. Yes they are clearly a smear to discredit my integrity but I genuinely believe Lar's actions in CC enforcement to have been motivated by misconceptions and an attempt to push forward his preferred version of CC articles through attempting to eliminate those who he personally regards as disruptive (ie the "science cabal") Lar then ends up with a rag tag bunch of supporters some of whom are exactly the sort of nutcases he then ends up having to deal with in sanctions. It is a terrible situation. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't sarcastic. I do believe there's a scientifically knowledgeable person behind that keyboard, just as I believe he's pestering about contrived standards of fairness, and who doesn't believe he's wasting my time? I'd be quite happy for him to edit some science article related to climate change. The bald facts are much more bizarre than any sarcasm I could scare up. Oh, look at the time. Got some diffs to gather. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems this section was initiated to note that someone was presenting evidence about only a limited number of individuals. Please remember that editors are encouraged not to be repetitious or to duplicate each other's efforts; there is no obligation for any person providing evidence to try to analyse every aspect of the disputes that relate to this topic area and, if someone actually tried to present that amount of evidence, they'd be asked to refactor. Given the number of potential participants, we are fairly certain that just about every aspect will be covered by someone; if, near the end of the evidence phase, somebody feels there is a noticeable gap in the evidence relating to some aspect, they can probably fill in that gap in their own evidence section. Risker (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have misunderstood. The point I was trying to illuminate, and which you missed, was whether JWB was attempting an honest and impartial evaluation; or if he was a strongly partisan witness. If the answer is "oh of course it is obvious he is partial" then there is nothing to worry about. Perhaps you could help, by indicating whether you think JWB is partial? JWB could alos help, by answering the same William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be helpful: Everybody involved who is presenting evidence is assumed to be partial as a matter of course. The diffs and quotes kinda help with that ol' "Trust but verify" thing. You must never have been involved in an ArbCom case before, right? Because otherwise it would be obvious to you. And just to help build trust between us, William M. Connolley, I do want to assure you that I try to be fair, even if I'm in a partisan position. Rather than fret over it, why not just attend to the evidence, and if you have a defense, present it. I doubt that raising questions about my partiality will make a difference. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Everybody involved who is presenting evidence is assumed to be partial as a matter of course - I disagree. As for trying to be fair - that was what this section was about; your response doesn't suggest you are trying, quite the reverse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well then, I'm sure your example will be a fine model for me to follow. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The editing environment created by some users pushes NPOV editors out of the arena?
If this is intended as evidence of that, then evidence of good quality editors leaving would be helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the diff posted in that section before commenting on it, as it is an example of an editor interested in maintaining a neutral point of view leaving as a direct result of the deleterious editing environment created by certain editors in the topic area. I present yours truly as another example of an editor that avoids the topic area because of the extremely hostile and unabashedly POV atmosphere that persists there, though I am sure you'll argue that I do not meet your "editor of good quality" condition.
- You've seen plenty others leave yourself, and given that the average user won't try to step in only to get pushed out, but will rather never step in in the first place, I think it's safe to say that 'many editors interested in maintaining a neutral point of view are shunted from the topic area as a result of the editing environment created by some users'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't recall any good editors leaving (actually TS springs to mind, but he left because of the "skeptics" like you). Nor can I recall any useful edits by you to any of the science pages. TGE is a disaster area, but not of my making. You can blame MN for that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am certainly not a skeptic. I am a strong believer in the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and in fact believe that denying its reality borders on absurdity. However, I am interested in presenting a neutral point of view, and have found that this endeavor for neutrality places me against many editors that self-identify as 'proponents' of anthropogenic climate change, such as yourself. (I will not be responding further on this talk page.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blame me for what? mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't recall any good editors leaving (actually TS springs to mind, but he left because of the "skeptics" like you). Nor can I recall any useful edits by you to any of the science pages. TGE is a disaster area, but not of my making. You can blame MN for that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest that a more precise term than "NPOV editor" be used? Most of us strive to maintain a neutral point of view, but our interpretation of how to go about that differs. (Leaving aside the philosophical question of whether it's possible for any individual to be truly neutral.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- 'NPOV editor' seems fine to me, taken intuitively to mean 'an editor who edits in deference to WP:NPOV'. I.e., users that consider themselves pro-AGW qua editors are not 'NPOV editors'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know of anybody who considers themself a 'pro-AGW editor'. Some people are 'pro scientific facts' editors, and some are 'pro scientific consensus' editors, and some are 'pro scientific method' editors. I think that is only to be expected in the current century. --Nigelj (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- What does "pro-AGW" mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- But many of the issues have nothing to do with the science -- for example, the long-term insertion of blog sources in BLPs, by the group you call "pro-science". ATren (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nigel, do you actually know what the scientific method is? Scientific method feel free to refresh your memory mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, especially Scientific method#Peer review evaluation. Also, I found WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Have a good day. --Nigelj (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Were in my question to you was anything "insulting or disparaging"? I thought this part Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. was most interesting, how about you? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, especially Scientific method#Peer review evaluation. Also, I found WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Have a good day. --Nigelj (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nigel, do you actually know what the scientific method is? Scientific method feel free to refresh your memory mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know of anybody who considers themself a 'pro-AGW editor'. Some people are 'pro scientific facts' editors, and some are 'pro scientific consensus' editors, and some are 'pro scientific method' editors. I think that is only to be expected in the current century. --Nigelj (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was pushed out of editing the Global Warming article by WMC four years ago. I kept it under observation and returned six-months or so ago because I saw that the same behavior that pushed me away had continued and showed no signs of abating. Cla68 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- For reference, here is a link to the discussion where you say you were "pushed out." To me it looks like you were challenged for making arguments based on your personal opinion unsupported by sources (except for science fiction writer Michael Crichton). I don't question that you might have felt "pushed out" by being held accountable for your assertions; we each see events through our own lens. Readers can review that discussion and decide for themselves though I suspect opinions will fall along the usual partisan lines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- That link seems to be to a whole page. Which section did you have in mind?
- The one where Count Iblis suggests "avoid the sentence "... is a theory not fact"." in rather an abrupt manner (an interesting interpretation of the scientific method, to be sure... AGW is a theory. Widely accepted with no significant countertheory given serious consideration, but a theory nonetheless)
- The one where WMC starts a comment to Cla with "Deeerrrr..." and ends his next comment with "You've made a pile of the conventional sort of errors; hopefully you'll be able to learn from them"
- The one where WMC declaims "Crichton is cr*p."
- Or perhaps some other section? Fortunately in the span of 4 years Cla has learned to sign his name correctly, hopefully in a way that WMC will find satisfactory. Has WMC learned to be collegial yet? I think what matters more is what the non partisan editors see when they read that... a big heaping pile of nastiness. If I wanted to make the case that this is somehow Cla's fault, I'd try harder to find examples of WMC being reasonable, polite, and collegial, it will bolster the case. Assuming they exist, that is. Which assumes facts not (yet?) in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lar's latest set of bad faith and hypocrisy has certainly induced me to leave. Hal peridol (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- That link seems to be to a whole page. Which section did you have in mind?
- For reference, here is a link to the discussion where you say you were "pushed out." To me it looks like you were challenged for making arguments based on your personal opinion unsupported by sources (except for science fiction writer Michael Crichton). I don't question that you might have felt "pushed out" by being held accountable for your assertions; we each see events through our own lens. Readers can review that discussion and decide for themselves though I suspect opinions will fall along the usual partisan lines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Query to clerks and arbitrators
How should Evidence be related to the questions that various people have raised on the Workshop page? Specifically, will the committee give any guidance as to which of those questions they will address and (more importantly) which are out of bounds? The instructions state that "having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals." From this I assumed that the committee would respond as to which questions they considered suitable for more detailed discussion in the evidence and workshop phases. This is one of the reasons that I've held off presenting evidence, because I don't want to clutter the page with material the committee has no interest in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Question for Arbitrators/Clerks
- Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, but that discussion does not address my query. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Quick request
I wanted to request that Guettarda, in his section titled Contrary to news presentations skeptics represent a tiny minority among climate scientists, give an example of a news presentation of skeptics as not representing just a tiny minority among climate scientists. It'd make the section complete and I'd be independently curious to read the requested article assuming it exists.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- You did read the section above it, right? The one that explains why news reports are, for the most part, less than worthless on this topic? Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Less than worthless"? Nothing like that was written in the section above.
- On a more related note, though, I don't see anything in those reports about the skeptic position being presented as more mainstream than it is. Those two sources claimed that skeptic positions are given proportionately more airtime in the media than they get in the scientific community, not that skeptic positions are presented as proportionately more common in the scientific community than they actually are.
- Perhaps it would help to reread your post and get back to me. In any case, if you find an actual report in the media that makes the claims you say are made it'd be appreciated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I can't make head or tail of what you just wrote there. I don't recall saying any of those things. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, I may have misinterpreted what you were arguing in the main page. Are you saying that the news media inaccurately claims that there are more skeptics among scientists than there really are, or simply that skeptical positions receive less attention among scientists than they do in the media?EDIT:--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I can't make head or tail of what you just wrote there. I don't recall saying any of those things. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence
In order for Collect's evidence to mean something, he needs to compare it to something else. Just providing a lot of numbers does not make something a study. This critique was raised to Collect before - he chose to ignore it. I present it for the record to ArbCom. I further note that based on the "interleving edits" demonstration presented, everyone is in cahoots with everyone. If you *don't interleve edits when reverting an abuser of open proxies, you are communicating via email or are a home account of someone at work. If you do interleave edits, you are obviously both responding to a clarion offsite call to action. There's no way to win. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly looks meaningless to me. I think I could easily find examples where I have interleaved with MN - would that prove I am in cahoots with him? Haven't we had these tedious "cabal" accusations before? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just ignore Collect's evidence. It is not worth getting into the type of circular debates that have been had in the past about his selective analysis. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's hear it from the bench: . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just ignore Collect's evidence. It is not worth getting into the type of circular debates that have been had in the past about his selective analysis. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I submit that in the span of a single hour you've all just done a bang up job of helping to demonstrate Collect's "statistical non-evidence." :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- When people who are already participating in an ArbCom case respond to evidence presented therein, that's not exactly "coordinated editing". MastCell 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I submit that in the span of a single hour you've all just done a bang up job of helping to demonstrate Collect's "statistical non-evidence." :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- lol, the edits and patterns are public and obvious, but I have to ask MastCell - how often do you send or receive email to or from William Connolley, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, Hipocrite or Short Brigade Harvester Boris? What do those emails entail? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- My, what an intrusive question. I've had 1 email exchange (sent 1, received 1) with William, about a year ago, dealing with an AN3 report unrelated to climate change. That's all I'm seeing in my inbox, which goes back about 2 years. Hipocrite emailed me recently asking my opinion about a suspected sockpuppet, and I responded with my opinion. I correspond with Boris occasionally (not so much recently), because I like him and enjoy conversing with him, and because I find his perspective (as an actual recognized expert and scholar on climate change, as well as a seasoned Wikipedian and former admin) of interest. He has a standing offer of a beer or three if he ever visits my neck of the woods - just imagine the conspiracies and coordinated editing tactics that would be discussed!
Kim has emailed me once or twice, asking my opinion about various on-wiki matters, and I've responded by giving my opinion. I actually have very little email contact with anyone on Misplaced Pages, and what's out there wouldn't embarrass me if it were, say, illegally accessed and posted for the world to see. I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and frankly you're a bit overly obsessed with ferreting out Facebook friends and the like. I'm tempted to ask you to be similarly forthcoming about your private correspondence related to Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure there's much point. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any sort of off-wiki conspiracy, or anything beyond the fact that a number of people (most of whom edit transparently using their real names) are interested in climate change. MastCell 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- My, what an intrusive question. I've had 1 email exchange (sent 1, received 1) with William, about a year ago, dealing with an AN3 report unrelated to climate change. That's all I'm seeing in my inbox, which goes back about 2 years. Hipocrite emailed me recently asking my opinion about a suspected sockpuppet, and I responded with my opinion. I correspond with Boris occasionally (not so much recently), because I like him and enjoy conversing with him, and because I find his perspective (as an actual recognized expert and scholar on climate change, as well as a seasoned Wikipedian and former admin) of interest. He has a standing offer of a beer or three if he ever visits my neck of the woods - just imagine the conspiracies and coordinated editing tactics that would be discussed!
- And despite your "occasional correspondence" with Boris why don't you at least respect the perception that you have a COI/bias and not act as an admin at the climate change enforcement page? Are there no other admins capable of doing this or does everyone have these "occasional correspondences" with the climate change group? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are a limited number of admins willing to work on the climate-change probation. I'm not active as an admin there, and when I have acted I have generally deferred all but the most clear-cut calls to other admins (e.g. ). If you have concerns about any of my administrative actions, have you discussed them with me (as a first step) or otherwise addressed them? MastCell 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- And despite your "occasional correspondence" with Boris why don't you at least respect the perception that you have a COI/bias and not act as an admin at the climate change enforcement page? Are there no other admins capable of doing this or does everyone have these "occasional correspondences" with the climate change group? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> What is the point? I tried discussing that same issue with Bozmo, he deleted my very polite request for him to not participate there, and, if I recall correctly, used that attempt as further "proof" against me. Anyway, to be fair, I'm not aware of anything terribly biased that you have done, but your opinion is crystal clear, and I think that if Arbcom prevents some admins who should definitely be sanctioned (e.g. 2over0, Bozmo) from participating that you may feel the obligation to "step up" and fill their shoes.
Oh, and you are assuming those emails were "stolen" when security experts have stated that such things are usually due to leaks and since those "scientists" did everything they could not to release information as required by FOI laws, the file was named "FOIA" (If I recall properly), then it is far more likely that the emails were indeed leaked from someone compiling the emails under FOIA laws who was pissed off that they had once again managed to circumvent the law. And I actually email scientists in the field myself - most of whom are much more well known than Boris.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alrighty then. So you believe that admins whose opinions are "crystal clear" should not act on the enforcement page? MastCell 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Only when they've been carrying on "occasional correspondences" with major players in the conflict for years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I would be the first to tell you that you're working too hard to invent conspiracies. I also don't think you're particularly consistent about applying your tests of bias, but that's your business. At least we've gone from "there is a long history of you and a couple other admins defending WMC et al." to "I'm not aware of anything terribly biased that you've done." MastCell 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my words were quite consistent, you spend a great deal of time defending WMC et all, as you are doing right now and as evidenced on many pages, including this one, but as far as I know (and this could just be due to ignorance on my part) you haven't done anything terribly biased as an admin. My concern is, as I've already stated, that due to your long friendships with some of the main players, and your very natural reaction of empathizing with some of those editors due to your own superficially similar editorial conflicts, that you will pick up the slack if some of your friends are topic banned or barred from using their administrative tools. Besides, it is pretty clear there is some major meatpuppetry going on here, and if it were anyone else they would've been topic banned ages ago for any one of a multitude of reasons. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I would be the first to tell you that you're working too hard to invent conspiracies. I also don't think you're particularly consistent about applying your tests of bias, but that's your business. At least we've gone from "there is a long history of you and a couple other admins defending WMC et al." to "I'm not aware of anything terribly biased that you've done." MastCell 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Only when they've been carrying on "occasional correspondences" with major players in the conflict for years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Going through the top fifty active editors, (averaging circa 200K (over nine million edits) edits each) I found zero other cases of sucha large number of overlaps. Anyone care to deny the existence of that? And to have every single member of a group post on a user talk page - that is unusual. Typical number for any group of six is under 5 UT pages in common. This means I have now done comparisons on 50 editors taken six at a time (using WS makes it a shorter task), and 30 taken 6 at a time (same shortcut). An astronomical number were it not for assuming bubble sorting of the "least-connected editor" is valid here. It is amazing to see people who assert maths knowledge not seeing such a huge spike in overlaps as meaningful <g>. A lot sharper than the hockey stick ever was! Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that your evidence is understating their levels of cooperation since several of them have changed accounts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are arbitrators who are familiar with statistics and data analysis methods? If so, no comment on this "analysis" will be necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could do your own analysis Boris - it should be an enlightening demonstration of "science." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the ghost of Darrell Huff must be enjoying this particular discussion. Incidentally, he defined the beauty of statistical chicanery thus: "It misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you." MastCell 23:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I request the imputation of "chicanery" be excised totally. The facts are facts - and the many runs on WS (whch, you might note, I was not the first to use) do not fit the definition of anything other than data. Pure and simple. Collect (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the ghost of Darrell Huff must be enjoying this particular discussion. Incidentally, he defined the beauty of statistical chicanery thus: "It misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you." MastCell 23:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I must say MastCell, considering the subject matter, that this entire conversation has been unintentionally amusing with certain people selectively accusing others of cherry-picking, confirmation bias and "statistical chicanery" - I've always been a sucker for such irony. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It took Thegoodlocust 4 hours and 2 minutes to respond here, more than three hours after the supporters. Are there other instances where the response from people in this same faction have been so swift? One case may simply reflect the fact that a lot of people naturally are watching this page. If this has happened often, elsewhere, it indicates a degree of organizing that would be against WP:BATTLEGROUND. If anyone knows of similar instances involving the same editors, it should be considered.
