Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Line 639: | Line 639: | ||
: Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert. Now try not to let it happen again. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
: Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert. Now try not to let it happen again. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
::While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: |
:::It's a fact that as an academic on Wikipedia you get to deal with a neverending stream of Randys from Boise. This is a systematic problem that needs tackling. The fact that this case has been brought and that this page alone is god-knows-how-long shows just how urgent it is. In a university we have student assistants, secretaries &c to screen out the nutjobs, just because our time is too precious to take every last man serious who walks in, claiming to prove that P!=NP. Ignore this advice at your peril. [[Special:Contributions/74.65.111.74|74.65.111.74]] ([[User talk:74.65.111.74|talk]]) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
<s>:::Well I'm not a scientist at all and reading this brings me to one question that I find confusing since an arbitrator brought this to our attentions. If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</s> |
<s>:::Well I'm not a scientist at all and reading this brings me to one question that I find confusing since an arbitrator brought this to our attentions. If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</s> |
Revision as of 23:58, 1 October 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.
22 KimDabelsteinPetersen
I'm not making a comment on the BLP sourcing part of the finding, but I think there are issues with this finding's counts of "edit-warring" - particularly, diffs
- 264 reverting a puppet -ban-evading user
- 266 reverting anon (compare to what contributions the anon made to Wikipedia: [1] - I suspect it was the same ban-evading user)
- 269 dealing with tendentious problem editor GoRight who was community banned
- 270 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
- 271 (compare to what contributions the account made on the article [2])
- 274 (not a reversion; putting source into citation template)
- 277 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
- 279 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
Community policy makes it clear that reverting edits by banned users is not considered edit-warring (it's not a violation of anything) and note: the community has not imposed any requirement of "you must intend to revert a banned user" because that's stupid. I also think the efforts KimD has taken in being civil despite dealing with the mentioned editors (who have been tendentious problems for the wider community - burning out many useful contributors) ought to be taken into consideration. 2/0 also raises several useful points that have not been taken into account in this proposed decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I largely endorse the above summary, thank you for saving me the trouble of writing it up.
- I would quibble that the third diff shows KimDabelsteinPetersen reverting to GoRight's most recent revision, though GR was arguing on the talk page for removal of that material. Skimming the talk page from January 2009, the issue appears to have been whether the article should use qualifiers such as purportedly or unsubstantiated to describe a source from ABC news that cites climate scientists rather than named individuals.
- The first set of diffs in the FoF all relate to whether the word allegedly should be added to stolen in describing the documents from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. These diffs are from a few weeks after the event (10th, 20th, and 21st of December, shortly before WP:GS/CC/RE was established), socks were rife, and KDP added a source to solve the issue immediately after the last diff presented. With the exception of two more apparent sock puppets, this appears to have had the effect of ending the edit war. Neither robust participation at the talkpage nor active attempts to seek compromise nor lack of a technical 3RR violation excuse edit warring, of course, but removing unsourced content on a BLP and adding quality sources I think are behaviors that we would like to encourage.
- In the first three of the third set of diffs, KDP bases his removal on WP:UNDUE and OR as well as BLP. A cleaner example would probably make this case easier to interpret as precedent if this FoF passes. This particular issue also involves an account now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight.
- The fourth and fifth diffs in that set are the removal of a clause that was either unsourced or unduly promotional, and a related question of the extent to which we should rely on a living person's autobiography. I do not see how this relates to the question of whether the enhanced sourcing standards of WP:BLP should be applied to non-biographical material and material that might be considered for a spinout article. Please enlighten me if I have misinterpreted the purpose of this series of diffs. Other editors continued edit warring over this material until I protected the article a week later (my last admin action in this topic area except one protection where I found edit warring when performing a due diligence check of a recently expired semi-protection).
- The assertion that KDP exercises different sourcing standards in support of a POV has been around for at least the better part of a year, but I do not think that the currently presented set of diffs demonstrate this. Perhaps the point could be made by presenting two parallel sets of diffs where he argues for more and less stringent requirements. If the division of this list also correlates well to whether or not the person in question is known for being a climate contrarian, then I think the FoF would be justified. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- that KDP exercises different sourcing standards in support of a POV [...] I do not think that the currently presented set of diffs [on the PD page] demonstrate this. That's rather easily rectified. I've provided plenty of evidence and explanation of that in the "Remedies" section below, and there are links in that section to both my evidence on KDP and a discussion on Roger Davies' talk page. It's all there, although it involves different diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
3.3.19 - KimDabelsteinPetersen (remedies)
I do not believe that this proposed topic ban is apposite. For a period of several months, I read the overwhelming majority of edits KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) made in the topic area of climate change, as with each of the other major participants. It is my observation that in any dispute, KDP is likely to be the first to make a full presentation of his reasoning on the talk page, the first to urge calm while outside input is gathered, and the first to introduce new sources in an attempt at compromise. To the best of my knowledge, KDP has never been blocked, banned, or formally sanctioned in any way. Obviously this would apply to everyone at least once, but in this case we have good evidence to hand that KDP responds rationally when the community expresses concerns.
In early February, KimDabelsteinPetersen was formally warned at the community requests for enforcement board that further participation in any edit war in the probation area would lead to a 1 revert restriction or similar sanction. My part in this discussion may be seen at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2#Result concerning TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC. Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 8#Joe d'Aleo and temperatures is the relevant discussion initiated by KDP with reference to established policy and guidelines; KDP discussed with the editor who initially contributed the material in question and others before invoking WP:BURDEN. He engaged with this discussion even while the recently contributed material with which he disagreed was displayed in the article. This judicious discuss first approach is contributory to a harmonious editing environment, and should be actively encouraged.
Still, the above incident did see KDP revert twice. As people who have seen my work at AN3 will likely agree, I tend to take a hard line approach with regards to edit warring. One of the bigger problems with this topic area has been the tendency of additional editors to involve themselves in ongoing edit wars, leading to article disruption even in cases where no individual editor has broken 3RR. KDP responded to the abovelinked enforcement thread by not being involved in any edit wars for at least the next two weeks (the period over which I followed his edits as due diligence after warning him). Nor was he a major participant in any edit war nor subject to any request for enforcement for the next two months (the period until I rotated myself out of actively adminning this topic area). I believe that he has also stated that he consciously enacted a personal 1RR rule, though I do not care to track down the diff at the moment. Continuing to contribute productively while moderating potentially questionable behavior is the best possible response when the community raises concerns. This again is behavior that I would like to see acknowledged and encouraged.
KDP agreed to the voluntary topic ban proposed by Jehochman earlier in this case, and has continued to follow it unilaterally, with the exception of the case pages. This is very much the behavior of a patient and reasonable editor rather than a disruptive one.
KDP explains his approach to editing BLPs at User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles. Though I personally take a slightly more parsimonious approach to BLPs (I favor excluding any aspect that has not received in depth coverage from good sources, giving us poorer but safer articles), the views outlined at that page are well within the mainstream of interpretations of Wikipedia policy. I would not invoke the BLP hammer on anyone making such an argument. Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms.
While I sympathize with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Enough is enough and the success of the Scientology ArbCom case, I believe that we also have a duty to recognize KimDabelsteinPetersen's positive responses to and engagement with the larger community. His editing habits have not been a major contributing factor to the situation leading to this case, and it is my considered opinion that his renewed participation in this topic area would both enhance article quality and contribute to a positive editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking the time to write. An opposing view, which I am not saying that I necessarily endorse, of this editor's contributions can be found here. Roger Davies talk 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for reading, Roger Davies, and for linking the prior presentation of evidence. I do not find that section compelling. Would it be a good use of my time to rebut it, or would it be preferable to concentrate on more immediate matters? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- 2/0, you state: Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach [to BLP issues] is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms. No, that does not adequately describe his approach. As I said on Roger Davies' talk page, it's Kim's application -- where the rubber hits the road -- that's the problem. Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to protect climate-change skeptics? Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to show where information critical to someone with Kim's general views should be included? I'd like to see diffs of that. What I've seen, over and over, is interpretation of BLP in ways that further Kim's preferences on the issue of Climate Change, with resulting rough treatment for one side and adamant protection for the other. He has worn away all assumptions of good faith in this regard. Combine this behavior with any edit warring, any BLP violations or any other violation of a policy, especially when ArbCom has declared this a Draconian Enforcement Zone [3] in an area where WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has been a problem.
