Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: 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 in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 49:
::::Is it safe to say that everyone agrees with FloNight on this? I certainly do, and it's a problem I deal with on a daily basis with no end in sight. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree that there is a problem. I think Boris pointed out somewhere above that one of the problems with even mildly contrarian BLPs is that they are often used as coatracks to introduce not information on the person, but to prominently present their non-mainstream views. Morevover, many of the contrarians are only prominent due to the man-bites-dog effect, and there often is very little other material about the person to round out the biographies. Peacocking and coatracking tend to provoke counter reactions - and not always perfect ones. Some systemic ideas to handle this problem would be very welcome. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I too agree that it is a problem. I remember SlimVirgin rewriting [[Fred Singer]] a few months ago, turning it from a climate change coatrack into an actual biography. She had to fight hard to have her changes stand, against editors with vested CC interests, and a lesser editor would have failed. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
Risker, you should know that I do not adhere to the notability standards, I'm a [[wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]] kinda guy. On prominence, I would not write about most of these people but I understand well that there might have been pressure to write ''something'' about these characters. It's the same reason we have articles about modern biologists who have no distinguished work behind them but happen to be opposed to evolution.
Line 114:
:::::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>A six-month investigation into the leaked e-mails that formed the "climategate" scandal has largely exonerated key scientists...In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming. Nevertheless, the impact of the leaked e-mails has been to push scientists toward the realization that talking about punching climate skeptics and being coy about releasing data hardly build public trust in their work...Failure to release requested data was ultimately not an issue, Russell found, because qualified researchers could easily find global warming data in other places. And while several e-mails revealed at least an intent to subvert the peer review process in order to exclude skeptical research, the report found that CRU scientists did not ultimately undermine the IPCC's peer review process..."We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report said..."We accept the report's conclusion that we could and should have been more proactively open, not least because – as this exhaustive report makes abundantly clear – we have nothing to hide," UAE's vice chancellor, Edward Acton..."[http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged]
:::::::::::::::::::::Let's see, that's ''Newsweek'', ''Time'' magazine, ''The New York Times'', ''USA Today'', and now the ''Christian Science Monitor'' — vs. TGL and AQFK. Who is reliable here? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 10:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::The [http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf Muir Russell report], released this July, stated in its findings, p. 93, "The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR." The executive summary, p. 14, stated "On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance." Beyond that, I agree with your principle that we should follow secondary sources, and I agree that the scientific work was largely given a clean bill of health. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
{{od}}I'm so glad FloNight brought this issue here. We've all danced around it throughout the case, but I think the BLP issue is the biggest problem in this topic area for all the reasons everyone has stated above. I almost with there could be a mandate against editing the BLP of someone whose views an editor disagrees with. I know that's not realisitic, but it sure would help the situation. Regarding Rd232, I had presented a proposal about that editor, but it was limited to articles I had edited - so I was at a loss to address some of Roger Davies' comments about a larger pattern. Some of the diffs here do support the principle I was trying to illustrate though. Thanks FloNight for your entry into this madness as things seem to be winding down. <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> 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:I'm amused at how poor FloNight's evidence is in relation to me. Duplicated diffs don't help, but the characterisation of some of the talk page comments and edits... Anyway, what it comes down to at Seitz was that FellGleaming deleted key information on Seitz's key role in a key political action on climate change.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&action=historysubmit&diff=381777766&oldid=381763641] so I expanded that to fully clarify the issue. The initial paragraph was then quite big, and I reduced it myself, and some others' reductions are OK in terms of balancing clarity and brevity. Bottom line: if we're trying to whack me with a bias stick, let's whack the NYT as well. Their obituary [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E1D71138F935A35750C0A96E9C8B63] is 952 words long., and climate change takes up 199 words (21%), RJ Reynolds 164 (17%). On 15 Sep ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&oldid=384975801] last time I edited the article), the body text (excluding lead, and not including Positions or anything below) was 810 words. Reynolds is 54 words (7%), climate change 246 (30%). So NYT has 38% on these two issues, and our article had 37%. Is this really what [[WP:COATRACK]]ing looks like? I must be doing it wrong. (And for comparison, after FellGleaming's recent trimming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&oldid=385859254], climate change is 29%. Are we really saying that 1% more or less in a 1000-word article is a measure of bias?) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 140:
:::Unfortunately, robust discussion tends to get mistaken for "battleground behaviour", as seen in the copious diffs presented above. Having looked into it a bit more, AQFK's outburst of "criminals", which certainly shocked me at the time, seems to arisen from a good faith belief in press reports such as ''[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html The Telegraph]'' writing that "The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – an offence which is punishable by an unlimited fine." It only takes a little investigation of the act to see that this is nonsense, as such an offence has to go to a magistrate's court where the magistrate makes the ruling, not the ICO. It was also rather shocking that AQFK was willing to see dubious press reports included, but kept removing the university's case,[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=next&oldid=346484229][https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=346677146&oldid=346676648] a situation not helped by Heyitspeter having removed links to sources and sourced statements.[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=346603250&oldid=346534530] Still, in the long run it's good news that there has been no finding of guilt under section 77, though the university has been found to have transgressed section 50 (or equivalent) which is not time barred, and is being dealt with in accordance with the legislation. All a bit confusing, which is why good faith robust discussion is needed, along with a presumption of innocence of BLP subjects until there is a proper and well established finding otherwise. Which potentially might happen someday, but hasn't yet and indeed further investigation seems unlikely to go ahead, though bloggers will no doubt keep complaining. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::[[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley|Christopher Monckton]] was the first person to actively promote the "scientists as criminals" position in the wake of "Climategate". [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
**MastCell, it's a systemic problem. There are few people like SlimVirgin who bother writing an actual biography; instead we have lots of editors who are happy to add the latest controversy. You end up with biographies that just consist of the controversies that made it into the press. Only mustard and no meat. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
***Well as I said, it's partly [[WP:recentism]] - a generic interest in the recent multiplied by bias of source availability to recent issues. But it does go beyond that. We have editors willing to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&action=historysubmit&diff=382462779&oldid=382063497 restore recent non-issues] (presented in a partial way) into the lead of a BLP against consensus, yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&action=historysubmit&diff=385965710&oldid=385965350 delete] well-sourced information showing the impact of non-recent work of another person. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 07:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 295:
:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1W6dMudInpkC&pg=PA104&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception ... By Christopher C. Horner]
:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=97Hxfc-MCgsC&pg=PA145&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental ... By Aynsley John Kellow]
:At least some of these sources would qualify as reliably published by WP criteria. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::At least some don't. The first and the third are opinion pieces, not reporting. The second is a letter to the editor, and does not support the claim, anyways. Please do some due diligence before dumping useless sources on us. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Jayen, I suppose I should have said that no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make. The sources you mention certainly contain such implications, although many appear to be factually incorrect based on [http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/climate-doubts-based-on-shortterm-irrelevancies/2008/11/10/1226165474661.html this]. One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here. In any case, my point had to do with cherry-picking and extrapolating the ''cited'' sources, but thank you for the legwork. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: ''"no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make."'' Of course it did. Do you think the book mentioned just as an interesting bit of trivia? [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]</sup> 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Page number? I don't think the book mentioned it, as far as I've found. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Okay; but bear in mind that FG's comments were made on the talk page. S/he clearly was aware of that background. At any rate, the sources support that there have been speculation and denials concerning the nature of realclimate's links to EMS. As such, the content Cla68 inserted is not irrelevant. Some of the opinion pieces linked here may qualify as sources for a reception section. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. If you go to RSN and ask uninvolved editors whether the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] or the [[Wall Street Journal]] or [[Edward Elgar Publishing]] are reliable sources for fact or opinion, as the case may be, the answer would be yes, regardless of whether any particular editor ''likes'' that opinion or not. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::MastCell, you say, ''One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here.'' I am not an unmitigated friend of the lead sentence of [[WP:V]], and am all for editors of opposing sides being able to come to a consensus – through reasoned debate on a talk page or noticeboard – that it is better to do without a source of fact that is demonstrably in error, or without an opinion that is clearly misinformed. But absent such consensus building, the following sentence is site ''policy'': {{xt|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.}} By all means, editors should agree to attribute facts and opinions to their sources, and make clear which of the two it is, but we do not just dismiss notable opinions expressed in mainstream sources because an editor thinks they are "wrong". --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::::I'm not saying that sources should be disregarded just because editors think they're "wrong". I'm saying that sources which contain demonstrable factual errors, and fail to correct them, do not meet our sourcing bar and should not be used. Moreover, if we step back from rules-based pedantry for a moment, why would we ''want'' to use sources which we know contain factual errors? Using such sources hinders, rather than furthers, the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Where there is a clear consensus that a source is mistaken, there is no problem. But you know as well as I do that that is rarely the case, and that there are real-life disputes where each side accuses the other of being wrong, or of producing misleading information, or where you simply get good sources contradicting each other, or indeed talking past each other, as the two sources in the Sydney Morning Herald arguably did. One of the problems of this topic area is that editors have wanted to play arbiters of truth, rather than following WP:NPOV and WP:V, i.e. presenting the full range of significant mainstream opinions, and attributing opinions to the people holding them. Do you see what I mean? --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