- 56 minutes after original post 16:43, 25 June 2010 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (43,086 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: Give them a chance...) (undo)
- 10 minutes after original post: 15:55, 25 June 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) (42,782 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: just ignore it) (undo)
- 9 minutes after original post: 15:54, 25 June 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (42,545 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: TINC) (undo)
- 15:47, 25 June 2010 Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (42,213 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: new section) (undo)
-- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, that edit by TGL was the first one after a 23 hour break, and it was followed by 5 more edits over the next two hours. Anecdotes are not evidence. In this case it seems to simply have to do with time zones and online times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look on the evidence page, you'll find that anecdotes are in fact evidence. They're usually lousy evidence in isolation, but when combined they become a pattern. If other editors can find a number of similar instances, it would look like off-site coordination of the type that WP:BATTLEGROUND mentions. Certainly there have been many times where editors have commented about how members of your faction show up at the same pages to support the same people and ideas, but I realize that can be innocent -- unless you're doing it suspiciously fast. Please tell us directly, Stephan, (1) were you in communication somehow with the other editors about Hipocrite's subject above? (2) have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Misplaced Pages page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Sorry for the long sentence, and sorry if this sounds prosecutorial, but, well, here we are. It looks suspicious to me, but I'm not assuming anything and I hope no one is offended that I ask. I think William M. Connolley and Hipocrite and Polargeo should answer this, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll answer only after you, marknutley, TheGoodLocust, Collect and Heyitspeter answer the same question. Have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Misplaced Pages page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- (PS - you'd best answer yes, Noroton.) Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- (1) My best answer is the truth: NO. Not ever. Not even infrequently. Not in all my time on Misplaced Pages. If you have any hint of me doing so, please bring it up. Are you referring to Misplaced Pages Review? I engaged in discussions there in public forums that anybody can see regarding topics here, but never for purposes of coordinating a response, just to exchange ideas. This sometimes resulted in me supporting here what others said in the WR discussions and sometimes opposing them. For instance, I opposed Cla68 and Lar at Talk:Martin Luther after reading one such discussion at WR. In another instance, someone discussed his opposition to a candidate for administrator. I voted for that administrator. I'm sure any ArbCom members who read WR have been very aware of my participation there. (2) Specifically regarding this case, the following is also a definite "NO". It's not even close, but if we leave out the "more than a few times" part, it's the closest I've come: I did contact three editors and said that if they were going to post evidence here in certain areas, I would prefer not to have overlapping evidence because that would waste time and effort, but the content of the evidence was not coordinated (as it turned out, nothing ever got coordinated). We didn't even attempt to coordinate support or opposition for anything at all (although I did ask one editor to reconsider a content question on a particular page -- I received no response about that). This is not the coordination of a faction: It's coordination any editors would participate in with a clear conscience in order to avoid duplicating effort. None of it remotely violated WP:BATTLEFIELD. This is the extent of my conspiracies. -- By the way, you had better explain your 17:03 comment, because if you don't have something to back it up now, it's another personal attack. -- Now your turn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- (PS - you'd best answer yes, Noroton.) Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll answer only after you, marknutley, TheGoodLocust, Collect and Heyitspeter answer the same question. Have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Misplaced Pages page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look on the evidence page, you'll find that anecdotes are in fact evidence. They're usually lousy evidence in isolation, but when combined they become a pattern. If other editors can find a number of similar instances, it would look like off-site coordination of the type that WP:BATTLEGROUND mentions. Certainly there have been many times where editors have commented about how members of your faction show up at the same pages to support the same people and ideas, but I realize that can be innocent -- unless you're doing it suspiciously fast. Please tell us directly, Stephan, (1) were you in communication somehow with the other editors about Hipocrite's subject above? (2) have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Misplaced Pages page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Sorry for the long sentence, and sorry if this sounds prosecutorial, but, well, here we are. It looks suspicious to me, but I'm not assuming anything and I hope no one is offended that I ask. I think William M. Connolley and Hipocrite and Polargeo should answer this, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Any blogs you'd like to mention? Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stop the cryptic hints. Say what you have to say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest that this whole line of inquiry be dropped, if for no other reason than the self-interest of those making the accusations? It's reflecting poorly on both "sides." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- What Boris said. These are not appropriate questions - if answered, any way, they create a climate in which reasonable privacy becomes inherently suspicious. That said, I'll answer them if I get appropriate counter-value. I always wanted to see Jerusalem in peace... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I made it clear I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking a relevant question. I consider WP:BATTLEFIELD an important issue in this case. Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- What Boris said. These are not appropriate questions - if answered, any way, they create a climate in which reasonable privacy becomes inherently suspicious. That said, I'll answer them if I get appropriate counter-value. I always wanted to see Jerusalem in peace... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest that this whole line of inquiry be dropped, if for no other reason than the self-interest of those making the accusations? It's reflecting poorly on both "sides." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My answer: Never have I ever communicated with anyone in an effort to CANVASS support for any position on any topic whatsoever. Period. Nor have I ever used an alternate account to seek WP:False consensus at any point whatsoever with any editor on WP whatsoever. Is this a sufficiently clear disclaimer? Now how about everyone here listing every other name that they have edited under (incidental IP edits due to not being logged in do not count). My list is the null set. Does that get rid of the clearly inapt and improper accusation implicit in the question? Collect (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is a pretty unfortunate direction for things to take. I'll take responsibility for enabling it, because I answered Thegoodlocust's prying with specifics when it would have been more appropriate not to answer at all. That was not the right precedent to set, and the escalating demands for people to disclose off-wiki correspondence are inappropriate. Off-wiki correspondence is presumably off-wiki for a reason - and there are many entirely valid reasons.
If there is evidence of inappropriate coordination, then it should be presented. I'll say right now that the level of interaction between William, Stephan, and others is - to me - entirely within normal bounds for users who edit frequently and have a similar set of articles on their watchlists. I don't see any need to invoke off-wiki coordination to explain it. I am not aware of any previous case where this level of interaction was considered de facto evidence of impropriety, although perhaps I'm missing something. Whether their editing has contributed to misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battlefield is a separate question, and one which does not require these increasingly ridiculous demands. MastCell 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not demands. See the discussion in my workshop section for relevance. It's a good question for editors to think about, and a good one to answer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is in everyone's best interest to quit this section. If you have room left in your personal evidence section post evidence there, but not on the talk page here. This case is moving out of evidence soon, so if you have room left in your section make use of it. Nobody is in the position of being able to force editors to answer such questions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think editors should consider whether or not they've violated WP:BATTLEGROUND. The questions are civil and directly related to this case. If you're forbidding this discussion, I object, but if so, hat it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"Reading guide" for TheGoodLocust's evidence
Basically, I was trying to show a bit of the pattern that is difficult for outsiders to see which is essentially one of control - drive editors away through incivility and baiting (their admin friends always step up), and preventing contrary views through wikilawyering (either driving others away or eventually baiting them into saying something "uncivil").
Of the evidence, since the main defense seems to be "science," I think it is important to note the IPCC case in my obstructionism section since it shows not only how a group of them will get together to flagrantly violate core wikipedia policy (WP:Verify), but also how they ended up being proven so very wrong - a pattern that repeats itself. Basically, they have a conclusion, and any evidence that doesn't fit that conclusion is wrong and any policy that supports inclusion of that evidence is wrong - and their "endurance" and excuses in the face of such facts is incredible to behold.
I think it is also important to notice how "devoted" (?) they are to their cause - posting people's telephone numbers/addresses and other incredible BLP violations. All of course, without any admin sanction because the other admins have been attacked for sanctioning them and the rest who watch the area are quite clearly friendly if not friends with them.
Finally, I did not however try to show their extensive pattern of edit warring/collaboration - this should be obvious to anyone looking at the records and I expect others have or will introduce such evidence. Also, there are several other editors I did not include evidence on due to my own limitations and the ease of the low hanging fruit - sanctions should apply to more than those mentioned (some seem to be trying to keep a uncharacteristically low profiles). Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Normally I'd put this on your talk but since you posted here... Your evidence is enormous, and is over 3x the normally allowed limit. We're being lenient in this case, but that is just too much. Cut it in half, at least. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to cull it a bit, I wrote it by getting enough diffs in each subsection to show the pattern and I honestly tried to keep the length down by not adding specific evidence about some editors - the problem is that there is so much evidence and such extensive long term abuse and if I avoid too many of the core players then the problem won't be solved. I'll work on reducing it in size tomorrow.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Was it really your intention to claim that Jennavecia, Rootology, and Ottava Rima (!?!?) were driven off Misplaced Pages by "climate-change editors"? MastCell 03:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's a good place for me to start cutting and I suspect this was unintentionally left in due to the rough draft nature of my evidence. I'm not entirely familiar with all of the circumstances that those editors left under and I suppose I could ask them why they left to clarify, but it really isn't all that important, especially since Horologium has demonstrated a similar point - your friends make the environment so toxic that most people stay away. Cheers. 06:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodlocust (talk • contribs)
Deadline problems?
I can't post on the evidence page. Is anyone else having this problem? I'll try a little later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope? I'm not sure when the deadline is exactly, but I seem to be editing it fine. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- The deadline would only matter if I or someone else fully protected the page at the deadline, which has not and will not happen. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it was my computer. I had no trouble later. So ... never mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Along those lines, I do intend to submit some evidence, but probably won't be ready to do so before tomorrow evening (which will be past the deadline). Will that be acceptable? MastCell 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- My evidence won't be submitted till later this week. Real life intrudes. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I won't be stopping you, but a deadline is a deadline and I will be asking editors not to add to their evidence. I'll notify/update parties this evening, hopefully. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- a deadline is a deadline - that was what Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Meaningless deadlines hoped to establish. In that case, we established that a deadline wasn't a deadline. Why is this one different? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mayhaps it is possible that this case is slightly an eensy-weensy bit more potentially complex than others in the past? Might it be possible that a complex case requires more time than a simple case? Recall further that this case is an amalgam of cases as well. Collect (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. The question is why is *this* deadline hard, whereas earlier deadlines weren't - not why is this *case* different William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that the intent is that those who have already provided evidence should complete their edits by the deadline, while others who have not yet provided evidence certainly are allowed to state their evidence - thus not a "hard" deadline." I am sure Amorymeltzer will correct me if I misapprehend how he intends this to work. Collect (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not to mention that "more potentially complex" shouldn't be a reason to put unreasonable time limits on editors. I find it really strange that the committee would throw up such short deadlines at a time like this. I mean - who opens a case during the World Cup anyway? I think it's incredibly unreasonable. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, many people have taken time off for the World-cup, which means that at least during half-time they can post evidence here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- And many people are trying to fit enough work around to World Cup to keep their jobs. It's not like Christmas, which is (a) a smaller demand on your time, and (b) something you tend to get time off for. And the committee doesn't tell people they need to get their evidence in by Dec 24. Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- World-cup? Is that wrestling or boxing? There certainly is nothing on my TV! Of course, since 2005 I lived in a flat with no cable or satellite, and terrestrial analogue broadcasts stopped years ago around here --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- World-cup? Is that Drinking, I believe. Really, who would want boozed-up editors to post sensitive allegations while drunk, or even with a hangover? Perhaps editors should consult among themselves and pick a designated alleger. And Stephan, your commitment to shrinking your carbon footprint is commendable, simply commendable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not because of the Carbon footprint. It's because when I moved here I was to busy to get cable, and eventually I noticed how much more time I have for other stuff, and how easy it it to get a sufficient dose (or is that doze?) of TV via DSL (for non-fiction) and Amazon (for fiction). And I don't have a car because I need the exercise from cycling, and I can afford cabs, rental cars, and first-class train travel for long distances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- World-cup? Is that Drinking, I believe. Really, who would want boozed-up editors to post sensitive allegations while drunk, or even with a hangover? Perhaps editors should consult among themselves and pick a designated alleger. And Stephan, your commitment to shrinking your carbon footprint is commendable, simply commendable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- World-cup? Is that wrestling or boxing? There certainly is nothing on my TV! Of course, since 2005 I lived in a flat with no cable or satellite, and terrestrial analogue broadcasts stopped years ago around here --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- And many people are trying to fit enough work around to World Cup to keep their jobs. It's not like Christmas, which is (a) a smaller demand on your time, and (b) something you tend to get time off for. And the committee doesn't tell people they need to get their evidence in by Dec 24. Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, many people have taken time off for the World-cup, which means that at least during half-time they can post evidence here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. The question is why is *this* deadline hard, whereas earlier deadlines weren't - not why is this *case* different William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mayhaps it is possible that this case is slightly an eensy-weensy bit more potentially complex than others in the past? Might it be possible that a complex case requires more time than a simple case? Recall further that this case is an amalgam of cases as well. Collect (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- a deadline is a deadline - that was what Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Meaningless deadlines hoped to establish. In that case, we established that a deadline wasn't a deadline. Why is this one different? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Along those lines, I do intend to submit some evidence, but probably won't be ready to do so before tomorrow evening (which will be past the deadline). Will that be acceptable? MastCell 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it was my computer. I had no trouble later. So ... never mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- The deadline would only matter if I or someone else fully protected the page at the deadline, which has not and will not happen. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
how can an editor have a preferred version of an article they have never edited?
MN inquires, how can an editor have a preferred version of an article they have never edited? This is not a hard question to answer: it is in fact very easy to have preferred versions. LHVU has clearly demonstrated in his evidence here that he has preferred directions for GW even though he has never edited it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Diff for that please mark nutley (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was over on the workshop: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:LessHeard_vanU. I've struck a minor portion of the above to avoid misleading anyone else William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- All i see there is him saying the articles should be written to reflect all aspects, which would be sensible and more npov really. But how is that having a preferred version for a particular article like you have said? mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- "The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." This is a statment that the current articles are not written to his preferred version - a content position that an uninvolved admin should not be taking. Imagine, conversely, if 2over0 wrote "The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is excessive, redundant, overemphasized, frequently pigenholed, glamorized, and in some cases left without rebuttal, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." How quickly would you be calling for his head? Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- All i see there is him saying the articles should be written to reflect all aspects, which would be sensible and more npov really. But how is that having a preferred version for a particular article like you have said? mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was over on the workshop: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:LessHeard_vanU. I've struck a minor portion of the above to avoid misleading anyone else William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- 2over0 HAS written far worse like that under his former username - his pretense of being "neutral" is shattered by his actions, words and my evidence section on him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh don't be a tease: gissa diff William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, gottagettadiff. Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- 2over0 HAS written far worse like that under his former username - his pretense of being "neutral" is shattered by his actions, words and my evidence section on him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here 2over0 makes his opinion about "global warming denialism" clear - an intentionally offensive term that I know you have no problem with considering the labels you use (e.g. septics) - not only does he use that term but he makes it quite clear that such viewpoints are "illegitimate." Of course, such labels are inaccurate since most skeptics, like myself, believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it's effects are logarithmic and the only way the IPCC models work is by inventing implausible Luke Skywalker Death Star chain reaction "positive feedback" effects - in other words, they only work via divine intervention. This is one of the reasons why your ridiculous surveys prove very little - asking someone like Richard Lindzen or me if we believes CO2 is causing warming will get an affirmative response - we dispute your failed guesswork computer models that spit out the answers that you want and which are far too high (there would be no funding without an "emergency"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything particularly objectionable in that diff. It isn't even really a presentation of 2/0's opinion on climate change, but rather a plea to follow Misplaced Pages's content policies and to use the best available sources when summarizing arguments about clean coal. MastCell 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course not - you nominated him for adminship and your friendliness/defensiveness of this group is evidenced here or by going to their various talk pages. I don't think admins in this area should use offensive terms like that nor should they state such views are "illegitimate" and then pretend to be neutral - his admin actions have shown what his "neutrality" consists of. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything particularly objectionable in that diff. It isn't even really a presentation of 2/0's opinion on climate change, but rather a plea to follow Misplaced Pages's content policies and to use the best available sources when summarizing arguments about clean coal. MastCell 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here 2over0 makes his opinion about "global warming denialism" clear - an intentionally offensive term that I know you have no problem with considering the labels you use (e.g. septics) - not only does he use that term but he makes it quite clear that such viewpoints are "illegitimate." Of course, such labels are inaccurate since most skeptics, like myself, believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it's effects are logarithmic and the only way the IPCC models work is by inventing implausible Luke Skywalker Death Star chain reaction "positive feedback" effects - in other words, they only work via divine intervention. This is one of the reasons why your ridiculous surveys prove very little - asking someone like Richard Lindzen or me if we believes CO2 is causing warming will get an affirmative response - we dispute your failed guesswork computer models that spit out the answers that you want and which are far too high (there would be no funding without an "emergency"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." No that is a statement of fact, it is not saying he has a preferred version at all. This looks like mudslinging, especially as the same accusations were made before he wrote that, in the rfcu about him and on the rfe page. So lets have a diff were he says he has a preferred version of the article in question. And btw i have defended 2/0 over his handeling of the probation pages mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Err no it isn't a statement of fact. Per the evidence page, it is a statement of opinion and is incorrect. My original point remains William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As it turns out, all this is rather irrelevant, since LHVU *has* edited the page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Schulz should be debitted and topic banned for his "evidence"
He states:
"Misplaced Pages Watch, run by User: GoRight and with contributions by User:Thegoodlocust, contains explicit instructions for effective meatpuppery at ."
This is flatly untrue and a charge of this magnitude, whether intentionally or unintentionally false, demonstrates his inability to make good faith contributions in this area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- "I agree, to a certain extent, but these people are organized. There are a LOT of articles related to global warming and every time they can’t handle something they just send off an email and get instant support. Dissent needs to be focused – otherwise we divide ourselves and are conquered."
- "Correct, he finally got booted off his own article and now relegates cleaning duty to two of his biggest lackeys – Stephan Schulz and Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Sorry, but having your friends on facebook constantly editting your article is just as bad but more subtle." ibid
- "If Connolley uses others to do his dirty work because he can’t, what’s the difference?" ibid
- Any questions where my good faith went? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Masterful distraction Schulz, it is a sight to behold, but your "good faith" or lack of it, has nothing to do with your flagrant misrepresentation of the facts. However, your choice to defend such a misrepresentation confirms my initial statement - you should be debitted and topic banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Evidence by Tony Sidaway
More of an observation, really. The climate change articles are among our best coverage of science, according to science experts consulted by third parties. The science has immense political implications but then so do many other scientific questions including, perhaps surprisingly, evolution. The basics may be considered uncontroversial within the science but in some circles the science is treated like some evil voodoo. Sounds familiar?
Whatever Misplaced Pages decides now it must represent the facts as discovered by the best scientific methods available and fairly represent the vast degree to which those scientific methods support the conclusion as presented by the competent experts.
I think arguing over who should administrate and who should edit is beside the point. The way in which we should approach well founded science that faces wide political opposition has probably already been visited. We need to say we meant it. Facts matter. The rest belongs on your blog. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. The above section was intended for the evidence page but because of a bug in the browser on my telephone it ended up here. It doesn't really matter because I'm not really sure my words constitute evidence, so much as a comment. There are references to facts that I consider relevant but obviously I assume that the Committee is aware of the history of science coverage on Misplaced Pages and the resolution of conflicts arising. On all relevant facts I trust that the Committee is more than aware. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- External coverage of our climate-change articles (from reputable sources) has been favorable, if not outright sympathetic to the struggle to maintain quality content in a politically charged field:
- Nature 2005, PMID 16355169: "In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking."
- New Yorker 2006 () detailed "a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect" as an example of the ways in which Misplaced Pages fails as a reference work.
- Denver Post 2007 (): An expert "called the Misplaced Pages entry 'a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen.'" The expert also praised the topic structure (which has been much maligned in these proceedings) and the level of coverage of minoritarian views, noting that while the main articles appropriately stick to the science of climate change, "students who want to study up on the controversy... find plenty of links if they want them."
- Lindsey 2010 (): In a journal article which was generally critical of Misplaced Pages's featured-content processes, the global warming article was reviewed positively. An expert in the field "scored the article on global warming at an eight and wrote that it was 'very concise and clear', but remarked that he could tell 'it was not written by professional climate scientists' and noted an error in the way the article explained how clouds are included in climate models." Incidentally, the cloud error was addressed with the help of Cla68 and by leveraging the expertise of several other contributors (see discussion).
