User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56


Flagged revisions

When are they going to be implemented? Constructive criticism (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When they're ready, the wheels aren't dropping off are they. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I spoke to staff (specifically Erik Moeller) when I was in SF for the board meeting, and I got a very promising update at that time. Rather than risk saying something inaccurate, I'll show Erik this post and ask him to make an update here. In the meantime, the labs server is likely the best place to go for the absolute latest information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Erik asked me, the project manager for this, to pop in here. There is a long update on the tech blog that answers a lot of questions. The main update since then is that a bunch of further development has been done (which you can see in the tracker), but it turned out we had to move the labs site to new hardware, which is slowing us down a bit. Rob Halsell has provisioned the new hardware and we're getting it set up right now.
As to when we'll have something up on the English Wikipedia, that depends a lot on the community. As soon as we have new software up on labs, we'll announce it and get feedback. We'll keep revising the software until both our testers (which I'd encourage all interested parties to be) and the team think it's ready. As much as it pains us to not have this live yet, it would pain us even more to go live with something that made things worse. William Pietri (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link to the tracker. I've been trying to keep track of the commits to the SVN repository, but that doesn't help much. The tracker definitely gives a much better impression of how things are coming along. Reach Out to the Truth 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia collaboration with NASA

There is a collaboration proposal at OpenNASA that suggests that NASA collaborate with Wikimedia project including Wikipedia.

There is also a NASA collaboration task force at the strategy wiki as well as a NASApedia proposal.

Would you support a collaboration between NASA and Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and the Commons?Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you rather abstain from commenting?Smallman12q (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was actually asleep then. :-) Yes, I strongly support collaboration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You were asleep for 28 and a half hours? That isn't sleeping, that's hibernation. Wake up, it's spring already. Weakopedia (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If only it were true, that it was spring. Face-smile.svg
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

Hi, Jimmy. Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today. While designed by original proposer Uncle G as a 'Reverse Rfa' (see Wikipedia:'Community de-adminship' - The original Uncle G proposal for reference), the current proposal has undergone revision and is no longer termed as such.

I, and I believe much of the community at large, would welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Jusdafax 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. For two reasons: 1) Jimbo has plenty of power over ArbCom's desysopings. 2) Jimbo has himself, personally, both desysoped, and threatened to desysop, a number of admins. (User:Zscout370 comes to mind.) Those are two levels on which Jimbo has power over the de-adminship process: by influencing ArbCom, and by pressing the button himself. Surely he should not be invited to "comment on"— by implication, exert power over—the third level as well? Isn't one reason we have instituted community deadminship precisely that we want a "parliamentary" level of deadminship, with which the "royalty" of Wikipedia has nothing to do? Bishonen | talk 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC).
Actually, following Jimbo's desysop of User:Bedford, he did voluntarily relinquish his own power to desysop summarily, and has not done so since. Whereas Jimbo might have input into ArbCom, I can't find a single public example where he has done so, and I believe he is honourable enough to (a) leave it to ArbCom and (b) if offering an opinion, doing so publicly. Jimbo's role as a "constitutional monarch", if it were ever so, I believe he has mostly given back to the community and its processes. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's right. I remain free to comment on processes, and I stand firmly behind desysopping Bedford. I have steadily retreated from doing such things, not because they are wrong, but because community institutions have appropriately grown to take care of such things without me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thus the use of the my modifier "much", Bishonen. And for clarification, nothing has been "instituted" yet, this is merely at the 'Request for Comment' stage. And I find myself in agreement with Rodhullandemu re: the reality of the situation. Jusdafax 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia history

Did wikipedia have the monobook skin when it started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MonoBook was added in MediaWiki 1.3.0, which was released in 2004[1]. Wikipedia originally ran on UseMod, which doesn't support skins. Reach Out to the Truth 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Some interesting discussions about MediaWiki 1.3 can be found at Wikipedia:Mediawiki 1.3. Wikipedia has always used beta versions of MediaWiki, so any bugs can be ironed out quickly through the experiences of people using the software. That's the reason why the discussions I linked occurred some time before the release of MediaWiki 1.3. Graham87 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Another related page is Wikipedia:Historical archive/Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia. Graham87 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slanderous attacks, lies, and harassment

I am having a very serious problem with a group of editors, including some arbitrators and admins, attacking me with blatant lies and distortion in an effort to ban me. Please can you help Jimbo? I admit I'm not perfect, but I have always edited in good faith and I don't believe that people should be able to make blatant distortions about what I have and haven't said. This is a civility and BLP violation, even if I am anonymous for now. Also, we shouldn't allow anyone to try to censor people they disagree with by hounding, harassing, intimidating and abusing processes with misrepresentations to get rid of them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As a point of information for Jimbo or anyone else, the relevant discussion (originally from WP:AN but since moved by an ArbCom clerk to ChildofMidnight's talk page) is here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a frivolous complaint. You are a pseudonymous editor, the statements made in the arbitration case are framed clearly as statements of opinion. Oh, and WP:NLT. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Oh dear, more flame bait, but I could not help a wry smile at this:

Did Larry have a previous account or did he "co-found" Wikipedia six months after it started? Guy (Help!) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Account creation dates from before (IIRC) 2005 or so are unreliable. Note that his first edit predates the supposed creation of his account by almost a year. --Carnildo (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Both Jimmy and Larry's first edits were made using CamelCase usernames, JimboWales (talk · contribs) and LarrySanger (talk · contribs). Jimbo's earliest surviving edit was made on 23 January 2001 while Larry's earliest surviving edit was made on 21 January 2001. Both accounts were abandoned before Wikipedia started using a MySQL database in January 2002, so they weren't listed in the new database until vandals created them. After Larry abandoned the "LarrySanger" account, he started using an account named "Larry_Sanger; an example of an edit by him under that username is this edit. Edits made by a user with an underline in their account name cannot be accessed through the user contributions feature per bug 323. Larry didn't use a space in his username until January 2002, hence the account creation date given by Special:Listusers in the above link. The edits in his contributions list that appear before that date are as a result of importing edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001. Even though most edits by Larry appear under the username "Larry_Sanger" at that site, the import tool automatically converts underlines to spaces so the edits appear under the name "Larry Sanger" here. Graham87 12:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Guarding against astroturfing of Wikipedia by Pharmaceuticals

Dear Jimbo,

Do you regard Wikipedia as vulnerable to astroturfing by pharmaceutical companies? Perhaps I haven't looked in the right places, but I've seen surprisingly little if any on-wiki discussion about this very real danger, and how to recognize and prevent it. When I saw an Arbitration in progress about pages related to Transcendental Meditation, I voiced this concern publicly for the first time, commenting as an outside editor.

No matter how the TM arbitration is resolved, I hope that you and others who oversee Wikipedia consider these dangers very, very, very seriously over the long run, and find ways to protect Wikipedia against damage. It would be sad if Wikipedia was infiltrated and effectively colonized by this industry, which Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, calls an "eight-hundred pound gorilla that… is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do", and that in highly sophisticated ways "uses its immense wealth and power to co-opt nearly every institution that might stand in its way", p3,x.

Here is a link to the arbitration page evidence I provided (and here is a diff). Thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia. It is still young, and I do hope it endures in as much of its glory as possible. Precautionary 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this seem reasonable?

Hi. Very sorry to disturb.

There is a Welsh film that I enjoy. In fact, I helped set up the IMDb page for the film back in 1999 when I was a major IMDb researcher, one of their "Top 200". The film is called Hedd Wyn.

Yesterday I noticed 2 errors on the Welsh WP page for the (Welsh language) film. I presumed this to be the result of (Welsh nationalist) vandalism. I corrected the errors, bringing the page into line with both the IMDb and English WP.

The Welsh sys admin has now blocked my editing privileges for 1 year, and restored both errors to the WP page.

Is that a reasonable outcome?

Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See cy:Arbennig:Contributions/Varlaam and cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Varlaam. "Edit summaries such as "Grow up" and comments such as "Are you insane?" are not acceptable here. Any more in a similar vein and you will be blocked" [2]. Your next edit was, without question, more in a similar vein [3], you were blocked. Asserting that "Wales is not a country" in the Welsh Wikipedia is... not smart. The blocking admin, cy:Defnyddiwr:Anatiomaros has been active there since 2006. The problem appears to centre around Hedd Wyn (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its equivalent cy:Hedd Wyn (ffilm). Hedd Wyn was a Welsh poet and soldier in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the film is in the Welsh language and distributed by S4C, a Welsh-language media company. To change an article on a Welsh film about a Welsh cultural hero to say it's a UK film because Wales "is not a country" - in the Welsh Wikipedia? How about going the whole hog and moving it to Hedd Wyn (ffilm) AR GLUD!!!!!!? You got blocked for trolling, yes, that's a reasonable outcome. Given that you made the same edits here it's not inconceivable the same will happen here as well. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing what you did.

Hello Mr Wales,
I am writing this to say a little bit of my appreciation to you for founding and setting this wonderful project (perhaps one of the most influentual projects of the 21st century). Wikipedia has helped me a lot with my school work and it has also expanded my knowledge of the world around me. I can't really imagine (or has ever imagined), what this world would be like with Wikipedia. I am a newbie myself with editing, even though I have using the site for so long. I hope that Wikipedia will grow to become the largest website-in term of capacity-in the world (I don't think it's not far off now :)). All in all, I just want to express to you my appreciation of the work you have done, just nearly a decade ago, and I hope that Wikipedians and the website itself, will strive for the better in the near future, and for decades to come.
Thank you very much, Mr Wales. Sp33dyphil 08:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Jimbo Wales! I have nominated you for bureaucratship. It would be nice if you would accept the nomination and answer the questions on the nomination page. Thank you and happy editing. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talkmy editssign) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would Jimmy want to be a 'crat? He already has the technical powers due to the Founder usergroup which he can use in emergencies (although why anyone would need to be sysopped in an emergency, I don't know), and I can't see him ever doing routine promotions. --Tango (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
On this one Tango, I think we should allow Jimbo to respond. Outback the koala (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
My founder bit serves me perfectly well. If I ever want to be a bureaucrat proper (I won't), I'll just add the bit myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the wrong time anyways. You should have waited 31 days to nominate him! ;) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Remember this is Jimbo! He can even, I don't know, turn on Flagged Revisions overnight if he wanted to... (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


I've been away a few days in a place with limited Internet access (London! haha!) Actually my computer died and I'm just now coming back online.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like your advice and opinions

I'd like us to conduct a poll from now until Saturday, regarding whether we should ask the Foundation to simply turn on flagged revs in the form that the Germans use it, until such time as they finish the version we've reached consensus on here, but which is constantly delayed.

