Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Line 457: | Line 457: | ||
:::::Nice display of sarcasm, Thanks for making it clear that the problom is ot a one sided attitude or some evil, off wiki conspriacy but is in an attmpet by both sides to ensure that only their version of the truth is the on ewe allow.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Nice display of sarcasm, Thanks for making it clear that the problom is ot a one sided attitude or some evil, off wiki conspriacy but is in an attmpet by both sides to ensure that only their version of the truth is the on ewe allow.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::As a non-sarcasm response, the concern is that the version would be 'locked' in an unacceptably wrong version which could be filibustered to maintain, regardless of its merits. As long as the current versions supporters maintain an appearance of no consensus to change then the ones who want to change it are rendered powerless. The argument then would shift to bickering over wether the admin who invoked consensus and made the change was actually acting neutrally or partisanly leading to the same arguments that we have already concerning admins 'involvedness'. Essentially the argument would adapt to the new editing enviroment without being solved. [[Special:Contributions/198.161.174.222|198.161.174.222]] ([[User talk:198.161.174.222|talk]]) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== The grisly facts and a prediction == |
== The grisly facts and a prediction == |
Revision as of 17:22, 28 September 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk) |
|
Meta and preliminaries
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .
Archives
- Archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion.
Statements
Archives
Discussion
- This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.
Archives
- Archived discussions about the decision using the case format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of decision
- General discussion archives can be found at:
Proposed principles
- Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed principles
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed principle" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the principle numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.
Proposed findings of fact
- Archived discussions at: /Discussion of FoFs1 and /Discussion of FoFs2
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Finding of fact" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the finding of fact numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please do not discuss remedies here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.
Proposed remedies
- Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed remedies
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed remedy" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the remedy numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please discuss the associated findings in their own sections above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
- Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed enforcement
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the enforcement numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.
New proposals
- Archived proposals can be found at /New proposals and /New proposals2
Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.
Wrap it up
Could we be finished now, please? Jehochman Talk 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree...and propose that the best thing to do is eliminate the individualized sanctions and simply pass a discretionary sanctions case. ANY violations by any parties mentioned here and then of any parties not mentioned after receiving one explicit warning should lead to a topic ban for 90 days...next violation 1 year and a third, an indefinite topic ban. Any violation noticed would need to be posted so all administrators can see it at either AN/I or the Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard. Set something like that in concrete and trim the fat out of these proposed decisions and we'd all be better off.--MONGO 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms. However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment. After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- By "volatile", I mean "subject to flare-ups" rather than continuously problematic. You've talked about imported political disputes before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. The only imported disputes I am aware of are personal or ideological, not political. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms. However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment. After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to what the Committee in its draft finding 2 calls the "Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area [which] have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Wikipedia, give to this topic area." It's rather similar to evolution in the respect that the science is well established (overwhelmingly so in the case of evolution, but the basics of global warming are also very well supported) but there are all kinds of weak challenges to the science that can only be explained by the political implications various people apply to the science. The same kind of conspiracy theories recur as in critiques of evolution, the same allegations of fakery, and the same kind of agendas are alleged, despite the exceptional scientific support for both. --TS 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I see what you mean. Yes. Agreed. Hard to know how to avoid that. Ill-informed politicians wield considerable power and generate considerable media coverage, and Wikipedia relies on media coverage for sourcing. Scientists have to work hard to get coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines. People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. And the problem was magnified a lack of true reporting coupled with an abundance of opinion in the months immediately following the data theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Important point I think, wikipedia is not a "Reader's Digest" of mainstream newspaper articles when it comes to scientific topics. There are some that still do not yet fully appreciate the importance of this statement. If the reader falls into this category then I suggest that you read this principle which will be approved in this case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science Bill Huffman (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest pointing such editors to WP:WEIGHT, and in some case WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines. People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly understandable that everyone would love to see this finally draw to an end. But wrapping it up should not be a euphemism for punting. I think that some (not all) of the editors who responded after Jehochman's opening post have been engaging in an echo chamber of "let's not sanction anyone now". Just give everyone a pat on the head, and say next time we're going to get serious. I'm not trying to convince the editors who commented, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that it would be a failure of nerve to do so, a failure to really prevent further disruption, and a big let-down to the larger editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree with that sentiment. Let my comments above not be understood to be supportive of the notion that there should not be strong sanctions directed at individuals in this case. --TS 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eh...this arbcam case has been a tit-for-tat...don't think for a minute I can't see that there haven't been infractions, some somewhat egregious even, but if we had a discretionary sanction case and really enforced it, I bet named parties would alter their game plan. I know this worked at the 9/11 arbcom case...the POV pushers were all sanctioned or simply stopped editing for a year, allowing several related articles the peace needed to get them to FA status...including one that had been a complete battlefield. That case made the wacky cease and desist so I think the sane that work on CC articles would probably conform if they knew they be topic banned for anywhere from 90 days to indefintitely...set that in stone, enforce it immediately and watch things calm down.--MONGO 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. As long as the sanctions are enforced in a fair manner. If they are used as another means to defend the house POV against all comers, they will not solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on that? What is the "house POV" in the global warming articles? I see a lot of articles, some on secondary subjects, and a lot of noisy editing. Please explain your comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. As long as the sanctions are enforced in a fair manner. If they are used as another means to defend the house POV against all comers, they will not solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eh...this arbcam case has been a tit-for-tat...don't think for a minute I can't see that there haven't been infractions, some somewhat egregious even, but if we had a discretionary sanction case and really enforced it, I bet named parties would alter their game plan. I know this worked at the 9/11 arbcom case...the POV pushers were all sanctioned or simply stopped editing for a year, allowing several related articles the peace needed to get them to FA status...including one that had been a complete battlefield. That case made the wacky cease and desist so I think the sane that work on CC articles would probably conform if they knew they be topic banned for anywhere from 90 days to indefintitely...set that in stone, enforce it immediately and watch things calm down.--MONGO 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- (after ec) - Certainly egregious violations that harm the project should attract sanction, but many of the proposed statements (such as the one noted by Bill Huffman) should go a long way toward informing editors of how the topic is best tackled. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) There are about half a dozen more FOFs to follow. Shell has limited connectivity at the moment but as soon as she's back in the saddle we'll get them posted. Then, the remedies need looking at but that shouldn't take too long. So overall, things are probably winding down. Roger Davies talk 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As of this post..."This page is 385 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance."...--MONGO 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with what is being stated above. I also find the comment by MONGO an interesting idea too. I remember the constant AN/i discussions about the 911 articles and how things disappeared for the most part after the case closed from that board. So maybe his/her suggestion should be taken as an idea on handling things. As I said above in an earlier statement today, I also am seeing a lot of the problems being generated by the facts that on one side of the issue is a pretty constant set of editors that are under the limelight right now being up against the other side that the editors change and expand quite frequently. I'm not sure why this one side has more and different editors on it's side unless it has to do with what the editors here on this talk page and also the arbs have made mention on the PD about outside blogs influencing this. If that is the case then maybe the editors who are known to be brought from the outside, the spas of this case, need to be dealt with. We can't allow editors to come in from the outside knowingly to raise havoc like this to our article work. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Mongo's idea is interesting. However, I'm not familiar with that case so I'm not sure if the dynamics there are the same as here. I also agree with your general assessment of the situation. There's been a lot of talk of "COI" on the part of one editor, but your suggestion that some of the editors may be SPAs motivated by outside blogs is interesting, and would explain some of the behavior we've seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- MONGO's suggestion has merit, though the 9/11 situation was a bit different in that it was reality v. nutters not scientific inquirey v. head in the sand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Mongo's idea is interesting. However, I'm not familiar with that case so I'm not sure if the dynamics there are the same as here. I also agree with your general assessment of the situation. There's been a lot of talk of "COI" on the part of one editor, but your suggestion that some of the editors may be SPAs motivated by outside blogs is interesting, and would explain some of the behavior we've seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Amazingly, waiting for voting on the proposed decision is turning into even more of a joke than waiting for the proposed decision itself. Before we hit the six month mark for this case, might it be quicker to just hold new arb elections and find some who are available? Weakopedia (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Many apologies for the horrible timing of my computer problems (touched off by nothing more than a 30 minute thunderstorm no less). Things are still up in the air, but I do have solid access to email and a few IMs due to owning a smartphone. If you think there's something I've overlooked because of my limited access for the past week or so, please drop me a brief pointer in the right direction. Shell babelfish 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear about your computer troubles been there and it's no fun at all. Are you able to keep up with this talk page? Also are you able to follow difs that are here? Where are you with things using your phone, to give an idea of what you maybe missing if you can would be appeciated? Down near the bottom of this page are some important things to consider also the conversation above with John Barber above. Thanks in advance, feel free to email me if you feel the need, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Evidence sub-pages in userspace
Just a reminder that per longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the evidence has been submitted and/or the case closes, the sub-pages should be deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Thank you for your understanding, Roger Davies talk 07:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have posted this...this should be part of the normative arbitration process...anyway to set this in stone?--MONGO 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment on the proposed principle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Disinterested in BLP's?
Just a comment that, in the language used as denoting the appropriate tone when writing (BLP) articles, the term "disinterested" is used. I feel that dispassionate is preferable, unless of course ArbCom are advocating a style exampled as "Eric Fudgecake is a Professor of Linguistics at Halabamabashbang University, Utopia. Probably. Whatever." I think less passion is better than less interest in a subject, when it comes to editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, well made :) Roger Davies talk 07:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Further examples at Proposed Finding of Fact 8.5 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons, and Proposed Remedies/General Remedies 4.4 Biographies of Living Persons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not really correct. As per the OED, 'disinterested' means '1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage', 'dispassionate' means 'not influenced by strong emotion'. Dispassionate editing would lead to the example you give above, disinterested editing is what we want.--67.161.94.10 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Odd. Which version of the OED are you looking at? Mine (v4.0) gives "Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned" as the first meaning of disinterested and doesn't give the text you mention at all. The SOED definition is just "Not interested, unconcerned". I suppose, in the context of the high passions here, dispassionate fits the bill better and is less ambiguous. Roger Davies talk 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not really correct. As per the OED, 'disinterested' means '1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage', 'dispassionate' means 'not influenced by strong emotion'. Dispassionate editing would lead to the example you give above, disinterested editing is what we want.--67.161.94.10 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Further examples at Proposed Finding of Fact 8.5 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons, and Proposed Remedies/General Remedies 4.4 Biographies of Living Persons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Disinterested" means not influenced by a personal view, or personal interest in the sense of advantage; neutral; uninvolved. It's not the same as "uninterested." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- For info Roger Davies talk 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Weird. That's directly at odds with what I was actually taught in school. Maybe it's an American usage? Guettarda (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- That M-W page is interesting. Prescriptive grammarians (at least in the U.S.) have wanted to keep the distinction in meaning between dis- and uninterested, and I always assumed it was a settled difference, but obviously it has been used the other way. I say "disinterested" should stay so that Wikipedia does it's part to maintain the useful distinction, thus promoting civilization. The "Synonyms" section on this Dictionary.com page indicates "disinterested" (implies a fairness arising particularly from lack of desire to obtain a selfish advantage) would be a more precise word here than, say, "impartial". [1] The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary recognizes only the "fair" definition. [2] Then ArbCom should ban from its official statements the uncivilized "incivil", which M-W doesn't even recognize (and Wictionary tells us is "rare" [3]), in favor of "uncivil" which M-W tells us has been around since at least 1553. You can never be too careful in upholding civilization. But if ArbCom members think the preceding statement is too WP:BATTLEGROUNDish, WP:SOAPBOXy or WP:UNCIVIL, I take it back. I take it back! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Weird. That's directly at odds with what I was actually taught in school. Maybe it's an American usage? Guettarda (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- For info Roger Davies talk 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Disinterested" means not influenced by a personal view, or personal interest in the sense of advantage; neutral; uninvolved. It's not the same as "uninterested." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would note that I was only guided by my understanding of disinterested, which is a more judged version of uninterested - that someone by choice has no interest rather than by lack of exposure. Whatever (hah!), I think dispassionate is more apt under these circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the portion of the decision I drafted, I used "disinterested" in the sense SlimVirgin describes. If there is any ambiguity about what the word means, then I agree that a synonym should be substituted, as Roger has done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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. 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. -- 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. 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. --JN466 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?
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. MastCell Talk 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- We're not trying to fix the climate, we're trying to fix a Wikipedia topic area. ;) --JN466 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. Minor4th 16:02, 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?