- That's not to say that behavioral issues should be ignored - they shouldn't. But I agree with Tony that we should be clear that the content of these articles is excellent - it has been praised repeatedly by reputable sources - and that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't want a free-fire zone, regardless of the quality of articles produced, but neither do we want to completely ignore article quality (this is, after all, an encyclopedia) in the pursuit of a Utopian model of social interaction. MastCell 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- See for example Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposed_findings_of_fact_2. The question has not been whether Misplaced Pages presents anthropogenic global warming fully and accurately. Most agree that it does. The question is rather (1) whether it has wrongly shunted reports from some reliable sources - including those presenting views that differ from what some believe is the 'scientific consensus' - from the article space and (2) whether and how the editing environment is itself problematic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- If most participants here indeed agree that we present global warming "fully and accurately", then I'm happy to drop the subject. I don't get that impression, which is why I felt compelled to list sources (and, I assume, why Tony felt compelled to make his comment). Some sources (for example, the Denver Post article) actually do address the question of whether political aspects are adequately covered. If it's not too late for evidence, I may submit some to the effect that we cover alternate viewpoints in excessive detail when compared to other respectable general-purpose reference works. I agree that the editing environment itself is problematic, and explicitly indicated that the material I presented does not directly address that issue. MastCell 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- See for example Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposed_findings_of_fact_2. The question has not been whether Misplaced Pages presents anthropogenic global warming fully and accurately. Most agree that it does. The question is rather (1) whether it has wrongly shunted reports from some reliable sources - including those presenting views that differ from what some believe is the 'scientific consensus' - from the article space and (2) whether and how the editing environment is itself problematic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- External coverage of our climate-change articles (from reputable sources) has been favorable, if not outright sympathetic to the struggle to maintain quality content in a politically charged field:
We're not here to re-argue content |
---|
|
Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- As we don't know which workshop proposals the Arbs are even considering, which of the initial framing questions they intend to deal with, nor which proposals they intend to put forward themselves, it may be a tad premature to discourage further addition of evidence when we don't know what will be relevant to the case that they ultimately decide to vote on. I think that it should be borne in mind – by the Arbitrators and by the clerks who act at their direction – that this is a rather unusual case, in that it didn't start out with a clear direction or scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The instructions say that after Evidence was closed "the drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter." I took "arbitrator workshop proposals" to mean only proposals by the arbs, so I was surprised to see the Workshop left open for community input. If anything it would seem more logical to close the Workshop to input before closing the Evidence, or close them both at the same time. But then I'm not in charge. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm back from two weeks of sand and surf and very little contact with the Internet to find that the case is apparently moving forward. Does this mean I can't present any more evidence? I do have some to present. Cla68 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also have some more, I have noticed WMC added some late evidence, does this mean we all can? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- We can certainly all try. It's up to the Arbs to read it (and up to the clerks to remove it or not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also have some more, I have noticed WMC added some late evidence, does this mean we all can? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hide Polargeo's failled attempt at humour |
---|
|
Suggest removing Marks late evidence
I think it may be worth mark withdrawing his late evidence just because it is either extremely out of date or does not show what he claims it does in any way . My comment on the MN diffs
- 3 years ago
- WMC simply removes rs tags but the reference is doubled up anyway so this is of little importance.
- 2 years ago
- PDF link of journal article and not WMC`s use his blog as a source as MN claims
- 4 years ago
- 3 years ago Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that he reverts these sources back into articles and removes rs tags make these current, not old mark nutley (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neither of the two recent diffs you present show WMC reverting a source back into an article though Mark. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Really? What`s with this then? (Undid revision 370956578 by Marknutley (talk) Nope; I'm as reliable as Pielke) Reverting out rs tags when a discussion is under way in talk is not much different now is it mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- He removed your rs tag he did not revert the source back in. The source was doubled up with another anyway. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Really? What`s with this then? (Undid revision 370956578 by Marknutley (talk) Nope; I'm as reliable as Pielke) Reverting out rs tags when a discussion is under way in talk is not much different now is it mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neither of the two recent diffs you present show WMC reverting a source back into an article though Mark. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
None of us will be interpreting this evidence for the Committee |
---|
I think the fact that people like MN are so desperate they have to try dredging up edits from 4 years ago is well worth noting, and I'm happy for the arbs to see this desperation. As PG has noted, MN has made numerous mistakes in the evidence we're discussing. This all seems of a piece with his ban on introducing new sources, which was imposed because MN had clearly demonstrated an inability to evaluate sources. So I think a partial solution would be for a FOF along those lines, and a proscription on MN on adding, removing or tagging sources (with no BLP exemption permitted, because he has demonstrably failed to understand that, too). What is very striking is that even when his errors are pointed out MN is unable to see them William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If MN's stuff doesn't go, some of this discussion should go into Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Weighing evidence is up to the committee, not up to editors telling the committee not to weigh evidence. Collect (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Mark, I have removed all of your links except the one that you could not have provided before. That is it. From this point on you are all free to slightly tweak the wording of your evidence for clarity, but if I feel that anyone has substantially altered the content or meaning of their evidence they will be reverted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by drafting arbitrators
The arbitrators thank the editors who have posted issues for consideration, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case. We are carefully reviewing everything that has been submitted.
It will not be possible for us to determine which of the issues identified by various editors can be addressed in the final decision, until we have reviewed the evidence submitted. Therefore, editors should continue to address those issues within the scope of this case that they feel should be discussed in the committee's findings and remedies. Also note, some key issues brought up in the three RFARs that resulted in this case have had little on no evidence thus far presented.
Arbitrators will be preparing a draft decision in the near future. However, some of the arbitrators will have little or no availability for the next few days because of the holiday weekend in the United States. Because of this, and because at least one editor appears to have held off on posting evidence in the expectation that we would be selecting the issues to address in advance of the evidence (and our instructions may not have been clear in this regard), the time for editors to post additional evidence or workshop proposals is extended through 1159 on Wednesday, July 7. No further extensions should be expected.
This is being posted on the evidence and workshop talk pages.
Proceed accordingly.
- For the committee's drafting arbitrators, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- You need to talk to the clerk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have reverted my late stuff back in based on this post, if i was wrong fell free to revert me mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I sent a copy of this to clerk-l and arb=-l yesterday right after posting. Also just put a note on AM's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. It has been duly noted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I put the evidence template back for you, since you neglected to restore it after removing it... would have been nice not to have to root through the history to find it when I needed it but no matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. It has been duly noted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
WMCab?
Before using section titles like that Cla should have the decency to demonstrate the existence of such a Cabal. Which will be tricky, since it doesn't exist. OR Cla could instead have the decency to refraim from such deliberately misleading "words". Remember the last big "Cabal"-er, and we don't want Cla to go that way do we? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Cla68 frequently makes such false implications against others. He did it to me on many occasions. It is not below Cla68 to assert an outright blatant lie to the arbitration committee. That is exactly what he did previously. I never stated anywhere what Cla68 falsely claims here. Bill Huffman (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another PA in the guise of discussing evidence? The committee is capable, I trust, of weighing evidence without such asides. Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider it an aside. The point is that when weighing evidence, the reliability of the source is important. If a source has tried to mislead an authority in the past then they may try to do the same thing again in the future. Here's my response to Cla68's false accusation which contains strong evidence as to the lack of veracity in Cla68's statement. Cla68 had plenty of opportunity to explain, which he never did. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another PA in the guise of discussing evidence? The committee is capable, I trust, of weighing evidence without such asides. Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the term "WMCab" supposed to mean? I've edited Misplaced Pages for five years but have never encountered the term before today. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a variation on the term "GWCab" that Cla68 uses on WR. Since one of Cla68's main concerns is the fact that WMC reverted him four years ago, he tends to see WMC as the ringleader and the rest of the "cabal" as his minions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you point to some refs on WR where Cla uses the terms? Also, why is he importing them here? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- He uses GWCab over there but not WMCab as as far as I know. So technically he's not "importing" the term from WR. Despite the honor of having a cabal named after you, don't get a big head. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest changing it to "WC Taxi's", denoting fellow riders? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correct term being fellow traveler, not imperialist automobile operator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was attempting to infer the freedom riders's... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correct term being fellow traveler, not imperialist automobile operator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68, in my opinion it would be better, on balance, if you found another term to use. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
False accusation
Cla68 states "Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who I understand has an alternate administrator account the he/she no longer uses.)" I do not have an administrator account under this or any other name. I once had administrative privileges under my previous user name, but voluntarily resigned my adminship two years ago because it stopped being enjoyable. It's quite simple to check these things, so I am mystified as to what point Cla68 is trying to make with this innuendo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I vouch for both these things. Especially the latter one about adminship not being enjoyable. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Cardamon
Cardamon is citing evidence from the CC RfE page - which AFAIK is the appropriate place to discuss issues such as an editor's lack of civility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing this. Cardamon, I must apologize if I offend you. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
James Delingpole
The James Delingpole BLP is mentioned on the evidence page; Delingpole has just published another article on it in his blog on the Telegraph website: --JN466 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- How is this even relevent? Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delingpole is an outspoken critic of AGW and Misplaced Pages takes WP:BLP violations very seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I get that. How is it relevent to this case, given that none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it - unless, of course, you think I'm Sparticus, I mean, SpaceMonkey. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the problem is bigger than the editors named here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- H has now put in an analysis-of-evidence section, which makes for rather interesting reading William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. "none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it". A very interesting observation. None of them have edited to repair the issues either. Yet they are all quite quick to criticise all and sundry for not immediately dealing with Scibaby nonsense. Which is more damaging to Misplaced Pages's reputation? Cow farts or character assasination of living folk? But since this is a skeptic, who cares? ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- None of them even knew the biography existed untill today. But look - one of them did just repair it. I agree, howerver, that Marknutletys failure to alert editors he knows are responsible dealers with BLP problems (like, for instance, me) about problematic articles that he is aware of is seriously damaging to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, what a nonsensical position. Why would anyone even notice an edit to Delingpole's article? It's certainly not on my watchlist. And why don't you, personally, fix all the problems in all BLP's on Misplaced Pages, right about now? If you can spare EUR 300,- hour, I'll do BLP patrol on your choice of articles. Until then, I edit some of the articles I have an actual interest in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we even have a template for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You guys consistently miss the salient points in your enthusiastic point scoring against your adversaries. One might think it was convenience rather than oversight. There are two points here.
- First... this BLP was a disaster, made WP look bad, and puts paid to the notion that all is rosy in article space. It's not. The science may be fine but everything else is a mess. So your stewardship (which you have asked for credit for as an excuse for your behavior) isn't cutting it.
- Second... you guys tend to raise Scibaby as a spectre and find fault with everyone for not jumping up to clean up his cowfarts. Well, the shoe's on the other foot. Scibaby isn't the real problem here. If you want to clean up cowfarts, go for it, and have fun... it's how things work here, we all work on what we want to... but stop claiming you're performing some great service when actually there are far worse problems in the space.
- Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What fascinates me here is that, had WMC edited the article, certain editors would have screamed COI!!! But if he doesn't edit it, we get this nonsense. It's simple -- if you care about an article, edit it. If you don't care, delete it. Community norms haven't stopped you in the past. But blaming others for your inaction isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That IS a fascinating theory all right. If WMC had edited it to clean up that allegation and someone accused him of COI, that might be a valid point to raise and if I were aware of it, I would have spoken in his defense. But that's not typically how WMC actually edits BLPs of skeptics, is it? He's long term banned from one already. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Along the lines of "point-scoring", I don't think it's worth continuing to flog this. I've never heard of editors being assigned collective responsibility for failing to "correct" a substandard article that they weren't even aware of and/or had never worked on. Lar, if you seriously intend to pursue that argument, then we have a number of extremely far-reaching implications to deal with across the project. Editors have always been responsible for the edits they actually make, but I'm not aware of any precedent for holding them responsible for edits that they failed to make, particularly on articles where they've never even set foot. MastCell 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Missed the points made, MastCell. (you're strawdogging me on a point I am actively not trying to make, besides). I'll repeat, and then I'm done. 1) The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point 2) Editors saying "look at us and how wonderful our edits are", it excuses acting like a prat... ought not to do that, because of #1. They also ought not to play the "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby" unless that goes both ways. It doesn't, so they ought to stop waxing eloquent about the cowfart threat. This particular BLP violation is small beer (to everyone except the person violated) unfortunately, because we have thousands more just like it and not in just this topic area. But it's a useful and instructive example. Unless one is not willing to learn from it. Done. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, I think you misunderstand the Scibaby issue. It's not "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby?" it's "Stop being difficult, I'm dealing with Scibaby." Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point - The "topic area" for this article is journalism, maybe right-wing politics. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Missed the points made, MastCell. (you're strawdogging me on a point I am actively not trying to make, besides). I'll repeat, and then I'm done. 1) The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point 2) Editors saying "look at us and how wonderful our edits are", it excuses acting like a prat... ought not to do that, because of #1. They also ought not to play the "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby" unless that goes both ways. It doesn't, so they ought to stop waxing eloquent about the cowfart threat. This particular BLP violation is small beer (to everyone except the person violated) unfortunately, because we have thousands more just like it and not in just this topic area. But it's a useful and instructive example. Unless one is not willing to learn from it. Done. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Along the lines of "point-scoring", I don't think it's worth continuing to flog this. I've never heard of editors being assigned collective responsibility for failing to "correct" a substandard article that they weren't even aware of and/or had never worked on. Lar, if you seriously intend to pursue that argument, then we have a number of extremely far-reaching implications to deal with across the project. Editors have always been responsible for the edits they actually make, but I'm not aware of any precedent for holding them responsible for edits that they failed to make, particularly on articles where they've never even set foot. MastCell 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That IS a fascinating theory all right. If WMC had edited it to clean up that allegation and someone accused him of COI, that might be a valid point to raise and if I were aware of it, I would have spoken in his defense. But that's not typically how WMC actually edits BLPs of skeptics, is it? He's long term banned from one already. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing the point Lar. The more good editors are hounded, the less likely they are to watch new, controversial articles. You still have done nothing to improve the article, but you're going on about other editors not editing the article. If you can't be bothered to fix it, you most certainly have no standing to lecture other editors about failing to fix the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But I don't edit in this topic area. (CC/GW, which this article assuredly is, although it may be other topic areas as well) You do. And further, I lecture no one. I merely say "don't claim the area's spiffy" when it is not spiffy, and say "don't use your editing prowess as a free pass". Much evidence backed by those two falsehoods needs to be discounted. And will be. Done again. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, you're demanding a unique and unreasonable standard of perfection. If you take any general topic area where our coverage has been recognized as excellent - say, the Second World War, or medicine - and then drill down to BLPs of low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole, you might find problems. That is a real problem, but it is not an indictment of all editors who work in the general topic area, nor is it evidence that the topic area's coverage is not generally high-quality. MastCell 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of which "low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole" does the WW II area have BLPs? No, the Delingpole bio, in my view, is symptomatic of a greater rot. Others have introduced evidence of how one side tends to slant bios of those they favor and those they denigrate. This isn't one of those sort, but it nevertheless puts paid to certain notions. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I find an obscure, poor-quality WWII-related BLP, will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame for any damage it may have caused? I would hope the answer is "no". If your point is that those you label a "gang" or "cadre" have violated BLP, then why not evidence that, rather than trying to shoehorn this incident - which clearly had nothing to do with the "gang" - into the narrative you favor? Again, I don't see how this low-quality, obscure BLP invalidates the work that's been done on climate-change articles, but that seems to be the case you're making. MastCell 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame"? No, because they don't all claim that their awesome l33t editing gives them a free pass to be snarky. If you introduce a "the articles in this area are teh AWESUM!!!11!!11!" behavioral defense, you deserve to get called on it if the articles aren't actually uniformly AWESUM... That's what this evidence is. Not invalidation of the good work, invalidation of the defense. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since no-one is making this argument (well, no-one does on this pages), I fail to see the value of this contribution. But I admire your knowledge of L33t. Of course, I don't think anybody but you has used that, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought several folk have been introducing evidence of how excellent the CC/GW article space is? Am I confused about that evidence? If not, and folk are actually introducing it, then, given what you say, what's the relevance of it? So what if the articles are excellent? Help me understand where you're going. I'm willing to stipulate that the lead articles are good, even great. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently. It's about the main science articles, not about an obscure conservative journalist. Climate change ≠ journalism. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You tried that one on for size already. Didn't fit. Articles can and do slot into more than one topic area, after all. StS linked to this article in previous statements so apparently he thinks the article has some relevance. So, again, what's the point of introducing evidence about how good the topic area is? That's the actual question. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you read my "previous statement" (are there "-ments where I mention the article?), you can see that I only link to that article to provide context for my evidence about the off-wiki campaign. I made no comment about the article at all, and, at that time, I only skimmed it to verify it's the right Delingpole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself, but I introduced evidence about the quality of climate-change content to address a mistaken but tenaciously held belief that these articles are an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. Numerous people assert that the climate-change articles reflect shamefully on the project; when pressed for specific examples, they usually produce a few blog posts from partisan talking heads or answer vaguely (e.g. "I do recall having read stuff like this, just not where.") But in true Misplaced Pages fashion, the misconception persists despite a lack of factual basis.