- It is an unacceptable BLP violation to cite a blog [4] to call Fred Singer's lead-authored report "dishonest" and it doesn't matter how many times Kim cites "the exceptions to SPS" or has thought out his approach to BLP issues in the abstract. In fact, it's more disturbing to find BLP violations coming from someone who has thought so much about the policy. This edit [5] is unacceptable when you contrast the description of the source at the bottom of this page [6] (Professor Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability) with Kim's description of that source as some kind of "qualified expert" (in the edit summary from the last diff) -- the statement being sourced had nothing to do with climate change or climate science, but with Lindzen's views on passive cigarette smoking: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated".
- As far back as June 2009, editors were flabbergasted that Kim would defend that edit after reading Kim earlier rail against use of Op-Eds as BLP sources. [7] [8] [9] It is simply not possible to conclude that this editor is giving adequate effort either to presenting readers information without bias or keeping BLP articles from becoming attacks on the subjects. These and other edits make it look like Kim is using Wikipedia as a tool to gain political advantage in a political fight. Kim needs to be separated from this subject area and show he can edit against his side, particularly regarding controversial BLPs, and he should not be let back in until he's shown ArbCom he can do it. As the flabbergasted reaction I linked to shows, this kind of behavior on Kim's part naturally gets under the skin of editors trying to work with him to make improvements to articles. It obviously contributes to a battleground atmosphere. To turn 2/0's statement on its head: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but what am I missing here with the difs John is presenting? To me it looks like Kim's response is saying they need to find references with "editorial oversight". What is wrong with that? Why is that disruptive rather than reasonable? No John I don't think you turn "2/0 statement on it's head" at all. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved here from a more general discussion section below. So the opening comments are slightly out of context. Roger Davies talk 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that one is interesting.. especially since i was asking specifically about the issues that ArbCom is now considering to be
"ideosyncratic""idiosyncratically"[10], and which they seem to think merit topic-ban, but haven't addressed :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [strike: sprong welling --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)]
- "Ideosyncratic"? Have I mispelled it somewhere? Roger Davies talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Kim (whose spelling is much better than most English speakers, although I think his native language is Danish) is pointing out that he asked months ago for guidance regarding the line between sourcing that criticizes a BLP's work (which might conceivably include criticism from bloggers in some circumstances -- say, if it is considered simply an alternative POV) and sourcing criticism that goes beyond criticizing what a person has done. It's a bit complex to explain the details, and frankly it would be a lot of effort to explain to Kim, who is very well versed in the intricacies. I explained to Kim on your talk page, Roger, [11] how I think ArbCom would be justified in calling Kim's edits "idiosyncratic" in that regard and worthy of a sanction (because to me this doesn't look like a well-meaning misunderstanding). But I obviously don't speak for ArbCom and Kim wants guidance from ArbCom. Years ago, when I first got blocked, I had a similar misunderstanding about policy. It actually only took a few words from CoolHandLuke to get me to think through what was wrong about what I was doing. I concluded that while I was certainly confused about policy, I wouldn't have erred if I'd tried harder to follow the spirit of the policy and that I'd fallen into wikilawyering over policy in order to try to get what I wanted (I think the policy was WP:CONSENSUS, but possibly WP:DISRUPT, too). I think it would take some effort to explain to Kim what he did wrong in that regard, but it would help him to figure it out. I think if ArbCom approves the six-month-minimum topic ban, he'll figure it out eventually anyway, but an explanation would be smoother. Personally, I think if Kim stopped the partisan kinds of behaviors mentioned in the Fof, he'd be one of Wikipedia's very best editors, so I think the effort of understanding this and explaining it to him is worth it. I hope the finding and remedy for Kim is approved, but I worry that ArbCom members might think his "idiosyncracy" is just a misunderstanding, when it's really more serious than that. It really is worthwhile for ArbCom members to understand these details, and it would help the project to explain it to Kim. Sorry to go on at length, but I don't know a briefer way of saying this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Link added. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- note: Because i think that my involvement in this discussion may sidetrack it into minutia, and a response/counter/response/... type of discussions, i'll attempt not to comment on this section, except in answer to direct questions. I am following it though, and will be reflecting on the comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I feel disquiet about Kim. He is not the kind of person who is more trouble than he's worth. 2over0 says it better than I could. Kim is the way forward. We can't improve things by explicitly excluding people who are working very hard to make things better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kim's behavior, including BLP violations and tag-team reverting, but perhaps not the deletion of article talk page comments (theoretically more eyes should be watching and prevent this but it looks like all the watchdogs are getting topic bans so who knows), has gone on far too long for a mere "talking to" to get through to him. I will say that several editors have certainly changed their behavior during the ArbCom case, but I imagine this sort of thing is so commonplace that it is transparent to experienced eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tell me about "tag-team reverting." In my experience that term is used by singleton edit warriors to attack several other editors who are reverting their attempts to impose their view against consensus. Have you often found that Kim and several other editors are reverting your attempts to make an edit that you know is right? Is there another definition that I'm missing? What would it be if you and some other editor were reverting an edit by a singleton editor who happened to be in disagreement with you? Would you then also be "tag-teaming"? How can I distinguish "tag-teaming" from "expression of consensus against a determined singleton edit warrior?"--TS 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash evidence that's already been presented Tony. The short answer to your first question is "Absolutely." If you want more detail then simply read the evidence page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I second the nomination, Kim has tag-teamed revered with WMC. It's really annoying and provokes edit wars. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I find what 2/0 and Ncmvocalist have to say about KDP very enlightening since I don't know nor have I ever edited with this editor other than recently on their talk page. I hope the artitrators take notice of these two additions. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:09, 29 September 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.
Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber
Collapsing. To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented. Roger Davies talk 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [12], [13], [14], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed [20], [21], [22], [23]. Proposed per arbitrator request. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in (and highlighted here) on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[24], [25], [26], [27] [28] Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading it the same way. I'm also trying to access archive 4 but I am getting an error that says it has to do with the software when I hit the history. Can anyone else? I am trying to find the section where he says he is "a victim of the abuse" or did research and also the comments at the Scjessey FoF Barber set up. Thanks for any help. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway [29]was without merit and should be made a part of this FoF. Resp. to Crohnie: no, I'm not having a problem accessing Archive 4. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Proposed new finding of fact - ZuluPapa5
ZuluPapa5 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [30] [31], [32], [33], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [34], [35], [36] [37], and has engaged in systematic wiki-lawyering [38]. Proposed . I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively and engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including edit warring ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]), systematic wikilawyering and tendentious debates ([45] [46] [47] [48]), personal attacks, bad faith accusations, soapboxing, and comments that reinforced a battleground mentality ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53], [54]). Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Proposed new finding of fact - FellGleaming
Collapsing. Ongoing problems can be handled by the community and/or by discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 09:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
FellGleaming has engaged in disruptive behavior, including systematic misrepresentations of sources [55], [56], edit warring [57], [58], [59], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [60], [61]. Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Obligatory cool-downs
Any administrator can, on determination of the existence of an acrimonious editing environment, personally instruct any of the involved parties to cease editing an article and its associated talkpage for a specified period of time. Editors who do not follow these instructions can be subject to blocks.
Discussion
I've been trying to think of ways to empower administrators without making them into what I like to term, "involved monsters". This is one way to do it, I think. Mandatory breaks for users who are involved in heated disputes might clear the air enough for less upset editors to try to collaborate. These breaks would be required to expire allowing the problem editors to return to, perhaps, a page that is in better shape. Arguments over whether an administrator is involved, biased, or favoring a particular faction or POV are made moot since the breaks are required to expire. If an "involved administrator" sends one "faction" away to give "ownership" to the other faction, this will only last until expiration of the break.
Oftentimes editors (myself included) cannot help themselves when a dispute erupts. Administrators rarely instruct people to not edit on a page due to acrimony.
ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like it, with the understanding that a standard cool-down period should be on the order of about a week, so that it is clearly preventative and not punitive. This is like a non-bureocratic version of a mini-topic-ban, and harmless enough that admins can actually apply it without lengthy discussions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- But they are not. Instead, they have week-long discussions about short blocks or warnings. Listing this option explicitly as a light-weight alternative would be useful, I think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan, that's complete rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means if you have the bit you just say "fuck it, everybody be nice" and they just do it. That's what they're about. If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. The ridiculous idea that admins need to discuss endlessly before acting on their own cognizance is exactly why we're going through the pain of this case. The probation allowed for discretion but it was not enforced, and so it ended up as a talking shop and things actually got worse. I would expect the arbitrators to say, loudly and clearly, "when we say discretionary, we mean at the admin's individual, sole, only and solitary discretion." And if you look at the wording that's pretty much what they do say. --TS 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- So far, most admins who hear "sanction" think "block", and the threshold for a block is, for good reasons, fairly high. What admins can do is irrelevant - the people in the near east simply can decide to be all nice to each other. Explicitly encouraging lower-impact approaches can help getting innovative solutions into circulation - and innovation is something sorely missing from the PD so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working on something covering just that as guidance in the discretionary sanctions section. Roger Davies talk 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I've been involved in discretionary sanctions in the past (c.f. fringe science). The way they work in practice is that people complain to enforcement boards and admins try to decide whether to block or enact "page bans" on bad users. The whole process was needlessly inflammatory and ended up with the nastiness of WP:PUNITIVE authority being applied unevenly against users who didn't spend enough time or do a good enough job defending themselves. Opposing sides would clamor for blocks, topic-bans, page-bans, and other slings and arrows to be hurled at their opponents by posting on administrators' talk pages, enforcement boards, etc. There was this weird process of warning users with a pseudo-template, logging actions on the arbitration page, and generally causing everyone to feel that any action taken against a particular user was done because that user was a bad user on his or her way toward harsh punishment. Arguments would erupt over whether page-banned users should be subject to other enforcement measures effectively moving the Overton Window to police state. If instead administrators had just quietly and politely told a wide range of users (without judgment) to simply steer clear of a particular page for a day, a week, or a month less chaos would have ensued without the petty logging, black-eye-applications, and holier-than-thou attitudes, there might not have been such a famous ruckus. Stephen Shulz is right. Administrators acting under discretionary sanctions don't often enough engage in the quiet suggestions that can lead to true transformation of arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. that's absolute rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means discretionary sanctions, not some bloody silly commtttee. We went through that pain for six months, and it was bad exactly because of the endless discussion where admins went through the pantomime of listening to involved parties. --TS 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you are replying to me (and referring to my suggestion, not the state as it was), I don't think you understand what I tried to say. Please read it again or summarise what you think I said, so I can clarify. I'm not saying it needs a committee to apply one of the discretionary sanctions. I observe that that is what has happened. And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- (ec with edits too numerous to count)If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The discretionary sanctions are about to pass. This is ideally how they work: an admin on his or her own discretion, makes a decision. We know that admins have been intimidated in the past, and that admins in the field who want to get involved are rare. Admins up to the task will be found. They will act fairly and use their discretion. If they fail to do so then they know what will happen.
- Now you unfairly point to some hypothetical "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator." Well if the only admin willing to work in the area is that bad, you may have a point, but the hope is that all admins will feel free to act, without fear or favor, to enforce Wikipedia's policies. But if the admin is that bad, won't he end up in front of arbcom? The intention is to quieten down the field, not to infuse "crazed" admins, who to be honest are notable by their absence.. --TS 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan: And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion.
- Yes, I think that's likely. I may have misread your reasoning. I think the example I gave was something like "fuck it, everybody be nice", and I don't think there are many less punitive sanctions. It's intentionally framed as a mild parental reproof. --TS 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is merit to this proposal, but I would not rate it as an issue that should hold up the final decision. It should probably be rephrased, as I think the term cool-down is a bit loaded at Wikipedia. I have used a similar technique with some success at AN3; I think that EdJohnston is very good at applying it at that board, though I do not know if he is interested in discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in knowing who these "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator." are, can difs be given or a list? I think it's important since it's been stated here as facts. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- But if John answers, it could be called a personal attack. Same reason ScienceApologist can't list "involved monsters". Sure many admins have POVs; if we had blind justice, we couldn't so reliably predict who will say what before we read it. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough but I think one of them just retired from the project. You have to admit that's not good, right? I will admit that I'm upset a bit that the arbitrators and the clerks didn't stop a lot of the noise earlier on this talk page. Personally I've never seen behavior like what was allowed except in one other case that was allowed to go completely out of control. We should learn from older cases, not repeat the errors. Feel free to hat this discussion, it just needed to be said I think. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then you should agree we can discuss how things are "completely out of control", without becoming part of the problem, since you just did it yourself. This is not a defense of John's accusations against Polargeo, which I haven't researched and which aren't in this section. Art LaPella (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough but I think one of them just retired from the project. You have to admit that's not good, right? I will admit that I'm upset a bit that the arbitrators and the clerks didn't stop a lot of the noise earlier on this talk page. Personally I've never seen behavior like what was allowed except in one other case that was allowed to go completely out of control. We should learn from older cases, not repeat the errors. Feel free to hat this discussion, it just needed to be said I think. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Discretion
I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:
- Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. --TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is actually the opposite of giving discretion to admins - you force them to "engage in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", not giving them discretion to act as they think best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, absolutely not. Read the remedy. There is nothing there about extensive engagement prior to warning or sanctions. It's those who want to reverse the sanction who have to jump the hoops. And quite right too. Of course you don't get to sanction and walk away, you do have to respond to constructive engagement, but if you've got a bit you signed up for it. --TS 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably. Roger Davies talk 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do not really understand how Roger's comment fits this thread...
- In reply to Tony: You miss the point (or I did not formulate it well enough). Either you trust the admins, or you don't. Why would you trust them to enact sanctions responsibly, but not to revert them responsibly? In my experience, the more consequential an act is, the less likely it is to be done. The key is not to make sure sanctions stick, the key is to make them lightweight enough that admins actually enact them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably. Roger Davies talk 23:28, 28 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)
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[62]. 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., [63][64][65][66] 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., [63][64][65][66] 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)
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)
- Just for the record here, Mark Nutley and Heyitspeter both have retired templates on their accounts. I don't know of any others who have retired other than ChrisO. Last I saw Atren and Verbal were on an extended wikibreak. Just thought this should be known with the discussion above. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:49, 30 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)
- Surely there are some dedicated admins who don't give a darn about climate change [who could moderate the discussion] out there.
What about TWOFR?. Furthermore the revisions don't have to take place on the day concenses is achieved. It could work on a schedule. Once a week or once every other day if the article is hot and there is new stuff coming on regularly. As to your first point: If a truly non-biased editor agrees that an article unacceptably POV, then the admin in charge could revert it back to a more acceptable version before putting the full protection on.--*Kat* (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Surely there are some dedicated admins who don't give a darn about climate change [who could moderate the discussion] out there.