- 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. --JN466 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
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. Minor4th 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. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that a 'one size fits all' remedy doesn't make much sense. 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). -- 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 attitude pretty much speaks for itself. 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. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 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 attitude pretty much speaks for itself. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This should be brought to the arbitrators attentions
Collapsing for page readibility. This one seems to have run its course and now going way off topic. Roger Davies talk 01:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Though Mark Nutley has voluntarily walked away from the Climate change articles I think that the latest of what has been happening should be shared. MN has been blocked twice this week which can be seen here at his talk page and here. Both were lifted but the last one is the one that is concerning. There is a discussion going on here. I don't know this administrator at all but this last unblock was done without even talking to administrator Vsmith which I find strange, esp. with the comments made with the unblock about Vsmith who is another administrator I don't know. Rodhullandemu is the administrator who unblocked MN for both of these blocks. NPA & civil are important policies but I don't know if this was a problem with different ways of saying things sounding like it is breaching policy or not. Toddst1 did the block so he could probably give more insight than I can about this. But the second block and unblock is very troubling since it has to do with copyright issues. MN has had major problems in the past and now he is block then unblocked for a copyright violation which if memory serves has happened before in the past. For the unblock to be done so quickly, without first talking to the blocking administrator, MN should not have been unblocked without the unblocking administrator first getting all the information, which means talking to the blocking administrator. Rodhullandemue assumed that Vsmith was involved which Vsmith explained that s/he was still uninvolved. Vsmith has been apparently watching things and knew MN from previous behavior problem. Anyways, because of the seriousness of this I thought the arbitrators should be aware of it. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here, but I don't know that that admin is involved in this topic. If this chap is overstepping his remit as an admin then presumably it can be handled. The source cited by Thegoodlocust purports to knowthe religion of all Wikipedians, and says atheists outnumber Christians on English Wikipedia by nearly 2 to 1 [4] which if true,means that most Wikipedians other than me are exceptionally open about their religious beliefs and hardly any Americans ever edit Wikipedia. That's obvious nonsense. --TS 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Both blocks were overturned. One
RHaE's unblock of MN is definitely very dodgy, as is his description of Vsmiths conduct as "appalling" [5]. Since the article in question isn't a Cl Ch one, the entire business only belongs here due to the participants. Contrary to TGLs assertions, Vsmith isn't "involved" at that article. It isn't clear whether RHaE has been careless or worse; but the lack of talk is suspicious. RHaE declared, to Vsmith, that "you had become involved in content, as I see it". This is odd, because all Vsmith did on the article was correct a spelling error [6] and another [7]. RHaE knows that, because Vsmith had already pointed it out to him. On that basis, RHaE overturned a block for copyvio, for which MN had previously been blocked. But RHaE made no attempt to discuss this, and still won't answer questions on his talk page. Perhaps he will here instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Looking at the article history and article talk page, the article Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History started by Mark Nutley appears to have nothing to do with climate change, how did 3 or 4 climate change editors end up on that article in a content dispute? Is this a sign that even after topic bans are placed on editors that if they go to other article topics personalised battle fields will just migrate?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow... Anyway, back in early May I noticed an article about a book that appeared interestin - I started a bit of cleanup with 3 edits [14] then noticed a potential copyvio problem and removed it [15] and after further checkin [16] then after discovering other CVs on other pages I blocked Marknutly (at 01:42, 5 May 2010 - see his block log) for a week for copyright violations. I had added the page to my watchlist (now at 15,044 pages). Then when an edit removing a possible copyvio - per the edit summary[17], showed up on my watchlist, I took a look. I found that while not a direct copy/paste vio, it was a very close paraphrase and quite questionable. After looking closer (and correcting 2 spelling errors along the way - guess I'm obsessive) I made the decision to block considering past copyvio problems by the user and the fact that he had immediately reverted the questioned content back in. When content is removed for possible copyvio the issue should be discussed - not reverted back in. I had commented on the talk page while reviewing the issue [18] and blocked Marknuyley for a month for copyright violation second block for copyright violation.(see his block log) The block was undone 37 minutes later with no attempt made to discuss the issue with me either before or after. The lack of discussion or even notification is a violation of common courtesy. This issue is totally unrelated to the topic of climate change and the current arbitration, both of which I have been studiously avoiding per my own sanity. I thank Dave Sousa for letting me know this was under discussion here. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Per the rant by TGL way up there^: Yes I have made many edits to global warming and related articles - mostly back during the 2005 kerfluffle. I have edited with WMC and argued intensely with him in the past, we both have science backgrounds and an interest in science topics. And likely some of the edits I made way back then I'd likely do differently now ... Wikipedia evolves, the environment is quite different than 4 - 6 years ago. But, more to the point the article in question has no relation to climate change topics. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want to make it plain that I'm not from Yorkshire, although in my opinion parts of Yorkshire would feature in any discerning deity's plans for elysium. --TS 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A couple of editors contacted me on my talk page as they felt that I had misinterpretated the situation and they were right, I had misinterpreted the situation. Interested editors can read about it on my talk page. While I still think a mountain was made out of a molehill which I guess is symptomatic of the battleground atmosphere and hostilities I don't like to pass opinion on situations wrongly and leave things hanging. I think all the main parties involved in this latest dispute were at fault, Mark for failing to admit his summary was too close to the original text of the source thus escalating the drama, WMC for being too quick to seek a block and the admin too quick to block. This drama took 3 to tango and was unnecessary in my view. The other block for a personal attack by another admin was unwarranted as it was not a personal attack. These are my views. Sorry for dragging last nights drama back up, just wanted to clarify things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Mark Nutley has openly admitted that he was "reading from the book while typing." That's an open and shut case of copyright infringement. He should certainly advised never again to copy non-free content into Wikipedia. --TS 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC) He is already almost certainly going to get topic banned based on Arb voting records. What more do you feel is necessary? - for people to realise that it is impossible to work with MN. Even now, he won't admit that was a copyvio. Even now, you're basically saying that anyone who argues with him is as guilty as he is. This "a plague on both your houses" stuff is unthinking, and wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Guettarda, I didn't understand your comment about the Darius Dhlomo issue until comments were made at my talk page about it and the clean up involved. I think you should have made it clearer about what you were talking about so I have wiki linked the name so others can see what it involves or you can go to my talk page and see the explanation there which I have to admit shocked me. I just thought others here should be aware of this issue to understand how so important it is to stop copyright vios and plagerism as soon as it's seen and not to wait. If you look into this I think you will see the same excuses that are being used here about how the problems started which is not good in my opinion. Clean up for this is need if anyone has the spare time. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC) |
harsh but unfair
