User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 17 March 2010 (→‎Your input is requested: take it elsewhere). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(Manual archive list)

Long comment by DeepNorth

Sorry about this. Your talk page has been busy, busy, busy while I was doing this. Cheers!


Re: You wrote, among other things, that you "took a stab at trying to cure the ills of the bogus thing attempting to make it appear that there is no such thing as Climategate." Can you point me to more specifics? I just looked for the article, it is there, and does not seem to deny the existence of this incident at all.

Here is the Wikipedia page, for those who are interested on Climategate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climategate&redirect=no

It is just a stub that redirects you to a discussion that might as well be about something else.

We do not have an entry proper for Climategate. We have a redirect that points to something different. In fact, it points to something you rightly describe as 'this incident'. Climategate should have its own article and it should take its proper name. Since it is not 'an incident', 'incident' should not be part of the name. I deal with that naming issue and how it relates to (nominal) policy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeepNorth/Drafts

Wikipedia's guidelines for naming an article are very clear and the only name that satisfies them is 'Climategate'. The current name is misleading, prejudicial and just plain wrong.

Instead of the umbrella name for a sweeping scandal (tons of items in link above) -- misbehavior and alleged misbehavior spanning decades, we redirect someone searching for 'Climategate' to 'Climatic Research Unit hacking incident' -- as if Climategate is merely about a smallish crime ('incident') directed *against* people at UAE and the thing that is immediately known and important about this is that somebody illegally hacked into the UAE system and that the hacking event was being taken very seriously and being investigated by the police.

Except on 'opposite day' the 'persons of interest' in a crime here are the authors of some of the Emails, not the (IMO whistleblower) person who let them out into the wild. In the real world, what is germane is the content of that FOAI.zip data file and what it may mean for the integrity of Climate Science in particular and now even the governance of mainstream Science in general.

I deal with the Article as I found it at the time in the link below. I attempted to get a balanced view, based on what was actually known, similar to that given at 'Watergate Scandal' by using that page (Watergate) as a template. I used the prior version in these diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watergate_scandal&action=historysubmit&diff=348617087&oldid=331864938

Here is what I wrote. It was widely referenced prior to being pitched into oblivion here at WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=331711452&oldid=331711409

I didn't sign it (my bad), but at the time I really was just an uninvolved editor. There are about 50 web pages properly referencing my modest comment, even though it was quickly disappeared from the discussion.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=4lN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=climategate+%22this+commentary%22+%22uninvolved+editor%22+%22makes+clear%22&start=90&sa=N

There are about 70 pages properly referencing the title of the article replacing Climategate even though it has been Ranked number one in a Google search for months.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=G42&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22Climatic+Research+Unit+hacking+incident%22&start=110&sa=N

There are anywhere from 1 to 50 million pages properly referencing 'Climategate' (as such, by name) depending upon how you look at it.

The current article title is about as wrong as an article title could be and still have some relation to its subject matter. It goes down from there. The opening paragraph is misleading to the point of being an effective falsehood. Climategate is not 'about' a hacking incident. This article is, but it has no business pretending to stand in for the real thing.

UEA itself is not notable enough for a security breach (if it even was one) to merit an article.

I took a look just prior to saving this and the article does not look much better 'spin-wise' than usual. It looks like it was written by an AGW apologist who had no choice but to address things gone too far public, but everything gets a spin and at the end, they refer you to only two pages:

See also: 

   * Global warming conspiracy theory
   * Global warming controversy

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination the only person who has complained that Climategate and the rest of the climate articles have been manipulated. If you follow the links through all of this you will find links to various skeptics and in their article they seem to be only all about 'denialism'. If you are skeptical and vocal, you can expect your biography to be a hatchet job. If you have a high profile like Richard Lindzen they will take care, but you are still not likely to get fair treatment. If you are pro AGW, you can expect to get spun nicely. Phil Jones is, essentially, the bad guy in the Climategate Emails. He is the one who was cheered at the news of a colleagues death. He was the one that said he would 'hide behind that' and 'destroy data' rater than release it and redefine the peer reviewed literature. He is the one who said the infamous 'hide the decline', which although it does not mean what people think it does is still not good. Phil Jone's entry looks like an apologia written by his publicist. It includes the howler about the prima facie evidence by UEA shill-meisters and the entry trails off with a list of four of his publications.

The main part of the article on Lindzen ends thus:

"Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette"

They don't list any publications of Lindzen's, though they do link to a list of his many hundreds of publications.

The 'push' of the POV is crafty and can be subtle, but it is there in spades and the poster-child for this mangling of Wikipedia is the pre-emption of the article on Climategate.