User_talk:Jimbo Wales/poll - please just leave it here rather than turning it into a formal RfC or request - this is just a poll to gauge how we feel about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth briefly summarising what the German form of flagged revs actually entails at the top, I'm not sure everyone's familiar with its scope. ~ mazca talk 13:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry - am I missing something? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

I was participating in your poll and came across a line that scared me – someone claimed that the foundation (1) has no idea how much longer it will take and (2) has no intention of setting a deadline for itself. So I pose this question to you: Instead of being one of the people that continues to complain about how flagged revisions aren't here yet, why not instead see what initiative I can take to resolve the problem. There's two sides to this: On the one hand, to my understanding, everything Wikimedia is open source and thus the current (partial) implementation is as well, so I theoretically should be able to just go in and start hacking away on my own local copy to my heart's content, then propose patches and get them integrated. On the other hand, I assume WMF is taking this as a high priority and thus (a) may not want the additional help due to the increased load of reviewing changes and potential for security issues, and (b) may wish to avoid conflicts as they have more time than the prospective volunteers. So I pose this question to you: Is there any way the community can help out with getting this finalized? Perhaps a team of volunteers to contribute to the source and get us on our way finally? Thanks for any insight, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been true for decades. Sorry. Jack Merridew 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference note A, where I already pointed that out, but this still does not answer my question. The answer question is not "what can we not do" but rather "what can we do". Surely the answer isn't "nothing". --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I did see your ref (a). What we can do is support rolling out what we can, as soon as we can. I'm all for getting the Full Montyphrase out there ASAP. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone still doubts that something should be done about BLPs ASAP, you should see the latest piece at On Wikipedia. Turns out they put a defamatory, hoax BLP through DYK yesterday. It was on the main page for six hours, during half of which it accused the subject of murder. HH Nobody (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That article was cited, written by a registered user and reviewed by others. So what should we do to prevent such thing from happening again? Sole Soul (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. Others; it is worth the read. Jack Merridew 02:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe worth a read, but it's certainly not a knock-down argument in favor of flagged revisions; flagged revisions would have been no better at preventing this than the current system was. This article got onto the main page because someone with the trust and the power to move things to the main page made the mistake of putting it there (after someone with the trust and power to review DYK nominations made the mistake of accepting it). Likewise, under flaggedrevs, it's entirely possible that a trusted flagger could still be lazy, not paying close attention, make a slip-up, or whatever, and let BLPvios like this through. Simply put, there is no way to program around human error. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For founding Wikipedia. That really is a brilliant idea. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talkmy editssign) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting informations between English and Czech Wikipedia; Czech Wikipedia presents propaganda for a year and nobody care of it there

I have to once again start discussion about User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 53#Contradicting informations between English and Czech Wikipedia. Jimbo asked for a discussion here and I asked of Czech editors to come here to join discussion. I want to stress the key point that discussion should dealt only with this content/editorial issues to resolve it, since those are big problem. What can be done when English and Czech Wikipedia contains contradicting informations and nobody listens. The English Wikipedia states that homosexuality was remeved from the lists of disorders on the ground of recognizing the scientific evidence. This fact supported by the most reliable sources available to the topic. The Czech Wikipedia states that homosexuality was removed solely because of the political reasons. This statement is supported by one unfounded opinion of the author of scripts. Yes, you read right! It is absurd, isn't it? I believe this is a serious problem, but nobody has listened for several months and the article is blocked to prevent correct that. Nothing can be done. The Wikipedia policies about reliable sources and exceptional claims have been ignored there for many months. Is there any chance to set right propaganda of ultraconservative editors and inactive admins there? I believe CS Wikipedia should present facts in similar fashion as the EN Wikipedia, since it is not Conservapedia. Moreover, the Czech Wikipedia editors violates undue weight and reliable sources policies by presenting fringe sources even if those was explicitly prohibited to use in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_August_8#Contradicting_informations_between_en_and_cs_Wikipedia didn't help to solve the issue. All mechanism including Czech Arbitrary Comitee has failed so far. These issues hurt Wikipedia project. Who is responsible and who failed here? --Destinero (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to disturb you with that case, which looks crazy to me, but I have to defend myself. Please refer to User_talk:Destinero#YAATRYG_-_Yet_another_attempt_to_reach_your_goals Destinero's talk page YAATRYG case, where I already described all important with links. Destinero was blocked on cz Wikipedia 16 times (see the Destinero's CZ blocking record from various admins) for edit wars, personal attacks and trolling/copy-pasting and he was blocked few times here for edit wars as well, details on his talk page. I'm looking forward to see your response. Regards --DeeMusil (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The focal point is why Czech Wikipedia lies to users about reasons why homosexuality was removed from the list of mental ilness. I don't know why you are pointing out to irrelevant issues. Here we are discussing something else - why are Czech contributors unable to inform the same way like English wikipedia where *nobody* in last half year haven't had problem with it and why majority of Czech Wikipedians promote unfounded exceptionaly claim of one unimportant individual from not reviewed source promote as a fact? I am here to discuss the key issue not to endorse your effort and strategy to discredit me. Try to underestand why almost all of my edits and behaviour is O.K. on english Wikipedia and why it is not O.K. on Czech Wikipedia. You simply cannot discredit me without reasoning of why Czech contributors break Wikipedia rules and nobody except few editors cares. The reason for that is homophobia. The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer. And this is the reason why Jimbo should act since Czech wikipedia users deserves to be informed the same way about the issue as English wikipedia users are - by most credible sources on this world - not present unfounded opinions of only one individual from not reviewed book which contradicts all professional mainstream sources and most cited peer-reviewed medicine journal JAMA. I cannot imagine the reason which legitimize this propaganda as well as blocking the page for a year. --Destinero (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that Jimbo's userpage says that he's a native English speaker and is learning German, but says nothing about any other languages, I seriously doubt that he can do anything at the Czech Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Lets make long story short: All I want to say is, how much attention is necessary to pay your assumptions and claims by anybody who reads that. 16 blocks on cz and 2 blocks here is very relevant issue and it touches the core, that your editing style is crazy without any limits and rules, including Wikipedia rules. On your claims according discrimination: on Czech Wikipedia is lot of pro-homosexual or homosexual supportive editors, including admin Faigl.ladislav see his profile and rainbow flag in there, who is by the way on your blocking record as blocking admin, but their edits are fine and are not often reverted as yours. There is not homophoby nor discrimination according your sexual orientation, but there is wide opposition according style of your edits and disrespect you show to other Wikipedia users, because your edits are breaking the rules. It is such simple and I think it is not necessary to go deeper into your game. I have to finish my discussion here as I do not want to make headache to Wikipedia founder. Destinero if you want to talk with me, I can be found on my or your talk page. --DeeMusil (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Lets make a long story short: You are still unable to justify propaganda. Jimbo surely is able to see that you are still commenting something completely different than the focal point of the issue. The reason is clear: You cannot justify that so you try to discredit me. I dont know how it is relevant to point out to someone who is reputedly supportive editor when the same editor warned you on your discussion board about your homophobic diction (you wrote: "1 fagot + 1 fagot = 2 tombs"): And you were not blocked! This is clearly alarming state of Czech Wikipedia full of injustice and homophoby. Yes, you want to finish discussion here because you have nothing relevant to say on the "following scientific fact that same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders." (source: Your religion cannot justify the propaganda you brings to Czech users with other editors when you wrote otherwise only because one individual wrote it before 13 years in his not reviewed work. That's absurd. --Destinero (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a short comment from me, as I was an ArbCom member (my term ended at the beginning of this year). The story had two sides for the arbitration committee:

  1. The content. Czech ArbCom cannot interfere in the building of the content of Wikipedia (as per the rules of Czech Wikipedia). It could not decide how the problem must be solved. Within this framework and with restricted capability, the ArbCom decided that no evidence was given that any of the person is vandalising the content (for example by including content that is fully unsourced or based on sources that are without doubts not reliable), and motivated both sides to seek to follow the rules the way that they find a way to provide the sourced information with the weight they have according the sources (not necessarily in the same articles they are in now, but in special ones, dealing the minority views or the discussion of the views). ArbCom cannot do anything more in this.
  2. The behavior. Czech ArbCom was urged to stop Destinero making personal attacks, spamming discussions etc. ArbCom was given proves that Destinero infringed several rules that adjust the behavior on Wikipedia, and adopted special decisions on this base.