I've gotten a little tired of continually going to the record every time someone brings this up, so I wanted to centralize and catalog what sources have said on the matter. The point is to address a persistent and pernicious misconception so that this proceeding is grounded in reality. I have not asserted, nor do I plan to assert, that the quality of climate-change articles excuses inappropriate behavior or BLP violations, although that opinion seems to have been imputed to me. I do think that we can't have a nuanced discussion about the interplay of content quality and editorial environment if we can't be bothered to check our basic assumptions. Again, speaking only for myself, that was my point in introducing the evidence. MastCell 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You tried that one on for size already. Didn't fit. Articles can and do slot into more than one topic area, after all. StS linked to this article in previous statements so apparently he thinks the article has some relevance. So, again, what's the point of introducing evidence about how good the topic area is? That's the actual question. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently. It's about the main science articles, not about an obscure conservative journalist. Climate change ≠ journalism. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought several folk have been introducing evidence of how excellent the CC/GW article space is? Am I confused about that evidence? If not, and folk are actually introducing it, then, given what you say, what's the relevance of it? So what if the articles are excellent? Help me understand where you're going. I'm willing to stipulate that the lead articles are good, even great. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since no-one is making this argument (well, no-one does on this pages), I fail to see the value of this contribution. But I admire your knowledge of L33t. Of course, I don't think anybody but you has used that, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame"? No, because they don't all claim that their awesome l33t editing gives them a free pass to be snarky. If you introduce a "the articles in this area are teh AWESUM!!!11!!11!" behavioral defense, you deserve to get called on it if the articles aren't actually uniformly AWESUM... That's what this evidence is. Not invalidation of the good work, invalidation of the defense. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I find an obscure, poor-quality WWII-related BLP, will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame for any damage it may have caused? I would hope the answer is "no". If your point is that those you label a "gang" or "cadre" have violated BLP, then why not evidence that, rather than trying to shoehorn this incident - which clearly had nothing to do with the "gang" - into the narrative you favor? Again, I don't see how this low-quality, obscure BLP invalidates the work that's been done on climate-change articles, but that seems to be the case you're making. MastCell 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of which "low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole" does the WW II area have BLPs? No, the Delingpole bio, in my view, is symptomatic of a greater rot. Others have introduced evidence of how one side tends to slant bios of those they favor and those they denigrate. This isn't one of those sort, but it nevertheless puts paid to certain notions. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, you're demanding a unique and unreasonable standard of perfection. If you take any general topic area where our coverage has been recognized as excellent - say, the Second World War, or medicine - and then drill down to BLPs of low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole, you might find problems. That is a real problem, but it is not an indictment of all editors who work in the general topic area, nor is it evidence that the topic area's coverage is not generally high-quality. MastCell 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But I don't edit in this topic area. (CC/GW, which this article assuredly is, although it may be other topic areas as well) You do. And further, I lecture no one. I merely say "don't claim the area's spiffy" when it is not spiffy, and say "don't use your editing prowess as a free pass". Much evidence backed by those two falsehoods needs to be discounted. And will be. Done again. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing the point Lar. The more good editors are hounded, the less likely they are to watch new, controversial articles. You still have done nothing to improve the article, but you're going on about other editors not editing the article. If you can't be bothered to fix it, you most certainly have no standing to lecture other editors about failing to fix the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think Lar's talking rot, and failing to recognise the sort of pushing of undue weight to dubious BLP material indulged in by editors such as Cla and CoM. I've added some links to discussion of a bio which, fortunately, was under closer scrutiny. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
We're offtopic again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- How so? This is analysis of evidence is it not? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please consider your evidence more carefully, Lar. You've shown that even editors sympathetic to Dellingpole's "skeptic" agenda didn't respond to this undue weight being given to a single, albeit reliable, source. As I've noted, even an excellent editor innocently proposed a very dubious hit piece by Dellingpole, apparently unaware that it was a blog and had serious BLP problems. These things happen, and we don't all watch every new article in the broad topic area. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Analyzing evidence is one thing, analyzing each other is another. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please consider your evidence more carefully, Lar. You've shown that even editors sympathetic to Dellingpole's "skeptic" agenda didn't respond to this undue weight being given to a single, albeit reliable, source. As I've noted, even an excellent editor innocently proposed a very dubious hit piece by Dellingpole, apparently unaware that it was a blog and had serious BLP problems. These things happen, and we don't all watch every new article in the broad topic area. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is relatively restrained, but can everyone discussing this and presenting evidence please keep WP:BLP in mind, as that still applies to arbitration cases where people with articles are mentioned, as well as elsewhere. If someone could point to the discussions on how blogs like this are handled, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"The wacko diff"
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This diff has been cited multiple times (in the RFC, by Polargeo on my talk page, by WMC, 2/0, and Polargeo in their evidence sections) as an example of incivility on Lar's part. Lar provided a context to his comments (one which I had pointed out to Polargeo in May) which severely undercuts the assertions that the difference is uncivil. Polargeo (and anyone else who followed the discussion on my talk page) knew about the context in May, and anyone who read Lar's statement from Saturday should also be aware of the context, yet it is still being brought up. Why? It demonstrates nothing except that Lar has a slightly skewed sense of humor. Horologium (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you provide this context here? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can't help but point out that whenever one of his perceived adversaries shows "a slightly skewed sense of humor" Lar accuses them of snarkiness. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hipocrite--The context is that earlier in the thread to which Lar commented, WMC commented that he received the "lowest vote percentage of all of the non-wacko candidates". Lar's joke simply changed the verbiage to "highest vote total of all of the wacko candidates". Lar clearly provides the missing context in the very first section of his evidence. Horologium (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Context is indeed all. The relationship between Lar and me is not one in which he can use "wacko" at me as "humour". That should be fairly obvious. I look forward to you making comments on other perceived insults with a similarly lenient eye - or do you only hold a brief for Lar? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's obvious now. It wasn't obvious then, as my reservoir of good faith about your reasonableness and collegiality wasn't yet completely exhausted. I think it's significant how much focus this one incident gets and how little focus your many uses of derogatory terms about others get. Gnats and camels. Fortunately for you, we've had limits imposed on our evidence or the list would be well nigh endless. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Context is indeed all. The relationship between Lar and me is not one in which he can use "wacko" at me as "humour". That should be fairly obvious. I look forward to you making comments on other perceived insults with a similarly lenient eye - or do you only hold a brief for Lar? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't "hold a brief" for anyone. I have never directly interacted with Lar or with you, although I am aware of areas in which I am supportive of both of you (Lar's checkuser work, your admin actions in the truther arena), and areas in which I disagree with both of you (Lar's role in the SV/FM/JzG arbcom, your arguably CoI editing in reference to BLPs of AGW opponents here). Thank you for the lack of assumption of good faith, something which is quite endemic to this topic, and one of the reasons it's so toxic. Horologium (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- But it is odd that you pick this one issue to comment on. There are so many others which you appear to lack any interest in - for example, Lar's bizarre stuff over Delingpole. Why do you pick this one issue to commment on? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c)Because it has appeared over and over again, in the RFC, on my talk page, and in no fewer than four different evidence sections in the arbitration. I want to know why an obvious joke has been imparted with so much significance. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because it deflects attention from other more serious matters. Standard defense tactic, shoot the messenger, latch onto something minor and blow it out of proportion, or if at all possible, provoke them and then use the provocation. Cla introduced plenty of examples of that in the RfC this lot started and tried to use to take me out of the game. They'd like nothing more than to see LHVU and myself ruled out as refs, I bet. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c)Because it has appeared over and over again, in the RFC, on my talk page, and in no fewer than four different evidence sections in the arbitration. I want to know why an obvious joke has been imparted with so much significance. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect it hurt a lot more than anyone let on at the time. I saw it there and was pretty shocked, and I didn't lose an election in what might be considered a slightly humiliating fashion. I remember trying to cheer another failed candidate up, with "don't blame me, I voted for Jehochamn." I sensed he was feeling kinda down also. A bit of empathy was called for, and when people fail that empathy spectaularly, grudges result. I strongly suspect that happened here. What do you think? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- My sympathy for WMC far exceeds his sympathy for me. Let's review. He lost an election fair and square. I'm sorry for him, but he couldn't really have thought he had a chance with his record... does anyone else really think that candidacy was more than a WP:POINT exercise?. I "lost" a stewardship I'd been executing with good feedback for two years... for arbitrary and capricious reasons having little or nothing to do with the task, and everything to do with grudge letting (there was no consensus not to reconfirm, a good majority of folk and a good majority of stewards were very satisfied) in a way that was decided by folks carrying things out in a secret star chamber. No sympathy was offered, rather there was a bit of grave dancing by you lot. Oh well. WP and the WMF projects aren't fair, they're projects. But I think that you're on the wrong track here, Hipocrite, because you sound, well... hypocritical.
- Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice. That bit of background has been conveniently overlooked as well. WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists. I don't think any has been introduced yet. If there were shedfuls of it, you'd think with a day left to go there'd be plenty. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Further, I didn't vote in your stewardship, wasn't aware the stewards were up for reconfirmation, and even if I was, I wouldn't have voted either way, because, unlike many others, I don't see random flags as relevent at all. You bring it up, I guess, because the people who believe Misplaced Pages should be a vehicle for harassments campaign to have you destewarded is relevent to these proceedings, somehow - or, perhaps, because you are well aware that losing an election hurts. Of course, you now accuse "you lot," which I guess includes me as "grave dancing." I don't think I've ever commented on your stewarship or lack-thereof. I'd really like a diff of my grave dancing, but, failing that, grave dancing from any of mylot. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (after another ec) I have trouble believing that WMC's ego is so brittle that he was smarting from his loss (his electoral history IRL tends to support that view), and I don't think that it is "rubbing it in". As for Lar's role in this arbitration, I don't think that anyone involved expected this eight months out. Horologium (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (I've moved comments to make the timeline clear) Which is why I say "with 20/20 hindsight." I'm glad you assume that WMC is so stable that Stewards can show up on his talk page, which they had only previously edited to notify WMC that they were wheelwarring to have a page WMC wanted kept instead deleted, call them a whacko and he could be expected not to take it personally. As a note, most people are not that stable, so if any stewards are reading, unless you have an ongoing relationship with a user that would cause them to expect you to be showing up on their talk page making insulting jokes, just don't. That pretty much holds true for everyone - not just stewards. Of course, civility is more a "for thee, but not for me" requirement here, so feel free to not listen to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice - yes please, you do need to do this.
WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists - yes indeed I will, that is a good point. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just so everyone understands - you apologized to WMC for your unkind remark on your talk page in a section WMC had never edited. But, I guess you'll just say I'm spinning by pointing this out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, that's your spin, not mine. I said I acknowledged it wasn't a good remark. YOU are the one who jumped to conclusions about who I acknowledged it to and asked for diffs that don't exist. As an aside, it's rather late to apologise to WMC now, unfortunately.... if I thought it would do any good I would, though. But none of that is actually relevant. The actual spin here (from your side) is that I flubbed up, and that somehow excuses WMC's much more egregious flubs. Right. You guys keep pounding me with this... because it's way easier to do than try to defend WMC... I admit fault and then it can be used. He doesn't or if he does, it's not all that often. Carry on. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, Lar, the spin from me is that you flubbed up, and an admin flubbing up in their adminly duties is serious, and needs to be dealt with seriously. It's only you who believes that you and WMC can't both flub up - that it's either one or the other that needs to be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are no perfect admins. There are no perfect people, for that matter. Sorry to break it to you. What matters here is not perfection, but how far from the mark one is, and whether one has the introspection to acknowledge where one could improve. This case is primarily, or should be, about the topic area and what a hash it is, and about the editors who edit in the area, and what a hash they've made of things. Not primarily about me. You're engaging in diversionary tactics, and you should focus on what's important. This messenger shooting isn't it. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, Lar, the spin from me is that you flubbed up, and an admin flubbing up in their adminly duties is serious, and needs to be dealt with seriously. It's only you who believes that you and WMC can't both flub up - that it's either one or the other that needs to be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, that's your spin, not mine. I said I acknowledged it wasn't a good remark. YOU are the one who jumped to conclusions about who I acknowledged it to and asked for diffs that don't exist. As an aside, it's rather late to apologise to WMC now, unfortunately.... if I thought it would do any good I would, though. But none of that is actually relevant. The actual spin here (from your side) is that I flubbed up, and that somehow excuses WMC's much more egregious flubs. Right. You guys keep pounding me with this... because it's way easier to do than try to defend WMC... I admit fault and then it can be used. He doesn't or if he does, it's not all that often. Carry on. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just so everyone understands - you apologized to WMC for your unkind remark on your talk page in a section WMC had never edited. But, I guess you'll just say I'm spinning by pointing this out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, Horologium - my entire reason for even mentioning that overdiscussed situation is that that diff is really not very useful for making the point it is cited to support. I think that the point itself may be valid, though (emphasis on my uncertainty - it is worth investigating in this context, but not something I am going to bother myself about). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That didn't parse for me, I am afraid. Do you think this incident is significant in the larger context? Do you think those making much of it are doing so appropriately? Do you think there are more important things to focus on in this case? Do you think that this incident proves my supposed bias? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that on the face of it that is innocuous jocu-Lar comment, of the sort that is good for community-building when everybody is on the same wavelength. I do not think that it shows what it is being described as showing; if you made that comment *now* I might worry, but to the best of my knowledge you had no way of predicting later acrimony. I think that there is a reasonable case to be made without using questionable diffs that you may have some degree of bias related to the content or editors in this area. Having worked with you extensively at WP:GSCCRE, it is my considered opinion that you consistently strive for fairness, and your biases have developed based on your experiences adminning the area rather than being preconceived. I am humble enough, though, to acknowledge that what I see as bias might be entirely rational conclusions, or conversely that my own lack of preconceptions may have coloured my perceptions of yours.
- Mostly, as a confessed pedant, it just bothered me to bad evidence being used where good evidence may exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think. :) And you, a pedant? I had no idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That didn't parse for me, I am afraid. Do you think this incident is significant in the larger context? Do you think those making much of it are doing so appropriately? Do you think there are more important things to focus on in this case? Do you think that this incident proves my supposed bias? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, Horologium - my entire reason for even mentioning that overdiscussed situation is that that diff is really not very useful for making the point it is cited to support. I think that the point itself may be valid, though (emphasis on my uncertainty - it is worth investigating in this context, but not something I am going to bother myself about). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Hipocrite, if you have evidence of you apologizing to any of the people you've made gratuitous digs against, that too would be nice for arbitrators to see. To get an idea of who you'd be apologizing to, see my section of the evidence page. Single instances should tend to be of little importance to ArbCom, patterns of bad behavior should be of a lot of interest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As JohnWBarber says, what arbs are looking for is long-term patterns or egregious problems, not single or isolated instances of poor judgment. The amount of talk above over a single diff in evidence and its context is illuminating but long overdone. I would recommend that more time be spent on developing and discussing other evidence. There is quite enough now related to this set of evidence for arbs to review. Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's been pretty foreboding sifting through the 30-some-odd pages of archives to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, and some of the 'sections' I've written take this into account by stating something to the effect that "here is the easiest example to find, there are others." If it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling me if you want me to find those other examples or if those included are 'enough'? It will be a frustrating couple hours, but I'm willing to do it if that's what it will take to get something done about the issues I've raised. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage.. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a rule, one example per person or article is not enough. Three to five would at least begin to establish a pattern in my mind (though other arbs may have different thresholds for that) and I also look for the timescale as well, as scattered diffs over years can indicate a low-level problem that can be excused, or a long-running one that can't be excused (it depends), and several diffs over a few months can also indicate a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair, though frustrating. I won't be able to add anything before the 'deadline' (I'm taking a break from a party to write this). But I get the impression you'll ask for further evidence at a later date. If your next step includes a "please give me evidence you say you have of x" it'd be well received.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a rule, one example per person or article is not enough. Three to five would at least begin to establish a pattern in my mind (though other arbs may have different thresholds for that) and I also look for the timescale as well, as scattered diffs over years can indicate a low-level problem that can be excused, or a long-running one that can't be excused (it depends), and several diffs over a few months can also indicate a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's been pretty foreboding sifting through the 30-some-odd pages of archives to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, and some of the 'sections' I've written take this into account by stating something to the effect that "here is the easiest example to find, there are others." If it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling me if you want me to find those other examples or if those included are 'enough'? It will be a frustrating couple hours, but I'm willing to do it if that's what it will take to get something done about the issues I've raised. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage.. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. - done. I look forward to Lar's retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. I would have put this inline, right below where I asserted it, but someone hatted the discussion I think. Whoever hatted can move it up there if they want So yes... I acknowledge you've provided not just one, but four different links to where you used the word "apologize" (well, actually, "apologise", since this is a UK/US variant spelling). One from 2006(!) and one to BozMo about something trivial while arguing with him about the rest of the matter at hand. Those two aren't too impressive. The one to Hipocrite, though... that's actually a pretty significant one. As is the one to Hans Adler. You could have skipped the first two I mentioned, as in that one you're admitting you erred about something substantial. Bravo. I was wrong. You are willing to apologise. I am sorry I misjudged you. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hatted the discussion because it was veering into farce. Far too much attention is being paid to a single incident, ending up with people challenging each other to find diffs of where they apologised to other people. As I said above, there is other evidence that would benefit more from discussion. Also, some of the above comments come across (intentionally or not) as sarcastic, so people might want to bear that in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The wacko comment is just one of many diffs that shows Lar had a hostility to WMC before CC probation began. At the time of the wacko comment Lar had already tried to delete one of WMC's user pages. Let us not debate over one single edit but over whether Lar's previous non-admin interactions with WMC really allow Lar's "uninvolved admin" calls for WMC to be banned. I strongly believe they do not allow this and that Lar has not applied the necessary restrictions on his behaviour necessitating that others apply these restrictions. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hatted the discussion because it was veering into farce. Far too much attention is being paid to a single incident, ending up with people challenging each other to find diffs of where they apologised to other people. As I said above, there is other evidence that would benefit more from discussion. Also, some of the above comments come across (intentionally or not) as sarcastic, so people might want to bear that in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Deadlines?
I thought we had a deadline for posting evidence? Is it as meaningless as all the other deadlines? Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be. I followed the deadline, fool that I am. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it was intended to be end of day today but I could be mistaken. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Statement_by_drafting_arbitrators I see it says "11:59" which on quick read meant end of day to me at the time... but on a more careful read, noting the lack of an AM/PM indication (and thus meaning a 24 hour clock and thus one minute before noon) or a timezone indication (thus meaning UTC by default, I think) yes. It's expired. By the way: I don't think the tone you guys take is very helpful/collegial. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's my mistake, being an American and not used to a 24-hour clock. Make it 2359. Or even 23:59:59 if you like. In any time zone of the posting party's choosing.