I am recusing myself for now. This is so vexatious! Thank you very much for your attention. I am happy that you listened and though I would be delighted if you could fix this I am not expecting you to and I do not believe you have any obligation to do so.

Great job fostering and watching over WP, which is still a thing of wonderment, warts and all! DeepNorth (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeepNorth, your proposals and opinions are misinformed, and possibly libellous. It's understandable in a context of widespread contrarian battering of the science, as disussed in Nature here. There are genuine issues of how scientists should respond to vexatious misuse of FOI requests to demand emails and intermediate workings, coming from people with no intention of working on the science of the subject. These issues are being examined in several enquiries, but in the interim simply repeating misinformation is irresponsible and inappropriate in Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter comment by DeepNorth

Dave souza, misinformed? Inform them then, by all means. ... libellous (sic)? Not sure to what you refer, but its a stretch for Jones/UEA/Posters, etc. This is a talk page for goodness sake. "...widespread contrarian battering of the science...". Give me a break. People are suggesting we take extreme actions based on faulty data and little to no reasoning. This is an attack on *bad* science or *pseudo science* pretending to a level of quality and accuracy that it does not have. As for the Nature article. Isn't that the one whose editor had to resign from one of the investigative panels because he was a little less than forthcoming about his partiality WRT to AGW? I very strongly encourage anyone who is at all on the fence to read that article Dave has so kindly pointed out for us. Especially if you have a background in science or know anything about sound argumentation or the presumptive role of a publication like Nature, you will be amazed, shocked and appalled, but not for the reasons Dave is thinking. That is some piece of work. I am not being sarcastic here. Thanks for the link. It speaks much more eloquently to the distortion of the AGW debate than I ever could -- and with significant authority. Beautiful!

Re: "There are genuine issues of how scientists should respond to vexatious misuse of FOI requests ... coming from people with no intention of working on the science of the subject ... These issues are being examined in several enquiries (sic), but in the interim simply repeating misinformation is irresponsible and inappropriate in Wikipedia."

OMG. I hardly know what to say about the above. It is as if I am shilling for myself ... It should be easy enough to find the link. McKitrick's (sp?) submission to one of them shows clearly (from the record that is already public) that Phil Jones' resolve to withhold data *precedes* the two or three (!) requests that came his way from Mckintyre (sp?) and company. I would say that M&M deserve significant credit for doing some of the best work on climate data thus far. Again, as I say, pretty much everything I say is already part of the public record. It ain't goin' nowhere. DeepNorth (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an attack on *bad* science or *pseudo science*" and there is your problem. If people come to Wikipedia with that kind of attitude then they are almost sure to make problems worse than better. Please refrain from it if you want people to listen to you. We (and then i mean your fellow editors) are not a platform/vehicle for your "attack". It is for agenda's as these that we have to deal with such a problem in the first place. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short version, Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that WP should *not* be a battleground. Clearly we have a situation. I have recommended that participants with clear POV (vous et moi) should recuse and allow a pool of editors who have not (thus far) demonstrated such POV. If your POV (or, if you insist, NPOV) carries the day with a set of editors who have not (again, thus far, it's all we can guarantee) been involved, then likely they will invite you all back and chastise or even ban ostensible miscreants such as myself. [Not entirely relevant, but I wish to recuse anyway because it is tedious and unpleasant, so I have no great wish to be called back.] If truly NPOV editors can be found and are content to carry on, then I will be quite pleased. If the new editors find both sides were out of line, then we are still good. If we take my suggestion, it's all upside. This is a sort of 'wisdom of Solomon' situation here. To save the baby, I am willing to give it up. Are you?