The blurb at ''Science'' (''not'' an "article", just news reporting) is:
:::WEB LOGS: Sifting for Truth About Global Warming
Line 315:
:It sounds like something reasonable to put in the article. But that does not justify this being hashed out here. Editors have to stop elevating content disputes to editor-conduct issues. Arbcom needs to take a stance on this kind of behavior, as this is not the first instance of this happening. When editors keep "going to the mat" on every little detail, they add to the battlefield atmosphere. That must stop. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:Just to clarify, I was directing the above remark at the topic-starter. I thank J.Johnson for bringing this RS to our attention. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::What else is an editor like Cla68 supposed to do if another editor reverts the addition of their sourced material three times? You can edit-war with them, and, if you are unlucky like Marknutley, get blocked yourself, while your opponent goes free. Or you can give up. Raising it here seems preferable to either of those. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::Cla68 is supposed to discuss if fully at the article talk page, and not present spurious references as he seems to have done – I'm still waiting for a clarification as to where if anywhere Pearce refers to the hosts of the website. See BRD . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Honestly, I sometimes think that we need a CC noticeboard. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::@Jayen: this was being discussed at the talk page of the article in question, but I see that rather than talk it out there on the merits he rushed here alleging a "COI" to get WMC off the page. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I am not sure "this was being discussed" is an apt expression to describe what was happening at [[Talk:RealClimate#Relevance]]. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::::(ec)I agree in the sense that there was no serious effort on the talk page by Cla68 to discuss the merits of his edit. He made just one edit on the talk page on this issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClimate&diff=prev&oldid=386105498] before coming here. It's like a baseball player spending all his time in the league office, filing complaints against other players. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::That may be appropriate, depending on what the other players are using their baseball bats for. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::@AQFK, I disagree. This is precisely why the CC noticeboard needs to be abolished. Editors need to discuss content issues on the talk pages of the articles. Here, the merits of the dispute were properly laid out by JJohnson. This appears to have been a "POV push" by Cla68, and when he didn't get his way on the talk page he came here. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I 100% agree with ScottyBerg here. The CC noticeboard has become a place to get your opponents removed by administrative fiat in lieu of actually coming to consensus across article talk pages. The, erm, climate in climate change was not great before, but has worsened since this noticeboard was instituted. [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 341:
:::::::Let me make sure I understand this, Scotty. You don't have an issue with one of the founders of that blog edit warring to remove reliably sourced information from the article. You don't disagree that the information was reliably sourced. You believe, however, that fault lies with the person who added the information in the first place? If so, it sounds like no one could add anything to that article, because they might risk offending WMC, and this is a bad thing. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::What I see, and what I've been seeing, and what I see again in your gratuitous comment "risk offending WMC" is an effort to personalize a content dispute, and to turn it into one of user behavior. Since you feel strongly about the validity of your edit, what's needed is for you to make your case on the article talk page. If you have a specific addition to the PD that you would like to make, this is the place for it. Other uses are wastes of time, clog the page, and are, again, disruptive. I think you need to reevaluate your usage of dispute resolution procedures. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: WMC reverted this factually correct material three times. Yet you speak of "personalising a content dispute". Is it not allowed to mention the elephant in the room? --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::::::::Scotty, I understand that you might disagree with me doing so, but I was trying to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=381478880 follow directions] here. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 370:
:::::::Unfortunately, NuclearWarfare is both wrong and involved. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Um, no. ''You're'' both wrong and involved. NuclearWarfare, on the other hand, is both an [[WP:ARBCLERK|arbitration clerk]] and right in redacting that commentary. He even mentioned that he would follow up on it, but that it was irrelevant there. --[[User:Shirik|<span style="color:#005">Sh</span><span style="color:#007">i</span><span style="color:#009">r</span><span style="color:#00A">ik</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Shirik|<span style="color:#88C">Questions or Comments?</span>]])</small> 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I for one have no confidence in NW's neutrality any more. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
== Disinterested in BLP's? ==
Line 397:
:Moreover,it doesn't solve anything over the long term. There's no shortage of aggressive editors in this area and there's no reason to think such a shortage will develop in the future. If anything the opposite, given certain chatter in the blogosphere. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::I am not sure it won't solve anything. I see no way back into this topic area for many editors who have become totally engrained in their positions. Indef bans and placing the topic area under arbcom sanctions worked in Scientology, a topic that is quite comparable in the amount of emotion and blog coverage associated with it. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::I'm not sure the situations are entirely comparable, except to people who spend a lot of time in-universe with Scientology disputes. Wikipedia is a bubble. By this site's standards, ''date delinking'' disputes are of comparable magnitude to the dispute over climate change. Is Scientology the subject of a consensus statement of concern from the National Academies of Science of the U.S., Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Italy, the U.K., China, Japan, France, Mexico, Germany, and Russia? Is it routinely a major political issue in elections and national and international legislative sessions?<p>The current list of topic ban candidates seems to suffer from a desire to sanction a roughly equal number of people from each "side", an approach which I think is based on faulty assumptions. The idea that, say, Verbal, Minor4th, and Mark Nutley have been equally "disruptive" on climate change articles seems questionable at best. The cynical side of me thinks that if we wait a week or two, the pendulum will swing back and we'll see another, different set of proposed remedies, but whatever. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::We're not trying to fix the climate, we're trying to fix a Wikipedia topic area. ;) --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::I think it's a great idea. There should be more names added though. Anyone who has edit warred or been uncivil more than once in this topic area should be topic banned. <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> 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}I do agree with Mastcell that the editors listed are not equal in terms of the amount of disruption, but that just indicates that the threshold is rather low -- not a bad guiding principle, but there's a lot of work yet to be done if the threshold is so low. Off the top of my head, without regard to which "side" these folks fall on, the list should include ScienceApologist, FellGleaming, Viriditas, Rd232, Guettarda, Jehochman, Tony Sidaway. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of -- tried to think of more on the skeptic side, but they are mostly either listed or banned already. <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> 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 441:
:@TS: Think we're on the same page here. Mainstream expertise is made unwelcome in this topic area as a matter of political expediency, reflected in the mass media. The "poisonous atmosphere" in editing reflects those politics, and discourages expert editing. . . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::I strongly suspect that few experts will accept being told that they misrepresent their own work, or that [[WP:RANDY|sword-wielding skeletons were involved]], especially not over and over and over again over years. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::<s>I have no sympathy for editors with "mainstream expertise" who behave like school boys drawing false moustaches and horn-rimmed glasses on someone's portrait when they edit skeptics' BLPs, then go on and bully neutral editors like SlimVirgin who are trying to rescue a biography from the unpalatable mess they have reduced it to, and finally end up huffily claiming the moral high ground. Let's just acknowledge there were failings on both sides here. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that it's okay to mess up a biographical article. Your precise characterization, however, is inflammatory. And of course it has absolutely nothing to do with expertise. Has evidence been presented in this case to the effect that SlimVirgin has been "bullied"?
Line 447:
::: And finally I'm sick and tired of being told that there are "sides" here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I'll readily agree that many editors have behaved imperfectly, including SlimVirgin. The "skeptics'" BLPs present a particular difficulty in that they commonly have little or no standing in the field, but have their credentials inflated to give more weight to fringe views. Getting the balance right isn't easy, as is also the case in BLPs of mainstream scientists subjected to vilification in parts of the mass media. Better behaviour needed all round. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Struck. Perhaps we can agree then that there were failings ''all round here'', and that no one who is the subject of a finding of fact and/or a proposed remedy should think that they were merely a ''victim'' of outside circumstances. It does not seem a very constructive way of going forward. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::: Thanks. This section is about structural bias, and I'd hope we'd discuss that issue. I've expressed a hope that experts will be able to edit the articles more freely than before once the battleground issues have been cleared up. Obviously I don't want to see unbalanced BLPs. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'd hope that we can agree that various editors had various failings in differing degrees, and that any such failings should not obscure the significance of outside circumstances affecting editing of articles in this topic area. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I have to say I agree with what Scotty, Tony and Dave are saying. If the scientist who have FoF's against them and they pass, I guess we'll see what happens to the articles. I hope my bad feelings about how they are going to look is wrong but I have to admit I have a bad feeling about all of this. Above I gave two difs about outside influences and a third one that I am told also has conversations going on about this case. I think that it's a mistake to treat all the FoF's the same esp. since some of them are about misrepresenting sources or copyright problems which to me is far more worse than being uncivil or edit warring. As for others coming in to these articles, I know I would be hesitant to edit these articles. I guess we should see what the arbitrators decide on and then it's a wait and see for the rest. The readers are the most important in all of this so please keep this in mind. Thanks for listening, I'm tired, so good night everyone, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Discretionary sanctions will be in place, and have worked in similarly contested topic areas (they should be advertised on every talk page). I am confident that anyone coming from one of these outside places to edit with an agenda will have a very short Wikipedia career. Also bear in mind that the atmosphere that developed over the past months and years will actually have kept away editors who might otherwise have joined the effort. The last thing Wikipedia needs is for the same strife to continue, with the same editors continuing to go hammer and tongs at each other. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
*A couple of comments, the first directed to Tony Sidaway, but not to him exclusively. There are quite clearly at least two sides to this dispute. Whether you choose to characterize them as "pro-science vs. anti-science", or "skeptic vs. anti-skeptic", or whatever, it is clear that the regular editors of the climate change articles are factionalized, and protestations to the contrary are pointless.