- 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)
- Kat, that's an interesting idea. It would be gamed by having minorities of editors dig in their heels to prevent consensus, but that can happen now. It would stop the edit warring, but also make it much more difficult to make uncontroversial changes that would benefit the articles (they're not always well-written and uncontroversial changes are almost always most of the edits in article space, I think). I don't think there are enough uninvolved admins with enough interest and time to do the editing once consensus is achieved on the page. In the grand scheme of things, in terms of workload, it's easier to sanction some editors and encourage future sanctions for future violations. I think I was too dismissive of your original post on this -- sorry about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. However, I respectfully disagree. What happened to AGF? Furthermore just like one person can't make a concensus, so too can one person not block concensus. If you are simply unable to achieve concensus over a non-controversial edit, the question should be, "Is this really important enough to go into an encyclopedia article." As to your final point, that's a lazy excuse. It may be easier but that doesn't make it better. Besides, just because you don't have the time doesn't mean others don't.--*Kat* (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that full protection with changes only added after an admin agrees on consensus is actually the opposite of AGF. It also flies in the face of WP:OWN since you would be essentially setting in stone that specific admins OWN specific articles and no one can change it without their say-so. We'd also have to change the tagline for wikipedia to 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit after an admin says its ok', Though WP is already headed in that direction anyway with BLP's and flagged revisions. I'm also interested in your statement above of 'truly non-biased editor'. Did you have specific criteria for 'truly non-biased' that people will agree on? Will the admins that have the right to edit through protection be vetted for impartiality before or after they make their changes? And who will be doing that vetting? What if a bunch of people think an admin, like oh say, Lar is involved and a bunch of others think he isn't? Who decides then? How many edits through protection can an admin make to an article before he is concidered involved? Seeings as he's editing the article and all. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "truly non-biased editor': I'm thinking maybe select someone at random from those editors who are 1) currently active, 2) have more than 1500 non-minor edits 3) in good standing (no blocks) and 4) have never even touched a climate change article. A database query could give you a list. You can select four or five or more and ask them what they think. Yes, I can think of all sorts of "but what if" problems with this, but chances are they won't happen. Tell someone that you will trust them and they will--more often than not--live up to that trust.--*Kat* (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we use the same algorithm for "truly non-biased editor" to decide on important issues in the editing of, say, hippocampus? A specialist spends part of his weekend typing up a sourced addendum to the section on schizophrenia, Randy in Boise thinks it conflicts with his beliefs and reverts saying the specialist is a plant from AMA. Captain Spaulding, your chosen non-biased editor, pops in and says "sure, looks like a conflict." So the article is fully protected for weeks because some random guy disagreed with a neurologist and a bloke who had no connection with the subject said there was obviously a disagreement. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to stop editing an article just because some person disagrees with some other person about an issue. Most of the time the objection by Randy is brushed aside because it has no credibility. And that is a good thing. --TS 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- TS, quit repeating things that clearly aren't true. It is inflammatory (to me anyway) to characterize someone as something they are not and misleading to everyone else. If this was really the case then you guys would've presented evidence of it. That has not been the case. The best thing you guys can say is that WMC said the paper he co-authored shouldn't have been used as a source to demonstrate global cooling alarmism - in other words, hot sauce added to weak tea to disguise the argument's lack of substance. To your general argument, "specialists" or "experts" can be activists just as easily as anyone else (more so in my opinion). A case in point, the guy in charge of the NASA surface temperature record (which shows higher temperatures than the satellite record) has just been arrested for a second time due to his environmental protesting activities. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I'm doing. There are no real people in the Captain Spaulding scenario, only the algorithm proposed above is real. The stuff about WMC (Dr. Connolley?) is not germane to the subject as far as I can tell. I agree that specialists are activists within their field. What of it? --TS 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- If I've misunderstood your argument then it is only because it sounds identical to the arguments we've heard so many times before throughout the arbitration. Are you now telling me that it isn't a zebra I see but a white horse with black stripes painted on it? As for your final point, no, "specialists" are not necessarily activists, but academia often produces such behavior from insecure middle-aged teachers trying to bed idealistically naive young students. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I'm doing. There are no real people in the Captain Spaulding scenario, only the algorithm proposed above is real. The stuff about WMC (Dr. Connolley?) is not germane to the subject as far as I can tell. I agree that specialists are activists within their field. What of it? --TS 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- TS you are taking my suggestion and "algorithm" and applying it a totally different scenario. I would never suggest that we use Full Protection and outside intervention to settle a two bit edit war like the one you described above. In fact I wouldn't have suggested that it be used on a major edit war like the one that brought the editors of ADHD to ArbCom. Or even to the Eastern European wars. I mean for this solution to be applied to the realm of climate change. Nothing more, nothing less, nowhere else.--*Kat* (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well we're agreed that such a regimen would not benefit hippocampus, ADHD, or topics in Eastern Europe. Could you explain why you think it would benefit climate change? What is the problem with permitting normal editing of articles in the topic, many of which do not have any history of serious edit warring? If an edit war starts, editors can be sanctioned and an article can be protected until consensus is achieved. Why is this not applicable in this topic, in your view? --TS 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think what TS is getting at is the matter of precedence. With arbcom being viewed as a sort-of Supreme Court of WP then it is only natural that the admins will take their direction to heart. Specific to this case is the idea that Discretionary Sanctions became standard operating procedure for Arbcom, so some admins got together and applied Discretionary Sanctions to this area without arbcom. Regardless of the result, they were not wrong to do so. So if this full protection idea gets arbcom seal of approval, it is neither unthinkable nor unreasonable to believe that admins will concider it one of the tools in their belt to stop edit wars. How such things are implemented is a genuine concern.
- You (Kat) note above that anyone can think of *what if* problems until the cows come home for any issue. I respond by saying that I have been trying to keep my 'what ifs' as being applicable to THIS case. The idea of a large argument about admins being involved was specifically germane to this case (hence my namedropping of Lar) and would have to be answered immediately and not as part of some possible outcome. I'm just saying that I'm not saying these things for the sake of opposing. I just believe that if you are going to follow through with this idea these questions need to be answered or it will fall apart before it does good. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with precedence, or arbitration. It's simply against policy to put permanent full protection on an article and no argument seems to have been made on the benefits of doing so even if we all agreed to do it. The harm that would be caused is substantial, so any argument for doing so would have to be pretty good. --TS 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- If everyone agreed to do it, then it wouldn't be against policy. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:04, 29 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)
Well, at least User:Ncmvocalist will have enough to write about. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Apology
Earlier today I made a sarcastic response to what I regard as an unactionable if well meaning suggestion to have all articles within the topic area fully protected. I asked "what could possibly in wrong" in such a scenario, and it was only on reflection a short time later that I realised that many editors with little experience simply do not know what is wrong with the "discuss first" editing model and why we don't use it unless the alternative it an edit was. I tried to revert but by that time I was on the move and on longer had access to a computer powerful enough to handle the task, so I took the discussion to the user talk page of the person to respond. I apologise for needlessly stepping into a pointless discussion and inflaming it, only hours after reading a disengagement suggestion on the very same page and nodding sagely. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Does this mean that you might support the idea? Its *not* unactionable. Somebody just needs to Be Bold, IAR (since this would benefit the wiki) and do it.--*Kat* (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The telephone has its idiosyncrasies. "in" means "go" and if you have a telephone keypad you can work out the rest. I've considerably expanded my thoughts, which I believe reflect Wikipedia's principles and current policy, at the user talk page of the first editor who responded to my sarcastic comment. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In response Kat, I would oppose the proposal even if I thought it was within written policy. As a strong supporter of "Ignore all rules", however, I would accept if I found that it was widely supported and effective. I've been there a few times myself and proudly wear the grimy t-shirt. Fuck process and policy is what works. But you have to get everybody to agree that it works. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- So where do we go to get this voted on? Its a good idea and, in my opinion, far preferable to seeing multiple editors get banned. If we ban the editors we lose their knowledge, energy, and talents.--*Kat* (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kat, without sarcasm I applaud your impulse to find an innovative solution. Ignore all rules is our first policy, and it's also a powerful kind of magic which, if followed assiduously, is far less effective than you might hope but far more effective than any other kind of engagement on Wikipedia. When it works, nobody will notice. When it fails, everybody will point the finger so make sure it isn't pointing at you. Go to the policy page, read all the essays, and then forget them. Edit for a couple more years. Then come back and say what you want to do. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- TonySidaway, I have been an editor off and on for five years. More on than off. I have over 4,000 edits under my belt. I have re-written over a dozen articles and contributed in a positive manner to many wiki projects. Even when I wasn't actively editing I was actively reading. I have been reading the essays and archives since I first discovered them some four years ago. Is that not enough experience for you?--*Kat* (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- As to what you said about finger pointing, the fact that you haven't heard of me should be an indicator of my ego. I'm just here to help. I'm not here to gain rank or prestige. If this fails then point all the fingers at me you want. Point your toes at me if that is what you want. But give this a try. All of you. I think that if you give this a good faith effort you will get good faith results.--*Kat* (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing to stop anybody going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and asking for certain articles where there is no ongoing edit war to be fully protected. Getting the administrators to agree to do it is another matter. --TS 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo's battlefield conduct
I started to go through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo’s battlefield conduct diff by diff. When I came to the third diff that wasn't even a comment by myself but by ATren I was in utter despair. How Arbcom can justify such a shoddy list of weak diffs in the wikipedia namespace (given that I have made hundreds of wikipedia namespace contributions during the RfC/U which I started and also during this case in my own defence) as my supposed battlefield conduct is totally beyond me. If I had not had a baby daughter 2 weeks ago I would be defending myself more rigorously but I am finding it difficult to keep up with the venom pouring out of this case. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations! This was the diff after the ATren diff that you mention. [68] Perhaps it was the diff the arbitrator meant to include. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows. I will not take the bait :). Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what conclusions you feel readers should take away from this section? If your point is that one of the diffs provided mistakenly picked up the wrong diff, I agree with the observation and it can be corrected. However, a single mistaken diff doesn't explain "utter depair". Is it your view that you have not engaged in editing that could reasonably be construed as battleground mentality?--SPhilbrickT 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is also some problem with what is currently the last "diff" in wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Polargeo.27s_battlefield_conduct; it doesn't seem to be a diff or to have anything to do with Polargeo. Cardamon (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what conclusions you feel readers should take away from this section? If your point is that one of the diffs provided mistakenly picked up the wrong diff, I agree with the observation and it can be corrected. However, a single mistaken diff doesn't explain "utter depair". Is it your view that you have not engaged in editing that could reasonably be construed as battleground mentality?--SPhilbrickT 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows. I will not take the bait :). Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- My utter despair is at how mindnumbingly mild most of the diffs are. To accuse me of promoting a battleground in CC I would expect some major mudslinging. Maybe a couple of diffs show I have been slightly incivil but I wouldn't expect fairly passive comments on my own talkpage to be used as evidence of promoting a battleground in CC. Also this whole idea of any criticism of JohnWBarber as me personalizing the debate in a CC battleground way is nonsense. I had no recolection of any conflict with him, neither of us are primarily CC editors and he suddenly popped up in this case and with the weakest of diffs called for me to be desysopped and banned, this sort of over the top baying for blood is pure disruption in my opinion. I have since found that he has done this previously to other users. He has baited me many times during this case (the latest of which is in this very thread). For example every time I mentioned his name or criticised his motives he tagged the diff onto his evidence as a personal attack. I truly think he is gaming the system and my highlighting this is not battleground or a personal attack but just my observation which I can back up with diffs very easily, however I don't seem to have the sort of time at my disposal to deal with this that certain other editors have. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explication. I now have a better understanding of your views.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Secondly to include me in "remedy 3" banning me from CC articles when I have no history of problematic edits on CC articles or their talkpages strikes me as a clearly punitive action rather than dealing with any particular issue. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
*:As I indicated on your talk page, I think the Arbitration Committee is struggling with the size of this case and have an adopted a battlefield medicine approach. You're going to see amputations instead of medications. By topic banning everything that moves, ArbCom will put an immediate halt on most of the problems in the topic; however, the cost of doing it this way is that some will inevitably be treated more harshly than they deserve. The project is bigger than any single editor, so the heavy-handed approach is understandable (if undesirable). I'd recommend approaching the Committee and seeking a voluntary restriction. It is a clear signal that you wish to show good faith and put the project first, and it is presumably much easier to emerge from a self-imposed exile than one imposed upon you. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any situation has to draw the line somewhere but why has Lar not been mentioned in remedy 3 and I have been? He also does not have any problematic editing on CC articles or their talkpages but has clearly spent some considerable time grouping editors together as Cabal etc. and trying to "level the playing field" (this is far more promoting of a battleground than any of my comments) Or for that matter StephanSchulz who seems according to Lar to have insulted Lar far more than I have. The popping of myself into the R3 seems to be entirely random and based on weak diffs mostly provided by JohnWBarber. R3 is not a good solution anyway, editors simply need to be shown that wikilawyering in the wikipedia namespace is not acceptable nor is piling on in edit wars and content disputes, this can be enforced by an effective AE. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
*:::I agree that wikilawyering and edit warring have been significant issues in this topic. ArbCom appears to be responding well to the latter, but wikilawyering does not seem to be attracting the remedies I would've expected it to. I would argue that attacking editors with wikilawyering is as equally egregious as attacking articles with edit warring. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also the idea that my comments are "repeated personal attacks" makes no sense. I started an RfC/U on Lar's conduct and have many edits to the talkpage of that RfC/U. It appears that the arbs are characterizing any mention of an individual editor and a suggestion of a problem with that editor's editing as a personal attack. I obviously had an issue with Lar's conduct as an admin or else I would not have started an RfC/U would I? It now appears that I cannot mention that editor or else it is a personal attack. I thought the guideline said something like "when in doubt don't mention the editor". It does not say don't mention any issues with an editor during an RfC/U on their conduct. In fact the whole case put together against me appears to result from my trying to stop Lar from acting as an uninvolved admin in situations where he had clearly had previous fairly negative non-admin contact with the user and was acting with what I percieved to be bias. If this is characterized as promoting a battleground in Climate Change then I will have to be more careful not to annoy certain people in the future. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I really am trying to stay away from commenting on these pages, but I feel I should point out what may be perceived as the "battleground mentality" per your post above; the uninvolved administrators were very quickly aware of your concerns regarding Lar. However, the consensus between said sysops was that Lar should continue to post in the uninvolved admin section - you had no remit to stop that, and no means other than by persuasion. The RfC/U was properly conducted and no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved". I recognise that there were a majority of !votes on a couple of comments orientated toward the opinion that Lar is involved, but that does not of itself form a consensus (and you will note that subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved per the meaning of uninvolved admin for these matters). What is possibly regarded as examples of battlefield mentality was your habit of interjecting yourself in discussions - and especially discussions where Lar was acting in an uninvolved admin capacity - to proclaim your opinion regarding Lar's status. You were surely aware that all concerned were aware of your understanding of the situation, and you should also have recognised that the situation was not going to be amended to accommodate your concerns; so there is the matter on why you felt it necessary to continue to state your case? I know I once found it necessary to chide you (you commented upon it as "bullying", but that was not the intent) regarding your habit of interrupting discussion on Lars talkpage to put forward your contention, and I believe that Lar also commented that you might tone down the rhetoric. It was your seeming "campaign" to declare Lar an involved admin, despite no consensus forming in suuport, that might be regarded as exampling battlefield mentality - and it may be pointed out that you are apparently