The arbitration case is not closed yet, so the decisions are not valid yet. With this explanation I hope that You, Mr. Wales, will understand that Czech Wikipedia ArbCom did not fail in this case. I do not want to argue with any of my colleagues' preceding comments, but You can asume that I do not agree with several of them (eg. for the topic title that "nobody care of it there" - as I really had to care of it a lot in the ArbCom member post). With regards, --Okino (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A year of blocking with formulation "The reason why homosexuality was not included in ICD was not a medical one, since homosexuality brings a person many difficulties which make homosexuality up a medicine caused handicap, but rather sexualy political effort to remove alleged socially unreasonable discrimination of homosexuals with reffering to their "also normality" cannot be justified in any way, since it rests on only one unreviewed source which provides nothing more than unfounded authors exceptional claim. That is the fact. For exceptional claims contradicting very broad mainstream academic and professional position most reliable and credible sources are needed according to wikipedia policies. Look at where such sources are used (several mainstream largest and oldest professional neutral bodies and most cited medicine journal in the world JAMA - there is simply none more credible sources in this world for this topic) for more than 6 months without nobody disputed them nowhere (in edits or discussions). Please, stop propaganda on Czech Wikipedia immediately and unblock the article. The same reasoning go for promoting American College of Pediatricans, which is fringe group (astroturf) with only one employee (see and which was prohibited to use on English Wikipedia under its policies It's absurd to do undue weight of one activist political group founded only in 2001 with one employee where largest and oldest neutral professional bodies like American Academy of Pediatrics or leading peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics and others garant neutral and fact-based point of view. Compare with What a difference! --Destinero (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo and other non-Czech speakers like me. You can use google translation: [4]. Here is the problematic part:
That does seem to be a rather fringe viewpoint. Does WP:UNDUE apply? And it conflicts with what American Psychological Association says [5]:
APA has 150,000 members. I think it is a FAR MORE WP:RS than Brzek, Antonín. Phoenix of9 07:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You're definitly right. These are not facts presented only by American Psychological Assocition, but also American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, peer-reviewed Journal of American Medical Association, Royal College of Psychiatristis, Australian Psychological Society, Chinese psychologists and so on... The majority of Czech wikipadians are unable to meet the conditions of fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendations to use most reliable sources available and don't promote exceptional unfounded claims of relatively unimportant individuals in their not reviewed text "Sexuology for lawyers". Unwillingness and/or inability majority of Czech engaged editors and administrators to explain why Brzek according to them should be comparable to internationally recognized and distinguished eminent experts like Herek presentign verifiable facts is alarming and points to something is definitely wrong on the Czech Wikipedia, which lost a lot of good editors like Kyknos (see translation of his personal page providing the same reasons like me In that case it is amusing to hold donations to support Wikipedia. I don't want to support Czech propagandapedia which rather resembles Conservapedia style of content anymore. And I am definitely not alone. Because this is simply not useful and reliable educational terciary source. --Destinero (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Btw, the page has been under full protection for ALMOST A YEAR. Since "17. 3. 2009". Czech: [6], English [7]. Thats crazy! Phoenix of9 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking into this further, arbitration case between Destinero and DeeMusil has been going on for more than 7 months!! Czech: [8] English: [9]. Phoenix of9 08:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, sorry, but when you say A, you should say B as well to keep other informed right. Crazy seems to be, that Destinero did not searched for consensus to unblock the article (in time when he was not blocked - and Destinero was blocked 190 of last 365 days = (52%) according to his blocking record, what is unbeliveable), that's why the article is still locked. Last month there is some remarkable move, when Destinero proposed text to Brzek source, but finally colapsed by Destineros personal attacks and trolling, when he is blocked again. Until Destinero is blocked, it is possible that author of the Brzek source (what I'm not) will agree with Destinero on proposed formulation and article will be unlocked. Most strange is, that in one discussion Destinero is proposing text to Brzek source to unlock the article, on the other discussion in the same time he is writing, the source should be removed, so I have serious doubts about what Destinero really wants. Consider the size of Czech Wikipedia community and consider that very few editors was working on the article. Now, probably, nobody wants to continue until problem is solved, otherwise can easily happen, that they will loose their work, so I personally feel Destineros activity and behavior style as the main obstacle to unlock mentioned article.--DeeMusil (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to justify of reference Brzek, because of Wikipedia:REDFLAG. Why are you for a year completely unable to understand this central fact? Jimbo Wales put it very clearly: The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. I am convinced he will stand to his longstanding and well-proven position and urge you to unblock the article and remove the passage which brokes several policies and recommendations ASAP. --Destinero (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to stress that practise of you and your colleagues is unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia policies and recommendations and if Jimbo doesn't help to settle the issue then my patience is in the end after a year and publicity and Czech media will take care of it to let everybody knows what is the quality and reliability of Czech Wikipedia and where and why its systems of collaboration failed. --Destinero (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT REDFLAG. In arbitrary with Destinero, I did serve with dozens of sources, which says the same. Claim it is about redflag is simply false. Actually, I always said, that such information should be formulated neutrally, A says B about C, so in that case no red flag is even possible. Additionaly, CZ wikipedia rules differs a bit (are not such complex), so there is no red flag at all on CZW. Futhermore, Destinero completely IGNOREs recommendation Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which exist on both EN and CZ wikipedia. // Destinero do you want to move this discussion into the article (where some of your claims was already widely discussed, for example EN->CZ rules usage) or you want to bother Jimbo Wales with whole your culture war agenda again? --DeeMusil (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, when speaking about en rules, Destineros case is in WP:CONFLICT of interests, as he is promoting his own group on both CZ and EN Wikipedia, but he did not follow the recommendations there.--DeeMusil (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You served with sources like NARTH which in no way disputes the fact of scientific evidence. You even claimed that you would like to be amused by according to you non-existent studies which supported deletion of homosexuality from DSM or ICD. But the reality turned in my side by showing of C. S. Ford a Beach (1951), Evelyn Hooker (1957), Armon (1960), Freund & Pinkava (1961), McCord,McCord, & Thurber (1962), Bene (1965), Hooker (1969), M. Wilson & Green (1971), Siegelman (1974, 1981), , Townes, Ferguson, & Gillem (1976), Siegelman (1979), Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith (1981), Freund & Blanchard (1983), D. K. Peters & Cantrell (1991), Gonsiorek (1991). (sources: Therefore you should definitely do good research first and then comment to prevent your crude attitude and absence of knowledge as Wikipedia policies require: Wikipedia:NPOV#A vital component: good research --Destinero (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, you are still using fallacy by attacking a straw man. You somehow forget to mention here, that listed first 10 I did find about APA voting homosexuality, but there are more and more sources in the list. We can investigate it and choose those which are most reliable adn describe in more details the day of APA votes about DSM. Moreover you did not mention, that one of those 10 was pro-homosexual scientist Simon LeVay, who stated, it was the activism, what forces APA to change DSM listing. No matter what you do, you cannot rewrite history by bias. When so many sources mentioned that, something could be true on it... and it is not possible just to delete that. And by the way, you still ignore Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view. Straight your steps according that recommendation.--DeeMusil (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Explain what of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view is related to the "scientific fact that same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders." You simply cannot say something is not scientific just because you don't like or believe it. The same go for your denying of evolution just because you rely on religious opinion of 0,1% "biology scientists" ( and don't know how science works ( statement.pdf). I really don't know why it is so difficult or impossible to you to underestand that there newer was not any medical or scientific reason to put homosexuality on the list of disorders and that's why all developed world correct this mistake as empirical research continuosly failed to find linkages between homosexuality and pathology and as the research showed that homosexuals functions psychologically in the pretty same way as heterosexuals. Yes, of course, there was definitely some social change in last century, activism and other legitimate efforts to point out to the facts, too. There is nothing bad about it. --Destinero (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, you did mishmash 3 different things together, so please dont do it. Lets make difference between article/fact, discussion/opinion and personal blog/thoughts or belives.

  1. ) We are speaking about Brzek (and similar) sources in terms of "if APA decision to change DSM listing was based on what..." - this is politics and is quite self-explanatory, how it is connected to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view, see the culture war article. You cannot deny that activism exist, same as for example adoption of the child by homosexuals is frequent moral issue raised by politicians.
  2. ) Another thing is, how it is about variants of sexuality. Sexuality does not depend on activism, so it could be presented separately as it is.
  3. ) Evolution theme - it is just false argument in this discussion - I do NOT see any edits among all Wikipedia articles where I deny evolution and my edits are strictly neutral in this manner. It is your personal problem, that you keen for searching me in the Internet and you did find my personal blog, which is not at all connected to the Wikipedia. So it is again a fallacy, attacking a straw man. It is really not hard to prove, that Earth is not flat.--DeeMusil (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You simply cannot operate on Wikipedia with unimportant author (Brzek) who wrote in the book which nobody else check ever(!) that removing homosexuality was not medicine issue, since according to him it brings many obstacles to the individual. But this is not how science and professional bodies like APA works. Your beliefs and accusations have nothing to do with true, facts and scientific method. It so simple. No different psychological functioning found in last 50 years between gay and heterosexual people. Furthermore, it was you who brings my activitis again and again to Wikipedia. You obvously could not rely on sufficient argument here so you have to brings not relevant issues. --Destinero (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to see the justice and support of using of most reliable sources exists on English Wikipedia at least

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#User Destinero - personal attack Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Admin power part II and Brews Ohare

MR. Wales A few months ago I spoke with you about the need for reform in our "ruling system" . The last day is a clear example of how corupt our ARBCOM process has become. User:Brews ohare was blocked under the thinnest and flimsy excuse he violated his topic ban[[10]]. This was done without a clearcut consesus and was initiated by someone who review for less then ten minutes. Brews then filed a unblock request, this went unreviewed (declined/approved) for 6 days. After this a Admin took the steps to not only explain himself but made the situation right. PLease take a few moments and read this examplary statement behind TruSilver's actions [[11]]. To have any admin take the time to put their reasons down in a respectful way is amazing, it rarely happens. But this honor of character didn't bring him the honor it should, instead he is met with threats and intimidation that if he doesn't reverse his actions he would be desysopped and sent to Arbcom. Why in the world would we punish right and good administrative actions? We should encourage this kind of review on all cases, Brews situation has detoriated from stop of the disruption to full blown wiki corruption of process. Consider one rationale from the arbcom case [[12]], in this one argument is that trusilver didn't have Administrator support only editors, when did wikipedia decisions have to be made by Administrators. This is a great example of the heirachy of the Catholic Church in the medieval ages or the rule of a hostile aristocracy that demeans the common contributor. Please help, we welcome new editors but treat long standing ones like crap, somethign is wrong here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather one-sided view of the situation. The block was certainly discussed and there seems to me to e consensus that Brews was, possibly deliberately, testing the limits. It is certainly not the case that this is an unambiguously abusive admin action, and it's already, I believe, been flagged for ArbCom sanction review. Brews is also able to email ArbCom directly if needed. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you look when the block was initiated, there was little to no suipport for enforcement[[13]]. This was a arbitrary action taken without consensus, this is a block that should never have happened, have you seen the many times Brews has been drug to Arbcom under just as frivolous claims? This has deteriorated to witch hunt nothing more. I've asked time and time again, when will arbcom start assuming good faith and none of the committee can or will answer that? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the fundamental truth about Wikipedia administrative actions: virtually all of them are taken without consensus, at least without prior consensus and post-facto consensus is usually in the form of silent assent. It can't be any other way. This is not the venue, anyway. ArbCom enforcement is the venue. You must surely have seen Jimbo's sarcastic essay on demanding he fix stuff you don't like. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a issue for him to comment on. When I see lunacy and abuse of process like this I could really care less where we ask. Why in the blue hell would I ask them again to review or explain a situation to have them through argumentum ad hominem attacks at me, sorry but I don't beat my head against a wall too often. I've attempted to raise this question and everyone involved in the decision process seems to become deaf and dumb. If I can't get the stuck up few to answer who else can I go to? The link shows clear community consensus against the block. Had the thread been left open perhaps more cronies would have come to condemn brews but it didn't happen. With Arbcom there should always be a consensus except in clear cases which this was clearly not. No pun intended. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
And you think using words like lunacy will persuade Jimbo to swing into action, override ArbCom, desysop an admin and rescue someone who caused months of disruption pushing his weird theory? You are either eztremely naïve or trolling. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok putting your argumentum ad hominem aside, explain to me how the action made sense or the resulting action claiming Trusilver violated community consensus where one was being established or the subsequent one on Brews taqlkage and then on Trusilver, maybe you can help me see the light.....
HiAB, you obviously have no idea about how many silent bystanders probably just simply agree with the block, and refrain from commenting, for the straightforward reason that they don't like, let alone thrive on, the drama / brouha / bombast, so eloquently and abundantly uttered by the "supporters". Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that nobody came to "condemn brews", might have everything to do with the utterly predictable outcome of this case?

Guy, do you happen to have a pointer to that sarcastic essay? I'd love to read it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is cum hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning you are taking something that didn't happen and using it as proof that it had implicit support and ultimately irrelavant as incorrect. To violate Godwins law I would also point out that this argument could have been used in the as follows. The German People were silent in the holocaust, therefore they should all be executed as war criminals because they supoorted crimes against humanity. Do you see the same underlying thread in that example and your question? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, there really was no need to reply - it was a rhetorical question. Oh wait, allow me use the victim's and some of his supporters' typical style here, let me rephrase that. You know, there really was no need to reply - it was a rhetorical question. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And some would call that hubris. Another great example of not replying to the issue and attacking the person. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Example of the problems perfectly evidenced above.