- The point of deadlines is not to have deadlines for the sake of having deadlines. It's to facilitate a resolution of the case. In the past, the arbitrators have been criticized, sometimes fairly, for taking much too long to resolve disputes, so we want to aim for this one to be addressed in a sensible time-span. I'm back from my trip today and will be rolling up my sleeves tonight and getting into the evidence, and I know the other drafters are as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. In a case as complex as this one I sometimes wonder if it is realistic to expect the arbs to read all the evidence in detail and click on every diff. In this regard note Cla68 is using a tactic he has employed in other settings, which is to put his best diffs first and then bulk up the list with a large number of marginally relevant or irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whew! Had me scared there for a minute. I'd read it as a minute before "midnight", though I should know better. I plan to cut down my verbiage later, just trying to squeeze in the diffs now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've got one more section to add before the 24-hour clock rolls over. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Am I right in assuming the deadline is 23:59 UTC today (July 7)? SlimVirgin 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The official statement by Brad is "In any time zone of the posting party's choosing." - that gives you (or me) another 12 hours or so (it's to late to consider the effect of DST here). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Link to Samoa time just so you don't miss the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good. We can always use samoa evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Such trivialities have no place here. Puns may be enjoyable for young people, but most of us have groan out of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only a Boris unlikely to like 'em. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought it was midnight Greenwich time. I'll add some more evidence. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, have to admit I'm stumped -- I don't see the pun there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought it was midnight Greenwich time. I'll add some more evidence. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only a Boris unlikely to like 'em. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Such trivialities have no place here. Puns may be enjoyable for young people, but most of us have groan out of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good. We can always use samoa evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Link to Samoa time just so you don't miss the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The official statement by Brad is "In any time zone of the posting party's choosing." - that gives you (or me) another 12 hours or so (it's to late to consider the effect of DST here). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Am I right in assuming the deadline is 23:59 UTC today (July 7)? SlimVirgin 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The point is not to forbid further submission of evidence or require rushed submissions to meet a deadline, but to allow a breathing space for arbitrators to consider the evidence submitted so far, and to respect that by asking the drafting arbitrators (I'm not one of them) if you want to submit further evidence or modify the evidence submitted so far. There is nothing more annoying than reviewing a set of evidence to then find it has been changed or added to. If there are substantial chunks of evidence that anyone feels they need to submit after this deadline, again, ask the drafting arbitrators and wait for a reply. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would you all like to see more evidence of abuse of and POV editing in BLPs of warming contrarians? It is so pervasive and has gone on for so long that it would take more time to present it all. Cla68 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I could add something about inappropriate BLP editing by focusing on the Fred Singer article, but I don't want to if it's not needed. SlimVirgin 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 specifically cited BLPs of "contrarians." Does that mean individuals adhering to the consensus view have no right to BLP protection? Consider for example AQFN's characterization of CRU scientists as "criminals" in the absence of any conviction (or even trial). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Contrarians" evidently means, according to what I've seen while compiling evidence, anyone who WMC or RealClimate appears to disagree with. That doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a human-caused-global-warming skeptic. It could be, for example, someone who supports the human-caused theory to some degree, but may find fault with the hockey team's research. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're dodging the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- See my evidence, second source. That should explain the meaning of "contrarian". Peer-reviewed social science article. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Contrarians" evidently means, according to what I've seen while compiling evidence, anyone who WMC or RealClimate appears to disagree with. That doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a human-caused-global-warming skeptic. It could be, for example, someone who supports the human-caused theory to some degree, but may find fault with the hockey team's research. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 specifically cited BLPs of "contrarians." Does that mean individuals adhering to the consensus view have no right to BLP protection? Consider for example AQFN's characterization of CRU scientists as "criminals" in the absence of any conviction (or even trial). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I could add something about inappropriate BLP editing by focusing on the Fred Singer article, but I don't want to if it's not needed. SlimVirgin 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Evidence limits
Does anyone (arbs, clerks) care about evidence limits at all? By my count, Cla is up to 3k, JWB at 2.3k. Boris User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration reckons the arbs barely read the evidence anyway so it may be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a large case, and there is a tension. When people hew to the limits it leads to "but that was an isolated incident" sorts of characterizations. When they don't, then there are complaints about length. I suppose someone could find some other people to take on parts of Cla's evidence under their names, thus hewing to the letter of the restriction, if not the spirit. That seems a bad idea, though. Personally, the more evidence from Cla, the better, as his evidence is high quality, and damning. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you like damning evidence. How unbiased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's certainly better than irrelevant evidence, isn't it? Exonerating evidence is always nice too, though. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you like damning evidence. How unbiased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the excess text in those sections are explaining or quoting the diffs provided. That's explicitly what the drafters requested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear: 3k of evidence when the limit is 1k is just fine by you and arbcomm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Short answer: yes. Long answer: it is more important that evidence is comprehensible, rather than a particular length. It can take longer to read a barrage of diffs with little attached commentary, than it can to read a few diffs clearly explained. If I had had more time, I would have tried to point out which bits of evidence I found easier to read, and encouraged those presenting evidence to adopt the clearest possible style. It shouldn't be too much of a problem in this case, as three arbs are drafting, but I would hope that any arbitrator that struggles to understand someone's evidence would leave a note asking for clarification. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear: 3k of evidence when the limit is 1k is just fine by you and arbcomm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
More time for analysis of evidence?
I think that, if anything, more time is needed for editors to evaluate the "evidence" (scare quotes intentional) that has already been given. Allegation is not proof, and much of the so-called evidence consists of unsubstantiated accusations, prettied up by diffs that, I've found, don't even come close to supporting the underlying accusations. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rolling "deadlines" have been a fiasco. May as well cut it off right now as any time. Agreed on the proof by repeated assertion and bulking-up with irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any deadline for analysis-of-evidence? I'd assumed that after the evidence deadline (if there ever is one) there would be, say, a week for analysis. Having the analysis deadline the same as the evidence one would be really weird William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Given the volume of diffs thrown out there, many at the last moment, it's not fair for the deadlines to be the same. Some of the diffs reach back years. To find the version of Climate change referenced in a discussion back in 2006 that Cla68 cited, I had to go back through pages upon pages of article history, which took a fair amount of time even at 500 per page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Analysis should be ongoing, as it may take some time for arbs to go through the evidence presented so far (see also what Brad said below at 21:54, 8 July 2010). There are short cuts that can be used to get to a particular date or period in the page history. Use the year and month options in the page history to find a particular month. Use the date parameters in the URLs to find a particular day or time (you can narrow this down to each second if needed). So if you have the timestamp of the discussion, it should be relatively eassy to see what the page looked like at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Given the volume of diffs thrown out there, many at the last moment, it's not fair for the deadlines to be the same. Some of the diffs reach back years. To find the version of Climate change referenced in a discussion back in 2006 that Cla68 cited, I had to go back through pages upon pages of article history, which took a fair amount of time even at 500 per page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any deadline for analysis-of-evidence? I'd assumed that after the evidence deadline (if there ever is one) there would be, say, a week for analysis. Having the analysis deadline the same as the evidence one would be really weird William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to discard any evidence sections (or polemic masquerading as such) which are not explicitly referred to by any workshop findings. I know that SlimVirgin's statement would fall into that category; there may be quite a bit more. One of the (many) problems in the Abd-WMC arbitration was massive 'evidence' submissions that never actually made it into any proposed findings. While we haven't approached that case's epic level of chaff here, pruning of unused or irrelevant material could still be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that would be premature. I have been taking a look at SV's contribution, and if she does not suggest some findings and proposed remedies of her own, I might take a crack at it. Her section does not contain an exhaustive list of diffs, but looks at some of the underlying dispute, which is a great deal deeper than most of the "he's been mean/he's been stupid/he's too involved/my way or the highway" whinging which permeates a lot of the diffs here. (added after Lar's comment) I'm not referring to the e-mail incident, I am referring to the whole sourcing issue which the bulk of her evidence discusses. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- SV's evidence, I believe, requires some institutional knowledge of past arbitration regarding a group which was sometimes referred to as the "Intelligent Design Cabal." Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that would be premature. I have been taking a look at SV's contribution, and if she does not suggest some findings and proposed remedies of her own, I might take a crack at it. Her section does not contain an exhaustive list of diffs, but looks at some of the underlying dispute, which is a great deal deeper than most of the "he's been mean/he's been stupid/he's too involved/my way or the highway" whinging which permeates a lot of the diffs here. (added after Lar's comment) I'm not referring to the e-mail incident, I am referring to the whole sourcing issue which the bulk of her evidence discusses. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- No deadline was given for analysis but I've assumed that it would be welcome for some time to come, it's a give and take process... certainly until just before the arbs start drafting the proposed decision, if not later. Just my guess, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Holologium, I hadn't thought of suggesting specific remedies, because there's so much for the Arbs to read, I kind of assumed they wouldn't want any. But if I were going to suggest anything it would be that they reaffirm the spirit of the NPOV policy, and perhaps also that they ask the community to examine whether the policy's current wording lends itself to misuse. That was why I posted the statement, to pull some of the focus onto what I see as the essence of the problem. I probably won't be back online until tomorrow (my time), but I'll try to come up with some wording then for a finding or remedy. SlimVirgin 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the proposal page (I will admit that I have not been following it all that closely), I see that some of the topics I wanted to address have already have been suggested by others, with the sort of unhelpful language that makes me throw up my hands in disgust. The science may have a preponderance of support for one theory over another, but the politics have not been settled, and the politics are a huge part of the issue. Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus, regardless of the credentials of the person arguing against the consensus. I will be going back to ignoring this topic, because it is irretrievably broken, like any political topic on Misplaced Pages. We have people who have a severe conflict of interest guarding the henhouse, and the culture of Misplaced Pages cannot effectively deal with this issue without tearing the project apart. Horologium (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Holologium, I hadn't thought of suggesting specific remedies, because there's so much for the Arbs to read, I kind of assumed they wouldn't want any. But if I were going to suggest anything it would be that they reaffirm the spirit of the NPOV policy, and perhaps also that they ask the community to examine whether the policy's current wording lends itself to misuse. That was why I posted the statement, to pull some of the focus onto what I see as the essence of the problem. I probably won't be back online until tomorrow (my time), but I'll try to come up with some wording then for a finding or remedy. SlimVirgin 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that if everyone who feels as you do walks away in disgust, there won't be anyone left to present that perspective. SlimVirgin 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus. You're wrong, as shown by the evidence page. But if you have any evidence that says otherwise it would be a good idea to present it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, I thought several points of my evidence demonstrated how much obstructionism occurs when any biting criticism is added to the articles. As I've said before, even on the articles/sections that deal with AGW skepticism there is a tendency to cull the most damning criticisms and instead set up straw men that you can knock down easily - rarely, if ever, presenting the counterarguments to your straw men. It must be nice being able to set up your opponents arguments and then "thrash" them with your brilliance - I've never been one to play chess games with myself since I rather like improving my game. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not obviously. I've just had another look and I can't see any relevant section headers. Could you point out you "best diff" or two that shows up this problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, I thought several points of my evidence demonstrated how much obstructionism occurs when any biting criticism is added to the articles. As I've said before, even on the articles/sections that deal with AGW skepticism there is a tendency to cull the most damning criticisms and instead set up straw men that you can knock down easily - rarely, if ever, presenting the counterarguments to your straw men. It must be nice being able to set up your opponents arguments and then "thrash" them with your brilliance - I've never been one to play chess games with myself since I rather like improving my game. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obvious to outside eyes, I admit some of the evidence is a bit thick and it is hard to wade through such a mire to see patterns, but I suppose I could just show the pre-Arbcom article edits of Kim (seems to be trying to avoid sanction by staying so quiet right now), Schulz and yourself and let the pattern speak for itself, noting slightly there are many more "reversions" that aren't labeled as such in the edit summaries. The fact of the matter is that the majority of your groups contributions consist of removing other people's content - which is indeed obstructionism. I'm sure you have a good excuse for it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was hoping for something more specific. But I took the first diff in the first list and it seems perfectly acceptable: as it says in the edit summary: it removes non-scientific opinion from an article about scientific opinion. Continuing, the first from Stephan adds, rather than removes, information, so I don't think you have done your homework properly. Even you can't claim that is censoring stuff, can you? And my first takes out some really dodgy stuff sourced to Sciencedaily. In any case it has nothing to do with "controversy". Do you really have nothing better? I think your mistake is trying to scatter-shot stuff: you need to pick out some actual diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh this gave me a good chuckle. I show you a pattern and you cherrypick some specifics, I show specifics in my evidence page and you all cry out that you are all are generally "fantastic content contributors." Nevertheless, my evidence page speaks for itself, but clearly not everyone is capable of listening - otherwise we wouldn't be here. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was hoping for something more specific. But I took the first diff in the first list and it seems perfectly acceptable: as it says in the edit summary: it removes non-scientific opinion from an article about scientific opinion. Continuing, the first from Stephan adds, rather than removes, information, so I don't think you have done your homework properly. Even you can't claim that is censoring stuff, can you? And my first takes out some really dodgy stuff sourced to Sciencedaily. In any case it has nothing to do with "controversy". Do you really have nothing better? I think your mistake is trying to scatter-shot stuff: you need to pick out some actual diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obvious to outside eyes, I admit some of the evidence is a bit thick and it is hard to wade through such a mire to see patterns, but I suppose I could just show the pre-Arbcom article edits of Kim (seems to be trying to avoid sanction by staying so quiet right now), Schulz and yourself and let the pattern speak for itself, noting slightly there are many more "reversions" that aren't labeled as such in the edit summaries. The fact of the matter is that the majority of your groups contributions consist of removing other people's content - which is indeed obstructionism. I'm sure you have a good excuse for it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I am reading through the case pages in detail and so are the other drafters. The deadlines are guidelines for when evidence and other submissions needed to be submitted to make sure we read everything. If someone adds additional evidence or proposals now, the problem is not that they are "past the deadline"; it is that if I've already read that section or that page, I'm likely to miss it. We'll probably read the analysis of evidence section last, and additional cogent analysis will probably be helpful to everyone, although reiteration for the umpteenth time of points alrady made will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that. If you can provide some kind of cut-off point for analysis it would be helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"Archive" the present evidence?
Why not create a subpage for all the presented evidence to a date/time of approx. now, and once that is done continue adding evidence on this page? Any archived evidence being worked upon can be transferred to the live page. Arbs can then read the subpage, then declare a moratorium on presentation of fresh evidence effective in 24 hours and then read the newer evidence page. That way Arbs can review without potential disruption, and evidence can continue to be gathered until a definitive deadline is announced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Better to just enforce the evidence deadline instead and avoid the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a better idea: strikethrough all mentions of deadlines on the Evidence and Workshop pages, as they are only creating confusion. Then all the effort being spent trying to figure out what the deadlines mean could be devoted to something substantive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Archiving would mess up links from the Workshop. If a page for "new" evidence is to be set it, that should be done on a subpage. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It sure would. A page for new evidence makes a bit more sense. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea, but probably best for now to stick to analysing the current evidence and letting arbitrators review the evidence presented so far. As I said before, if you think more evidence is needed, that can be discussed, but it is important to have this pause to allow everyone participating to absorb/digest/understand the evidence presented so far. That will help to focus the case and avoid wasted effort. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- My invitation to present more evidence of BLP abuses is still open. I pointed out one avenue in my evidence section for the Committee members to find much of it for themselves, but if you all would rather someone collate more of it for you, please let me/us know. Cla68 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea, but probably best for now to stick to analysing the current evidence and letting arbitrators review the evidence presented so far. As I said before, if you think more evidence is needed, that can be discussed, but it is important to have this pause to allow everyone participating to absorb/digest/understand the evidence presented so far. That will help to focus the case and avoid wasted effort. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Correction to my evidence section
I just realized that I erred in my evidence section and have corrected it. I forgot that it was 2/0 who asked for assistance from the BLPN forum about the Lawrence Solomon article, not me. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I had just protected the article to interrupt an edit war that included an invocation of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. The Wrong Version in this case was the version that included the questionably sourced material. I did not think that the seriousness of the issue merited the potential chilling effects of invoking the BLP-hammer, but I requested that the good volunteers at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Lawrence Solomon take a look as a check on my judgment. Also, thanks for the correction, Cla68, I had forgotten that issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One other note, I was just made aware of this article, started by SBHB on June 15 two days after this case opened. Guettarda has also helped out with it. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Outside view
This isn't discussion of evidence, these are proposed findings of fact or remedies; You are welcome to submit Workshop proposals if you would like. |
---|
I have not edited any of the articles or talk pages. Ive never participated in sny of the disciplinary discussions, and any interaction I've had with any involved editor has been incidental and unrelated. I have basically no interest in the subject of global warming and no opinion on the science. I discovered this corner of Misplaced Pages quite by accident. ^^ The fact that I found it necessary to make such a disclaimer before making a substantive comment should be revealing to anyone considering the outcome of this process. The environment is beyond hostile. The social dynamics is more akin to that portrayed in "Lord of the Flies." This is a Misplaced Pages embarrassment of gigantic proportion. Having said that, here are the observations from an outsider (and I'm certain I will be eviscerated for stating it so bluntly): 1. There's a cabal on both sides and it's quite easy for outsiders to find the bright line that separates each side. The AGW cabal is more cohesive and coordinated because they have a very clear figurehead in William M. Connolley. I doubt Connolley has to canvass at all or rally the troups -- at this juncture, the cheerleading is automatic and reflexive. The AGW cabal is generally much nastier and tenacious. That fact is borne out by a quick perusal of the subject articles which remain disproportionately biased in tone and content in favor of the AGW POV. 2. "Scientific consensus" is a misnomer used to describe the majority view. There are enough notable experts who are skeptical of the AGW science that it is intellectually dishonest to say there's a consensus. As such, it is equally dishonest to refer to the growing minority view as a "fringe view." The phrase "scientific consensus" is being used as a weapon to silence notable alternative views and that needs to stop. The two camps should be referred to as "majority view" and "alternate view" or something equally benign. 3. BLP treatment, especially by AGW POV-ers, is absolutely abhorrent. It is difficult to believe that this has been tolerated for so long. Part of the problem is that CC issues are insulated from the larger Misplaced Pages community and disciplinary discussions and enforcement actions are self-contained. Any request for sanctions, BLP discussions, probation enforcenents etc should be exposed to the whole community as prominently as AN/I so that the commuity may enforce its collective will. Having kept this area isolated, it has developed its own code of conduct and its own set of content and behavioral rules that absolutely would not be tolerated in the wider Misplaced Pages community. 4. William M. Conolley appears to be one of the most disruptive forces Misplaced Pages has ever seen. This subject area has become his playground in derogation of all that Misplaced Pages stands for. The amount of human hours devoted to dealing with his behavior and the natural consequences of his behavior is staggering! His contributions are not so valuable that he should be allowed to continue. Sanctions against him are ignored. He is a bully and I would imagine even other admins are afraid to cross him. In my opinion, if Connolley is removed, most of the existing problems will be resolved without the need for special probations and arbitrations because without his influence other editors will settle down into more reasonable behavior. 5. Although sockpuppetry has been a plague, it is a predictable and natural result of being unfairly silenced and bullied. Remove the oppression in the environment here and the sockpuppet problem will likewise resolve itself. Minor4th • talk 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
|
IP Editors not welcome?