I agree that I have been prickly. I don't think I started out that way. I surely did not come here because some part of the blogosphere suggested I do so. I was here long before even my screen name was registered. Whatever I have done here (on WP generally) has largely been anonymous. The only reason I registered the screen name was to put up stuff on programming. the only reason that there are no articles in evidence is because some well meaning but over-zealous editor kept deleting my graphics (created and owned by me) and exhausted my time before I could get the articles up. On sober second thought, when I had the time again, I was unsure (still am) if this would be more 'original research' and so elected to publish elsewhere. That's about it for my original presence here (which goes back a lot longer than my screen name). Climategate was in the news and a Google search brings the WP page (such as it is) up as the top ranked hit on a search. I came here and was appalled at what I found. I still am. It is shocking. My initial impression was maybe you had a point and I went looking. The more I looked the more gruesome it looked. The while AGW thing was a scandal long before Climategate hit. I will absolutely own being a 'skeptic'. There is nothing at all wrong with skepticism. It is healthy. It is just about mandatory when doing research. My stuff especially (not climate -- data stuff). To be honest, though, having done a little research into Climate many years ago at school, I never thought the AGW POV had enough merit even to argue about. I had no idea it had gained such traction. I still, I swear, have no idea what the chain of evidence is supposed to be that links CO2 to Global Warming (causally, of any net additional significance) or Global Warming to catastrophe or catastrophe to something we can mitigate at a cost that is less than adapting. All of the 'pro AGW' camp seems to be able to present is arguments that cast naysayers in a negative light, previously debunked evidence, non-sequitors like experiments with CO2 in the lab (this goes back forever, before I was in University, nobody has argued with that experiment, it just isn't relevant), etc. I think it was McKitrick (sp?) who said somewhere that he found that every single argument or set of data that was presented by the pro AGW crowd, when peeled back layer by layer either ended up with nothing or something demonstrably false. That has been my experience. None of the people on this page or elsewhere has presented evidence of anything that supports AGW or demonstrates bad faith on the part of people like me. There is an 'opportunity cost' for taking premature action on the unproven chain mentioned above. A part of that cost will cause people in the third world to have to bury their children. That is neither a metaphor nor is it hyperbole. They are burying them now and more will perish as we allocate resources to managing the brokering of carbon credits that could have been spent on clean water, medicine, education and industrialization in the third world. I am a dad and I truly feel for those people. If we must, to save the many, sacrifice the few, then so be it. It would be a bitter pill, but I can face up to it. What I can't abide is the notion that carnage and tragedy will result from knee-jerk public policy actions based on very shaky evidence.

Though prickly, I don't think I have targeted anybody's person. I have disagreed with some of their utterances and actions. In the case of suppressing Climategate and the endless juvenile sophistry that passes for arguments in favor of AGW alarmism, I find it hard to bite my tongue. Believe me, I think that whether this is a road to hell paved with good intentions or not, it is still a road to hell. It is easy to step off of this road and strike a better course and I dearly wish the community at WP would do so.

I do, actually, assume good faith on the part of some (maybe most or all, who knows?) of the pro AGW people. I confess that part of my apathy to the AGW nonsense was a naive notion that the ends justified the means. That is, I have never thought there was a scrap of evidence that CO2 was anything but net beneficial, but since it mobilized people to clean up otherwise (because even though CO2 is not a pollutant, plenty of other things clearly are), I looked the other way. What, I thought, is the harm in it? Who cares if they do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Sadly, it is with that line of thinking that I joined you on the road to hell.

Perhaps like you, I feel a duty to speak up because the issue is important. I think this is, broadly, an important issue outside of WP. However, it is inside that concerns me here. Regardless of who is good, who is bad, who is right and who is wrong, the net effect of the warring is detrimental to WP, and as I mentioned before the most egregious example of this is the ridiculous situation where there is, effectively, no real article on Climategate. It should make Wikipedians blush. DeepNorth (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah -- likely tl;dr, but that may be what is wrong with this whole thing. Maybe if people had more tenacity for reading and cogitating on things there would not be so much disagreement here.

Let's start from the beginning. Is there any reason that a wikipedia entry "Climategate" should redirect to this page, with no opportunity to create a page by that name? Climategate scandal redirects here also. Climategate science offers Climatic Research Unit documents, as well as this, but does not discuss the perceptions of scientific scandal. This controversy may or may not rival Cyril Burt's peccadillo, or perhaps even the Piltdown Man, but there is no option to deny the possibility. Let's start from the beginning, and create an NPOV page entitled Climategate - which, after all, refers only to a perception, and a real perception, but not to a reality - which can provide links to the hacking/leaking of emails, and to the documents themselves. Dave Souza's comment 11:13, 11 March 2010 is tendentious, and the Nature editorial [[1]] is contrary to fact: "The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. This needs to be stated again and again ... climate legislation had hit a wall in the US Senate, where the poorly informed public debate often leaves one wondering whether science has any role at all." In fact, shouting anything again and again is characteristic of Goebbels rather than Galileo. Those who presume to be promoting "science" are in fact fighting a rear guard action, retreating from inch after inch of furiously defended territory. The Null Hypothesis has not been falsified. Scientific Method trumps "science". Let's have no more cross-burnings on the lawns of scientific skeptics (or, more simply, scientists). Oiler99 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are discussing the article name, on 17 February, 2010, there was an attempt to have "hacking" removed from the title Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. 27 people supported the change and 8 opposed it. Therefore, the name change failed. Normally, I would have thought that 77% would have been considered a pass. This is one of the reasons that some people claim that there is a cabal. BTW, there is still heated discussion of the term "hacked". Q Science (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beat goes on ...