Mr Wales, the above discourse is completely perfect as a example of what happens when you question the status quo. Your arguments aren't answered but rather attacks and flawed logic is used to draw attention away from the problem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You really don't know Jimmy at all do you? Like I said, coming here demanding desysopping and making accusations of ill-faith, lunacy and so on, is pretty much guaranteed to have no good effect whatsoever, see Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. From what you say it looks very much as if you have asked at several venues and got no traction with this so you are entirely convinced they are all wrong, mad, arrogant, abusive or part of "teh cabalz". As I said above, if you expect this approach to be effective you are naive to the point at which it gives the appearance of trolling.
Incidentally, accusing others of ad hominem in the same post where you say "everyone involved in the decision process seems to become deaf and dumb" and call people "the stuck up few" and "cronies" is plain hypocrisy.
Your actions here have undoubtedly done more to damage Brews' cause than to help it. If that was your intent then congratulations, your work is done. If it wasn't, you need to go away and think very hard about what you are trying to achieve and how it might be done. And keep your head down. A lot of people watch this page and seeing aggressive posts like yours will very often prompt an in-depth review of your recent comments and contributions. You might not like how that works out. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
What a shameful misrepresentation of the concerns expressed in good faith by another editor. The corruption that has been cited above is very damaging to Wikipedia and one of the main reasons we are losing so many editors who give up in frustration. The administration and arbitration system have run amok and instead of a collegial community we have absurdist arguments like the one in the other thread citing a lack or support as evidence that there was support. We've seen the same thing in the abuse of civility policies where admins punish good faith editors who are being baited, harassed and trolled for expressing their disgust. Orwell are you listening? It's me ChildofMidnight. If Jimbo chooses to ignore the dysfunction and the disruptive distractions that are used to abuse our editing norms, that's on him. I think it's long overdue that he stepped up to his responsibilities and helped rein in the worst of the abuses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy your petty threats do not scare me. I contribute to this encyclopedia in a meaningful way. If you think there needs to be more scrutiny on me for calling out cronies, falsehoods and inequities go for it. You would be one of many that has, they've all lost though. Until then please omit all references on what may happen Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see here an exemplar of a particular problem we have on Wikipedia right now. In entrenched disputes, the disputants tend first and foremost to focus on whether the response supports their position. If not, the respondent is "obviousl" an opponent and must be shouted down. If you actually read what I've been saying, it's that coming here with comments along the lines of "something happened that I don't like, it's a crisis, the sky is falling, Jimbo must make it the way I want it right now or the entire project will fail" has never, as far as I can tell, actually worked. Nor has any of these supposed crises ever brought about the end of Wikipedia. Knowing Jimbo, the best way to get his help is to ask nicely, assume good faith of all parties, and explore what is the smallest change that would achieve the desired end. Asserting that big chunks of the community and ArbCom have lost their minds because a highly disruptive editor got blocked and an admin has been criticised for unblocking them, well, that's just silly.
It's also very apparent that the mere discussion of anything by the arbitrators is, and has been for a long time, an excuse for drama mongers to make as much noise as they possibly can in the mistaken belief that this will somehow influence things. Again, in my experience, that doesn't happen. We're very lucky that the arbitration committee includes people like Newyorkbrad who show a remarkable ability to ignore the bluster.
Finally, as to Brews, there is absolutely no possible doubt that Brews O'Hare has been disruptive in pushing his personal theory. We already know that some people support him, but that doesn't change the outcome of arbitration. Once again experience indicates that the best way to get sanctions lifted or amended is to discuss the matter calmly with the arbitrators, not simply ignoring them, constantly testing the limits or even breaking them in the hope of getting away with it and thereby undermining the sanction.
Now, on the basis of point 1 I confidently expect this to be ignored, denounced as abusive, whatever, but I think you'll find if you can bring yourself to damp down all that anger for a while that I'm actually right here. The way you guys have chosen to pursue this dispute here has just about the lowest chance of success of all the means you might have tried. I know that's not what you want to hear but I really do think you'll find it's accurate based on many past incidents. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
These are not threats, it's a statement of fact. Coming here with ludicrously hyperbolic claims and strident demands for action based on asserted lunacy is absolutely not going to do anything other than get you in trouble. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a Constitutional Crisis

If ever there was a constitutional crisis on wikipedia, this is it, [14]. And it's interesting to note how editor Guy has stepped forward in an attempt to whitewash the situation. Guy has pulled out all the standard bureaucratic stops. One of these is to tell 'Hell in a Bucket' that appealing to Jimbo won't work. Well maybe it won't. But it certainly won't work if he doesn't appeal to Jimbo. Another classic stop was to denigrate Brews ohare by referring to his weird theory. To the best of my knowledge, Brews ohare doesn't have a weird theory, and I have been editing with Brews closely since he started wikipedia. The idea of Brews's weird theory is a plain lie. Then Guy pulled that other extraordinary classic about the idea that those who speak up in favour of Brews are the ones who are damaging him. This is arrant nonsense. The ones who are damaging Brews are the ones who are blocking him, banning him, and bearing false witness against him. A typical ARBCOM trial is based on the principle of identifying the villains at the beginning of the trial and putting them on the pillory. Any attempt by the accused to defend themselves will be seen as 'disruptive behaviour', and will be used to justify the final sanctions. That is how ARBCOM works. Often there are 'novi acti interventi' present at the ARBCOM trial, such as editor Ncmvocalist who trot around the courtroom giving back kicks to the accused and provoking reactions which are then used against them.

This latest problem surrounding administrator Trusilver is a classic example of the failure of the entire system. A total constitutional review is necessary and separation of powers is needed. A newly constituted arbitration committee needs to be established as a higher tier for the sole purpose of desysoping admins who abuse their tools. All law an order issues on wikipedia can be adequately dealt with by admins with a maximum three month block power. And I would hope that any new arbitration committee would not be needing a logo with a bunch of bananas on it. David Tombe (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good grief! Please don't hyperventilate. There is no "constitutional crisis". There isn't even a constitution. Jehochman Brrr 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Why do so many editors think that whenever something happens that they disagree with, it means that Wikipedia is falling apart? Not surprisingly, it is usually the small percentage of troublemakers who scream the loudest. Please get a grip on reality.—Finell 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Great; call it a WP crisis then, not a "constitutional crisis". There are so many dysfunctional arbitration cases that drag on for months, it is an admission of failure to say it is just the way things work. The problem is that controversial decisions are made, instead of simple and easily justifiable decisions. Administrators should handle only very straightforward matters like enforcement of 3RR and WP:Civil, and leave all matters of content like WP:OR, WP:V and so on up to the contributing editors. They can thrash those things out more intelligently than overworked and unversed admins, and so long as civility is adhered to, it'll all work out without very many admin cases. Here's my notion of what could be done. Brews ohare (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman and Finell, No. This is different. This gets to the very issue of two branches of the law hiding behind each other and promoting damage, in the absence of any adequate appeal procedure. This is a constitutional crisis if ever there was, and a long standing administrator Trusilver is on the pillory right now. Of course Wikipedia has a constitution. Just like the United Kingdom it may not have a written constitution, but it still has a constitution. And the monarch needs to step in right now. David Tombe (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you possibly be any more dramatic? Maybe the initial block was questionable, maybe not. The unblock itself though is what is beyond the pale. Deal with that, either by sanction or desysop, and that's that. There's a lot of hand-wringing here over very, very little. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Your statement that the unblock was beyond the pale reflects the very attitude that will eventually destroy wikipedia, unless the constitution is urgently attended to. What has set the alarm bells ringing for you in this case, is the fact that a serious challenge has been launched against the abuses of power that have been ongoing within the present system. When ARBCOM starts to demonstrate that they are indulging in power for power's sake, then it's time to close them down. I have no doubt that there will be many toadies who will support the current system for the sole purpose of gaining favour and protection from those who are abusing power. This vicious cycle needs to be removed at the roots. David Tombe (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious. One minute we are told that Wikipedia is about to be destroyed because admins don't follow process, the next we are told that if admins aren't allowed to ignore process then we have a crisis. I think some people neeed to take of the Spider-Man suits. Guy (Help!) 06:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No Guy, You are being told that wikipedia will be destroyed by corruption. At the moment, the arbitrators are indulging in a display of Chutzpah by willfully ignoring all the underlying facts in the Brews ohare case, while focusing exclusively on the lie that Trusilver has broken a rule. Trusilver has not broken any rule. Corruption has thrived in a web of bureaucracy, and this latest episode is an attempt by ARBCOM to lock the door on all the wrongdoings and keep the evil intact, by hiding behind the lie that Trusilver has broken a rule. David Tombe (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case what I'm being told is abject nonsense and I laugh in the face of it. Corruption? Good grief. Get a load of yourselves. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, Was that your best poker face? You didn't seriously think that I thought that you were going to acknowledge it, did you?. If I asked a government official on TV if he believed that the administration that he worked for was corrupt, do you think that he would say 'yes'? No he wouldn't. He would put on his best poker face and say 'no, there is absolutely no corruption whatsoever, and I laugh in the face of whoever should say otherwise'. Matters of whether or not there is corruption are ultimately for outsiders to decide upon. David Tombe (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that someone is corrupt because ArbCom (or some individual?) holds a position with which you disagree. That suggestion is not correct. I have absolutely no involvement with the current case, yet it is obvious to me that an admin should never reverse an action taken in the name of an ArbCom ruling without a really solid reason. A civil society comes from observance of rules, not the rules themselves. Further, it is up to ArbCom to decide whether the recent block was warranted, not the gallery. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
David, I'm going to say the same here as on my talk page (and elsewhere). Grandiose claims of widespread abuse, corruption and failure of the project will not work, or at least they have not in my experience ever worked before. If you want Jimmy's advice on how to resolve this then the best way to get it is to ask nicely in a way that doesn't assume bad faith of every single person other than Brews' small and noisy group of supporters. Jimmy does not like personal attacks, does not like people who start by demanding that he fix the "obvious" corruption of people he knows well and with whom he has built up certain bonds of trust (and remember he doesn't know you from a hole in the ground). You are extremely unlikely to get Jimmy to wade in. You might get his advice if you ask the right way. Do you understand what I'm saying? Guy (Help!) 12:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, You have missed the point here entirely. Trusilver did not overturn an ARBCOM sanction. He overturned what he considered to be a faulty interpretation of an ARBCOM sanction by another administrator. Theoretically there is absolutely no basis for ARBCOM to feel slighted over this matter, but for irrational reasons, they obviously do feel slighted. There is something very wrong with a system in which sanctity is given to the first administrator to get involved in any particular arbitration enforcement issue. There are many strands in all of this which need to be examined, but this particular strand seems to be the one that you are missing. When a government minister introduces secondary legislation under powers granted to him by primary legislation, that secondary legislation is subject to being overturned by either a constitutional court or a judicial review process if it is felt that the minister did not interpret his powers, as stated in the primary legislation, correctly. Parliament or congress does not feel slighted if a judicial review overturns a ministers secondary legislation. But no system would ever allow the interpretation of powers bestowed by primary legislation to become the sole preserve of whichever minister got there first. That is what is wrong here. That is what needs to be looked into. And JzG, I'm afraid that I've got nothing more to say to you beyond the fact that I've put you down for the Victor Hugo's Inspector Javert remedial course along with some others. David Tombe (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Victor, please count me in for that course? Thank you. DVdm (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, overly melodramatic. I have no stake or interest in the original block. What caught my interest here was an admin whom I have encountered before, who showed very poor judgment skills then and did so again with this unblock. When one chooses to invoke WP:IAR to justify a decision, they better be damn sure they're in the right. In this case, this admin was clearly not. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tarc, Your statement "I have no stake or interest in the original block" leaves me with no choice but to put you down for the remedial Victor Hugo course which DVdm has also volunteered to join. Inspector Javert had no interest whatsoever in the background story of any case. As far as Javert was concerned, once you crossed that line that was drawn by the secular law, you were a criminal and an outcast forevermore. And on that basis, he hounded and destroyed a good man Jean Valjean who had transgressed in a minor way at a time of great hardship. Later in life when Inspector Javert realized the folly of his ways, he couldn't cope with the change since he had been obsessed with the letter of the law all his life. So in a state of mental anguish, he threw himself into the River Seine. David Tombe (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Dave, you've beaten this allegory into the ground quite sufficiently. Srsly, we get it. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I really can't help wondering whether these guys are either trolling or merely joking around. In any case, it's excellent rainy Sunday afternoon entertainment :-) - DVdm (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good Tarc. So you've got it then. And so you will see that Trusilver was acting for the higher good, whereas Sandstein was acting like Inspector Javert. If Trusilver gets reprimanded as a result of his actions, it will be a bad day for wikipedia. Jimbo, never give up the master key. And Dvdm, it's a Tuesday where I am. David Tombe (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That I acknowledge what you are saying does not mean I agree with or concede to your point. IMO Trusilver should be sanctioned, if not outright desysopped, but that is for others to decide. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc: By eliminating any consideration of the original block, you have eliminated consideration of the type of block it is: a sanctions related block, or a garden variety block. Depending upon which it is, the rules are different. If it is a garden variety block, there is simply no argument that Trusilver was within his purview. In the opposite case, I'd still argue he was right, even though the rules differ, because Sandstein failed to follow protocol, and violated the terms stated by the sanctions against me requiring prior warning. Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell David they'd argue unblocking Brews if it was Jesus doing the unblocking. The arguments we see here have been amazingly weak. It's truly sad that we can expect no help from the people that have the power to help reform some of the more political policies here, and choose to do nothing. Why would they help, the moment they do they get hauled to Arbcom and called trolls/disrupters. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Being a casual and highly amused observer, may I make a suggestion to Hellinabucket, Brewsohare, Mr Tombe and others? Find another hobby. There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than bitching over Wikipedia. Jon