As one of the main issues is that whatever we do it won't work then lets be harsh but unfair. Perma ban all usrs from the articles in question who have reverted more then twice in one day. Impose a subject wide 1RR restriction (perimenatly) and permeantly block any user who breaches 1RR after that point. No this is not a joke, but it is an example of about the only thing that wouold work (assuming the fears expresed by many of the users is true, which I think it is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, all that would do is slow down the conflict, not diffuse it. And we would have the same endless debates about reverting socks and BLPs we have now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps slowing it down (or accepting there is nothing we can do about it) is the best we can do. Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas (a bit childish if you ask me, its not as if any one takes wiki that seriously). Under those circumstances even if we block all users mentioned here and do nothing else (as others have pointed out) someone else will repalce them. Effectivly its a war of attrition with an inexustable supply of canon fodder (how Haig must envy us). So at the end of the day the only answer is eaither let them fight it oout, have these silly debates every so often, or put them all in a field and bomb the basterds.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is a very strange argument. Why is being unfair likely to settle any disputes? Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas - not at all sure what you mean here. Could you provide links? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding since I started being an editor is that the project wanted and needed experts in different fields, like this one. Is there anyone else concerned about the possibility that most of the experts in the science field of Climate change may now be banned? What happens to the articles? It's been shown undeniably that there has been off wikipedia blogs recruiting to get editors sanctioned as this "How-to-guide" dif shows and this one that I just heard about. I was aware from comments and the PD page that there are off project blogs interference but this dif provide by Noren above was my first look at it actually being shown. I don't know if there are other blogs doing this but I guess checking Wikipedia Review wouldn't hurt to see if there are discussions going on there about this case and if so, who is involved. Are there any editors here who are members there who can check on this and provide difs if there is something important to this case? I am aware that off project stuff isn't supposed to be brought on project but with this case I find it extremely important because the PD is looking like it's going to reward the off project behavior by doing what they wanted to happen to begin with. If arbitrators haven't looked at this reference, I would suggest they do so to see what is going on over there at pediawatch.wordpress.com. I just think that the PD should be fair and that not all that are named are equally wrong in all of this. I am also concerned that too much thought is being given to the edit warring with too little thought given to more serious breaches of policies. Thank you again for considering my opinions, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in many cases that come to ArbCom there are off wiki issues between rival factions related to a topic. ArbCom knows this to be true because they often see material that is submitted privately that needs to be deleted or suppressed. Unfortunately, there is not much that ArbCom can do about it except to advise users to follow up off wiki with the appropriate authorities as needed, and to keep it off wiki. Any other approach would take too much investigation to give any thing approaching a fair remedy. (Meaning that there is often a long tangled history between people that come to Wikipedia and dispute with each other.) So usually, ArbCom does not explore off wiki activity in the level of detail that you want to when drafting the case (with occasional exceptions if it specifically addresses sanctionable on site editor conduct.) See my comment below for the reason that I support indefinite bans for this group of editors. (my opinions based on my prior experience as a member of arbcom. Of course other arbitrators may see it differently). FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I used the term unfair to aknowedge before the first reply that those affected by it would consider it unfair. After all (it seems to me) its the other side causing the trouble, so why should those who only want to make wikipedia better be punished as well, goes many of the arguments. It will solve anything, but it might discourage those who want to edit war to push agendas. I don't think its a perfect answer but is I think the only one that will have some impact on this. However I am not aware of what solution was tired (and seemed to work) on scientology relatesd pages, but I am not sure its quite the saem situtation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed some of the points raised in this section, in a new section below[25]. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding since I started being an editor is that the project wanted and needed experts in different fields, like this one. Is there anyone else concerned about the possibility that most of the experts in the science field of Climate change may now be banned? What happens to the articles? It's been shown undeniably that there has been off wikipedia blogs recruiting to get editors sanctioned as this "How-to-guide" dif shows and this one that I just heard about. I was aware from comments and the PD page that there are off project blogs interference but this dif provide by Noren above was my first look at it actually being shown. I don't know if there are other blogs doing this but I guess checking Wikipedia Review wouldn't hurt to see if there are discussions going on there about this case and if so, who is involved. Are there any editors here who are members there who can check on this and provide difs if there is something important to this case? I am aware that off project stuff isn't supposed to be brought on project but with this case I find it extremely important because the PD is looking like it's going to reward the off project behavior by doing what they wanted to happen to begin with. If arbitrators haven't looked at this reference, I would suggest they do so to see what is going on over there at pediawatch.wordpress.com. I just think that the PD should be fair and that not all that are named are equally wrong in all of this. I am also concerned that too much thought is being given to the edit warring with too little thought given to more serious breaches of policies. Thank you again for considering my opinions, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you FloNight for your polite detailed response as a former arbitrator. I really appreciate what you say. That being said, looking at what is said on these off site blogs shows who is being targeted and why. It also shows that editors that are active on this page is also active on those blogs. WMC seems to be the biggest target by them too so as an outsider I find it quite disturbing that the ones who are blogging off project to get editors on the project banned are going to feel rewarded by the way the PD is looking. I guess I am frustrated that there is no way to stop this kind of behavior. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is, don't acecept the bait and report the activities. The problom is edds reacting to baiting in kind, not according to policy. Now there may be a case for greater and more proactive sanctions against disruptive edds (rather then the 'he's been blocked three times already lets block him again so he learns his leason' mentaility). But that is the fault of admins not enforcing rules with enough severity and users who will defend disruptive editing based upon content rather then actvivity. Perhaps a three strikes and your out rule may be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban scope
What about, say, Template:Global warming? That's neither an article, nor a talk page, nor a Wikipedia process. Does that mean that it is not covered by the topic ban? T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good luck in getting an answer. There is a pile of unanswered questions at the end of the "Remedy 3.1: Scope" section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Logic would say it is covered by a CC topic ban in my view. Editing it would look like looking for loopholes in the remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- While I think clarification may be helpful and there may be some cases where I can understand there would be confusion, in this case I would have to agree anyone who edits it then tries to argue it isn't covered should rightfully be smacked down for wikilaywering. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is best to preempt those wikilawyering in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. If there is an easy answer to this question, then one of the many watching arbs should just give it. If they don't answer, then the assumption muct be that there is no easy answer, in which case asking isn't wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is an easy answer: it's any directly or tangentially related article or topic attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. That's what broadly construed means. Roger Davies talk 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what about Hadley cell, Greenhouse effect, Atmosphere, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Antarctica, Suess effect, Photosynthesis, Rice, Windpower, Royal Society, NASA, Ocean, Walker circulation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Current, Hurricane,...? I think it will be quite hard to delineate the topic, and it is essentially impossible to delineate the topic on a per-article basis without massively overshooting the target. In addition, most of the more technical articles have been fairly quite, if only because non-experts simply are not aware of them or do not understand the implication of the concepts. Do we need to extend topic bans to articles that never have been a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Global warming is one form or another is already mentioned in 14 out of the 17 articles: the other three have potential for coatracking. Probably best to leave well alone with all of them, Roger Davies talk 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Customarily, topic bans are a ban on contributing content related to the topic. So, any edits to any article, template, image, or related talk page that introduce material related to the topic would be a violation. For example, introducing material about the topic into an article about a politician would be a violation of the ban despite the person not being in any category related to Climate. That is the reason that we can not merely give a complete list of WP entries that fall under the ban. But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban. And yes, preventing the problem from being introduced into more articles is one of the goals of the remedy, so we define the topic ban as "broadly construed" for purposes of enforcement. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- "But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban." - that's not obvious to me at all, and seems to be a horrible idea. Why not articles related to biology and ecology which are just as affected by climate change? Or to politics or building codes? For all of these we can construct reasonable connections to climate change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- FN has failed to distinguish Climate from Climate Change. Not an easy mistake to make, but a possible one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given the frequent number of mentions of "change" in the Climate article, including a section named Climate change , (the concept of change is include throughout the article for example see Record), and also for example in the Climate model article, I don't see how an editor can edit about Climate and avoid bumping into content that could be in conflict. Also, articles about climatologists are in conflict at times and need to be included in the topic ban for it to be effective in stopping the constant disputes. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, given that we all live in the climate, the topic touches everything. Go for a site ban then. "Could be in conflict" is not an operational definition. Stradivari violins may sound so good because the climate in which their wood was grown was colder, so an edit to a classical music article "could be" in conflict. On the other hand, updating Köppen climate classification is unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy. "Stopping the constant disputes" is an admirable goal. As stated by several other editors, even complete removal of all current editors is unlikely to achieve this goal. And what's more, the overarching goal is not to stop disputes, but to build a better encyclopaedia. If you want no disputes, restrict the topic to Barney the dinosaur, the allowed content to "Barney is cute", and lock down the Wiki (in fact, you could do away with the Wiki in favour of a static web page, much cheaper to operate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., [26][27][28][29] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, I defer to Boris' superior knowledge in this domain. But that does not affect the main point: "could be in conflict" is not a useful criterion, and there are edits to climate topics that are not significantly connected to climate change or the climate change controversy, just as there are non-climate edits that are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., [26][27][28][29] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, given that we all live in the climate, the topic touches everything. Go for a site ban then. "Could be in conflict" is not an operational definition. Stradivari violins may sound so good because the climate in which their wood was grown was colder, so an edit to a classical music article "could be" in conflict. On the other hand, updating Köppen climate classification is unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy. "Stopping the constant disputes" is an admirable goal. As stated by several other editors, even complete removal of all current editors is unlikely to achieve this goal. And what's more, the overarching goal is not to stop disputes, but to build a better encyclopaedia. If you want no disputes, restrict the topic to Barney the dinosaur, the allowed content to "Barney is cute", and lock down the Wiki (in fact, you could do away with the Wiki in favour of a static web page, much cheaper to operate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given the frequent number of mentions of "change" in the Climate article, including a section named Climate change , (the concept of change is include throughout the article for example see Record), and also for example in the Climate model article, I don't see how an editor can edit about Climate and avoid bumping into content that could be in conflict. Also, articles about climatologists are in conflict at times and need to be included in the topic ban for it to be effective in stopping the constant disputes. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what about Hadley cell, Greenhouse effect, Atmosphere, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Antarctica, Suess effect, Photosynthesis, Rice, Windpower, Royal Society, NASA, Ocean, Walker circulation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Current, Hurricane,...? I think it will be quite hard to delineate the topic, and it is essentially impossible to delineate the topic on a per-article basis without massively overshooting the target. In addition, most of the more technical articles have been fairly quite, if only because non-experts simply are not aware of them or do not understand the implication of the concepts. Do we need to extend topic bans to articles that never have been a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is an easy answer: it's any directly or tangentially related article or topic attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. That's what broadly construed means. Roger Davies talk 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. If there is an easy answer to this question, then one of the many watching arbs should just give it. If they don't answer, then the assumption muct be that there is no easy answer, in which case asking isn't wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is best to preempt those wikilawyering in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- While I think clarification may be helpful and there may be some cases where I can understand there would be confusion, in this case I would have to agree anyone who edits it then tries to argue it isn't covered should rightfully be smacked down for wikilaywering. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Logic would say it is covered by a CC topic ban in my view. Editing it would look like looking for loopholes in the remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
FN;s stuff is all besides the point, and should be ignored as ignorant. RD has provided an answer, which is clearly all we're going to get attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. Thus Hadley cell isn't covered, by RD's defn, at least not at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree: Hadley cell clearly is covered and I wouldn't disagreee with FN's block prediction either. Roger Davies talk 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, if you make an edit such as you did on the Hadley cell article then you would be blocked because it is adding content directly related to Climate change. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there are no objective criteria that could be laid out without being susceptible to wikilawyering. Instead, I'd suggest a few subjective rules of thumb:
- By making the edit, are you attempting to say something about climate change or about a person with a notable connection to climate change? If so, avoid making the edit.
- If you were to ask a disinterested but knowledgeable and reasonable person which topics were closely related to the article you wanted to edit, would there be a strong possibility that they would mention climate change (or global warming, etc.)? If so, avoid making the edit.
- If a topic-banned opponent in this dispute were to edit the same text you want to edit, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit.
- When in doubt, ask someone who will not just tell you what you want to hear -- preferably one of your more reasonable climate change opponents; barring that, a disinterested third party.
Run these rules of thumb past the scenarios offered above and see if there are any that are truly still unclear. alanyst /talk/ 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the rules of thumb. At first, I thought you were changing the emphasis from the article to the edit, but now I see that you have covered the union. If someone wants to edit building codes, and discuss grounding rules, that's fine, but if you want to discuss changes in codes due to potential climate changes issue, then it is covered. However, if the article is primarily about climate change, then any edit is covered. I wanted to make sure, for example, that someone editing the CRU incident article would not be able to claim they were editing about legal issues, because their edit related to FOI, and that's not climate change. That should be covered, and is, based upon your rule of thumb. This is not to say there won’t be questions that arise, but the rules of thumb sound like a great start.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Flexible topic bans
This would work as follows. ArbCom puts some editor X under a flexible topic ban for, say, BLP articles. ArbCom appoints Admin Y to be the mentor who implements the flexible topic ban for editor X. Admin Y familiarizes him/her self with the FoF on editor X in this ArbCom case. If editor X wishes to make an edit to some BLP article, the mentor can approve, disapprove, or ask clarification what exactly the editor wants to edit and make a decision based on that. Admin Y could also require editor X stick to a 1RR or 0RR restriction while editing. In case of violations of an agreement, Admin Y is authorized to block editor X.