The Climategate fiasco on WP has overflowed to JW's talk page. JW expressed puzzlement at the strange title masking Climategate and even the opinion (with which many concur) that it should be called Climategate as per WP policy. People came out of the woodwork to express their displeasure with things. They provided diffs of edits to show how the climate articles have been injured. Clearly, there is more than a little controvery here. So ... somebody figured it was time to remove the tag saying the neutrality of the fake Climategate page is in dispute. As far as anyone looking for Climategate on WP is concerned, it is *not* called Climategate. It is called the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Apparently, it involves primarily a department at school, was a confirmed hacking and was merely an 'incident' at a moment in time. That is apparently what is fair and germane to say about the thing the rest of the world calls Climategate. Hence, here at WP, we present the article as if it has all been agreed upon and there is no effective dissent with respect to that point of view. I dissent and I think that both the title and the article itself are grotesque stains upon the reputation of Wikipedia as a reasonable source of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=350170598&oldid=349885312

The above removes the tag from (what should be Climategate) that says the neutrality is in dispute. The person who did this added the following summary: "(Rm POV tag. There is no more neutral title than this and I don't see any disputed material.)"

It should be noted that the neutrality of that title *and* the content of that article is not only in dispute, it is POV by any definition on its face. The tag should never have been removed. This is the second time I have noticed this happen to this article. There are plenty of people with a less than neutral point of view who are watching this article constantly. I wonder how long it will take for the POV tag to go back up and who will do it. DeepNorth (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, the tag should have stayed. However, because of the "probation", I know that if anyone from the "wrong side of the argument" restores it, they face a permanent ban from wikipedia. I have already been warned (actually threatened) that even discussing the emails will get me banned. Q Science (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-sysop of Trusilver

Arbcom has now voted to desysop User:Trusilver. This highlights the need for reform and overhaul. They agreed that the wording regarding the enforcement was wanting and decided to clarify that as well. Unfortunately this shows why Argumentum ad populum are generally no-no's, we have Arbcom noting that there is a problem with the block and the process yet they then decide to string him up as a example anyways. How does that make any sense? There's a problem with the block, there is a problem with the blocking administrator who did the blocking. There was a lack of clarity in how the AE was being set up, Trusilver was forthcoming with a reasonable defense that addressed the problem. My point is that they took 5+5 and came up with negative 2. Consider the statement by a arbcom member, User:Steve Smith, where he claims Trusilver was too principled to have the mop. In effect they are saying you have to be corrupt and malleable to be admin here, hence the repeated posting to your pages by multiple good faith editors to help clean that type of attitude out. That type of attitude has no place in a environment like ours! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Too principled" is a polite was of saying "too stubborn", IMO. It was simply not an admin's place to invoke IAR and overturn an arbcom-sanctioned block, and the refusal to reconsider once this was pointed out led to the desysop. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote specifically commending him and condemning him? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is admirable (really): refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit. Steve Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO make sure there is no confusioin the above was posted at Arbcom and the bluelink in the title links to the specific diffs.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: Your remarks simply amplify H in B's concern over conflict between good sense and arbitration. In any event, the interpretation of this case as a disciplinary action to enforce "order" was a miscall. There was no need to make this a disciplinary action at all: it was a matter for interpretation of a murky sanction further obscured by Tznkai. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh FFS are you guys ever going to learn? Every single time anything related to Brews comes up for discussion it's right back to refighting the arbitration case. What happened in my opinion was that you caused ArbCom to believe that this was an action taken in furtherance of a campaign to subvert the findings and outcomes of the case, which it wasn't, with the result that Trusilver got desysopped for a defensible call given the ambiguities of the situation. Your posturing and bluster obscured that to the point that most of the arbs didn't see it for what it was. You are so lacking in political astuteness that it hurts to watch! Please just drop the bloody stick and leave it for the dust to settle, the chances of your causing anything other than your own banning for being a monstrous pain in the arse are rapidly diminishing. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If vague threats are all you can muster, I strongly suggest you yourself to drop the bloody stick. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT describes your behaviour perfectly. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going somewhere? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Wales, Something will have to be done about these people like Guy(JzG) who hang about noticeboards poking their nose into matters that don't concern them. Hell in a Bucket came to your talk page to seek your views on a matter of importance. He has drawn attention to the fact that an administrator has been desysoped by ARBCOM and that arbitrator Steve Smith has stated that the administrator in question is too principled to be an administrator. Something is seriously wrong when an arbitrator can make a satement like that. It tends to suggest that it is necessary that somebody should be somewhat corrupt in order to make an effective administrator. Do you agree with Steve Smith's statement?
Anyway, no sooner has Hell in a Bucket brought this important matter to your attention in good faith when the likes of Tarc and Guy(JzG) turn up and try to tamper with the evidence. Tarc gives us a new meaning to the word 'principled'. He tells us that 'principled' means 'stubborn'. Well that's the first time that I have ever heard that, and I'm a native English speaker. Guy(JzG) then tries to make out that ARBCOM made a wrong decision only because of the likes of myself having obscured the facts by speaking up in defence of the victim. Guy is one of these people who tries to pull the wool over our eyes and have us all believe that speaking up in defence of someone actually does them harm, whereas the harm is never done by those who do the blocking, or by those who bear the false witness. Guy uses that line of sophism in an attempt to eliminate benevolent witnesses from the picture. It's true that when corruption is abounding that benevolent witnesses have no beneficial effect. But let's end all this sophism about benevolent witnesses being the actual cause of the problem. David Tombe (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"poking their nose into matters that don't concern them", "the likes of Tarc and Guy(JzG) turn up and try to tamper with the evidence", "those who bear the false witness", "Guy uses that line of sophism in an attempt to eliminate benevolent witnesses from the picture", "corruption is abounding"... What happened with wp:NPA and wp:AGF? DVdm (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, Pot, Kettle, Black. I.e. surely something needs to be done about people like yourself repeatedly raising a matter that has nothing to do with you, in an inappropriate manner in a completely inappropriate location? Of course you will ignore this like you ignore everything that doesn't correspond to your special view of how WP should be run. How this doesn't violate your ban I don't know.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, you have mounted one of the most spectacularly counter-productive campaigns I've ever seen outside the area of link spamming - just as I predicted. Look at my talk page right now if you don't believe me. And if it's not obvious to you why I watch the admin noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page then there's not much I can do to help you, just as there's apparently not much I can do to help you understand why your constant agitation is having the precise opposite of the desired effect. The advice I gave you was and remains sound, you are of course free to continue to ignore it, and in the process you are more than likely to earn a topic ban because I'm provably not the only one who thinks you're actively making things worse. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody hell! Hell in a Bucket, David Tombe and Brews ohare: your lives must really be shallow if you spend time bitching about Wikipedia. Go forth and find a new hobby - flower arranging or something.... Jeez! Where is that rolling eyes emoticon when you need it? Jon 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about recent events related to discussion here