Proposed template

Here is a template proposed to attach to blocks based upon violation of a sanction. The idea is to advise an admin passing by that it is off-limits to overturn the block on their own initiative. It includes this language:

"Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This wording is transferred from the so-called 2008 decision. I personally view the so-called 2008 decision as an illegal power grab by administrators disenfranchising the WP community at large, and imposing a vague ruling that can be interpreted and administered only by a certain elite group (the "Committee") with no review of their objectivity and judgment. In particular, this group conceivably might apply this ruling even though no sanction has been violated, because it is up to them to decide whether or not that has happened. Any administrator of the view that an error has occurred now must appeal to the "Committee", and not to the WP community at large.

It also is their prerogative to judge whether a so-called "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" exists, and no particulars are provided for making that judgment. For example, is "substantial" consensus a simple majority, a 2/3 majority, or is one administrator equal to 10 ordinary WP editors? When is consensus "clear"? If three oppose, two are in favor and 30 undecided, is that "unclear"? Is an editor "active" that never writes an article, or never holds office, or shows up just for this vote? Are decisions subject to open vote and argument, or just "Committee" edict?

What is a "written authorization"? How is it arrived at? Is it a majority vote of the "Committee" on a WP page like a WP:A/R report with community input?

What "Committee" is this (the "Sanctions Administration Committee"? The ArbCom?), and how are its members selected? How are its decisions appealed?

The adoption of a vague ruling such as the 2008 decision is not OK and has very far reaching ramifications for the entire operation of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As an experiment, you could start your own website with your own detailed constitution to ensure open access with total fairness and civil conduct at all times. Meanwhile, Wikipedia needs to make the occasional decision (at ArbCom) with an appeal process (at ArbCom), and not have endless drama all over the project. If admin X thinks admin Y has a totally mistaken view regarding an ArbCom decision, admin X should take it up with ArbCom, not just overrule admin Y (see the new {{Uw-aeblock}} for a very reasonable process). Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the Wikipedia administrative system is set up to ensure fairness by the potential for unblocking. Administrators act on clear-cut cases only, because they don't want their blocks overturned. The ArbCom 2008 decision made it so that certain blocks (those persuant to ArbCom decisions) are essentially immune from review. This makes users susceptible to abusive blocks.
Wheel warring regarding ArbCom decisions was no more common than wheel warring in other matters. There was no reason to impose a new rule regarding reverting ArbCom enforcements, and it is causing problems now. It is important to stop concentrating powers in ArbCom, and to have some healthy checks and balances: that means no blocking without unblocking.Likebox (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. I just wrote a related comment in the Arbcom case, before reading this. Hans Adler 08:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One could perhaps also think about having a truly independent ArbCom appeals system. When you set one step in the direction of impementing a legal system where judicial decisions are to be respected, it is perhaps inevitable that all the other steps will also need to be implemented, including setting up an independent appeals system. Sometimes the way a sanctioned person has argued is used against that person. That suggest we may need to use dedicated Wiki-Lawyers to represent people at ArbCom cases. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A independant review is always good. I have little faith that the "independant" review will remain that way for long but it could delineate what is and isn't a acceptable enforcement. The alternative is letting people run over the project roughshod with no proper review of their actions, wait I am describing wiki as it is now, scratch that. It will also help keep them honest, as much as possible at least. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, no, I think we should accept at face value Brews' assertion that this is illegal. Then we can ban him under WP:NLT and end the stupidity. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're feeling froggy go ahead, it won't make you feel better about yourself. I'd say it would make as much sense as everything that has been done to him so far, which is none. Why should things change? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In ordinary circumstances, one would take the notion that a threat is involved as facetious. However, this is Guy. Brews ohare (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You might try, at some point preferably before the heat death of the universe, applying some critical faculties to the debate above. To repeat my previous point: you are going about this not just in the wrong way but in the way which is probably, of all ways, least likely to succeed. In your haste to dismiss all dissenting opinion as motivated by evil the whole bloody bunch of you have ended up looking like mad, raving zealots, so it's not really a huge surprise if onlookers decide that's because you are mad raving zealots. Feel free to continue ignoring this message but remember what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. OK? Guy (Help!) 10:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The correct thing is to do the same thing over and over again, and to never again contribute technical content to the project until you get different results.
There are only two kinds of knowledge in the world: there's fluff and then there's hard knowledge. There's a lot of fluff here, and you guys argue about it incessantly. It's a sentence or two, maybe a paragraph, summarizing some sources about something inane, and this stuff goes by fine under the current bureaucracy. Fluff is what most people know, and fluff has next to zero value.
Hard knowledge is correct technical content, of which you have hardly any. You have infraparticle, BKL singularity, SO(10), and that's about it. You used to have a little more, but people get rid of it, because it is hard to verify by casual inspection, and requires deep thinking. This stuff is not fluff, and getting this stuff better known is pretty much the only nontrivial thing Brittanica, did.
Everybody who acquires such technical knowledge wants to pass it on to everybody else, so lots of it should be here. But it isn't here. That's because nobody who has worked hard to acquire such technical knowledge wants to deal with the pointy-headed bosses that naturally take over most human endeavors. These people reveal themselves with the following list of symptoms:
  1. Focus on deletion (creation is hard)
  2. Have no technical knowledge at all
  3. Refuse content that is hard to understand
  4. Ban editors that have a sophisticated point of view (thinking is disruption).
  5. They apply for adminship, and get it
These noisy people were always here, but mostly they were easy to ignore, because they didn't touch pages with equations. If you allow such people to take over (and I fear they already have), then Wikipedia is essentially done. It will be a grab-bag of literature links with no real technical content, and it will be frozen in its present incomplete state. That's a shame, because that means that none of the real knowledge in the world will ever be here (here's 115 real topics in physics). No equations, no proof, no code? not real knowledge.
If you want technical content, you have to decide to have it, and to decide to carefully protect it. That means, have a special technical cabal, and let them do their thing. Those who do not contribute technical content always want to gang up on technical material, and exclude it in favor of fluff that they like politically.
The danger to technical material is never from crackpots (they are always outnumbered). The danger is the most naive process that excludes crackpots at the same time excludes technical people. Aside from the details of what they are saying, the behavior of the two is largely indistinguishable. They have the characteristics of the few trying to explain something to the many.
In order to exclude crackpots, but keep technical people, you have to respect technical work. That means you make a policy: understand what you are editing, which requires editors to learn what they read before deleting it. That's a minimal requirement, and for fluff, it goes without saying.Likebox (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Which would be fine if it weren't for a few things like: some of our most intractable POV-pushers have been experts, just experts with really off-the-wall ideas about something; experts rarely write for a non-specialist audience; experts routinely write for technical journals which positively welcome original research whereas we forbid it; and this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. I suggest you go to Citizendium, it is more to your liking. Not as successful, though. I wonder why? Guy (Help!) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Citizendium has "expert certification" nonsense. I like openness. What I don't like is the tiers of power-hungry adminsitrators who ban people for expressing unpopular opinions. That's not openness.Likebox (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Now read that back. What you're saying in effect is that you want to replace a system where decisions are made by people with whom you disagree, to a system where decisions are made by... well, you, basically. The arbitration committee is elected, the successful candidates have wide support and an excellent reputation for considering things form the point of view of our core policies. Content is not decided by ArbCom, you can be 100% right and still be sanctioned for going about things in the wrong way if that wrong way causes friction. You have repeatedly argued that Brews is right, but ignored the fact that it does not matter whether he's right or completely hatstand, what matters is the effect of his editing patterns on attempts to build an encyclopaedia by people who are explicitly not required to be experts in the field. It's nice to have experts along to help us but as I've noted elsewhere experts also can have outspoken minority opinions on certain things; it's fine for them to use academic journals to expound those opinions but not Wikipedia. We have had experts who have been banned outright for resolutely failing to accept any mainstream view that conflicts with their minority opinion. It's not about right or wrong or being or not being an expert, it's about how you go about things. ArbCom saw Brews as being disruptive, what you have to do is go back to ArbCom either with a better case proving that he wasn't or with a system of restrictions that will allow the edits you want without the problems of disruption and wasted time that the existing restrictions are designed to control. You don't seem to be even attempting to engage in productive dialogue with the arbitrators, preferring to accuse all and sundry of incompetence, insanity and base motives and then acting all surprised when they push back or ignore you. I do not understand why you seem unable to grasp this, it is not, I think, so very complex. Assume good faith, never ascribe malice, ask nicely, pretend that the people you're dealing with are intelligent human beings (because in fact they almost always are). Guy (Help!) 10:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I edit primarily technical articles, such as flashtube or laser pumping. I've found it to be a very easy and rewarding experience. Unlike scientific articles, tech articles only concern themselves with how, and don't really go into why. Experts should definitely be involved. However, most problems I see when experts work on these types of article is that they don't explain it for all audiences, just scientific ones. Also, experts will often try to meld their own theories into articles, or try to portray a theory as a fact. A good example of this is glass transition, liquid, solid and related articles. I think that any article, especially a scientific one needs to be written as clearly as possible on various levels so as to be beneficial for elementary school students as well as college. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think tying experts to POV-pushing is productive. I would like to see concrete statistics that prove that experts are more inclined to POV pushing and original research than non-experts, in Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong. I only edit articles in which I have some expertize. The lure of OR and SYN is tempting, and we're all just human. Mistakes happen, even from the best expert. The problem is not so much POV pushing as it is bad writing. Those well versed in the language of math are not always so fluent in words, and visa versa. This can make it very hard for people of various fields to work together. I have no "concrete statistics," (if such an oxymoron exists), but am working from my own experiences here. In the edit-war spanning the above mentioned articles, I found it very disheartening when the editor, whose expetize I admire, refused to even acknowledge that a mere writer like me could help, refusing to discuss hardly anything at all, even with other experts in his field. Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Zaereth. I was not replying to your points. So it is my turn to tell you don't get me wrong :) I actually agree with your points. They all make sense to me. I'm just trying to make the point that we should not treat experts a-priori as suspects for this or the other wiki-fault just because they are experts. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Dr.K. Actually, I agree with that very much. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(deindent)Experts who work in academia usually have a point of view to advertise. So what. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as the opponents are welcome too, and everyone adheres to NPOV. I don't believe that too many experts was ever a problem.