still of that frame of mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a point of order. I have never ever declared that I thought Lar was an involved admin in Climate Change as a topic area (although I agree with the arbs advice that he is best steering clear of admining this area) but I feel strongly that he is involved with regard to certain users such as WMC. Lar clearly had several negative interactions with WMC (e.g. here and here) in a non-admin capacity before starting to act as an admin calling for sanctions against WMC. What constitues involvement has not been finalised and is still very much being debated by arbs. As to interjecting myself I started the RfC/U and most of the diffs come from either the RfC/U, this case or my own talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware that you did not raise any issues as regards Lar and whether he had edited within the the Climate Change topic area and that your concerns were only in respect of his past dealings with WMC. As noted in the RfC, while there may have been a history between the two users it was irrelevant since Lar was not taking any actions with regard to WMC but only contributing to discussions - he did not initiate any discussion (on anyone, not just WMC) at the enforcement page but only commented. He brought up past issues relating to WMC, and others, just as other parties past histories were brought up by other parties. Lastly, you need to review your editing history of User talk:Lar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a point of order. I have never ever declared that I thought Lar was an involved admin in Climate Change as a topic area (although I agree with the arbs advice that he is best steering clear of admining this area) but I feel strongly that he is involved with regard to certain users such as WMC. Lar clearly had several negative interactions with WMC (e.g. here and here) in a non-admin capacity before starting to act as an admin calling for sanctions against WMC. What constitues involvement has not been finalised and is still very much being debated by arbs. As to interjecting myself I started the RfC/U and most of the diffs come from either the RfC/U, this case or my own talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would maintain that in a highly polarized environment it is hard to find consensus for anything. Your no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved" criteria means that no-one would ever be found uninvolved. Consider why we require lack of involvement: It is so that actions appear to be fair and thus can find wide support in the community. Hence a majority opinion finding that Lar is involved or his behavior is problematic should be plenty to cause him to recuse himself from the case - or, in a working system, be recused. "[...] subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved" - does your crystal ball work on the stock market, too? So far, the vote is open. And the finding reads "nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator [...] it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator", which to me clearly is a signal that the "nominal" determination is quite irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reason why majorities and !votes are deprecated on WP is because it is not (should not) be a matter of how many making most noise, but those making most sense - a majority of criminals have a low regard for civil law... It should be noted that the arbs are clarifying their comments on the uninvolvement of admins to ensure that campaigning against an individual is not of itself grounds for that sysop to withdraw. No crystal ball, but an appreciation of intent is all that is needed. I do agree that there is no benefit for Lar to continue acting as a uninvolved administrator, he has exposed himself too long to that corrosive environment and deserves a well earned rest from the poison directed at him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The list of supposed incivil remarks are just fairly hard observations I have made during this case. They are not incivilities. When I think an editor has overstepped the mark such as I think JohnWBarber did (as I outlined above) I would appreciate being allowed to say this without expecting the diff to be thrown back at me as an incivility. A wikipedia where everyone is sickeningly pleasant and does not speak plainly is not the positive constructive wikipedia many people seem to think it is. At its limit it simply turns wikipedia into an extremely unpleasant place inhabited by civil POV pushers and two-faced back stabbers. Polargeo (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well thats one user who may have been driven of Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean may? And congratulations for helping William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- At the time of posting I thought that maybe he was either doing some tidying up or changing user names. I was hoping that he would not raise to the bait.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean may? And congratulations for helping William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now another editor/administer has slapped a retirement template on their page. I think this makes 5 so far that I'm aware of. Something is wrong when we are losing editors with this frequency from one case. I for one am sorry to see so many feel the need to leave the project and some of the have been here without any sanctions ever against them until this case I think. Everyone here should think about how people, real people, are leaving for being hurt. I, for one, am sad to see these retirements occurring and I am expecting even more as the case winds down. Just for the record, someone told me that the ones who would leave would be advocates or pov pushers or something along this line. Well as you can see, this isn't coming true. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of order
Off-topic. Seriously, if you want to discuss anything other than the proposed decisions, please do it elsewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
This case is an utter mess. New arbs keep coming in and proposing new dramatic sanctions which ignore the fact that other arbs such as the drafting arbs have spent considerable time on this already. the case is becoming a comedy of errors. Lists of out of context diffs rule the day along with sheep voting. This solves nothing, just topic ban the 2 or 3 worst culprits, set up AE instead of CCRFE and make it work on a day to day basis in practice, enough of this posturing. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha, you should complain. If you look at the BLP-busting diffs against me, most of them are form more than two years ago, and one [69] removes the word scientist from Tim Ball even though the current stable state of the article is happy with that. Because, he isn't a scientist. So, making A BLP more accurate is now an offense against BLP. Many of the diffs in this case are junk - Rlvese threw them together to tar people with very little care and attention. R is gone, but the poison lingers on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
|
A friendly, gentle reminder
I know this case has been going for awhile, and we clerks have been somewhat lax in enforcing the rules here, so some contributors may have forgotten the statement at the top of this talk page: "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions." Many of the discussions here are most certainly contentious or off-topic. If you want to discuss anything other than the proposed decisions being made on the project page, please do it elsewhere. Attacking other parties in the case, complaining about the arbitrators, or squabbling over article content is off-topic for this page, and any discussions to that effect will be collapsed by the clerks. Discussions that started on-topic but veer off-topic will also not be spared. Repeat offenders will be asked not to post on this talk page at all. Given the length of this case and the quality of the discourse here, we intend to enforce these rules rather strictly from now on. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
Thanks
I want to thank Hypocrite for bring attention to my indiscretions. I must apologies to the Wikipedia community for my ignorance and egregious behavior. War is simply against my principles. Accepting the fate of a martyr, seem to be in them. As well, it's surprising to see so many Battlefield conduct findings proposed for Topic Ban remedies, the effect seems to have chilled down the topic. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Note on BLP
The Committee may want to follow our BLP test case here. The issue at hand is whether someone can be notable solely because of publicity surrounding their contrarian views on climate change. Several of the Committee have said that BLPs should give a balanced overall picture of the subject without undue weight on their climate change views. But if the subject's notability rests solely on such views, with near-zero impact otherwise, how do we do this? The Committee should allow for this in their Principles and Remedies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is an imortant point. Many CC BLPs of marginally notable people are used as venues for the views of those individuals. Once a BLP has passed basic notability so it is not deleted (as in this case with a couple of newspaper mentions) the strict BLP guidelines then allow only self published material from the individual and these BLPs inevitably become outlets for the views of the individual and their own publications. Criticism usually exists but often only in similarly self published venues therefore imbalance is automatically created. This is a major problem and extremely difficult for editors to deal with when treading around BLP restrictions. I would suggest that self published material and opinions should not find their way onto wikipedia unless there can be a balanced treatment of this material. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The more basic problem is the criteria at WP:PROF. I plan to make a WP:BOLD revision of those criteria, but perhaps this should wait until the final decision of the arbitration case lest still more drama be stirred up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
|
I won't comment at the deletion discussion because I don't know enough about this person. Here I will comment that I think the Committee could if it wishes affect the focus of the BLP deletion debate by making appropriate findings of fact in this or another case.
It is generally accepted that we have many articles about people who probably don't merit such an article, and these articles tend to proliferate unchecked where they are sometimes used to promote or attack partisan views.
The Committee could certainly make a difference by stating that this is intolerable and drawing up appropriate remedies to be applied on battleground BLPs. It should not be impossible to reverse the normal presumption, which requires consensus to delete, to require consensus to keep where the article relates substantially to a living person known solely for his opinion or actions in a battleground topic.