I recently brought up a matter of concern here, you supported discussion and participated in it at AN/I. It gained little to no interest, one subject engaged in some reflection and the topic is now really just waiting for auto-archival.

However - my bringing the subject up has led to a pronounced move to ban me specifically for discussing the topic. Now, after adding this edit[2] which was immediately deleted, not one, but two[3][4] editors opposing the concept have gone to AN/I to demand my immediate banning. I don't think banning is the appropriate method to settle content disputes, and I also like to think that somewhere in the attempt an actual violation of something could be stated and a supporting reference of a diff presented. As it stands now, I am[5] to be banned for a discussion you supported and participated in.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you log in?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up until the last few years I never felt the need, now that IP editing has become let's say somewhat less common as community attitudes shift, I've considered it. At this point the fear of being tarred, feathered and branded the moment I log in keeps me away from it. Originally I never did it because I was on multiple computers over the course of the day and often in different countries, in that environment no logon was desirable. That hasn't been an issue for awhile now.99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You open yourself up to a useless vector of attack, the claim that you're sockpuppeting or being dishonest. If you aren't, then a login provides you with the means to establish an identity. Nevertheless, rest assured, you can't be banned from Wikipedia without a ruling of ArbCom or a universal unwillingness of anyone to unblock you - once you have a login. As an IP, people (including me) are much less likely to intervene to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the policy regarding an IP opening an account? Does life here begin then? Or must I dig up and claim what may well be my over 25,000 edits since summer 2001?99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit count is not important, nor an argument in any discussion. As a vandalism patrol i get tons of edits, but each edit only helps Wikipedia a little bit. On comparison User:Storye book was completely new when i came across an article he wrote, and his first article was absolutely stunning. Even now his edit count is not even a tenth of mine, but he isn't any less an editor then i am, not now and not on his first edit. I might actually argue that his added value is worth more then the retaining value my vandalism patrol brings in.
As for an account: All that matters is behavior and conduct. Using an account allows other people to identity you, which will eventually be beneficial. For one you will not be accused of sock-puppetry as easily if you switch IP's dynamically, and if your conduct is good people might even cut you a bit more slack when engaged in a heated discussion. One note though: If you have an account you should not combine it with IP editing on the same page, or to evade scrutiny on your account. And remember, Don't give the impression of sockpuppeting and be reasonable when debating. As said before, your edits are a bit aggressive and non constructive at times - in my humble opinion that is! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) As an uninvolved editor who happened to come across this edit while working on vandalism patrol, i think i might be able offer some more or less unbiased input here.
As for the IP user, i can honestly say that i deem your debating style a little offensive, if not disruptive. Comments such as "I will endeavor to speed the decline of anti-intellectual Wikipedia by contributing (and not resisting) to the rot at the core. This will be easy to game simply by bending with the prevailing wind and pushing hard with the wind while leaving behind piles of crap quietly weaved into every facet I can touch. :) Hello brothers, I'm home. " are absolutely not constructive towards ANY decision making proces. Similary, accusations of canvassing and harrasment will not create a pleasant editing sphere for either party.
Furthermore, i deem your IP allocation scheme really odd. Every IP you used is owned by AT&T, and even in the same netblock. Dynamic IP's are most likely to be refreshed after the end of a session or after a given amount of time. You had [99.151.166.95] for 3 days, but after it was banned you suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95. After that one was banned as well, you appeared as 99.144.192.74. Seeing these are all in the same netblock, and seeing the IP changes right after a block this reeks of intentional block evasion / sockpupperty. Therefor, im not surprised that people immediately run to ANI once you returned and resumed.
As a closing comment, i would advice you to analyze your own editing behavior. If multiple people report you, and three different admins banned you, there is quite a high chance that the problem might at least partially originate with yourself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your criticism is sound, there is nothing in that edit but frustration expressed poorly and "pointy". Not a moment I'm at all proud of. Again, at this point my only concern is whether selective scarlet letter's as above will be sewn to my chest should I create an account.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is more whether you have any intention of editing beyond your apparent vendetta against a couple of people. If not, you are not welcome (the block evasion, incidentally, is also something you will need to ensure you never do again). If you would like to edit and can do so without continuing your vendetta then fair enough, but don't expect us to stand by and let you engage in precisely the sort of behaviour you allege against others, which is effectively what's been happening thus far. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In part, letters might be sown. Just search trough my history, and you will undoubtedly find questionable edits as well, which sound even worse out of context. Yet at the same time i can point to an even larger set of edits that are of good quality. At the same time there are quite a few editors that only work on fringe topics with a lot of heated debate, and still they manage to be respected editors. Sure, It is always possible you meet resistance, but you should keep in mind you cannot win every battle, even if you are certain you are right.