The central problem is that it is very difficult to protect technical content, because there is no requirement that a person who verifies it understands it, and the requirements of sourcing are interpreted by many people to exclude mathematical prose altogether. You can't write equations or proofs without doing what looks like OR to administratively minded editors. You have to check the equations against each other, you need to make sure that each one follows from the last, and you have to make sure that the imagery in the equations flows smoothly, just like in a novel.

Checking technical presentations requires reading the sources with understanding, and checking mathematics for accuracy, and for parallels with the source. These are nontrivial tasks, equivalent to proofreading for non-mathematical texts. Doing them is orders of magnitude more difficult than the analogous process for non-mathematical texts.

Instead of doing this, it is much easier to delete mathematical content on OR grounds. That's what happened at infraparticle. I won't mention other pages so that they won't be attacked.Likebox (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that the math is very important. My point is that, so is the translation, and the best way to protect it is to make us understand. I'm actually interested in infraparticle now, but can't make much sense out of the article. I'm sure it means a lot to those with some background knowledge. A scientific article like this should have a nice, simple lede written at about a sixth grade level. Then a more comprehensive intro, written at about a tenth grade level. Then the college level stuff, math and all. Readers with no expertize in this will feel little less like they've been thrown head first into a MIT class if there is a build-up to it, and with some understanding, will be less likely to mangle the article. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right, and if I had more expertise in the subject, I would do it. But I am confused by some points in the article--- the unconventional use of the term "superselection sector", and what is the density of states at finite infinitesimal photon mass. I put these concerns on talk, but good luck getting an answer. There are only a handful of experts in infrared behavior. That's why this article is important--- it actually clarifies an academic topic that is hard to get clear info about.
The reason I bring this up here is because the methods of Wikipedia have been broken regarding reasonably high caliber mathematical content, like this, stuff that not everybody has heard of. Any mathematical argument can be verified from first principles, so if it is correct, and it can be found somewhere in the literature, you would think it should be Ok here. Nuh uh. A consensus can develop that such material is OR even when there are sources, just because the arguments don't seem to match exactly, or the material seems strange and "smells like OR", because it is full of unfamiliar mathematics. This happened to me a couple of times, and I just assumed it was because I am a dick. But now it happened at other places, so I know it's a systemic flaw.Likebox (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You're missing a pretty fundamental point here, I think. The idea is that Wikipedia should be understandable and editable by those who do not have a PhD in the subject. If people who don't have a PhD in the subject cannot see how a particular statement is supported by the sources, it will look like a novel synthesis. We don't allow experts to create such content and tell us it's fine from the background of their expertise because we don't know if they are mainstream experts or experts who have come here to fix the pressing problem that the world has not yet recognised this new and fundamental truth. And believe me we get a lot of that kind of experts. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Handel - blatant negative BLP hoax made DYK

Jimmy, if you are unaware of this, I'd like to bring it to your attention. If I don't, the press will.

I've opened a review at: WP:ANI#Mike Handel - blatant negative BLP hoax made DYK!.