Climate change could be declared such a topic without risk of the declaration facing credible dissent. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- They won't do that though, as BLPs are determined by policies and guidelines and community voting. ArbCom don't make content decisions and definitely won't overrule content policies. What they will do is topic ban or otherwise restrict people who engage in battleground or other disruptive conduct on BLP articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Default-to-delete for BLPs would be ideal, but will never happen on its own without a strong push to get things moving. Perhaps the arbitrators could make an appeal to a Higher Power to give such a push. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would love to see default to delete for BLP's.However, as the pending changes trials shows, it is nigh-impossible to get "consensus" (meaning enough support to prevent people vehemently opposed to whatever idea it is from making enough of a hubub to prevent it) on any major changes these days. Got any ideas on how to get past that? SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Default-to-delete for BLPs would be ideal, but will never happen on its own without a strong push to get things moving. Perhaps the arbitrators could make an appeal to a Higher Power to give such a push. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced this is really off-topic, aside from perhaps the comments by Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs), but whatever. MastCell Talk 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've revised the area hatted. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that previous Committees have sometimes expressed reluctance on content matters, but nevertheless they have seldom shirked their responsibilities for interpreting and clarifying the policy applying to biographies of living persons. The modest steps I suggest above are in line with the spirit of the landmark Badlydrawnjeff case. They would, I suggest, bring substantial calm to the topic by making it easy to remove poor quality articles that serve no purpose except to provide a venue for warfare. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest TS, to remove the venue for warfare would require deleting every or almost every article connected to climate change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Many articles within the topic area are untouched by the fuss. Even the main article, global warming, is seldom a problem area. --TS 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a steady stream of talk page drama though on the main global warming article. A further problem is if articles which generate battleground problems are default deleted, that would encourage more battleground behaviour among rival factions to get articles they do not like deleted, thus more drama not less drama will be the result. I still believe that ArbCom will not enact your ideas. The way to deal with the problem is to topic ban the people causing disruption, not to delete articles where people causing drama congregate to do battle.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your "analysis" here is simplistic and indeed incorrect to the point of silliness. Indeed, global warming and its recent history disproves your point all by itself. Please, take the time to actually check what you're saying before you say it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "steady stream" comment I made was referring to the newbie and ip editors who use the talk page as a soap box, hence why I said "talk page drama"; the article content is quite stable. The article talk page now has over 60 archives. I was not saying that it was a battleground by established wikipedians.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your "analysis" here is simplistic and indeed incorrect to the point of silliness. Indeed, global warming and its recent history disproves your point all by itself. Please, take the time to actually check what you're saying before you say it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a steady stream of talk page drama though on the main global warming article. A further problem is if articles which generate battleground problems are default deleted, that would encourage more battleground behaviour among rival factions to get articles they do not like deleted, thus more drama not less drama will be the result. I still believe that ArbCom will not enact your ideas. The way to deal with the problem is to topic ban the people causing disruption, not to delete articles where people causing drama congregate to do battle.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Many articles within the topic area are untouched by the fuss. Even the main article, global warming, is seldom a problem area. --TS 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I perform routine page management on the global warming talk page. If it were prone to "talk page drama" I would have noticed, believe me. It's often a focus for people who have read something on a blog and wonder why it isn't in the article. That really isn't a matter for concern. --TS 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- See my above comment, I clarified what I meant. Yes that was what I was referring to, newbies using the talk page as a soap box. I think we have drifted off-topic but I had to clarify what I meant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I realised what you were classing as "drama". With the current archiver period of 21 days we've got two or three on the go on the talk page at any one time. It's an absolute non-issue. The article is one of the most popular on Wikipedia according to the statistics I've seen, and actually a few of them are regulars who keep coming back every few months. This isn't the kind of thing that needs arbitration. It's kinda fun trying to work out which blog site they got the latest idea from. --TS 03:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Tony's proposal
My suggestion is far more modest than default to delete for BLPs. I am essentially providing a new form of remedy to situations where, in the view of the Committee, there is substantial evidence that articles of little or no intrinsic value are being used as a means of spreading a content dispute. That's an illegitimate means of editing and merits extraordinary action. The proposal has two parts:
- (1) a remedy that sets a presumption that any BLP in the topic area is being used for such warfare, and requiring consensus to be reached that it is not being used for warfare or that it has substantial merits that would make it a potentially valuable article (because the subject is highly visible, for instance).
- a. If there is no consensus that the article has merit, it is deleted.
- b. If there is consensus that the article is a battleground but has merit, it is stubbed down, protected and rebuilt by admins, and then unprotected within a reasonable period.
- c. if there is consensus that the article has merit and there are no battleground issues, the article is kept and no further action is needed.
- d. Due consideration should be given by the closing admin to the merits of merging or redirecting to an article on a topic with which the subject is closely associated.
- e. Legitimate work in stubbing down and rebuilding ordered in step b counts as administrative action and does not amount to topic involvement for the purposes of subsequent administrative action.
- f. Admin action taken to thwart this remedy may lead to sanctions and, in egregious cases, the loss of adminship.
- (2) a finding by the Committee that a topic is a battleground topic where BLPs have been used as a means of warfare. This would trigger the remedy described in (1).
- (1) a remedy that sets a presumption that any BLP in the topic area is being used for such warfare, and requiring consensus to be reached that it is not being used for warfare or that it has substantial merits that would make it a potentially valuable article (because the subject is highly visible, for instance).
I hope that provides enough clarity. This is just a draft and could undoubtedly do with some polishing. --TS 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Michael Mann article gets deleted because no concensus can be achieved among the opposing camps. Fred Singer article gets deleted due to lack of consensus of merit.William M Connelly article gets deleted (that would be funny to watch) due to lack of consensus of merit.Eventually all climate BLPs are deleted due to opposing camps failing to reach consensus. Lots of topic bans for failing to reach consensus,, ugh more drama.I understand that you have made this [complicated] proposal in good faith but feel that you are unduely focusing on the benefits and not considering the risks of [significantly] increased drama. Your proposal isalsovery prone to gaming and POV pushing etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)- My solution, while not novel, is that ArbCom, topic ban or otherwise restrict those involved in significant disruption to the topic area. This appears to be the direction ArbCom are going in and it is a direction based on years of experience dealing with drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Neither the Michael Mann nor the Fred Singer article is in danger of deletion under the remedy I suggest. The William Connolley article might be deleted, and I don't think anybody would miss it. --TS 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I am an idiot, I apologise, I skipped over your introduction paragraph and missed this bit "there is substantial evidence that articles of little or no intrinsic value".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I see this almost orthogonal to this case. I grant that creation of marginal BLPs is a problem. I can imagine someone creating a marginal BLP in the CC area to make a point, or using one to carry water, so to speak, inappropriately. However, this same problem can occur with Israel/Palestine, race/intelligence, ID, Holocaust issues, or any number of contentious areas. What is special about CC that we should have unique rules governing the creation of BLPs? And why on earth would ArbCom be uniquely qualified to establish such rules? If we do have a problem, it is WP wide, and ought to be addressed by the community at large as part of the BLP policy committees, not as a specific ruling from Arbcom, simply because it came up as a tangential issue in a CC case.--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is somewhat orthogonal to the case. This is why I say this proposal could be applied in either this or another case. The relevant community processes broke down long ago (See SirFozzie's summary) so it's within the Committee's remit. It can be applied as a remedy in cases where the Committee finds that substantial damage is unavoidable unless special measures are taken. --TS 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's no harm in putting it into black and white, and a few of us 'trying it on for size' here, though. I have two thoughts: (1) I'm worried that the opening para puts too much executive power over to the Committee, who are not necessarily familiar with the topic, and the relevant details. (2) While the outcome sounds good, I don't see anything much here that could not be done under existing rules - anyone can raise an AFD (even members of the committee once this case is over, admins, the rest of us) and most of the rest [of the steps a-f] can follow. If these BLPs are causing significant hassle (I stay away from them personally), then sure, let's start thinning them out, as soon as this case is over. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal is predicated on my observation that such BLPs are incredibly difficult to delete. The AfD process just isn't set up to handle abusive editing. Arbcom is, that's its job, and this proposal of mine is a first draft showing how Arbcom might address it. Arbcom really, really is devised to handle problems like this, those that the community badly drops the ball on but nevertheless are damaging the encyclopedia. --TS 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the proposal as it stands would be susceptible to gaming in normal circumstances. I see it being applied in topics that already have substantial remedies to prevent battleground activity, so that the deletion discussion would fall under something akin to the discretionary sanctions already proposed in this case. In such circumstances the problems could be controlled. --TS 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that this proposal has considerable merit. Though radical, it is an example of creative thinking and I hope the arbs give it serious consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it's an example of good thinking. I think it is a blueprint for one of the things we can get on with after this case is closed, sanctions and enforcement are in place and (hopefully) we have a good supply of new neutral admins looking over everyone's shoulders to prevent gaming and 'abusive editing' (as Tony mentions above). Then, AfDs should work nicely and the ground can be cleared of quite a few useless articles (BLPs and others), with any useful content merged into a much more thought-out coverage of the grand topic. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the proposal should be tendered to the BLP discussion pages, since it covers many a battlefield area where BLP's are used as attack pieces or coatracks depending on the stance associated with the subject. I stay clear of that area, but would note my support of such a general proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody should feel free to tender it to the BLP policy discussion page, but frankly I don't think it could ever be accepted as policy. I think it's more realistic to propose it as a remedy within the context of arbitration. Maybe a few years down the line, if it works as a remedy, it might be seen as a viable solution to battleground BLPs within existing policy, but for that to happen we'd need a change in culture at AFD and DRV. --TS 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This won't fly as a remedy: it's purely about content and ArbCom don't do those. Roger Davies talk 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- That just ain't so. While some members of the community operate under this misconception (and others will pay it lip service for the sake of not rocking the boat), the fact is that the ArbCom is quite willing to make content decisions whenever it's possible to shelter those decisions behind some sort of user-conduct figleaf. The ArbCom regularly makes decisions about whether or not users have correctly applied Wikipedia content policies — which is tantamount to enforcing content decisions. Even decisions which are genuinely primarily focused on conduct will indirectly affect article content by excluding editors who have a particular point of view.