I think this is a better solution for some editors who are capable of making good contributions to certain topic areas who nevertheless have not behaved well in disputes with editors who have different views regarding climate change. Count Iblis (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mentorship arrangements are very difficult to put together at the best of times (limited pool of admins prepared to undertake such a role). Specifically, it is probably undesirable in this instance because of the likely pressure the mentor would come under to revise calls (ie "you should/shouldn't have let editor X make edits k.l.m" ) and the intense partisan scrutiny that such arrangements would likely attract. Roger Davies talk 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Roger. And more debate and conflicts about the value of the edits of the people being topic banned is not the best way to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see the problems, but I think there are solutions here. You can think of ArbCom putting constraints on this system, like the mentor only being authorized to let the editor edit under 0RR. This would solve three problems. First: There obviously wouldn't be much of an issue with other editors objecting to the edits and contacting the mentor about the permission to edit; in case of objections they can revert and that then also ends the editor's involvement in editing there because of the 0RR. Second: Because of this effective veto, the mentor won't give permision to edit in the first place, unless being reverted is unlikely. Third: the factionalist mentality can be better addressed via the discretionary sanctions, I'll explain this at the end of the last paragraph below.
- There is a limited availablity of mentors, but I think the arrangement I'm proposing here is of a different nature than other mentorship agreements. Also, we're probably only dealing with a few editors for whom this is appropriate. The mentor won't have much work to do. Away from the polemics in the climate change area, there won't be much of a hurry to make an edit, therefore the mentor doesn't need to promptly consider editing requests.
- If e.g. William were topic banned this way, think of William filing a request to edit some very technical article on some aspect of climate science. Clearly, approval can wait a week. Now, suppose that some editors can't put their WMC-obsession aside, follow William and revert him on that technical article. Obviously, applying the discretionary sanctions would then be in order. It is, of course, not likely that this will happen, so it may be a way for people get rid of their factionalist mentality. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Has any such revert of a highly technical nature occurred in the past by any "obsessed" editor? Is this a matter of clapping hands to keep elephants away? Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right. But if this issue is moot, that's another argument why a mentoring agreement of this sort would not cause trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Has any such revert of a highly technical nature occurred in the past by any "obsessed" editor? Is this a matter of clapping hands to keep elephants away? Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- If e.g. William were topic banned this way, think of William filing a request to edit some very technical article on some aspect of climate science. Clearly, approval can wait a week. Now, suppose that some editors can't put their WMC-obsession aside, follow William and revert him on that technical article. Obviously, applying the discretionary sanctions would then be in order. It is, of course, not likely that this will happen, so it may be a way for people get rid of their factionalist mentality. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Question
I see that there are new proposals on the PD that names editors with per Remedy 3, which starts here, that are being voted for. This may be a stupid question but what does this mean for the editors? Again, sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't understand if it means a month or indefinite or anything in between. Thanks for any clarifications to this,--CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The proposed "Remedy 3" ban in this case is an indefinite ban on having anything at all to do with the topic on-wiki, with the possibility of an appeal as defined in either Remedy 3.2 or 3.2.1, whichever passes. --TS 13:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- (after ec) - I have assumed it means an indefinite topic ban, which seems extraordinary given the wildly different issues and standards of conduct between the individuals named. I raised concerns about it in an earlier section. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, past attempts to make editor remedies very specific to the person was a failure on several levels. Deciding between 3 months, or 6 months, or 9 months, or 1 year bans on numerous editors needlessly adds complexity to cases, and are difficult to quantify adequately without doing a full review of each editor (a consistent problem is poor quality of evidence submitted by the community which does not necessarily fully address the underlying problems). Indefinite bans that can later be lifted is a better since it lets users comeback if they are viewed as able to edit collaboratively in the topic area rather that picking an arbitrary period of time for the ban. This idea fits better with the preventative nature of the ban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- But such a system is extraordinarily unfair. In this case, we have identical remedies proposed for individuals whose behavior ranges from minor WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA violations to in-your-face WP:EW/WP:DISRUPT/WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA/WP:BAIT orgies. The guy who stole an apple from a market vendor is getting the same
punishmentremedy as the guy who stole millions in an armed bank robbery that left a trail of corpses. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)- It does seem unfair, but the more I think about it, the less I'm concerned about it. I doubt anybody is going to tell a topic-banned editor that he or she got the same treatment as some more egregious violator and therefore was just as egregious: If so many editors got the same remedy, it's hard to believe that. It's a blunt instrument on the P.D. page, but it will be much less blunt as editors apply to get back in -- then it will be tailored to fit the circumstances of each editor. The guy who stole the apple still gets a six-month ban (in some cases, I think that's still unfair) and should get back in pretty easily; while Caligula may have the seven labors of Hercules to complete before convincing ArbCom. For those who really like editing Wikipedia rather than just like promoting a POV, the time should pass pretty easily. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I enjoy editing Wikipedia productively and would do so exclusively, were it not for the activities of certain individuals who first game and then bait to remove a perceived opponent. This is the second time such underhanded stagecraft has been used to (seemingly successfully) attack me in an ArbCom case, but there will not be a third. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem unfair, but the more I think about it, the less I'm concerned about it. I doubt anybody is going to tell a topic-banned editor that he or she got the same treatment as some more egregious violator and therefore was just as egregious: If so many editors got the same remedy, it's hard to believe that. It's a blunt instrument on the P.D. page, but it will be much less blunt as editors apply to get back in -- then it will be tailored to fit the circumstances of each editor. The guy who stole the apple still gets a six-month ban (in some cases, I think that's still unfair) and should get back in pretty easily; while Caligula may have the seven labors of Hercules to complete before convincing ArbCom. For those who really like editing Wikipedia rather than just like promoting a POV, the time should pass pretty easily. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- But such a system is extraordinarily unfair. In this case, we have identical remedies proposed for individuals whose behavior ranges from minor WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA violations to in-your-face WP:EW/WP:DISRUPT/WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA/WP:BAIT orgies. The guy who stole an apple from a market vendor is getting the same
- Also, the issues here go beyond a simple inability to work cooperatively with other editors. In several instances we've seen editors with a deep philosophical belief system that conflicts with Wikipedia standards on sourcing, and/or with a cockeyed view of Wikipedia standards. These editors can almost instantly demonstrate that they can work with others, if it's on articles on noncontroversial subjects, and then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. That could be addressed by asking those editors to help bring an article that's controversial in some other field to FA status. A skeptic working on a BLP of an anti-Intelligent Design scientist or journalist or book and improving the article in NPOV ways (especially in giving fair treatment to views that are the opposite of your own) would make it pretty difficult for ArbCom to refuse entry back into CC articles in six months. Once an editor has done that once or twice it should become easier to get into the habit of doing it with CC articles. And once an editor has gotten into the habit of editing for the other side I think they'll find it a pretty satisfying thing to do and even take some pride in it. The six month waiting period also makes it easier to work with people you've had conflicts with in the past. Some of them, anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Flo and John. And -- this topic area has become overheated; a cool-down period to re-gain some perspective may be useful. The editors concerned may appreciate that themselves after a few weeks, once they are out of this toxic environment. --JN466 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. That could be addressed by asking those editors to help bring an article that's controversial in some other field to FA status. A skeptic working on a BLP of an anti-Intelligent Design scientist or journalist or book and improving the article in NPOV ways (especially in giving fair treatment to views that are the opposite of your own) would make it pretty difficult for ArbCom to refuse entry back into CC articles in six months. Once an editor has done that once or twice it should become easier to get into the habit of doing it with CC articles. And once an editor has gotten into the habit of editing for the other side I think they'll find it a pretty satisfying thing to do and even take some pride in it. The six month waiting period also