Really, really, troubling. If action is not taken, the next one won't be a hoax.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating and sad. I'm really proud of some aspects of the saga, and obviously not at all happy with others. I think one of the key things that can be done here is a ramping up of the courage of the OTRS volunteers and others who are enforcing BLP policy. I'd like to emphasize that those who did good work here could have been much more firm without any fear of harm coming to them, because they will have my full and complete support up to and including summary desysopping for anyone standing in the way of good BLP work.
Next week I will be running a second round of the informal poll that I started about the German version of Flagged Revisions - I think that's an important piece of this puzzle. But it is worth noting that this particular hoax, because it was deliberate and staged over a long period of time, would not have been prevented by Flagged Revisions.
Empirically, though, I think that most problems of this sort would be caught by flagged revs. The fact that a sophisticated and dedicated person who understands sourcing and is willing to lie and manufacture fake news articles, etc., can hoax people is interesting but likely to be extremely extremely rare in any circumstances. My point here is that we need to think about how to deal with stuff like this (mostly through strong strong support from the "machinery of state" which means admins, ArbCom, and me in defense of BLP enforcers) AND not let this distract us from serious problems that are empirically much more common, which is random driveby attacks that don't get caught quickly enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The case in point is rare. But it does show weaknesses in the system. It is unbelievable that DKY doesn't actually factcheck - they just check that reliable sources are provided, not that they verify the content.
On the wider point, it the not just that reviews happen, it is the quality of the review that matters. That's part of the problem with flagged revisions applied widely. The wider you apply it, the lower the quality of the review. silly vandalism will get caught, biased or untrue BLP claims with squidgy referencing, not so much. It is the later and not the former that actually damage our subjects. "Joe is a wanker" is not libellous or particularly damaging, "Joe is undischarged bankrupt" when he isn't is. I've put down my thoughts at Wikipedia:Targeted flagging if you're interested. But, any flagging proposal will have my support.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Progress will come through both software and policy. But while this case points to some easy fixes to policy, there's also a deeper and more philosophical question relating to "inclusionism and deletionism" and one reason why as Wikipedia has grown larger and larger, I have become more deletionist. This incident confirms, more clearly than any other that I have seen, something I have been saying for awhile that it is absolutely not possible for us to responsibly have BLPs on marginally notable people. I strongly support that we look at notability policy and tighten it quite severely, especially for BLPs. If a subject isn't notable enough to have reliable sources that are easily checked, then we shouldn't have an article about that person at all. And we absolutely cannot accept negative BLP statements from reliable sources that can't be easily checked. Note: obviously, this is not a blanket prohibition on sources that can't be found online - but sources that independent third parties can't easily check need to be treated with extreme care, and only in specific rare exceptions (for example that multiple trusted Wikipedians have looked it up at the library for themselves to confirm it, etc.) can we accept them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, first of all. I think that your post here is exactly and entirely spot on. Second, I would like to comment that your remark about flagged revisions is somewhat inaccurate. It is true, to be sure, that flagged revisions would not have prevented the DYK hoax from occurring, but they would have kept out the worst part of it, the murder allegations. In a sense, there was a double test here. The second part of that test involved adding the murder allegations from another account and without any sources several hours before the Handel article was scheduled to appear in DYK. The account used to do this had no previous article-space contributions (and thus was not auto-confirmed). Thus, flagged revisions would have caught these edits. Because there were no flagged revisions and also no process to check DYK articles that have been approved in between approval and being linked from the main page, the article entered DYK with unsourced defamatory material added by a brand-new user. This, in particular, is something that could happen to any BLP on DYK and did not rely on false sources of any kind. Thus, flagged revisions would have done something here. David Lindsey (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. As useful as flagging might be, it isn't a panacea. My problem for a long time is that Wikipedia only looks at verifiability when considering whether to write about someone, it doesn't consider maintainability. That's the elephant in the room. In the old days, one could optimistically point to m:Eventualism and state that wikipedia is a "work in progress". We were optimistic that an increasing userbase would sort the problems sooner or later. That's rather discredited now - articles increase users less so. So we need to look at maintainability. Just because a neutral verifiable article can be written on many things, does not mean it will be written. We need a dose of realism.
I'd suggest that WP:BIO needs looked at, and in particular WP:PROF and WP:ATHLETE. They all need a considerable rise in threshold. We can be inclusionists elsewhere, but we need to restrict BLPS to articles which will be of interest to enough wikipedians and knowledgeable readers that less obvious untruths will be spotted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When you talk about support, people who post in the BLP noticeboard find little or no admin support because admins read AN and ANI and not much else. Sole Soul (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a problem that can be easily solved. Let's generate some ideas about that. My point is, if the problem were "admins don't care" then we would have a huge structural problem with admin elections requiring major constitutional changes. But if the problem is "admins care, but they don't hear about the problems in a timely fashion" - we can solve that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not that "admins don't care", but that "the limited number of admins who work on these issues simply don't have enough time to deal with all of this if they are doing it alone". A lot of the work to be done can be done with the editing button, and nothing else is necessary. Administrator assistance is actually very rarely required when dealing with BLPs. NW (Talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not that simple, you will face arguments like the ones MuffledThud faced, it is very frustrating. Sole Soul (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a whole lot of fear mongering. This whole thing clearly falls in the category of "if you try hard enough, you can break into any bank, and kill any person". Sure there was a mistake here and there, but this would have been brought to light in the end. I read this today, and that scared me more than this story. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A bank that's been broken into and does nothing to change their security systems and procedures is unlikely to retain too many customers. MLauba (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. At the same time, of course, we shouldn't optimize against this particular sort of attack, which is always going to be relatively rare, and lose sight of the kinds of attacks that are empirically a much bigger issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Again drawing parallels from the real world, when a breaching experiment is being conducted on purpose to test an organization's security, adjusting to meet the exact precise threat used by the breaching party isn't going to yield tangible results, but there are indeed a few lessons to be drawn from this incident. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, while we're focused heavily on BLPs these weeks, WP:CCI is a constant reminder that we have a huge on-going copyvio problem that poses similar legal and ethical challenges that could be mitigated in part by broadening measures being considered for BLPs only to all articles (not to mention that text copyvio cleanup is done by a tiny fraction of the amount of people working on BLP issues). MLauba (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just WP:PROF and WP:ATHLETE that need tightening up. There are a couple other categories we tend to turn a blind eye to, such as Category:Internet personalities, or seiyu with long lists of credits but no actual third party biographical coverage. We also frequently look the other way for a musician who has an obscure charting album but lacks biographical coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a symptom of a fundamental mistake in the way we approach WP:V. It shouldn't be about articles being verifiable, but about articles being verified. Eventualism was a fine philosophy when we had millions of articles to write, but is not so hot when you have millions of articles already written an in desperate need of attention. "It'll be fixed eventually" was a reasonable mantra when we were just starting, but we're there now and it's time to fix. — Coren (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A comment about Admin involvment and BLP protection, as NW said, if and when there is any Admin action required as far as BLP goes, there is always one there to do the needed, without fail. The majority of issues can be dealt with by uninvolved editors enforcing simple policy and guidelines and the edit button. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree about WP:ATHLETE. There are some obscure events in some sports, which border entertainment, e.g. bodybuilding (and I'm not talking about the top events there) which auto-qualify someone for a wiki page in the absence of independent coverage. There was also a problem with female curling in the US, where the top amateur event (the nationals) allows write-in; because of the low participation there are no qualifying events etc. I've already started a discussion at WT:BIO. Pcap ping 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We almost managed to wipe out the ridiculous auto-entitlement in WP:PORNBIO where a single center-page in an issue of Playboy (aka Playboy Playmate) qualifies someone for a wikipage as well. But someone objected at the last moment: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Outcome. There's now a RfC on this Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable that needs closing. Pcap ping 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I had forgotten about that one. I need to start documenting and tracking all of these WP:BLP loopholes.  :-( JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • These hoaxes are stupid and prove nothing, except that we live in a society where there is trust, and those who choose to breach that trust may do so. I could walk into the local mall right now and start shooting people. Billions of people in the world have the freedom to do the same. But I don't, and they don't. Every once in awhile, someone will start shooting. We could stop all such events through various means, such as shutting down all malls, or putting metal detectors at every mall entrance in the world staffed by a security guard team. Any very competent editor, as the one who slaved over this hoax, could replicate this hoax. I guarantee that no matter what barrier we erect, some very competent and determined editors could evade it if they wished. Seigenthaler level events could happen every day, if people so chose. But they don't. Jimbo, just keep in mind that the people who are the most persistent and vocal on BLP issues are well-intentioned, but not necessarily right or reflective of even a majority view. As someone who has reviewed 100s of unsourced BLPs in the last six weeks (because I took the protestations in good faith and seriously), I have found that 99%+ are completely noncontentious and generally accurate. I agree that BLPs should all be sourced, but whether they are purportedly sourced or not has nothing to do with the case of a determined vandal.--Milowent (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well keep in mind that On Wikipedia previously reported that only 33% percent of BLP subjects consider their articles as mostly of entirely "fair and accurate" and 26.7% consider the articles "significantly inaccurate or unfair". So there's a huge problem coming from somewhere. HH Nobody (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    And "On Wikipedia" is a reliable source for these statistics because... ??? Pcap ping 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Because they actually went out and surveyed BLP subjects instead of just sitting around speculating idly. The sample size was small, though, so you're right that there's probably a substantial margin of error. HH Nobody (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Even with a small sample size, those stats don't shock me. I suspect newspapers would get similar ratings if any studies have been done. Because no one knows someone like they know themselves, both objectively and subjectively.--Milowent (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    If someone breaches our trust, that slowly erodes our remaining trust in other users. Actually, my reaction at this point is that we should stop trusting contributors. Maybe WP:DYK shouldn't feature any living people any more. It's a little bit cynical on my part, but when people are willing to conduct breaching experiments so they can get some media attention, and they pretend that the breach is OK on their part and that Wikipedia is irreparably flawed, then Wikipedia needs to raise its defenses. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    And then the terrorists win.  :-) --Milowent (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    "Media attention"? Did I miss something? This seems to only be on their blog, not anywhere in the media. I don't think anyone is getting any "media attention" as this is really not newsworthy at all. HH Nobody (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    I meant that he was seeking media attention (or any other attention), not that he's actually gotten any yet. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    @HH Nobody: All of your 13 contributions are about posts on ON Wikipedia. Are you affiliated with them? Note: I think it is a great blog. Sole Soul (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Even by the standards of this page, the noise-to-signal ratio of the current version is extraordinarily high. The page is also unusually long, with unusually long threads (and these have the highest noise content). Does anyone keep statistics on these things? Has anyone looked for a correlation with the full moon?—Finell 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of this page is for getting attention and mobilising rather than hammering anything out.... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually find the page to be unusually informative today. One man's noise is another man's signal, I suppose. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

March is Women's History Month in the United States

Hi Jimbo,

I would like to highlight that March is Women's History Month in the United States (and maybe other places, too.) And March 8 is International Women's Day.

National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of topics including gaps in our coverage of women.

For example's many articles about woman's role in military history are missing.

It would be great if you created or expanded one or two biographies about women this month. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi, about the poll, your close seems to suggest you'd like the opinion of as many users as possible. I was thinking that 4-5 days seems very short, as users are not always quick to comment even if aware of a poll, because they want to think about it a bit further, esp. when they didn't participate in prior discussions (which were almost a year ago). Furthermore, as you can see, this kind of polls has a tendency to attract many supports in the beginning then much more opposes than initially. I would suggest for the next poll a duration of 2 weeks and much more advertizing, otherwise in my opinion, it wouldn't be representative enough of the community. Cenarium (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. This was just a snap poll to gather a sampling of opinions. Even the next poll will not result in any actual action on my part. I want to explore our options, together, in a thoughtful and non-confrontational manner. What I will be doing this weekend is categorizing by hand some of the major views to try to craft something that will answer objections. That, too, will be a short and informal poll, to see to what extent I have been successful. Any poll resulting in any sort of action will be clearly marked as such and advertised quite broadly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for the clarification. Cenarium (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing what you did.

Hello Mr Wales,
I am writing this to say a little bit of my appreciation to you for founding and setting this wonderful project (perhaps one of the most influentual projects of the 21st century). Wikipedia has helped me a lot with my school work and it has also expanded my knowledge of the world around me. I can't really imagine (or has ever imagined), what this world would be like with Wikipedia. I am a newbie myself with editing, even though I have using the site for so long. I hope that Wikipedia will grow to become the largest website-in term of capacity-in the world (I don't think it's not far off now :)). All in all, I just want to express to you my appreciation of the work you have done, just nearly a decade ago, and I hope that Wikipedians and the website itself, will strive for the better in the near future, and for decades to come.
Thank you very much, Mr Wales. Sp33dyphil 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Since you founded Wikipedia, maybe you can answer this question:

Why are we called "Users" here? After all, we don't "Use" Wikipedia, we edit it.--RM (Be my friend) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who uses the site is a user. One who edits is an editor. "Editor" has a different meaning with FlaggedRevs though, so I try to avoid that term. Reach Out to the Truth 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is also (and probably primarily) the fact that, in computer science terminology, "user" is the name given to specified identities as recognized by the system. A user is what logs in, has permissions, etc. This is similar to the common usage (one who uses), but not identical — many of the users of Wikipedia aren't users in the computer science meaning, and indeed many of our editors aren't users either. — Coren (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
For reference see User (computing).--Cube lurker (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia system calls for a new TAB

moved here from Talk:Jimmy Wales Tarc (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy!

Wikipedia article calls for a new tab called for example "narrative", because there is the other side of the coin: the kind of information one cannot find any references, as it is more like self-educated knowledge.

For example aerodynamics: airfoil. One could write a long article about the topic but he/she is still inable to explain the idea "by heart" because there is no references - except if he/she writes a scientific article about the explanation of airfoil" before writing the "explanative" wikiarticle.

the new tab could be placed in between tabs "article" and "discussion" and included in every wikiarticle. it could contain completely different point of view than the main article or a narrative where the ideas in the main article are explained 'by own words'.

thanks for reading. -- (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(this isn't Jimbo) That's a great idea but probably not practical to implement. I don't think Wikipedia would have any effective way to lay down the rules for what gets said on an extra tab, and without rules we would not be able to avoid the kinds of problems we have on the article and talk tabs - edit warring, content disputes, article ownership questions, copyright violations, libel and other WP:BLP issues, and so on. There could be many different people, each who wants to be heard. It would be simpler to implement an "in their own words" section for biographies of people, or articles about organizations, places, and population groups, but even there you have issues of authenticating that someone is who they claim they are, and you still have to watch out for libel and copyright vios. I think the best way to go, if you're really interested, would be to build a Wikipedia mirror site that is like Wikipedia but has one or more extra tabs, or maybe that has only the extra tabs and refers people to Wikipedia for the main article. Then you could invite everyone to fill them out in the way you envision. If you do that you'll probably get a lot of respect for what it took to build the site in the first place, to get people to use it, police the rules, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

E-mail from Wikimedia CZ

Dear Mr. Wales, I am sorry to disturb You and to use this channel, but it seems to me that some bits of our communication have been lost on their way and I am looking for some urgent information. So I have recently sent You another e-mail and I wait for Your kind e-mail answer. With many thanks, writing for Wikimedia Czech Republic Okino (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notice with comment?, a recently started discussion on these notification messages to which you may want to contribute. Perhaps the wording needs to be made clearer so as not to mislead or even drive away new editors. --TS 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
80 Jimbo knows everything! Why does he need this template? He is not a newbie! Please stop this madness at once! (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice attack coatrack

Several editors (and I) tried to do something about it.
An admin, with a WikiProject LGBT studies article alert on the top of his talk page, canvassed at the LGBT cabal -- and we were beat down by mobocracy.[15]
It was disappointing seeing both editors and admins actively fighting for slagging Miss Prejean any way they could, including disclosing private facts. Most of what was put into the 'article', was put in there to harm Miss Prejean's reputation.
A casual look at the relatively low quality references is telling.
Most of the 'encyclopedia article' is about the fact that Miss Prejean said she believed marriage was between a man and a woman, when asked, and the resulting fallout. There is very little else in the article.
Interestingly enough, the article references another article that's specifically for that -- so there are two articles about it.
We were unable to swim against the tide of thinly masked hatred.
I ultimately posted my impression of the reality of Wikipedia's attack coatracks dressed up like biographies of living persons here. -- Rico 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in its current state is awful. WP:COATRACK is precisely the right phrase to use, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Rico, I see no current discussion on article talk at all, just two posts this year. I think a first step would be to lay out all your concerns, plus maybe link to a userfied version of what you think the article should look like. IronDuke 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
IronDuke, you'll want to check the archive... lots of discussion there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, no, I did that. I mean current discussion. There are only two posts in the last two+ months. Is it the original incident that's getting too much discussion? The tape? The Larry King interview? (About which I see no discussion, might have missed it.) Or is it a combo of these that tends to create an unbalanced impression of Prejean? These are all, IMO, good questions, and should be thrashed out on the article's talk page ASAP. IronDuke 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The sad thing, to me, is that there appears to be a general understanding that the bit about her plastic surgery is not important, and yet it has been kept in the article in a way designed, as far as I can tell, to attempt to cast a negative light on her. And notice the attitude of Luitgard in the discussions - I don't agree with his stance at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What's taking so long?

