Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →COI edit warring at RealClimate: new section |
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →COI edit warring at The Hockey Stick Illusion: new section |
||
Line 343:
::::::::: 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? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::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)
== COI edit warring at ''The Hockey Stick Illusion'' ==
The same day that WMC edit warred in [[RealClimate]], he edit warred at [[The Hockey Stick Illusion]], removing sifnificant amounts of text [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&action=historysubmit&diff=386122780&oldid=386060035] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&diff=next&oldid=386124731], forcing admin intervention to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&action=historysubmit&diff=386127195&oldid=386126873 protect] the article (by the way, I don't believe that NuclearWarfare is an uninvolved CC admin anymore, but the article probably did need protection from WMC's initiated edit war.). I believe the two incidences of edit warring by WMC are related, as ''Illusion'' reports on the history of the criticism of the research of several of the contributors to the RealClimate blog. WMC removed only ''positive'' reviews of the book, no negative ones, and two instances in which it is used as a source in academic papers. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:Everything that was removed was previously discussed on the talk page, and I don't see a consensus for adding it back in. Again, I think that this is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue on the part of WMC. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you, Scotty. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Removed_stuff Here's the current] talk page discussion on it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I'd call it an edit war on WMC's part -- 2 reverts, deleting significant portions of the article's content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&diff=386122780&oldid=386060035], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&action=historysubmit&diff=386125372&oldid=386124731] -- after he was reverted the first time, he should have engaged in the BRD process but he reverted again, and left the article a mess with broken refs too. The article was protected again, so that's a pretty good clue that an edit war had broken out. <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> 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::The contribution history shows NW imposing protection because of edit warring by IP editors, evidently socks of some kind. I see nothing in the record indicating edit warring by WMC. I see him disagreeing with you. (Big surprise there.) That's why I'm viewing this as a content dispute, and suggesting that this is not the place for it. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Not exactly. <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> 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::@Cla68: What I had in mind was the previous discussion entitled "Trimming" from late August, as well as discussions preceding and following that on the Hartwell paper, which was removed and which you reinstated.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Trimming] The existence of a previous discussion, one that did not go your way, indicated to me that you imported a content disagreement here, for the purpose of removing an editor who disagrees with you. It also indicated to me that both this section, the one above it, and your "formal request" in the CC enforcement page[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Notice_of_formal_request_to_WMC_not_to_edit_RealClimate] are an instance of [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]], and that you should be sanctioned. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::FWIW, WMC is also edit-warring at [[Joanne Nova]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova&action=historysubmit&diff=385510305&oldid=385463546][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova&action=historysubmit&diff=385561003&oldid=385547711] [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 00:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::For the good of the 'pedia, I think some administrator intevention may be appropriate here. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::To do what? WMC is a subject of this arbitration. Several hundred thousand bytes have been expended in complaints against him. Sanctions are being considered against him. What more do you suggest needs to be done? This question is separate from the more relevant issue, which is the appropriateness of this discussion, and your behavior, not his. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Is Joanna Nova a climate change sceptic? Somehow, I knew she probably was before I even went to the article and looked. If you think ArbCom should be the one to intervene here, I hope they do so sooner rather than later. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::There's an important distinction between "editing" and "edit warring." Slapping down a couple of diffs and saying "here, there's edit warring," and characterizing pretty much everything WMC does as "edit warring" or "COI" or some other invective just isn't helpful, and in fact is disruptive. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 00:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I just looked at the article history there, and I have to say that the edit summary exchange in the recent 15-or-so edits is hilarious. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 00:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed! My dad has a Bachelor of ''Science'' in Business Administration, so that makes him a scientist. All these years we never knew. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}And now Nuclear Warfare is edit-warring[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FClimate_change_probation%2FRequests_for_enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=386205975&oldid=386205393]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&curid=25648902&diff=386208710&oldid=386208444] to remove mention WMC's edit-warring on the [[Joanne Nova]] article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova&action=historysubmit&diff=385510305&oldid=385463546][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova&action=historysubmit&diff=385561003&oldid=385547711] [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:No, he removing an irrelevant accusation from the CC enforcement page. However, the arbitrators are definitely getting a good dramatization of the disruption that is an everyday occurrence in the CC articles, so all this nonsense is not without purpose. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::Um...he's edit-warring to remove what he incorrectly perceives as irreverent discussion. According to our article, [[Joanne Nova]] is "sceptical over the theory on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and is the author of The Sceptics Hand Book."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#Views_on_climate_change] So, he is doubly wrong. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::He just hatted the discussion completely, on the grounds that it was improper use of the page. I think that was a sound decision. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Given that NuclearWarefare is a party to this dispute, I'm not sure that this is a wise decision. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Two separate issues: is he "involved" and is he "right." I was just commenting on the latter. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 02:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||