Even so, all that matters are good intentions. Show that you want to edit constructively, and people will accept and forgive quite a bit. I think the main problem here is that the discussion soured, words were said and bans were issued. If i may again offer my humble advice: Always keep cool when editing, as hard as it sometimes is (There are a few examples in my edit history where i didn't). It really, REALLY helps in heated or controversial discussions, and remember, sometimes things will not turn out as you want. Second, remember the basic policies, such as not editing while banned. As Jimbo already pointed out, this screams bad faith and most users will not accept it lightly. As for an account: Some users prefer IP, some accounts. Both have their advantages, and both have their drawbacks. Even so, i have seen both accounts and IP's that were as valuable editors. (Only drawback for me: IP's are really hard to track\contact as they have different user pages all the time :) ). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Can I respectfully ask you to review this decision [[6]]? It seems to have been make rather hastily (less than 48 hours after discussion was opened) and does not reflect the consensus of the discussion. It also seems to fly in the face of providing free access to all human knowledge, which I greatly support. How does one appeal such a decision? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother - this is a matter for community consensus, not for Jimbo. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since community consensus is not being observed here, what is the process to appeal? (I still think Jimbo might be interested in this, though). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a pretty strong consensus. But, as was said, this isn't really a matter for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - thanks for answering. I've asked several places where to find out about appealing, since the majority of comments were "oppose" and yet the decision went the other way (13 oppose, 8 support - yet support called the consensus?). So where does one appeal?Smatprt (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jimbo himself: Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. It is not a "vote count", see WP:Consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, of course. But since no partnership was formed and nothing resolved between the "supports" and "opposes", no consensus was even attempted. Several suggestions were made, but the reviewer didn't respond to any of them. I should have been more clear about that. So where does one appeal this? Just answer me that and I'll go there. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start with User:Peter cohen who "closed" the discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea. For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was myself who made the close in the interests of moving the process forward. The resolution is to start sandboxing an article to replace the current one with an eye toward Wikipedia guidelines and policies especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSTS. It is requested that those upset with this close work constructively in the sandbox to try to develop the best article possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You closed it opposite of community consensus (13 oppose, 8 support, with what look to be sensible comments in either direction) in order to "move things forward"? Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your last question is supposed to mean, but there is evidence of meatpuppetry action in the enumeration. I take Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not a majority vote seriously. The quality of the argumentation seemed to me to be very lopsided toward the "mergists" in the discussion. It seems clear to me that the arguments being made by those requesting a merge or a partial merge were more tied to reliable sources and legitimate content objections. The other side seemed to be appealing to vague notions of fair play and censorship that are not really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm hoping that everyone will be involved in sandboxing a solution. If this fails, then it fails, but after wasting megabytes of text on this conflict we absolutely must move forward. The status quo is going to lead us to an arbitration. It is my opinion that this may be a way to forestall that seeming inevitability. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my concern precisely. I'm hoping ScienceApologist will re-factor his remarks accordingly. Smatprt (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to clarify, but I would like you to collaborate rather than forum shop, Smatprt. For example, I would like to see you find some independent secondary sources that outline what the most important Shakespearean authorship ideas are. That would be incredibly useful to Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping? Can you please explain? Are you referring to the report that I filed on Tom Reedy for numerous incivility issues? For some reason you are trying very very hard to have that report deleted. I just don't understand why you and Peter are throwing all these allegations around and also interfering with an RFC/u. Based on these actions, you two have become involved editors representing one side of this debate. Don't you see that you are feeding the flames? Why don't you just follow Jimbo's suggestion above: "Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?" Instead, you seem to be directing everyone to rewrite the article from top to bottom. Smatprt (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so on numerous occasions and supplied them for the article. Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's time to use those to sandbox a good summary style article in the sandbox. I look forward to seeing your contribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, since my name has been introduced into this, I should like to point out the following.
  • I started the merge thread in response to the consensus among experienced editors at WP:ANI#Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles that the articles should be merged
  • There are a number of pretty obvious sockpuppets voting in that discussion
  • When I contacted people offline for their suggestions as to who the puppetmasters were, I was informed that there is a record of off-wikipedia canvassing by some of those who argue that Shakespeare did not write his own plays.
  • Discussions are not votes. The closer should consider the strength of the arguments in the light of Wikipedia policy. This can mean that the apparent minority wins.
  • I did actually post at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard an invitation for admin intervention in light of the puppetry and arguments that misrepresent WP:NPOV. I didn't expect a non-admin to arrive, but there was an awful lot of crap to cut through and the views of those at the AN/I thread needed to be taken into account.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This allegation of sock puppetry is just that - an allegation. And an unproven and uninvestigated one at that. If someone merely checks the IP's and approximate locations, I am pretty darn sure Peter's allegation will be found to be in error.
  • As someone who has hunted down a number of puppets, I can find no evidence for such an allegation, much less anything "pretty obvious", as Peter notes.
  • For the record, I asked Peter for any evidence of Sockpuppetry and was provided none. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, BenJonson is spending March Break with me as we are working on a book about Tempest together and writing an article on Hamlet, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have the same ip. He'll be back home next week, and our ips will be very different. Mizelmouse (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the sniping back-and-forth Get back to writing the encyclopedia. There's a sandbox to play in where progress is waiting to be made. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made a large contribution there. (I am the only one who has). But I did feel it important to address these allegations of SockPuppetry. I hope you agree that they really need to stop. Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that need to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. Bravo!4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The following exchange, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#ScienceApologist.27s_Decision) has clarified ScienceApologist's methodology for dealing with disagreement:

Is there a point to continuing this exchange? I can't see one. Get into the sandbox and start editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist: Despite your decision that editors should adopt a policy for which there was manifestly no consensus, Jimbo Wales has made it quite clear that your decision was erroneous. What do you propose to do about this? Why should I "play" in a sandbox for which you claim administrative privilege, in light of your clearly evident prejudices ("offending articles," etc.) and erroneous judgment? Has it ever occurred you that some of us might have better things to do than engage in a procedure controlled by your personal biases? --BenJonson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)--BenJonson (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales, you had recommended I check with Peter to see if he mistyped, because, as you said "it happens". And I did check in with Peter. But what has happened in the mean time causes me concern. Peter has represented himself as having an "outside view". However this discussion [[7]] would seem to imply otherwise. He is obviously friends with Nishidani, one of the subjects of my RFC/u filing, and has since made comments supporting just one side of the debate across numerous talk pages and noticeboards [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]]. It was Peter who actually instigated the whole merge discussion that brought me here in the first place. As I have said to Peter, it's fine to support your friends and take on their causes, but at least don't represent yourself as having an outside view or being uninvolved. So we have two administrators, Peter and ScienceApologist who have both jumped in as "uninvolved" or "outside" editors, but they seem to be actively representing one specific faction. Is this kosher? Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:DR. Take it elsewhere, this will only make it worse. Verbal chat 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