- For example, the last case ArbCom closed was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. Finding of fact 6, David.Kane: "...this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view.". In other words, the ArbCom has determined that David.Kane's edits violated the WP:WEIGHT provisions of WP:NPOV: a content decision. (Roger Davies should be aware of this finding of fact, as it appears that he drafted it.)
- Similar findings are sprinkled throughout Arbitration history. I don't think that this is a bad thing by any means — it just demonstrates that the 'ArbCom doesn't do content' trope has always been rather thin and tattered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Suit yourself. I carefully framed it to be about abusive editing and left all content-related decisions up to community processes, but if you don't agree it's back to the drawing board. But before you write it off, check the Badlydrawnjeff decision. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhpas
We should leave the idea about how to deal with any future abuse (and indead any pages that in some edds eyes are 'naughty') andtick to just the qeustion of users santions. It seems to me that we have now a very large discusionwith nothing that looks like agrement, and does look like aontinuation of the conflicts. We come back to the issue of pages and content when, and if, it turns out sanctions have not workd. We will be able to judge the real scpe and nature of any porbloms and thus will be in a better position to judge hat actions are needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Par for the course, the Climate Change issue have disrupted every dispute forum Wikipedia has to offer. There must be a better way to address the disputes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Randy marches on...
There goes another valuable expert. It's a good thing that some editors with no expertise in anything but Wiki policies are able to write featured articles on complex topics based on Fox reprints of press releases and cherry-picking the primary literature, without going through the trouble of getting a PhD in the topic - otherwise we would be in real trouble. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
|
A new? suggestion
Coould we use a process similar to pedning revision to create a peer review process (by by the wiki concept) on CC realted artciels. The Peer review privalige only going to edds who can demonstrate expert knowledge in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- No. Terrible idea. This is not Citizendium--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Despite having commented, and thus arguably part of the problem, I don't see this is as a commentary on the PD, so I hope a clerk will hat it.--SPhilbrickT 15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't see the problem with a suggestion like this, as it appears to be a suggestion for an addition to the PD. However, I don't think it is workable for a number of reasons. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Despite having commented, and thus arguably part of the problem, I don't see this is as a commentary on the PD, so I hope a clerk will hat it.--SPhilbrickT 15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a variation on the suggestion a few sections above about fully protecting the articles and only allowing certain edits through after they have been reviewed. While its heart is in the right place it clashes with a few policies, shuffles some issues to different venues without solving them and opens up new cans of worms which would have to be dealt with.
- Specifically,
- How do you reconcile this process with WP:OWN?
- Who chooses who gets 'Peer Review Privalige' and what constitues 'demonstrat[ing] expert knowledge in the field'?
- What happens if people believe this process could be used elsewhere? (slippery slope, basically)
- What processess should be in place to prevent abuse of the new system?
- I believe these concerns (and more) would need to be addressed before such a system could be implemented. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- As you will ote I say that this effectivly removes the idea that wikipedia is a wiki. I agree wiht all of the concearns. I just don't see any other way of resolving this short of genocide.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think what is possible is for Jimbo to appoint anonymous Referees who will volunteer to write Referee reports when articles are nominated as GA or FA candidates. Articles will get the GA or FA standard if, in the judgement of the editors involved in the FA or GA process, the issues raised in the Referee report are dealt with adequately. So, the end decision remains with the editors as it is now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- But this will not deal with the edit warring and general lack of tolerance and civility that seems to have infested these pages. This I would argue is the esential problom, whatever the PD thyat is acepted it will have to address the geberaly poor behavure of many of the parties (from both sides). The PD should not be a victory by other means.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the problem on the climate change pages was caused precisely because the sceptics couldn't get their way with the experts editing here. What is needed is to insert the feedback from experts in a different way. POV motivated edit warring exists in the first place because Wikipedia articles are quite prominent on the internet. GA and FA status are important.
- Suppose that for the FA status of the main global warming article to be prolonged, it would have to be refereed first. Then the Referee report may well say that the section on solar variation is too large, giving far too much weight on fringe ideas. So, that section would then be shortened, and sceptics who don't like this would have to swallow this. No complaints like "WMC dictating his version against Wiki-policies" can arise in such a process.
- If this is done for all the CC articles then editors will anticipate that POV motivated edits will have to be removed later anyway, so they won't bother edit warring to get such edits in articles. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with some of this, but not with your statement that "GA and FA status are important." I haven't seen any evidence at all that the average reader knows or cares whether an article is GA or FA. The only meaningful distinction is that FA is eligible for being featured on the main page. The topic will continue to be fought over because of the strong views that people hold about it in the real world, regardless of whether Global warming is FA . Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- If this is done for all the CC articles then editors will anticipate that POV motivated edits will have to be removed later anyway, so they won't bother edit warring to get such edits in articles. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the pending revisions return, maybe putting all of the articles that are now a battle to edit, would be useful at least to stop or curb the socking that is obviously causing some of the problems. The thing is though, editors have to make sure that new editors who saying something is in the references, then they have to make sure before accepting that the editor isn't a sock of somebody the proper way. Another way which was done by a bunch of us with a couple of administrators to help out was to check new editors locations and ISP if possible. The administrators, some were involved in the articles and some were uninvolved which helped slow down the sock puppet we were having problems with. The sock puppet was community banned and has a lot of IP's they have used along with a few named accounts. That editor is easy for those who know her to stop her in her tracks at least breifly which is why the administrators are helpful here. She has now moved on to other articles but always seems to come back to some of her older articles. I guess it's habit. When an editor was proven to be her by either behavior, duck test, and/or SPI, the editor was blocked and someone would go through and revert all the edits per WP:DENY. Maybe something like this could work also within the CC articles? Just throwing out some ideas that have worked in other areas. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Inclusiveness
Noticing editors lamenting about other editors leaving Wikipedia, and in the spirit of how to improve. I suggest working for content and an editing environment that afford reasonable inclusiveness. Pushing issues to the nebulous realm of the elusive expert with high standards has a place and time; however, when things go to far, I suspect and exclusive environment leads to editors being excluded by their own will or administration action. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to be honest, but what are you saying? --CrohnieGalTalk 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Something for everyone to read
I'd like to point out this editorial from PLoS Computational Biology Journal, published yesterday, entitled "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia". While the journal is specifically targeting academic writers, those ten rules apply equally to every other editor in the site. Risker (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- So... does that mean anyone not editing per those 10 rules is not really a scientist? Or everyone editing to those rules is? Will you please stop hitting me? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It means that the most horrible, wicked thing has been done by Wikipedia to Polargeo, and we all just stood by and watched. This is not acceptable. Experts must not be traduced. --TS 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe you mean "Editors must not be traduced", Tony; it's just as unacceptable for traduction to happen to anyone else. I'm mystified, however, how one could think that *anything* that happens on Wikipedia is "the most horrible, wicked thing", although a defamatory edit into a person's BLP with the intention of causing harm would be pretty horrible. Otherwise, I can come up with at least fifty more horrible, wicked things, and it's only been nine minutes since your edit. Risker (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I somewhat disagree. Polargeo seemed to take every statement very personally, and therefore was upset by the continual challenges this topic area has had especially recently. It is to bad Polargeo felt unable to continue, but it is not the death of article progress. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert. Now try not to let it happen again. --TS 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. Risker (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a fact that as an academic on Wikipedia you get to deal with a neverending stream of Randys from Boise. This is a systematic problem that needs tackling. The fact that this case has been brought and that this page alone is god-knows-how-long shows just how urgent it is. In a university we have student assistants, secretaries &c to screen out the nutjobs, just because our time is too precious to take every last man serious who walks in, claiming to prove that P!=NP. Ignore this advice at your peril. 74.65.111.74 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. Risker (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Well I'm not a scientist at all and reading this brings me to one question that I find confusing since an arbitrator brought this to our attentions. If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)