Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 118:
The main value in this exercise is that quite a number of comments in this discussion relate to SPOV, sourcing of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed, proper weighting of minority views and related issues. I am not suggesting that these issues only apply to one of the groups (obviously, weighting of minority views is everywhere an issue), but that how we address those issues may be different for the three groups. To take the obvious example, science articles should exhibit a strong (though not exclusive) preference for peer-reviewed sources, while BLPs needed have that same emphasis.
If the attribution to group could be done, it would be interesting to do an analysis of the editing histories. My cursory review of the list of CC articles tentatively concludes that there are rather more pure science articles than I had realized, but my guess is that we will find substantially more edit-warring in the other two groups. --<
*I would add a fourth category, those CC articles that are tangentially or directly connected to CC, but are neither about the science nor the controversy per se. This would include items such as articles on books, on skepticism, and similar subjects. For example, an article on skepticism or denialism is not technically about the science, nor is it about the controversy. Nor, for that matter, is an article about a book normally directly connected with either. Otherwise, I agree with the basic idea and proposal. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]] [[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span> 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 133:
:It also only mentions sanctions based on NPA (or at least that is how it read yesterday). NPA is the least of the ChrisO problems. The edit warring and BLP violations, the tendentious editing and intentional insertion of improper sources to push a POV are the bigger issues. I think the proposed remedy was banning from BLP's but the finding does not mention his BLP violations in the CC area. That needs to be addressed. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::I would find sanctions based on the Macedonia case regrettable. The substantive resolution of that case included consensus that the movement to call the [[Republic of Macedonia]] ''FYROM'' was undesirable, the creation of an abuse filter to discourage it, and the banning of several of its more persistent advocates - "and they've none of them been missed". ChrisO opposed this clique a little too strongly; he ''has already been desysopped for it'', as part of the case. [[Double jeopardy]], especially for opposing partisan movements which are of no benefit to the encyclopedia, is neither justice nor expedience. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::As a participant in the Macedonia case, I also think that the dynamic there was somewhat different, and some of the sanctions applied in that case don't work well here. In particular, the naming issue was an overarching portion of that conflict, and ChrisO substantially wrote '''WP:Naming Conflict''', which was at the time Wikipedia's guideline on naming conflicts, one that was in fact a guideline for over four years. (It was later merged into [[Wikipedia:Article titles]]). Note that a related group of proposed sanctions would have topic-banned ChrisO from Macedonia-related articles; all were soundly rejected. Topic banning the ''author of the guideline'' on naming conflicts over a topic in which a naming conflict was the central issue was stupid, and the arbitrators apparently recognized that, at least. I disagree with ChrisO on a number of issues (especially his flexible interpretation of BLP), but not in ARBMAC2. His only misjudgement there was the timing of the article move, because of the incipient arbitration request, which was about a week away from being filed. '''[[User:Horologium|<
I would suggest the references to some of the prior cases in the proposed finding of fact should be rephrased, but at present I do not think it necessary to address the issue because I find the entire finding unnecessary in light of ChrisO's retirement from the project. (See next thread below.) Should my colleagues disagree with my position in that respect and desire to pass a finding, I will revisit this issue. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 146:
:''I perceive no need to do so in this instance.'' Please explain why you think there's no need to sanction Chris. That's the heart of the matter. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chris leaving, but if that's really the nub of it, please explain how that can be. -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 01:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
: I strongly disagree with the position of NYB. In general, ArbCom should review the evidence and take whatever actions are dictated by the evidence and policy—the status of the party in question should be irrelevant. While one can imagine some exceptions - if the retirement occurred early in the evidence gathering stage and the party did not have an opportunity to rebut evidence, if there are open questions which can only be resolved by the party in question, or if the remedies require the involvement of the party, but there's no indication that any such exception applies in this instance. Excluding ChrisO simply because he chose to retire creates a potentially bad precedent.--<
Line 340:
:I suggest that it is because the voluntary absenteeism was that, voluntary. This is the place where the hard and binding decisions are made, where lines are drawn, editors blocked or banned, and such decisions made that can only be overturned by appeal to this body (or Jimbo, although that is now deprecated). The language of suggestion and compromise was appropriate for the voluntary process - and note that there were exceptions included with some agreeing parties statements - but here there should be intent and firmness. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::Agree entirely. After a dispute is so exacerbated that is comes to ArbCom, it should be dealt with firmly, hopefully once and for all. These remedies merely push the issue until the first person asked to avoid the issue doesn't, as Lar points out.
:(after E/C with Lar) Because that was a temporary resolution, until the arbitrators formed their decision. It wasn't intended to be a long-term solution to the atmosphere surrounding the topic.
:Additionally, I find it highly unlikely that all of the named parties will adhere to the "suggestion" that they refrain from editing.
:Kirill's proposals are useless, and possibly counterproductive. '''[[User:Horologium|<
::Kirill: The most common complaint from multiple viewpoints is that the PD does too little. Now, you come along and propose that it does even less. We're moving backwards, not forwards. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 406:
:::::Let's give Kirill a chance to explain why he can't be bothered to read the evidence. I note that on their talk page, they state they are an administrator open to recall. Not sure how that applies to ArbCom members. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Kirill is saying that this is a content issue.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin&curid=2045205&diff=383139867&oldid=383138650] I thought ArbCom has ruled against BLP issues in the past? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Oh, come on. Don't go there. Much as I disagree with the PD, that is not a way forward. '''[[User:Horologium|<
*Let's calm the rhetoric down, shall we?
::I don't see rhetoric, I see a statement of fact ("waste of time") and disillusionment over Kirill's statements that he can't be bothered to read the evidence. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]] [[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span> 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Consider that perhaps people might see evidence differently than yourself, especially if you are an uninvolved party. Rather than seeing Kirill's statement as he couldn't be bothered to read the evidence, have you considered that he may instead feel it is not ArbCom's place to analyze a set of individual diffs so closely looking for borderline calls? Calls for desysopping, removal from the case, and even removal from ArbCom (Kirill is a reelected Arbitrators – no mean feat by itself – and even so received one of the highest supports at the last election!) should be entirely out of the question. Horologium and Tony Sidaway say it much more concisely than I.
*Please extend good faith to Kirill's approach. As arbitrators, we occasionally propose an entirely different way forward from a conflict, in the hopes of finding a better mousetrap in complicated problems. Some proposals may end up being rejected, or tweaked beyond recognition, or may end up being the Holy Grail; but that doesn't mean they should not be put forward and proposed because they ''might'' not get traction. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||