Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →Disinterested in BLP's?: new section |
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 391:
:I think "disinterested" is fine. The point is that one must edit these biographies in a manner, ideally, lacking in personal feelings for the subject, one way or the other. "Dispassionate" is also fine. Since violations of this finding will tend to be neither "dispassionate" nor "disinterested," I'm not sure it makes much difference. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
== Broad, indefinite topic bans for individuals ==
A slew of indefinite climate change-related topic bans are now being considered for a number of individuals, some of which seem misdirected and/or unnecessarily harsh. The remedy has been proposed for me, which I think is peculiar because I have very few edits in this topic (in fact, I have only contributed significantly to the editing of a single article concerning a matter of data theft, not climate change). I am concerned that individuals are being judged as a group, with a lack of regard for specifics and a whiff of guilt-by-association. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
: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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::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. ;) --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::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)
:If there's behaviour of mine that you consider disruptive, I would very much appreciate if you raised it with me. After all, you can't address potentially problematic behaviour that you're unaware anyone sees as problematic. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::I would agree that a 'one size fits all' remedy doesn't make much sense. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:Overall, I like the flexible "Appeal of topic bans" remedies (either 3.2 or 3.2.1). But the AQFK and ATren findings look even more outrageous if accompanied by a six-month-minimum topic ban. I haven't seen where Roger, Coren or Shell have defended their weak case against ATren at all or where Coren and Roger have adequately answered the questions about the AQFK finding. We now, finally, have an adequate Arbcom remedy for William M. Connolley's behavior, and the idea of reapplying for permission to edit the topic is actually brilliant because it gets to the heart of the problem: editor intentions and attitudes. We've seen right on this page, right up to the present, that some editors haven't adjusted their attitudes. I guess Remedy 1 (or 1.1) is supposed to address future problems. Maybe with the strong language elsewhere on the PD page it will be adequate (it authorizes admins to act first and then the action can be appealed to A/E or ArbCom, and that alone should help; but we'll still have a problem with biased admin actions). -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::When you're smugly gloating over one of your perceived opponents (WMC) getting what he (in your opinion) deserved, while in the same breath professing "outrage" over "biased admin actions" directed towards those that share your own point-of-view...well, that [[WP:BATTLE|attitude]] pretty much speaks for itself. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::It isn't smug, and it isn't gloating. ArbCom's Fof 8.2 ("William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic") had no corresponding remedy that looked like it might pass until now. Other remedies regarding Connolley's behavior in that area weren't getting support (see Remedies 5.1-5.5; the majority-approved BLP ban would not have addressed this). It isn't "gloating" to say WMC has had a problem with attitude -- it's what Newyorkbrad said in his comment at Fof 8.2. I pointed out the strength of the idea that an editor with problematic behavior would be allowed back in after giving assurances or demonstrating (or both) that the attitude has changed. That's a lot better than just waiting six months or a year. The new proposal offers editors a constructive way to get back to editing the topic, addressing both the editor-interaction and content problems ArbCom identified. Your comment doesn't actually help ArbCom or anyone else better understand the topic of this discussion. -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes it is and it's these kinds of comment like what [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] said above that needs to stop in this case, articles and other locations. It's not just Barber saying things that are inappropriate but it is an example of it. I'd also like to see something to address the edit warriors and the editors brought to these articles from the outside. --[[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>]] 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||