makes it easier to work with people you've had conflicts with in the past. Some of them, anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the issues here go beyond a simple inability to work cooperatively with other editors. In several instances we've seen editors with a deep philosophical belief system that conflicts with Wikipedia standards on sourcing, and/or with a cockeyed view of Wikipedia standards. These editors can almost instantly demonstrate that they can work with others, if it's on articles on noncontroversial subjects, and then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Thank you for all your inputs to my question I now understand. What will happen if these editors just leave the project all together? Another thought is, what if there is a boycott not to edit in this area by some? I can see both of these happening. I guess I worry about the stabiliy of the articles. I think this is something that needs to be thought about. Remember the goal here is to write the best articles possible to give our readers the best knowledge they can find. I worry that this is not going to happen and that the articles are going to suffer and if the articles suffer so do our readers. Just a thought I want to share. Thanks again for answering my question, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- CrohnieGal, Arbcom does not get involved with content. The effect on the quality of the articles is a content issue and thus is not something that Arbcom can consider here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor is asked not to edit on a tiny fraction of the articles in WP, and decides to fully leave the project because of that rather minor restriction, it suggests that the editor may be an SPA. If that is the case, the project is better off without them. However, I think this is merely an intellectual exercise; I don't see a single name on that list who is likely to leave forever simply because they cannot edit a few articles for a few months.SPhilbrickT 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::After looking at these again I have to say I don't see the need for them since most of the editors votings are becoming clear what the arbitrators feel should pass or fail. Why the need for these extras at the bottom when there is the above remedies being voted on? It seems almost redundant imho. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I struck this, this has been explained to me off this page. Feel free to delete my comments. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- @SPhilbrick and anyone else. I have no history of poor editing of CC articles. No edit warring. I have defended myself on the arbcom case talkpage and obviously taken the bait once or twice when offered. For this I am being accused of promoting a battleground and am in the list for a topic ban. I have not primarily been an editor of Climate Change articles and that is certainly not my reason for being on wikipedia. However, I would regard a topic ban as a very silly slap in the face from arbcom and should this pass I will retire from wikipedia with immediate effect. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Will the decision be structurally biased?
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its useful course. Roger Davies talk 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I think that we need to step back and examine the overall impact of the decision as it is currently shaping up. Roughly equal numbers of penalties are being meted out to the science-knowledgeable editors and those that favor greater emphasis on skeptical and fringe subjects and points of view. My concern about this approach, which I understand is common in arbcom decisions, is that the effect would be inherently and structurally one-sided. There are a very limited number of technically competent people willing to edit Wikipedia, but a virtually unlimited number of technically incompetent, ideologically driven people more than happy to weigh in on these articles. The intent is to achieve a perception of fairness, but the actual outcome is to remove the majority of climate science-knowledgeable editors. Because of the unending supply of nonexpert skeptically-oriented editors, some motivated by outside websites, that would inevitably mean that the CC articles will shift in the direction of pseudoscience. More articles will appear on minor blogs/books/documentaries pushing the "climate change ain't happening" minority/fringe viewpoint. There will be more POV pushing, civil and otherwise, with far fewer technically competent editors around to challenge them. There will be more eroding of sourcing standards. There is the potential for great harm to the encyclopedia. What we're seeing here is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia being exposed, which is its vulnerability to fringe POVs and its structural hostility to experts. No, experts are not, inherently, polite people. They are not prone to collaborate with nonexperts. That's a fact of life. We are seeing that played out in the CC articles. While some may feel that it is OK to "level the playing field" so that editors with minority points of view get treated with greater respect and more politely, in the long run I feel that achieving that aim by excluding scientists from these articles will damage Wikipedia and add to its reputation for inaccuracy and unreliability. I hope that the arbitrators take all of this into account, in their effort to make this case go away. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we're arguing to cross purposes. My hope is that experts, who are also able to edit harmoniously, will always be welcome to contribute to any article on science. That has not been the case on some articles within this topic for quite some time now. And yes, being an expert does make a considerable difference to the quality of one's edits; this is or should be an uncontroversial fact. An expert writing about a subject in general produces a more accurate and more complete article, although it may need some polishing. TS --20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Horologium writes: 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 - I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. I was responding to a claim that Lindzen's position could not be fringe because of who he was. I merely used Pauling as an example to show the fallacy of that argument from authority. As for coverage in the Vitamin C article - you're talking about 186 words out in an article that's almost 7000 words long. Fringe positions are given far more space (proportionally) in the global warming article (155-522 words, depending on how you look at it, in an article that's a little over 4200 words long). So I really don't get your point. Guettarda (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I too am baffled by H, who writes 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." Yes, it was and is ridiculous. If you know nothing at all about them, then obviously you can believe they are NN. If you know anything at all about the satellite temperature record, you can't. I know this arbcomm case is trying to pretend that expertise is dispensable, but H is doing his best to prove by misexample the reverse. If you don't believe me, put them up for AFD. However, be aware that such debates tend to polarise - even very weak candidates like Joanne Nova get voted as "keep" by their partisans, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Nova William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Kamikaze editing
Collapsing. Noted: this one seems to have run its useful course. Roger Davies talk 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
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,[33]). 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
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. The underlying problem in such cases is the strategy of "teaching the controversy", magnifying fringe views and trying to shoe-horn them into a position of greater prominence in articles on the mainstream science. Here recent work published in PNAS will prove useful. It was found that the mind-share of the essential mainstream views in domain experts in this field is over 97%. While some significant minority views still exist, we can state confidently that our key articles within the topic area overstate the significance of minority views in comparison to the mainstream. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I don't agree at all with JN's notion that Wikipedia has fueled the wider dispute. The CRU hacking and its associated media frenzy showed everybody the extent to which the facts are bent in an attempt to discredit the science, and we've even seen one or two editors try those same tricks on this very page, selectively quoting stolen emails in order to blacken the reputations of scientists. This encyclopedia and its little disputes played no part in that, and fortunately proved strong enough to narrowly resist attempts to use it to spread malicious falsehoods about the climate scientists in the wake of the hacking. With a good discretionary sanctions regime in place, such attempts should become even more futile. Those who come here with the intention of harming Wikipedia at all costs will be easier to identify, and they will no longer be able to hide behind misrepresentations of the way in which Wikipedia is edited. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Scibaby? Seriously, has any of his sabotage ever remained in an article for more than a few hours? Meanwhile the checkuser system insulates ordinary editors and admins from worries about mistaken identification. While I tend to agree with those who say that the proposed Scibaby finding in this case wildly exaggerates the risk of genuine editors being misidentified, the practical effects of this arbitration are likely to make a much less friendly environment for such trolls. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call either of those examples vandalism, but they would be clearly tendentious editing if persistently pushed in the face of better sources, just as somebody using outdated or marginal sources anywhere else. We're pretty lucky in the climate change topic area that there is at least one regular review of all the relevant literature, conducted by prominent specialists across the entire field. The result is extraordinary depth of coverage, so it's pretty difficult to slip in a ringer, a paper that purports to represent the field but doesn't fit with the rest and hasn't been able to overturn them. This is the same bar of soap all the contrarians who come to Wikipedia slip on, but in climate change it's an especially big and slippery bar. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC) This ill-tempered dispute here in the project is what has heated up the blogosphere - wrong, and fortunately even arbcomm has recognised that: FoF 1.1 is preferred over FoF 1 William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Question of my own....