Watts up with that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NPA ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:16? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:17 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:18 TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, fine: I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to. The point remains that just because you may agree with the IP doesn't make his/her actions okay. It was insulting and the very definition of a throw-away post, and your attempt to legitimize what for many editors is a blockable offense serves no purpose. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:18 TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:17 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Galatians 4:16? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, you are perfectly welcome to collapse and delete things to your heart's content. That isn't what I'd do, but it doesn't really matter. Personally I find Stephan's claim that the blog I contribute at is telling people to be meat/sockpuppets to be an outrageous lie, but I don't think his claims should be deleted - I want people to measure his honesty themselves. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Add Climatic Research Unit documents controversy to your watchlist?
I was thinking. Is it too much to ask that arbitrators (or at least >/=1 arbitrator) follow events at Climatic Research Unit documents controversy and its associated talkpage? Since it's arguably the most contentious article I think that would be fruitful, and would probably give them a better idea of "what's going on" than would the painstakingly gathered sections of diffs you see on the evidence section. There's still plenty enough ongoing drama for this to be worthwhile, it seems to me. No worries if the answer to the second question of this sentence is "no." Just thought I'd ask.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear arbitrators
There were a lot of requests that evidence show not just an isolated incident but a longterm pattern of disruptive editing. I've been lazy about sifting through the 30 or so archive pages, but since I was roughly doing so for another editor anyway, and since I was looking for more of the same kind of editing I brought to your attention here, and over the exact same section, but much older, I figured I'd post it. It was deleted by Amory here, and reasonably I think. He suggested that I ask the arbitrators about it before adding it so it doesn't confuse or frustrate any of you. That's kind of what I'm doing here. No worries if you'd rather I abstain, and no worries if you want me to bring further examples to your attention. I can do either. I'd like to add this too, as a recent indication that Dave souza, even after the evidence raised in this arbcom case, refuses to respect WP:V (see further discussion of the same content here, this time with Hipocrite advocating for the rejection of WP:V).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- This section of your evidence complements mine nicely - core wikipedia policy like WP:Verify is routinely ignored in order to POV push. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikilawyering evidence
Extended content |
---|
I have really tried to avoid adding new evidence past the deadline in this case. But a recent dispute is such a good example of the wikilawyering that goes on around this topic area I thought I should bring it up here. I, and several other editors, have tried to use a book, which appears to meet our criteria as a reliable source, in an article, without success. We did not add new text to the article, just a citation, but the source was removed anyway . I filed an enforcement request over what I felt was a clear violation of our policies and guidelines, but the responding admins classified it as a content dispute and declined to intervene. A debate took place on the talk page for the article and at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) . The opposing editors then edit warred to remove favorable information from the article on the book itself . The removal of this content is not supported by policy, IMO, as discussed on the talk page. I believe that this is a clear example of tendentious and POV editing by WMC's group. The book is published by an independent publisher who does not appear to have a bad repuation on fact checking, the book does not promote a "fringe" theory (the hockey stick is very controversial, including two papers disputing the graph published in peer reviewed scientific journals by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, hearings before the US Congress in which geoscientist Gerald North and statistician Edward Wegman presented reports criticizing the research (note this and removal of RS, this is probably an acceptable edit) and other criticisms which aren't included presently in the hockey stick controversy article. The book has been informally recommended by climatologist Judith Curry and used as a source in two academic papers , one of which was signed by climate change scientist Mike Hulme. The opinions of uninvolved editors at the RSN differed, but generally appeared to endorse at least limited use of the book although other opinions differed to varying degrees, both pro and con . What concerns me is the intractability of the editors in question to even discuss using the book as a source for uncontroversial information. They have made it clear that they will continue to do so in the future with books which haven't even been released yet. In response to a post of mine at the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article in which I said that I was looking forward to more books coming out on the subject in the future, Tony Sideaway and ChrisO responded by clearly stating that they would not allow books to be used that gave views that they don't agree with . In other words, they're making it clear in advance that they plan on barring any book, yet sight unseen, which presents a view that they consider "fringe" or "psuedoscience." Their definition of what constitutes "fringe" as related to climate change appears to me, based on what I've observed, to mean an opinion which differs with theirs, no matter how well the published opinion complies with our RS guidelines. As my example above illustrates with the Illusion book, even if it is shown that the book has been used as a source in one or more academic papers, they still will fight it. I don't think this is a very reasonable attitude and is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages's culture of editing which requires a willingness and ability to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I doubt that any arbcom members have read over the evidence yet, unless the drafting arbcom member (who I think is newyorkbrad for this case) is presently preparing proposed decisions to vote on. Once the drafting arbcom member posts proposed decisions, then typically other arbcom members will read over the evidence and vote. I could be wrong though but that is the impression I got, combined with an educated guess of what happens. The worst that can happen by adding late evidence is that some arbcom members won't read it. There is no point and it could be seen to be disruptive to add evidence after proposed decisions have been posted on the proposed decision page. ArbCom members are welcome to correct me if I am wrong and even trout slap me but only if necessary. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
|
This page is not for introducing evidence without technically introducing evidence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess this page is for us to argue over evidence already presented. I'll copy it over to the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, technically it's for us to discuss. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed - discussing, not arguing. The point is not to provide a loophole to introducing evidence. As requested, ask here if you should be posting evidence so the arbs can respond. You did that above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I told Rlevse on his talk page that I was doing this. I guess I should have asked first. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- My view is that the new evidence is really nothing new at all. (My attempt to turn a phrase. :-) ) It is but another example of what appears to be a root cause problem in this case. One side, in a good faith effort, wants to push a fringe theory. When other people with more expertise in the area say, "no that is undue weight" then there are accusations of wikilawyering, delaying tactics, violations of wp:V, edit warring, POV pushing etc.. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a good observation. As for this whole dispute, it is a content issue being misportrayed as editor behavior, which itself is "wikilawyering". ScottyBerg (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- My view is that the new evidence is really nothing new at all. (My attempt to turn a phrase. :-) ) It is but another example of what appears to be a root cause problem in this case. One side, in a good faith effort, wants to push a fringe theory. When other people with more expertise in the area say, "no that is undue weight" then there are accusations of wikilawyering, delaying tactics, violations of wp:V, edit warring, POV pushing etc.. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an analysis of evidence section on the workshop page. That is the place to discuss evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Robert Watson (scientist) edit war - evidence extension
This article was the subject of an edit war today by several parties on the Climate change arg case. Hipocrite reported it on the talk pages of Rlevse, Risker, and Newyorkbrad. I've prot'd the article for a week and am looking into it. This sort of behavior by several parties to an arb case on a BLP topic is part of the arb case is most disappointing. Therefore, it is okay to post evidence and workshop proposals on this one issue, the edit war, and evidence directly pertinent thereto, as well as directly related workshop proposals. Be advised the drafting arbs are planning to post the PD on Sunday, probably in the evening, eastern US time. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be an accurate summary of what took place. Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oversimplified and fails to note that "get the refs and formatting right" refers to blatantly defamatory material unsupported by the references. This summary is more complete and accurate. . dave souza, talk 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is excellent work. Tks. — Dog The Teddy Bear • • 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks indeed for that table. What WMC removed was actually a BLP violation (as well as a textbook case of SYN). --JN466 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- And it would have been nice if he'd said that at the time, perhaps avoiding this whole conflict. ATren (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it was clearly a BLP violation is obvious to any editor with a basic understanding of the science and the BLP policy. The fact that a significant number of editors apparently either didn't get this or didn't care does not show them in a good light, to say the least. (My own reaction, as an uninvolved editor, was "what the hell are they thinking?") I fully expect this episode to result in strong sanctions against several of the editors involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it was not at all obvious. At quick glance it looked like any other well-sourced criticism that WMC commonly removes. He should have identified the issues -- he's required to do so, in fact. This does not completely absolve those who restored it impulsively, but it does exemplify the underlying distrust between editors, which has been building through years of abrasiveness. ATren (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. It was clearly a piece of synthesis arguing a conclusion that put the subject in a bad light (falsely, as it turned out). Even if you knew nothing about the science, the fact that it was synthesis is obvious - it's a textbook example of an "A+B=C" synthesis. You are right that it exemplifies the underlying distrust but in this case the distrust went one way. WMC made the editorially correct decision, but because it was WMC who removed that addition, his detractors reflexively started reverting - basically, I think, to spite him. That is a very unhelpful dynamic and deserves strong sanctions against the people responsible. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The distrust is due to years of WMC (and others) making these kinds of reverts without comment, even when not justified in policy. And spite? Really? You think that's what this is about? This is an incredible example of assuming bad faith.
- It comes back to this: why didn't he simply say "BLP" or "SYN"? Even after that first editor reverted, WMC still held back his reasons. Why? He finally did explain his reasoning as SYN (not mentioning BLP), but only after the war was raging. This again goes back to the ownership issue on these articles: WMC doesn't feel he has to explain his actions. It's like a parent telling a child "because I said so", and it's been happening on these articles for years, and that kind of behavior instigates reflexive reverts like we see here. Now, to be clear, I've stated plainly that the reverts were bad, and in fact I've expressed support for a topic ban against MN because of impulsive edits like this. But there are underlying issues as well that can't be ignored. ATren (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. It was clearly a piece of synthesis arguing a conclusion that put the subject in a bad light (falsely, as it turned out). Even if you knew nothing about the science, the fact that it was synthesis is obvious - it's a textbook example of an "A+B=C" synthesis. You are right that it exemplifies the underlying distrust but in this case the distrust went one way. WMC made the editorially correct decision, but because it was WMC who removed that addition, his detractors reflexively started reverting - basically, I think, to spite him. That is a very unhelpful dynamic and deserves strong sanctions against the people responsible. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with ChrisO's assessment. It was obvious calumny. That should have been apparent to anyone competent to edit the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It appeared to me to be obvious vandelism. An attempt to smear the BLP subject in the article. ChrisO's conclusion looks reasonable to me. WMC revert was apparently undone to harrass WMC. This idea that wp:AGF is not reasonably possible is an interesting assertion. I think it may be one of the key issues that ArbCom will have to be deciding on if not ruling on. My uninvolved view is that WMC has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. He's a subject matter expert in a very complicated field. He does not go out of his way to be diplomatic but I don't consider many of his responses rude even though they are described as rude by the other "faction". I think part of the reason for this is the soccer analogy that I read elsewhere. In soccer they sometimes flop down when touched by an opponent, in an attempt to draw a call from the ref. It was a good analogy and I think explains much of what may be going on here. (Sorry, I should give credit for this great analogy but I have forgotten who made it.) Bill Huffman (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it was not at all obvious. At quick glance it looked like any other well-sourced criticism that WMC commonly removes. He should have identified the issues -- he's required to do so, in fact. This does not completely absolve those who restored it impulsively, but it does exemplify the underlying distrust between editors, which has been building through years of abrasiveness. ATren (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it was clearly a BLP violation is obvious to any editor with a basic understanding of the science and the BLP policy. The fact that a significant number of editors apparently either didn't get this or didn't care does not show them in a good light, to say the least. (My own reaction, as an uninvolved editor, was "what the hell are they thinking?") I fully expect this episode to result in strong sanctions against several of the editors involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- And it would have been nice if he'd said that at the time, perhaps avoiding this whole conflict. ATren (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oversimplified and fails to note that "get the refs and formatting right" refers to blatantly defamatory material unsupported by the references. This summary is more complete and accurate. . dave souza, talk 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- A newbie is unlikely to understand Misplaced Pages's complicated rules on WP:BLP, WP:SYS or the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and the appropriate uses of each. Even now, there's quite a lengthy discussion going on elsewhere on Misplaced Pages between some very experienced editors on the difference between primary and secondary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was Mastcell's wonderful analogy. I used the wrong term, Flop (basketball) and Diving (football) Bill Huffman (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a shot in the dark, but does anyone want to check to see if the IP, 211.28.194.74, whose edits started the edit war, is an open proxy? Cardamon (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- It`s in Cheltenham, Victoria OZ mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, but I was wondering if the IP might possibly be an open proxy Cardamon (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've had a look and I don't think it is. It's probably a dynamically assigned IP. That's not to say that the host machine might not have been compromised in some way, but there's none of the usual indicators of an open proxy. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was on an open network given the position. Does anyone here live in Victoria? Do the local parks have open networks? mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've had a look and I don't think it is. It's probably a dynamically assigned IP. That's not to say that the host machine might not have been compromised in some way, but there's none of the usual indicators of an open proxy. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, but I was wondering if the IP might possibly be an open proxy Cardamon (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It`s in Cheltenham, Victoria OZ mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Another BLP issue: Christopher Monckton
Those who expressed concerns about the above BLP issue might be interested in this one. Someone restored an unpublished critique of Monckton's climate change position , Marknutley reverted , WMC reverted Mark , and I reverted WMC . WMC started a discussion on talk, where I detailed the apparently straightforward reasoning that this was self-published. But despite this, several editors have fought to include this controversial claim: see this section. The source in question is only published on the professor's website (unpublished) and has been so contentious that Monckton has threatened legal action (see the extend of the hostility from both sides of the debate, here - Google search result).
The claim that this is non-controversial enough to be included in a BLP cited to an unpublished source is completely unsupportable in BLP policy, but even so it has spurred a huge debate on the talk page from those who wish to include (mainly, KDP). This kind of wikilawyering happens constantly on skeptic BLPs, where unpublished controversial material is pushed into the article by a few editors. And it's happening again, during the arbitration. ATren (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Intriguing. Since the source meets WP:SPS and is noted only as having presented a mainstream response to the good Lord's works, not a commentary on the individual, it's very dubious if this is a BLP issue any more than it would be in an article analysing denialist presentations. The article has well established that Monckton is out of line with scientific views, and this provides an informative example. A journalist at the MinnPost has noted the story, so perhaps that's a better source. Monckton's initial response has been covered by Monbiot in a publication meeting WP:BLPSPS, so Monbiot's opinion can be summarised carefully in the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it can not. That entire piece by monbiot is an blp breach, it is nothing but an attack piece. mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is the kind of splitting of hairs that occurs regularly here. This was a posting by a professor on his university webpage, a post devoted to criticizing Monckton's views and which was never published, a post so controversial that Monckton has threatened legal action against the professor, and it was used as a source in Monckton's BLP -- this is considered acceptable per BLP to these editors. ATren (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Monckton has threatened (which is not the first time), and the University has responded, via their lawyers, that this is a regular part of academic discourse - with the counter-claim that he (Monckton) should cease and desist in making ad-hominem attacks, or they will sue. Disagreeing with someone isn't libel (Abraham) - attacking persons on the other hand is (Monckton). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- And he has responded back, they reached for the lawyers as soon as the bad publicity hit them. No surprises there really mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they did... If you do not ask your lawyers when you are threatened with a suit - then you are foolish. But this is all something for the talk-page - not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your right, it is for the talk page, but it should not have been. It stuns me that you have kept three editors arguing with you for hours over this, content which is obviously undue and not fit for a blp. mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they did... If you do not ask your lawyers when you are threatened with a suit - then you are foolish. But this is all something for the talk-page - not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, the whole point is that this material is contentious and unpublished! That Monckton is willing to sue over it is clearly evidence of the former, and we already know the latter. The fact that we are still debating this point reveals the underlying problem in this topic area: that what would be a simple revert on the rest of Misplaced Pages, is endlessly drawn out with hair-splitting argumentative wikilawyering here. ATren (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to file an enforcement request on it. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP by WMC and Kim. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is on the University site, written by an expert on the topic, with the University stamp on it, and the University has stated that it won't take it down, since this is part of regular academic discourse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unpublished. That's all that needs to be said about it, and you should know this. ATren (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dave souza has apparently provided some reliable sources. Why is the article not being complemented with these new sources instead of making accusations like wikilawyering? Is this not just another exhibition of inability to assume good faith? Or is it another example of Flop (basketball) and Diving (football) in front of the refs (ArbCom) to try to get a call? Bill Huffman (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, i think that ATren acts in good faith. While he may be assumíng bad faith, i think he is entirely honest to his views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't assume bad faith of you either, Kim. I just don't agree with your arguments. ATren (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, i think that ATren acts in good faith. While he may be assumíng bad faith, i think he is entirely honest to his views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dave souza has apparently provided some reliable sources. Why is the article not being complemented with these new sources instead of making accusations like wikilawyering? Is this not just another exhibition of inability to assume good faith? Or is it another example of Flop (basketball) and Diving (football) in front of the refs (ArbCom) to try to get a call? Bill Huffman (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unpublished. That's all that needs to be said about it, and you should know this. ATren (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- And he has responded back, they reached for the lawyers as soon as the bad publicity hit them. No surprises there really mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Monckton has threatened (which is not the first time), and the University has responded, via their lawyers, that this is a regular part of academic discourse - with the counter-claim that he (Monckton) should cease and desist in making ad-hominem attacks, or they will sue. Disagreeing with someone isn't libel (Abraham) - attacking persons on the other hand is (Monckton). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is the kind of splitting of hairs that occurs regularly here. This was a posting by a professor on his university webpage, a post devoted to criticizing Monckton's views and which was never published, a post so controversial that Monckton has threatened legal action against the professor, and it was used as a source in Monckton's BLP -- this is considered acceptable per BLP to these editors. ATren (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know this probably isn't necessary to say, but the BLP policy is written as it is to prevent this very thing, which is to keep BLPs from being subject to additions from unsubstantiated, single sources. There should be no tolerance at all shown for this kind of behavior. It violates not just Misplaced Pages's policies, but general human ethical norms as well. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was clearly a BLP violation as inserted and defended. The BLP policy is clear - contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources is to be removed immediately. It was a self-published source that is obviously contentious, and should have been removed. This is a textbook example of BLP, without any need for spliting hairs or nuance. GregJackP Boomer! 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Violation of WP:BLPSPS. Not as bad as in the Watson article perhaps, but still a clear BLP vio. --JN466 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Various CC editors have been repeatedly uncivil; express no agreement or desire to improve
I want WMC and other editors here to get due process as is their right. however, I'm concerned by the number of editors who disingenuously assert that there is no conduct issue here whatsoever, every time this issue is brought up; this is even after they are repeatedly asked to explain and improve their conduct towards others. This includes WMC, and other similarly-aligned editors.
I used to edit Israeli-Palestinian articles frequently. the way we achieved resolution there was by continual WP:Compromise and flexibility, and most importantly, repeated use of WP:AGF; not by wearing down editors of other viewpoints until they went away.