Jimbo, I think this kind of bullying is not acceptable. Please don't do this, or we may need an RfC/U. Hans Adler 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that bullying? I asked him not to go and start editing long-settled articles in order to make a point about a completely unrelated article. There's nothing bullying about that at all. People should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a pattern of such behavior -- see [14]: "For third parties who may be confused by looking at the examples I gave above, editor ChrisO has methodically gone through and moved each of the templates I used as examples to where he thinks they should be."
This matter was inconsequential, but this is very aggressive editing, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Jimbo's comment, my own reaction is that it is both correct and proper. An RfC/U over it? Sheesh! Jusdafax 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's disappointing is the amount of bad-faith assumptions being thrown around, particularly by people who should know better. Jimbo, if you had bothered to look at what I am actually doing, I am tidying up some long-standing terminological, sourcing and POV problems. This isn't "making a point", it's simple good practice. Take a look, for example, at the list of unsourced POV allegations against living persons I just deleted from Bandargate scandal.[15] Do you think I should have left that alone? Fixing problem articles is certainly a lot more productive than bickering on talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with various people) It is perfectly normal to address problems with long-settled articles as soon as they become apparent. After all, this is a wiki, and "it has always been like that", while still somewhat convincing, doesn't have the same force as in real life.
What I found really concerning is this: "You are making up policy that doesn't exist." You are simply claiming this. I challenged you to discuss interpretation of policy. You chose to propose a compromise title instead, which is fine. But then please don't act as if you had already won the dispute about policy interpretation.
WP:NPOV#Article titles sets a high standard for the use of inherently non-neutral titles:
Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. [my italics]
This seems to be the only passage that allows exceptions from the principle that we only use neutral titles. The term "Climategate" appears to be used by a majority of sources, and mentioned (in inverted commas or qualified with "so-called") by many but not all others. It is at least arguable (and in my opinion true) that that's not a consensus of the sources using the term.
I think as founder of this project you should be a bit more careful not to push a specific interpretation of technical points of policy in a matter in which you seem to be emotionally invested. Hans Adler 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not emotionally invested in anything other than the neutrality of Wikipedia. The current name is manifestly not neutral. Please help me work towards consensus on a proper title.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some support (I'm not sure how much) for adding "controversy" to the title. Does that satisfy your concerns or do you prefer "scandal"? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help you work towards consensus on a proper title? You mean like this? Or by supporting one of the extremes, the one that you favour and that in my opinion is against policy? Hans Adler 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, consensus requires both sides to find a middle ground, and I'm glad that you have at least (if somewhat grudgingly) endorsed the proposal that GoRight and I put forward, Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh noes! Now we have Gategategate! :-o Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility of improving on the current title by focussing on the controversy has been put forward before, but as I recall commonly derailed by those demanding the less neutral "climategate" title refusing to compromise. Consensus is more likely to be achieved by ruling that term out, and pressing for a change from "hacking incident" to "controversy". The option of "scandal" appears problematic, a dreadful email talking of deleting one's own private emails is possibly a criminal offence under post 2005 legislation but is hardly an assault on the principles of science. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following this from the beginning, and we do seem to keep coming back to some variation of Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy as a title that everyone can live with. It's not my preference, but it works. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what does it take to make that change? As for me, I will drop all objections if we can get that change. Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy will be fine. The main point for me is that it eliminates the false notion that the scandal is primarily about the emails being leaked/hacked... this isn't news because it is a "hacking incident" but because of the content of the emails and documents. That's the key point for neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really mystified. A lot of people have been defending an article on "the hack". Is this no longer a topic notable enough to have its own article? Why not have two articles, one on the hack and one on the controversy. These are two different subjects, not two different titles for the same subject. So when you say that this is a compromise, I don't quite understand. They are 2 discrete topics. Moogwrench (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no very strong opinion on where the "hack" is sufficiently notable as a standalone. I currently would be inclined to say no. However if, as seems highly unlikely, there are further developments and this turns out to have been a sophisticated and well-funded hacking incident with much interesting to be said about it, then of course a separate article would be warranted. If, as I think more likely than that but still unlikely, it is eventually revealed that someone with access to the servers released the emails because they were either politically motivated or simply horrified at the ethical breaches evident in the emails, then depending on the circumstances that might or might not warrant a separate entry. And finally, in the most likely case of all, the investigation never turns up anything, then unless I've overlooked something noteworthy, we simply don't seem to have enough standalone to write about. But those are just my musings, and as I say, I have no very strong opinion about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales - Wikiversity Alternative

I have started a Wikiversity alternative, a link can be found on my "user" page here. It seems to me that different wikis with similar scopes will ultimately be better for all stakeholders. I am currently and repeatedly banned from Wikiversity, however, you would be welcome to promote my wiki there or most anywhere else as an alternative for those who would appreciate a different management style in a research oriented/collaborative learning wiki. Good job on this wiki, though. It appears it is #6 on Alexa now. Have we cured poverty yet? Has Wikiversity already cured cancer? Probably not yet, but maybe eventually. Maybe. :) EME44

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=350485877"