Why not place all the embattled articles under Full Protection?--*Kat* (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because not all editors are the problem, and just about everybody wants to fix the broken bone rather than saw off the limb and stick it in formaldehyde. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's a wiki. --TS 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- too many of the articles already have some kind of protection. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who decides which of the wrong versions gets full protection, who decides when it gets changed and who decides when protection is no longer needed? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is the question, isn't it? My idea is that all the embattled articles be given full protection. Then, y'all would have to hash it out on the talk page and come to an honest to God consensus before having any revisions inserted. This would require you to make compromises about what goes in and what stays out. The end result, I think, would be an article that really is neutral. One where minority views are neither suppressed or given undue weight.--*Kat* (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is very good reasoning. I would support this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent reasoning, I think you've cracked the whole problem of how to enforce the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Let's fully protect evolution and not allow any edits unless "due weight" is given to creationism. What can possibly go wrong? --TS 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is very good reasoning. I would support this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is the question, isn't it? My idea is that all the embattled articles be given full protection. Then, y'all would have to hash it out on the talk page and come to an honest to God consensus before having any revisions inserted. This would require you to make compromises about what goes in and what stays out. The end result, I think, would be an article that really is neutral. One where minority views are neither suppressed or given undue weight.--*Kat* (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nice display of sarcasm, Thanks for making it clear that the problom is ot a one sided attitude or some evil, off wiki conspriacy but is in an attmpet by both sides to ensure that only their version of the truth is the on ewe allow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- As a non-sarcasm response, the concern is that the version would be 'locked' in an unacceptably wrong version which could be filibustered to maintain, regardless of its merits. As long as the current versions supporters maintain an appearance of no consensus to change then the ones who want to change it are rendered powerless. The argument then would shift to bickering over wether the admin who invoked consensus and made the change was actually acting neutrally or partisanly leading to the same arguments that we have already concerning admins 'involvedness'. Essentially the argument would adapt to the new editing enviroment without being solved. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The grisly facts and a prediction
Nothing to see here. Lets stop slinging blame and concentrate on bringing this case to a close, shall we? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I have just finished yet more archiving. This page, in the last two months, has generated a staggering 350,000 words and counting. This volume wouldn't be so bad if it the effort had gone into four new novels or nearly seven hundred new DYKs, but much of it has been partisan, ill-tempered, and of dubious relevance. And that's without mentioning the systemic wiki-lawyering ... The time has come to wind down the interminable discussions, with genuine effort now going into pertinance, brevity and collegiality. If not, it is probable that the clerks will be obliged to start intervening. Roger Davies talk 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Its a bit late for you to start comlaining about this. Right at the start I noted that some evidence - I think it was from JWB - was clearly partisan and not at all neutral. the arbs reaction was we-don't-care. If you've finally realised that is bad, then hurrah, but you should not be trying to cast blame on the case participants for errors that you have substantially contributed to. Ditto on talk length: the arbs habit of gnomic silence is largely responsible for this. And *yes*, the talk pages should indeed be more strongly clerked. Oh, and having a rubbish PD scrawled on a fag-packet by Rlevse didn't exactly help, either William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
I don't know why this was hatted so quickly since it was a thread started by an arbitrator. Shouldn't we see what Roger has to say out in the open and not under a hat like it's not important? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The original post was only partially on-topic and the thread swiftly veered right off-topic. The important thing is that people keep post volume and post length to a minimum. Roger Davies talk 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The important thing, Roger Davies, is that the Arbitrators have collectively failed to manage the Arbitration process. For months they have failed to participate meaningfully in the process, and they have failed to give effective guidance to their clerks. They have failed to inform parties of the scope of the case. They have failed to discuss their interpretation or evaluation of evidence. They have failed to provide feedback at nearly every stage of the process. If it's taken two months for an Arbitrator to notice that this page has a tremendous amount of irrelevant bickering, off-topic discussion, and interminable wikilawyering, then something is seriously broken. Perhaps your request would be met more warmly if it were accompanied by an acknowledgement of the errors the Committee has made so far, and an honest and open discussion of how they intend to remedy the mess that they have helped to construct.
- The Arbitration Committee failed in a very similar way last year around this time when they ignored the WMC-Abd case for extended periods; made no effort to curtail excessive, repetitive, unconstructive comment by some of the parties; and presented an appallingly unbalanced and ill-thought-out initial proposed decision. It is disappointing to see how little has been learned and how little has changed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most parents and teachers learn pretty quickly that it's a bad idea to make rules that you don't intend to enforce. Doing so only undermines your credibility and leads to your charges misbehaving even worse. Leaders of effective organizations learn similar lessons. Unfortunately the arbitrators do not seem to have taken this principle on board. The case had word limits that went unenforced even when brought to the attention of the committee; there were deadlines that slipped by weeks; and on and on. That's not to excuse the misbehavior of editors, but the committee itself has a considerable share of the responsibility for what this case has turned into. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with TenofAllTrades and some of the hatted comments, esp. the ones by JWB and WMC. While I agree that brevity is important, it's not right to even implicitly blame the participants in the process for the length of the pages, the wikilawyering, etc. The participants of all points of view were staggering around in the blind. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not to pile it on, but one example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Sub-issues to be addressed. This ran for two weeks, collected a long list of suggested issues, and, as far as I can tell, there has been no feedback at all - so of course evidence and proposals were written for all proposed issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)