I am posting my comments here mainly because I want to make sure these issues and concerns are addressed, and are not summarily dismissed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. As an long time student in the deal making arts, these skills are necessary to move articles forward. The most significant part of my formal training in negotiations, was journaling to help better recognize and control my own conduct in the face of dispute. The best alternative to negotiation should avoid blocks and bans. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- What did ZP just say? Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It took me two passes, but he said that he likes to write things down in a journal because this helps him in his ability to negotiate with others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It took me two passes, but he said that he likes to write things down in a journal because this helps him in his ability to negotiate with others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- What did ZP just say? Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Continued disruption since the evidence deadline
I would like to submit evidence for recent disruptive activity that has occurred since the evidence deadline, mainly from WMC, Hipocrite and Polargeo. WMC has made suspect edits on three different skeptic BLPs, while Hipocrite and Polargeo have been pointy and disruptive (example: ). I realize proposed decisions are imminent, but all of these activities support and enhance workshop proposals, so I think they are relevant. ATren (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- My pointy disruption was admitting I made a mistake and owning up to it? If only everyone was as pointy and disruptive as I was. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You admitted it was pointy! See the link. ATren (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- And apologized. String me up! Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You call this, "Honestly, I probably shouldn't have posted my pointy recusal in the uninvovled admins section - just moved both of your pointy recusals up. For that I apologize - for the pointy recusal, not for the move-up." an apology? Perhaps you can apologize to Lar for his low IQ in your gracious "did you beat your wife today?" style of apology. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- And apologized. String me up! Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You admitted it was pointy! See the link. ATren (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou ATren. This is related to a case involving Lar that I had already informed the three drafting arbiters of. It does appear that Lar has been incorrect to comment as uninvolved. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am really disappointed by your actions here Polargeo, while before I didn't think you should be desysoped and defended you as simply being misguided, now I can no longer honestly defend your behavior. As for Schulz, his gaming enforcement request against Lar should cover the last bit of wood that was still visible on the coffin - he needs to be de-toothed and topic banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Today's flare up
- Admin Stephan Schulz files an RfE against Lar.
- Admin Lar recuses himself from RfE.
- Admin Polargeo recuses himself.
- User Hipocrite pointedly recuses himself. Hipocrite is not an admin.
- Admin The Wordsmith suggests speedy closing.
- Admin BozMo supports speedy close.
- Admin CIreland
speedilycloses. - Admin Polargeo reverts even though he's already recused himself from the RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support other admin decisions but not your rather trivial representation of them though. This is the normal out of context I'll get you banned whatever it takes sort of stuff that has to be dealt with on a day to day basis. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would use the adjective "speedy" as it has an additional unwanted connotation that the request was in bad faith. I'd also add that if this were an arbitration enforcement request, the time-frame would not have been thought unusual; requests are best not left to fester. Polargeo's reversion was an incidental hiccup of, in my purely personal opinion, no lasting significance. CIreland (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support other admin decisions but not your rather trivial representation of them though. This is the normal out of context I'll get you banned whatever it takes sort of stuff that has to be dealt with on a day to day basis. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo: I could be wrong on this, but to the best of my recollection, I don't believe that I've interacted with you at all during this entire arbitration case, and certainly not on a "day to day basis" as you suggest. However, if you can provide evidence that I've been trying to "get you banned whatever it takes sort of stuff", then I think you should present it for the Arbitration Committee to examine. This way they can determine the credibility of your assertions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to request a motion
To the Arbitration Committee: As the relevant pages are closed presently I am seeking permission to Request a Motion, that there is a moratorium on any party editing any page relating to Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming who has significantly either participated or been subject to complaints about within this case - with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism and socking (broadly interpreted), and also the Probation enforcement request page and its talkpage, and any talkpage of such parties in respect of these issues. If possible, I should like my request for permission to Request a Motion above to be adopted as the request for expediency's sake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Rather a big list, including you and I, but it may well have come to that. For what duration, though? The sooner that ArbCom starts posting the proposed decision and opens up comment on it, the better, I think. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Until the case closes - the world will not stop (not) warming up, and the interested parties outside of WP will not stop their efforts either. The articles can wait until we know what is appropriate editing and behaviour and what is not... because the interactions that lead to this case are still very much apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar, that the only way to probably stop future wars is to get a decision up and passed. Otherwise, like one of the old cartoons, we'd plug one hole, and another one pops open (for example, when the evidence pages closed, people took the arguments to unrelated areas, such as the Checkuser Block discussion on WT:AC/N. I know the decision is being worked on, and being smoothed out, and I urge editors to be patient.
- Let me use a (possibly overstretched) metaphor here. All us ants (editors and administrators) are working on building the best possible anthill (encyclopedia). Right now, quite a few ants are under the harsh glare of a magnifying glass in the sunlight (this Arb case). The LAST thing ants should be wanting to do is focusing that glare upon themselves (editwarring WHILE a case focused on editwarring is going on). ((NOTE: I am recused on this case, but wanted to speak up on this, as I am following the case.)) SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The best thing is if all editors involved didn't behave in a manner that resulted in three separate RFARs resulting in a combined arb case and then edit warring twice in one week on top of that. But as it is, the behavior that resulted in this case opening obviously shows no sign of abating and only slows the PD being posted, which we are close to doing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let me use a (possibly overstretched) metaphor here. All us ants (editors and administrators) are working on building the best possible anthill (encyclopedia). Right now, quite a few ants are under the harsh glare of a magnifying glass in the sunlight (this Arb case). The LAST thing ants should be wanting to do is focusing that glare upon themselves (editwarring WHILE a case focused on editwarring is going on). ((NOTE: I am recused on this case, but wanted to speak up on this, as I am following the case.)) SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the recent points of contention, I think BLPs and probation enforcement pages (including talk) would be enough for now. It could always be extended if problems move to other articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Looking" at the recent points of contention? Weren't you the direct source of the last one with your filing of the RfE against Lar? Very ballsy Stephan....Anyway, I don't think there should be any topic/article ban - the more rope the better. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I see the source in Lar's abuse of the uninvolved admins section, but I don't expect us to agree there. But note that wether you take your (wrong) or my (right) point of view, the limited lock-down would have stopped this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, it would certainly make everyone's lives easer if there was a temporary ban. On the other hand, keeping them open is giving ArbCom real-time data about who's being disruptive and who's trying to get along. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I see the source in Lar's abuse of the uninvolved admins section, but I don't expect us to agree there. But note that wether you take your (wrong) or my (right) point of view, the limited lock-down would have stopped this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the main case page is says, under a bullet point, "Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior." I don't think we can close down enforcement while the potential for Probation violations exist. Since enforcement is pretty hamstrung now, it seems better to just stop editing any page which is a potential issue. My view would be that it includes all article and article talk pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Looking" at the recent points of contention? Weren't you the direct source of the last one with your filing of the RfE against Lar? Very ballsy Stephan....Anyway, I don't think there should be any topic/article ban - the more rope the better. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- support LVHU's request for emergency motion, and support the substance of the proposal in full and to the fullest extent possible. I would even suggest a lockdown on CC articles, talk pages, enforcement discussions for a period of one week or such other period as ArbCom deems necessary to bring the conflict to an end. Full protection of the entire topic, talk pages and enforcement pages. Minor4th 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support per reasons above. The drama needs to stop. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- While it would be nice for the drama to stop, remember that that is only our secondary concern. Our primary concern is writing a good encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean we have to do it today, this instant, and it is hard to write a good encyclopedia when you are dealing with needless drama. GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to write a good encyclopaedia. Full stop. I hope it does not need the drama, but we have very few data points. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean we have to do it today, this instant, and it is hard to write a good encyclopedia when you are dealing with needless drama. GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- While it would be nice for the drama to stop, remember that that is only our secondary concern. Our primary concern is writing a good encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Must be doomsday).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- oppose pointless and unthinking. Stopping people edting global warming because of a conflict elsehwere makes no sense at all. Nothing hamstrings the current RFE process, it can still operate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I must oppose this. The global warming articles have been singled out as among the most excellent on Misplaced Pages, and this is in no small part due to the excellent editors who have been attracted to them and who have contributed overwhelmingly to their content (we know who they are, it's no secret). To stop them editing without reason now would be wrong, whatever the eventual decision of the committee. --TS 21:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Most excellent on wikipedia" eh? Are you guys going to pull out that study by WMC's colleague at Real Climate, David Archer, in order to "prove" that? Repeating in unison that they are excellent articles does not make it so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- This would seem to be an excellent way to ensure that the only edits to the articles will be made by sockpuppets and by inexperienced editors recruited from blogs. Not sure that this would be an improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Due to this ChrisO had already agreed on the talk page that this was grossly undue, yet puts it into this BLP even though all the discussion on the talk page was against it. And an RFE was brought about it. Christ Almighty, this has to stop mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Don't look now but they are actively warring again, as we speak - ban em all. Weakopedia (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and i am on a 1r probation as well, but tell me, am i wrong? Chris0had already said this was grossly undue, yet inserts it anyway. Anything which can make a sceptic look bad, bung it in. mark nutley (talk)
- Oppose – While I support the sentiment, the effort needed to get it right—who has edited significantly; all CC or only CC BLP; is “obvious vandalism” different than “vandalism” and don’t roll your eyes, that distinction is directly relevant to one of the recent incidents—will take more time and effort than is appropriate for what may be relevant for only a short time. --SPhilbrickT 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - In addition, time for Zero Revert sanctions. The addiction to slap someone with a revert must be broken by having repeatedly troublesome editor(s) talk and convince others without PA. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overly broad, and definition of affected editors is vague. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Another edit war
How about we block only the editors who are currently edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP?
- MN reverts.
- WMC reverts.
- ATren reverts.
- ChrisO rewrites and readds section.
- MN reverts.
- WMC reverts
- MN reverts.
- ChrisO reverts.
- MN reverts.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mark is on 1RR - so i'm really surprised at seeing him do this.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I rewrote the section following the suggestions of BozMo and NuclearWarfare, both experienced admins who have a good idea of BLP issues. I have reverted once. That isn't edit-warring. Marknutley's three reversions while on a 1RR probation rule are rather more difficult to justify though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- KDP: I think that Mark is claiming a BLP violation excemption. Without commenting on the merits of any BLP violations, editors shouldn't be restoring contentious material in a BLP without reaching concensus on the talk page or at WP:BLPN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding of the original dispute was that editors objected to the sourcing, which they thought was inadequate, and the wording, which they thought was POV. I rewrote the section to remove the contentious material and change the sourcing completely. Now Marknutley is claiming a BLP exemption on entirely different grounds. Moving the goalposts isn't helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not really a fan of Monckton, but I don't think it is appropriate to add a self-published source from someone and uncritically repeat his claim that he "rebutted all of Monckton's claims" - especially when Monckton has provided his own response to that "rebuttal" - even if the source is acceptable then it'd be better to say that so-and-so claims to have rebutted all of Monkcton's claims and then include Monckton's response to Abraham . TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I removed that claim and the source and replaced them with more neutral language and reliable sourcing (note that a blog is likewise a self-published source - wattsupwiththat.com is not usable), as you can see from this edit. Sadly this still isn't good enough for Marknutley. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's definitely better, but there are still some problems. Noticeably, it says Monckton wants $110k, when my understanding is that the sum would go to a Haitan charity of Monckton's choice. Also, while Abraham's critique has details, and is still worded in a way to imply it is fact (still sourced to a blog too btw); Monckton's response is not described in any detail, nor the fact (?) that Abraham apparently redid his lecture and removed some 10 minutes of material in response to Monckton's defense. Honestly though, I'm not even sure if it should be in the article since it is essentially only covered by various bloggers - not really notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was constrained by what was in the reliable sources that BozMo and NuclearWarfare identified. Monckton's response isn't described in any detail in those sources, nor is Abraham's editing of his lecture. I would have liked to have included more material but couldn't since I can't source it reliably. If there are reliable sources that expand on those I used, I wouldn't have any objection to adding them. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's definitely better, but there are still some problems. Noticeably, it says Monckton wants $110k, when my understanding is that the sum would go to a Haitan charity of Monckton's choice. Also, while Abraham's critique has details, and is still worded in a way to imply it is fact (still sourced to a blog too btw); Monckton's response is not described in any detail, nor the fact (?) that Abraham apparently redid his lecture and removed some 10 minutes of material in response to Monckton's defense. Honestly though, I'm not even sure if it should be in the article since it is essentially only covered by various bloggers - not really notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I removed that claim and the source and replaced them with more neutral language and reliable sourcing (note that a blog is likewise a self-published source - wattsupwiththat.com is not usable), as you can see from this edit. Sadly this still isn't good enough for Marknutley. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well that's the problem with detailing non-notable events - they aren't covered by newspapers. It doesn't seem fair that Abraham, because it is easy for him and other pro-AGW guys to get blog-space at the Guardian, to have the only "legitimate" source for inclusion in wikipedia. Anyway, the $110k to charity is actually in Monckton's rebuttal (page 84). Also, I object to describing Monckton's only defense as accusing Abraham of "malice" - that seems to be only one of bullet points and certainly not the main one - I'd say the most notable defense (as covered in several blogs) is that Abraham said Monckton said things he did not - and then attacked the straw man arguments he himself had setup. Also, since all the sources are blogs, which not only mention but link to Abraham's old and new presentations then I don't see why that fact shouldn't be included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ChrisO: This is not about content, this is about conduct. All I see are a bunch editors edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP. Whether the content is BLP violation is really beside the point. As far as I can see, no consensus has been reached. You're an experienced editor and should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understood it, the dispute was over whether the material should be sourced and worded in a particular way, not about whether it should be in the article at all. It's not reasonable for Marknutley or anyone else to start edit-warring on a different premise after someone's made a good-faith attempt to fix the sourcing and wording problems that others identified. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- ChrisO: This is not about content, this is about conduct. All I see are a bunch editors edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP. Whether the content is BLP violation is really beside the point. As far as I can see, no consensus has been reached. You're an experienced editor and should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support temporarily topic banning all the involved parties, including me, until this case closes. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Why exactly is MN the only person blocked? The faction got enough noses to turn up so no one violated 1RR except him? MN knows better and really needs to not let himself get baited here, but he's not the only bad guy. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- What faction? Who got "noses to turn up"? Who was "baiting" MN? Insinuations like this are pure fantasy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- What if everybody just did as Rlevse said initially and stopped acting in the ways that got us to this point? If your goal is to make this place better, than sit tight, follow Risker's advice to relax, and look forward to the impending resolution. If your goal is anything else, why be here? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- So, ChrisO, you would like to claim that there are no factions here? No battleground mentality? Pull the other one. This proposed decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither evidence nor productive |
---|
|
- Huh? -- Great question Lar. WMC violated his editing restriction a couple of days ago by reverting without explanation on Watson. Now he's been edit warring for two days on Monckton but nutley gets blocked for 24 hours and nothing for Connolley? Is this because every time an admin takes action against Connolley they get harassed and called "involved" and there are calls for them to be desysopped? This is a very fine representation of exactly what has been going on in these articles for years. This is why the articles are for the most part biased in favor of the Connolley POV. It's oppressive to deal with the gamesmanship and filibustering and circling of the wagons. There's actually an atmosphere of fear in here and that should obviously never be the case in a collaborative project. Are all admins either in support of Connolley or afraid they'll be sanctioned or harassed or desysopped if they sanction Connolley? Minor4th 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. WMC has been sanctioned on several occasions, as a glance at this page's archives will show you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Silly? Really? Any number of admins reading this know good and well that WMC has been edit warring for two days and actually did violate his edit restriction this week, and that's not even touching his persistent incivility. Do you wonder why no one has taken action? Take a look at the RfE against Lar that was started this morning in retaliation for him merely making a comment against WMC and KDP. You think that doesn't have a chilling effect on other admins? He's been sanctioned but not nearly as often as he's earned it. And how many blocks? I'm sure you recall that when he was blocked it was overturned within an hour by another admin. He just ignores his other sanctions because he knows he won't get blocked, and if he does another admin will unblock him. No, I don't think it's silly at all, and I'm guessing that most who read this don't either. Minor4th 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Moot. Article has been fully protected. Unclear if editors identified have been warring. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Full protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Because apparently people can't stop themselves from edit warring, even during an Arbitration case. I am doing this despite my recusal in this case because this does not touch specifically upon the grounds upon which I recused. I did not check the article, I do not have a preferred version, so that should settle that. Hopefully by the time the protection expires people will have it in their heads that edit-warring during an ArbCom case for editwarring is spectacularly dumb. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also suggest that any of the usual parties in this case cease edit-warring on any articles for the foreseeable future. Even if you do it for the most noble of purposes, don't. If you're wondering "Does that mean me when he says "the usual parties".. assume I did. This is not giving first movers any advantage, however if they're taking advantage of this to slant an article to their side, let the clerks know and let them take care of it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you clarify those instructions a bit? As it reads now, your statement seems to be empowering the clerks to make decisions about article content — which seems to be way, way beyond their usual scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it was either empower the clerks to deal with article slanting (which they won't necessarily do.. they have the option of just noting the content, and letting the Committee know so they can build it into their decision), or have everyone given ollie ollie oxen free to add whatever they want to the article and have it stay in there for god knows however long until this case ends, because we've forbidden editwarring (even really BRD at this point).
- It's a point with a purpose.. if it's bad enough that you feel it has to come out NOW, that doesn't mean go ahead and do it.. but let other people judge it. What's happened time and time again here is that parties are using policies such as BLP etcetera to do something they really shouldn't (edit-war while this case is going on). Kinda like "I know you said we shouldn't do it, but it was REALLY REALLY important." SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I'm still very uncomfortable with both the principle and the effect. A single Arbitrator (and one who is recused, at that), is instructing the clerks to implement what amounts to a zero-revert parole and empowering them to judge content disputes. This sort of authority seems to be far beyond the normal role of the arbitration clerks; indeed, it may brush against the limitations of the ArbCom as a whole. Further, this remedy is being enacted without a motion (and without any visible discussion) by the voting arbs on the case. By giving direct instructions to the clerks (phrased as a 'suggestion' or not), you are stepping far over the bounds of appropriate conduct for a recused arbitrator.
- While I know that the hope is that this remedy will avoid giving a first-mover advantage (or otherwise unbalance the situation further), I fear that the effect will be far from this ideal. I also am greatly concerned that this action represents a serious expansion of the authority of individual arbitrators without community approval, and should be withdrawn on that basis as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It might be better just to temporarily topic ban all the parties, but I don't have any problem with SirFozzie's instructions to let the clerk remove "first mover" edits of contentious material. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line: If the users on BOTH sides of this would BEHAVE, SirFozzie wouldn't have felt compelled to try to stop the THIRD edit war in less than a week -- which is also the SECOND in 24 hours. Therefore, I'm telling the clerks to clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides. And yes, this is being discussed on arb-l but the edit wars are breaking out faster than arbs can respond. If any editors can't shape up post haste, as far as I'm concerned the clerks and other unvolved admins can take any measures necessary to put these fires out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hyperbole aside, what is the urgent matter that compels the Arbcom to ignore its own rules and procedures? The article where the edit war was taking place has been protected for seven days, a process which deals with the immediate problem and gives all involved individuals breathing room. (And which doesn't require ArbCom involvement.) Additionally, one individual with a history of edit-warring has been blocked for twenty-four hours for violating his 1RR parole. (A process which also doesn't require ArbCom involvement.) Things are quiet, at least for now. Misplaced Pages is not burning down.