:The second is directed more towards Guettarda and dave souza. Guettarda dismisses [[Linus Pauling]]'s views towards Vitamin C megadoses as a fringe position. Perhaps that is so, but there is a section in the Vitamin C article, ([[Vitamin C#Vitamin C megadosage]]) which not only discusses Pauling's views, but also has a link to another page ([[Vitamin C megadosage]]), which details Pauling's views at some length. Yet when it comes to skeptical positions of climate change, there has been a concerted effort to eliminate any discussion of non-mainstream views in the main articles, under the justification that they are "fringe views" which don't merit any mention at all. However, when I proposed that some of the BLPs of skeptics were deletion candidates, WMC came to their defense, with the argument "you are arguing that John Christie and Roy Spencer are NN? That is ridiculous." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=386141954&oldid=386141684]) If they are notable enough to merit articles on Wikipedia, then they should be notable enough to merit at least a mention in articles which relate to their field of expertise, yet the adherents to the "scientific view" argue that they should be excluded because their views are not mainstream. Dave souza argues that in this diff ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=386141954&oldid=386141684]), so we have a dilemma; do we agree with WMC or with dave souza, who argue the mutually exclusive views that skeptics are either too notable to delete, or not notable enough to acknowledge? We can't have it both ways; either they are ultimately non-notable, in which case their articles should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, or they are notable, in which case their views should be noted in the articles to which their views are relevant. I'd request a clarification on which course we should pursue before I either nominate the articles for deletion or push to include their views in relevant articles, noting that their views are minority views, but not excluding them entirely, as some here have advocated. '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 477:
CrohnieGal (and peripherally, Jayen466) have brought up an issue that needs more attention, specifically what might be called "kamikaze editing." These are editors who don't much care if they are blocked as long as they can score against an opponent. Some of the blogosphere chatter has been along these lines, and I recall a few editors saying on-site that they didn't care whether they were blocked as long as editor X got blocked too (mild on-site example,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=prev&oldid=371748473]). For this reason I'm not as sanguine as Jayen466 that the discretionary sanctions will achieve the desired result: even if we let such individuals know they will end up with "a very short Wikipedia career," it won't be a deterrent and there are more waiting to take their place. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:It will go away. This ill-tempered dispute here in the project is what has heated up the blogosphere, keeping the fires there going. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::No, that's an in-bubble viewpoint. Because of Wikipedia's prominence, it's stop #1 for ''anyone'' who wants to raise the visibility of their pet minoritarian belief. It doesn't matter if the topic area is prone to "ill-tempered disputes" or not, and it's not going to change no matter what the outcome of this case is. It doesn't take an internal Wikipedia projectspace dispute to keep people fired up about climate change. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Sure. But then you will be getting the bog-standard POV pushers, rather than people outraged by witnessing daily the shenanigans documented in the Findings of Fact. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
We cannot know whether the commenters on external sites are just blow hards or are going to be a serious problem. We'll know it's the latter if the ecology of the topic settles down to a steady drip of scientifically illiterate nonsense of the kind seen often on one of the blogs cited by CrohnieGal. We've had that on the evolution articles and the various conspiracy articles for a very long time so we know how to deal with it.
| |||