- A recused Arbitrator should not be giving instructions to clerks about how to enforce and resolve content disputes. No Arbitrator should be enacting remedies in a dispute without allowing for discussion and passing an open motion. Period. I have asked SirFozzie to withdraw his instructions and go through proper channels, but I am very concerned that Rlevse is now jumping on the bandwagon. Parties to the case can be forgiven for having no idea who has enacted what rules, who might enforce them, or what the hell is going on here.
- You guys are arbitrators. You can propose, discuss, debate, and pass motions. Individually and independently threatening, yelling, and issuing orders to clerks on this talk page is a misuse of your office, and likely to inflame and confuse rather than calm and clarify. I appreciate what both SirFozzie and Rlevse are trying to accomplish here, and I sympathize with their opinions, but the way that they are going about it is counterproductive — and sets a dangerous precedent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a middle route? I agree that the recent edit wars are unacceptable (and really stupid). Would it be a better idea to temporarily modify the existing CC probation for a period to impose a 1RR on the topic area until the arbitration is completed? Violations of 1RR are easy to spot and don't require extensive wrangling, and they can be dealt with under the existing probation arrangements. The clerks do not need to be involved with enforcement, since the probation admins are perfectly capable of doing this. I've personally been following a voluntary, self-imposed 1RR for some time now but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to make this a formal requirement for all editors in the topic area for a limited time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrators: Would a blanket 1RR, BLP violations not excepted help for the next week? NW (Talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a middle route? I agree that the recent edit wars are unacceptable (and really stupid). Would it be a better idea to temporarily modify the existing CC probation for a period to impose a 1RR on the topic area until the arbitration is completed? Violations of 1RR are easy to spot and don't require extensive wrangling, and they can be dealt with under the existing probation arrangements. The clerks do not need to be involved with enforcement, since the probation admins are perfectly capable of doing this. I've personally been following a voluntary, self-imposed 1RR for some time now but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to make this a formal requirement for all editors in the topic area for a limited time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weren't most of the people involved already under 1rr? Did WMC's expire? I know KDP narrowly avoided such a sanction in the past, but I'm not sure if he had one imposed on him later. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, i haven't had such a sanction. You seem to be referring to this, where a 1RR was on the table, but with only Lar arguing for it. But of course it had the same effect, since i've been on a personal 1RR ever since (which i've managed to keep, with 1 or 2 exceptions). I do take critique seriously, and i do adhere to warnings. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weren't most of the people involved already under 1rr? Did WMC's expire? I know KDP narrowly avoided such a sanction in the past, but I'm not sure if he had one imposed on him later. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- It also says that if you participate in any future edit war then you'll be subjected to similar (1rr) sanctions. I suppose that leads to two interesting follow-up questions:
- 1) How many edit wars have you participated in since then?
- 2) How many times has 2over0 followed through and imposed 1rr on you?
- Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Blanket 1RR won't solve this if the factions (or those that turn up) are different sizes. Whoever musters more bodies onto the battlefield wins. The solution is to break the power of the factions. Starting with the more powerful one. Which I am confident ArbCom is going to do, frankly. So maybe just chill for a week. One more BLP abused (out of thousands) for one more week (out of years that there have been problems) isn't going to be the end of the world. Or go with 0RR. ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, Lar, this is nonsense. This isn't about "factions". Nobody "mustered" people. You seem to think that there is some kind of behind-the-scenes organisation directing the shots. If there is one, I've never seen it. When I rewrote the disputed content to fix the problems that people had identified, I did that of my own accord. When WMC subsequently reverted MN, I didn't ask him to do so, nor did he or anyone else ask me to revert MN subsequently. I very much doubt that anyone asked MN to do his reverts. This is nothing more than people seeing changes on their watchlists and responding. There's no need to hint at some kind of conspiracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Factionalism doesn't require any sort of behind the scenes coordination. Just watchlists. No other communication at all. Read WP:BATTLEFIELD. Again, ChrisO... you want to suggest there aren't any factions? Pull the other one. You're dreaming if you think people will continue to believe denial at this point. It's just a matter of time now. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- You said, "Whoever musters more bodies onto the battlefield wins. The solution is to break the power of the factions. Starting with the more powerful one." That seems to imply there is mustering behind the scenes. It also itself would seem to demonstrate a battleground attitude. Also seeming to target what would seem to be your most obvious target, WMC. I suggest that the proper way to look at this case is that the solution is to re-establish an atmosphere of wp:AGF, trust, and acceptance that the best way to build the encyclopedia is as a team. No factions, a team, a team made up of people with different ideas and different thoughts, both skeptics and AGW supporters on the same team with the same goal of building an encyclopedia. Language such as the "musters more bodies onto the battlefield" only fosters the battleground attitude further. Sure ArbCom may have to sanction some. I guarantee that it will not be described by ArbCom in terms of "break the power". I suggest that this kind of language needs to stop and if one isn't part of the solution then one is part of the problem. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is the same nonsense Lar has pushed all along. Assuming the so-called factions are mere "confluences", is it really a problem, or remotely surprising, that the one supporting the scientific opinion on climate change (you know, the one with all the scientists and scientific organisations and national academies and published papers) is "stronger" than the one that runs several external web sites doing nothing but fuelling the Misplaced Pages conflict? I would think its a good thing that the wikipedia community is resilient enough to maintain a reasonable (if not perfect) coverage of a topic area against fringe views. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- "All" the scientists? I'm frankly not surprised at such hyperbole and I think I'm in extremely good company. It makes me wonder though, WMC et all have been the Kings and Popes of these articles for nearly a decade now, and many scientists not in the field very likely come here to learn about the subject and which websites to go to - they've been receiving a very skewed view for a very long time and in turn make statements based entirely on the Real Climate approved message (heaven forbid they be on the "wrong side of history" eh?) WMC makes sure is "undiluted" - which can can then of course be quoted to corroborate the wikipedia article. I mean, we've occasionally seen journalists use wikipedia as a source and then wikipedia use those journalists as sources - add a healthy serving of groupthink with a dash of primitive fearmongeringand a massive black hole of ignorance is inevitable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Careful there, or The Computer will get you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Tell me again about paranoia? Of course, I'm not sure how articulating scientific fact about common fallacies people make, combined with the historical truths of the articles and how they are used is being paranoid - it isn't like I'm talking about some vast fossil-fuel funded blogosphere conspiracy meant to emasculate angelic scientists. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Careful there, or The Computer will get you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- "All" the scientists? I'm frankly not surprised at such hyperbole and I think I'm in extremely good company. It makes me wonder though, WMC et all have been the Kings and Popes of these articles for nearly a decade now, and many scientists not in the field very likely come here to learn about the subject and which websites to go to - they've been receiving a very skewed view for a very long time and in turn make statements based entirely on the Real Climate approved message (heaven forbid they be on the "wrong side of history" eh?) WMC makes sure is "undiluted" - which can can then of course be quoted to corroborate the wikipedia article. I mean, we've occasionally seen journalists use wikipedia as a source and then wikipedia use those journalists as sources - add a healthy serving of groupthink with a dash of primitive fearmongeringand a massive black hole of ignorance is inevitable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Factionalism doesn't require any sort of behind the scenes coordination. Just watchlists. No other communication at all. Read WP:BATTLEFIELD. Again, ChrisO... you want to suggest there aren't any factions? Pull the other one. You're dreaming if you think people will continue to believe denial at this point. It's just a matter of time now. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Make that a third Arb. Since repeated requests to stop haven't worked and we're not going to semi-protect an entire topic worth of articles because of a few, any further infractions, inflamations or other nonsense will be reverted, likely followed by block and then ignore. Everyone knew this case would be long and difficult to sort out - that's not an excuse to continue the behavior in the meantime. The fact is that the community hasn't been able to work this out and it's here now; we're not threatening or yelling, we're warning everyone involved where this is headed next. Unfortunately I don't believe 1RR is going to be helpful since "sides" can still edit war and simply draw more people in - a temporary topic ban for everyone involved might be doable. Shell 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Make that a third Arb for what? For a zero-revert probation? A one-revert restriction? A topic ban? The recruitment of clerks to make content decisions? (And, respectfully, Rlevse was most certainly YELLING in his post.) The reason why I'm asking you guys to follow your own rules isn't because I'm in love with rules, or because I'm a process wonk, or just because I'm a twit — it's because it really isn't clear who is speaking for the Committee and who is speaking for themselves (or who is simply assuming the authority of the Committee, whether recused or not). It's not clear what restrictions are in place, or are simply proposed. It's not clear what rules are now expected to be followed. It's not clear who is or is not allowed to enforce the rules, if any. It's not clear whether admins acting to enforce (or threaten to enforce) any of these provisions are acting under the aegis of arbitration enforcement, or simply as independent admins who are told to do their best to put out fires — and consequently, it is not clear which decisions are negotiable or in what forum questions should be brought forth. Finally, not all editors in this area necessarily have every page of the Arbitration watchlisted, nor do they necessarily check these pages every hour (or even every day); another problem with this sort of ad hoc imposition of remedies is that people affected by them may not even be aware of them.
- Arbitrators, do this stuff right, or don't do it at all. Withdraw all the threats and warnings (explicit or implied), and take the night off. The page is protected for now, and the parties are aware that their actions are subject to intense scrutiny right now. Arbitrators going off half-cocked is not helping, and frankly you ought to know better than to act this way. Bring forward a clear motion stating what you hope to accomplish, and vote on it tomorrow. Make sure everyone is on the same page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Omg, you again. If the arbs have to take tough admin decisions at this point it's cos you failed to do so when you had the chance on the enforcement pages. Stop empowering edit warriors. Weakopedia (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I confess, my first instinct was happiness that someone was yelling “stop” and backing it up with some authority. However, after considering it a bit more, you do have some valid points. ArbCom has a lot of power, and I won’t pretend to be an expert on the extent of this power, but the ability of an individual arb to impose rules and empower clerks to carry out duties not normally considered part of their role, without going through any sort of identifiable process, sounds like over-reach. The building isn’t burning down. Yes, there’s a mess, which is why ArbCom is here, but it doesn’t rise to the level that permits such out of process mandates. Think about the precedents. In the next squabble that gets serious enough to go to ArbCom, do we want individual arbs deciding they can implement whatever measures they want, and cite this instance as precedent?--SPhilbrickT 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was certainly not speaking "for the committee". I made it clear I was speaking for myself. As for my recusal, I recused myself in this for a very specific area of this; if I had thought of it back at the time, I would have voted to accept, and then abstained in the proposed decision upon the area where I felt it necessary. Some of this is utter frustration that in the last seventy two hours, three seperate times we've had an edit war of the type that should never happen during an arbitration case. It's like the members of the Committee can't take our eyes off this area without something happening. I think we are trying to make it so the parties can still edit these articles, but strictly in a way that doesn't promote further ill will or warring. If the other members of the Committee don't think this can happen, I guess that they'd have to convert this into a full fledged topic ban, rather than an emphatic and near-explicit "Go and edit, but don't cause any further edit-warring". SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the best advice is for everyone to relax. The good news is that most people do seem to be getting it - I see only WMC, ATren, ChrisO, and Mark Nutley participating in this most recent edit-war. Of those, ATren reverted only once, on justifiable sourcing grounds, and ChrisO was clearly making a constructive attempt to improve the sourcing and address concerns. So that leaves, really, just 2 editors who should know better.
I understand the frustration expressed in this thread by the Arbs, but I guess this glass looks half-full to me - I don't see factions stepping up to edit-war. Most of the parties to this case discussed the matter on the talk page, if they participated at all. I'm all for stomping on edit wars aggressively, and if the clerks or Arbs (or any admin) wants to help with that then I don't see a downside. Of course, this is probably still the best advice. MastCell 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- In view of the comments that have been made about my attempt to improve the sourcing and address concerns on the Monckton article, I've submitted a CC probation enforcement request against myself. Please see WP:GS/CC/RE#Request concerning ChrisO. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Geez, what is it with you guys an filing enforcement requests against yourselves? Yours appears to be more serious than the last one though. Anyway, as I said before, I think you improved the wording, but the sources were still poor, and the content not really notable enough. That being said, whether intentionally or unintentionally, your actions seemed to be the "two" in the 1-2 punch combo/implementation of the door-in-the-face technique of coercion. To clarify, the initial input was awful and edit warred in over a period of weeks, you improved it for sure and the violations in your version paled in comparison and were likely (hopefully) unintentional - which makes them more likely to be ignored and "settled" on. BLP violations should not be "settled" on because they are more subtle than previous outrages. It makes me wonder if this sort of technique is why there are so many subtle digs and BLP violations in so many of the skeptic's articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Request for a statement on BLP policy
Extended content |
---|
We have several admins arguing at RFE that inserting Abraham's self-published presentation, which accuses Monckton of various improprieties, in Monckton's BLP was not a BLP violation. Dear arbitrators, please make a clear statement on this.
I look forward to your comments with interest. --JN466 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS does not seem to fit very well with self-published academic work by experts in their fields. If Professor Y, a published expert in his field, publishes a detailed scholarly critique on his website of a work by Professor Z, that doesn't really seem to fit into the BLP framework. The subject of the critique is not the individual as a person but the work by that individual (a book, speech, TV show, whatever). On the other hand, if Professor Y uses his website to post biographical claims about Professor Z, that clearly would fall within the BLP framework. But I can't see how a critique of a public work, as opposed to biographical claims, would be caught by BLP. Suppose in this case that Professor Abraham had published a scholarly critique of a book by Monckton, rather than a speech. Would that make any difference? If so, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Rosalind Picard was unavailable for comment. Horologium (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If ArbCom is going to comment on this section, which i'd actually prefer, since this is a problem area. And no matter what ruling is done, it is going to calm down various discussion. But of course it depends on whether this is within ArbCom's remit. But in that case, i'd like to submit some proposed principles that i didn't previously, since ArbCom stated that it wouldn't comment on content issues: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles (not formatted well at the moment - since this is just my notes put up here) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) As a general comment, I don't think that the hyperbole and righteous indignation I've seen expressed here is helpful. From this talk page it appears to me that this is a good faith content dispute. It is best to assume good faith in one's fellow editors. That means trying to understand their side of things. When a person instead expresses hyperbole and righteous indignation it will tend to disrespect and alienate one's fellow editor's. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Last I checked, the one thing Arbitration is not, is it does not address content disputes. Furthermore, WP:BLP is not a document created by ArbCom, hence is not really alterable by ArbCom. ArbCom addresses editor behaviour, not edits as such. Collect (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
de re BLPiaI am here assuming that the committee will regard BLP as out of its scope for any redefinition of policy. Further that acts by editors who use inconsistent views thereof do fall within the purview of the committee. And that deliberate inconsistencies by any editor based on what they like or do not like are by their nature incompatible with the fundamentals of WP. Therefore, ought any such editors not only be banned from "climate change articles, broadly construed" but from the entire project? That is, where an editor has used demonstrably different criteria for the nature of material placed in a BLP of a "skeptic" as opposed to the BLP of a "scientist" that this evidence should be specifically asked for by the committee and dealt with quickly and strongly? This is in response to Horologium's suggestion prior. Collect (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a thoughtAbout the general restrictions Arbcom are considering placing for the bigger picture I have no idea but as regards the BLP articles in the topic field :- There has been multiple violations in this area to the BLP Climate change articles, on both sides - yes - as a general solution just in regards to editing restrictions on the biographies of living people I thought all of the active editors on both sides could/should be restricted from editing any BLP article in the general related topic field for one year.. The articles can be watched easily for policy violations by uninvolved experienced editors and if these restricted editors disagree with an addition they can discuss it and start an RFC on the talkpage so as to allow them some involvement in the articles content additions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Continued introduction of new evidence and faux-proposals against the wishes of the Committee is a misuse of this page, and the ongoing infighting amongst editors needs to stop. Sit tight and let the Committee members do their job. If you are incapable of avoiding petty, immature behavior, stop editing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
New day
I recently read some wise words, "the ongoing infighting amongst editors needs to stop. Sit tight and let the Committee members do their job. If you are incapable of avoiding petty, immature behavior, stop editing."
The Committee is contemplating how they can contribute to improvements in the Climate Change editing environment. I propose that today be the start where the team of editors that edit in this area try to implement improvements on our own. It's a new day in Climate change related articles. We should respect our fellow editors and assume good faith. Perhaps some of our fellow editors will face some sanctions. We need to hope that they learn from their sanctions and continue to find ways to improve their contributions to Misplaced Pages in the the best ways that they can. They will hopefully come away from their lesson stronger Wikipedians. The rest of us can learn as well. It is within our power to fix this problem. We've asked for help from the committee. The truth is that we really need to do most of the work ourselves. We just need everyone to make a personal commitment. Today is when it needs to begin. Have fun and good editing, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right on. The Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign could help us all. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Septentrionalis
The following, orginally presented as evidence, may be of interest to ArbCom; although I could understand if they have no interest in widening the scope of this case. If so, they are perfectly capable of ignoring this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
ArbCom may wish to consider sanctions which extend beyond the range of this subject, because the behavior patterns of some of the political editors here extend beyond climate change: For example, Mark Nutley, who is under a sanction against contributing references without consultation, has been involved in List of wars between democracies. Almost all of his edits have removed sourced assertions.
He has not violated his sanction; this is a different behavior, on a different subject. Nevertheless: Is he likely ever to be a useful editor, contributing in readable English, and without pushing a political point of view? Why was this not dealt with before ArbCom saw it? The same general incapacity may well apply to other editors, on both sides; but this is the example which has forced itself on my attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
- Sounds like a content dispute, and unrelated to climate change - I'm not sure why you brought this here. Weren't you accusing him of sockpuppetry too? Oh, and the first Federal election in the US was in 1788 - years after the Revolutionary War - it is a valid argument to make that the war between the colonies and Britain wasn't a "war between democracies." You can disagree with that, but I don't think you should go around making various accusations against Mark because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - he's a real nice guy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- But principally a conduct dispute; all those removals were of sourced information. He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Misplaced Pages (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions.
- As for the content dispute: the first election under the Constitution was in 1789; but there were plenty of elections before the Constitution; see Continental Congress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)