This vandalous edit went by unnoticed for 90 minutes. Who knows how longer had I not vigorously pursued my watchlist. Remind me again why we haven't already enabled flagged revisions for BLP articles? JBsupreme (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that based on the page view statistics for this article, as many as 250 people viewed the article in this state before I fixed it. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should tag such edits with {{citation needed}}, maybe that'll get people off their duff to do something about this. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
*chuckle*  :-( JBsupreme (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

High database server lag for 70 minutes and counting!

  • I can easily expect server lag to last around 3 minutes or less, but this time I saw something that say changes newer than 4,193 seconds when I saw may not appear on this list. I'm not sure what it could be. mechamind90 04:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be this talk page :) DeepNorth (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion on the technical village pump. Graham87 07:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

egregious abuse of Wikipedia in nearly all climate change BLPs

Mr. Wales,

For the last year I have struggled in vain to balance the abuses of the rights of living climate scientists the world over to have a fair, neutral, accurate biography. A year later, it's safe to say that I have achieved practically nothing, and the reason I have achieved nothing is that your gang of mostly immature, often 20-something editors and admins have closed ranks in nearly all instances to obstruct and thwart all progress.

I am not the first to notice this. Lawrence Solomon has, of course, written about it in the Financial Post in Canada a few times, and has blamed the situation personally on two of your editors, William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen. I disagree with Lawrence Solomon in blaming these two editors. You created Wikipedia. You allow your editors to do what they do. You are the founder and by remaining neutral on flagrant NPOV and BLP abuses, you are responsible, and you should answer to the public.

Does the public understand that millions of dollars of charitable donations are spent by Wikipedia in funding the smearing of the professional reputations of great living scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Sr., or S. Fred Singer each day?

I have spent countless hours of the last year defending in vain the biographies of Richard Lindzen, Ross McKitrick, Garth Paltridge, Roger A. Pielke, and Lawrence Solomon. I have even helped out the gang in defending the likes of Rajendra K. Pachauri and Michael E. Mann occasionally. I've cleaned up Gavin Schmidt's and Raymond Pierrehumbert's biographies, but this has does little to soften the environmentalist, agenda-driven hatred your editors feel towards anyone perceived to be skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.

In the whole year, I have not received a single word of support from anyone in the Wikipedia Foundation, and practically none of the Wikipedia admins have ever helped either. A few skeptics in the admin community have helped, a bit, but most of those apparently see the fight as futile, and no one who simply cares about fairness and policy has ever stepped in to help. This is wrong, I realise. An editor, ATren, did step in, but he seems to have been finally burnt out and driven away now. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile, my own talk page, unedited since I joined, testifies to the bullying I have received, instead, from your editors.

I should like to let you know that I have in principle approval to write up a first hand, insider's account of what goes on here, at the blog of a very prominent climate scientist. If published, my piece will not be written off as the rantings of a denier, because the scientist is well respected by the mainstream media, and he is not a skeptic. It will largely serve to independently confirm the observations of Mr. Solomon. Except, as I say, I disagree with Lawrence Solomon on one important point: I believe that you are personally responsible; it is wrong to blame all of this on the actions of two well-intentioned, fanatical volunteers.

Without an effective leader, it is my serious view that Wikipedia needs to be forcibly taken over either commercially or by government, for the good of the people. I will be leaving Wikipedia, and advocating for such a change, shortly. If, on the other hand, you would like to help me fix the BLPs of climate scientists, there is a small amount of energy left in me to continue.


Alex Harvey (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs would help. Sole Soul (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sole Soul, if you'd like to see this in recent context then go to Lindzen's talk page and start at the top. If you really want to understand the problem, I'd suggest reading all of the talk pages of all the above scientists. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm starting to read Lindzen's talk page (just to understand). Sole Soul (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I just took the challenge and had a look at Talk:Richard Lindzen where I see a recent and somewhat heated discussion concerning whether it is reasonable to use the term "contrarian" in relation to Lindzen. In Richard Lindzen we find (and I confirmed the reference) that a 2001 article in Newsweek includes "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking." My conclusion (from this and more references) is that Alex Harvey is misreading a very reasonable consensus. The article has plenty of positive information about Lindzen, but also properly records his contrarian position. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By which company or government does Alex propose Wikipedia be taken over? Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think this is an issue worthy of attention, although whenever I have checked articles in the past, I have been mostly unimpressed with the claims that these articles are particularly problematic. Diffs would be helpful, because to assess and comment on a very broad array of edits is difficult. Particular examples give us a good opportunity to examine what is going on in light of our broader principles of NPOV and BLP.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion at Lindzen have focused, since before Christmas, on whether or not it is appropriate for a great living scientist's biography to be given ~ 600 words for his career and accomplishments, and ~ 1400 words to discussions and refutations of his stance on global warming. That said, if you are claiming that you have actually looked at the climate change biographies, and found nothing much wrong there, then I'd say that's pretty much all I need to know. I'll probably quote you on this, if you don't mind. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be very easy to write something completely unfair to me by quoting that comment out of context - please do not do that. If you want to quote me, give me a specific diff so I can comment on something in particular.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"The discussion at Lindzen have focused, since before Christmas, on whether or not it is appropriate for a great living scientist's biography to be given ~ 600 words for his career and accomplishments, and ~ 1400 words to discussions and refutations of his stance on global warming."
I think Alex means this and this. I find the arguments in these diffs completely legitimate, though I agree with the general sentiment that Wikipedia articles tend to give undue wight to recent and controversial subjects. Sole Soul (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mr. Wales, if you are concerned that I could quote you out of context, would you clarify the context of that remark then? I mean specifically, "...whenever I have checked articles in the past, I have been mostly unimpressed with the claims that [the climate change BLP] articles are particularly problematic." Does it mean that you think it's fine for amateurs to write up sloppy, inaccurate biographies of living people and get it all wrong? Or do you mean that it's not fine, but it's just that other Wikipedia BLPs are even worse? (I wouldn't know about this, as I've focused exclusively on the climate change BLP pages.) Or do you mean that you think Wikipedia has largely got the climate change BLPs right? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me a specific diff or set of diffs, and I can comment accordingly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may comment here as well, what it sounds like is that you have a point of view that is pretty much in the minority, and you are upset that this minority point of view is not given equal footing to the mainstream point of view. But, per WP:NPOV, we simply do not do that. And your characterization of other editors as "amateurs" whose work is "sloppy [and] inaccurate" is not really doing much to contribute to a collegial editing environment. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that anyone is keeping User:Alexh19740110 from adding additional information to the article which may serve to flesh out our article on Richard Lindzen, I suggest that he takes that route rather than trying to intimidate his way to having information removed of which he apparently does not approve. Unomi (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, as a previously uninvolved editor, I believe that I can shed some light on the situation. About 3 months ago, I began editing our Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article and inadvertently got caught up in a battle between two groups of warring factions. From what I've been able to gather, this battle has been going on for years. Both sides routinely ignore our policies on neutrality, verifiability and biographies of living people and only seek to include content that advances their POV while simultaneously excluding content that is against their POV. I attempted in good faith to improve our Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article's neutrality, and was routinely attacked and harassed by both warring factions. In my short time in this topic space, this war has been brought up at several venues including most of our noticeboards (BLP, OR, RS, NPOV, FRINGE, COI, Admin), not to mention WP:Mediation Cabal and ArbCom but the community has consistently failed to resolve the situation. The issue is currently at WP:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation where it also remains unresolved.

Neither side seems to care about the harm that they're doing to Wikipedia. My personal feeling is that editors who care more about advancing an agenda (rather than building an encyclopedia) are not an asset to this project but a detriment.

In any case, I gave up in frustration and no longer edit any articles in this topic space. Since someone else has brought the problem to your attention, I thought a neutral voice might help understand the situation.

BTW, sorry for the lack of diffs. The edit histories of all these pages are too long and complicated to sift through. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, As a newcomer to Wikipedia I have followed these two factions battle it out on climate change issues since November last year. I completely support 'A Quest For Knowledge' frustration.

Here is my suggestions: Temporarily remove ALL Wikipedia pages related to Climate science as they now stand for a period of 6 months. If the kids are not playing nice then take the toys away! This will hopefully discourage the fanatical elements on both sides of the debate. (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the above boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, occasioned by frustration that an article has not been slanted in favour of one POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales:

Those saying that a cabal of extremely POV editors have hijacked the Climate articles are completely correct. Those denying it appear to be members of that very Cabal. They are assiduous in their pursuit of having WP represent their point of view and only their point of view. They are so determined that they hunt down any entry like this and jump on it to make sure it does not interfere with the party line. I think it would be instructive to follow a few conversations by those saying that people complaining to you are somehow fringe elements crying foul because their minority opinion is being trampled. They are correct that the complainers are (at any given point in time) in the minority. However, that is because they drive off and even have banned anyone with the temerity to voice a contrary opinion. You *will* see that (as above with Alex Harvey) eventually after many (many, many) incidents of baiting, badgering, bullying, etc, that people get frustrated and become intemperate. Alex should not have been so heavy handed, but he was surely driven to it by a level of frustration that no ordinary person would bear. Certainly, the ones doing the systematic baiting and banning show not nearly the temperance of their victims.

You should not be expected to personally intervene, even in things as shocking as this. However, I implore you to charge somebody with selecting a group of truly neutral editors with a background that allows them to judge a little science and logic to review all of the Climate articles (particularly the 'memory-holed' missing article on Climategate) and help to bring them back to some semblance of reality.

Like others, I 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. Like others, my work was quickly and surely sent to the memory hole. About two thirds of what I wrote has simply disappeared.

Here is something to ponder: those who have found that the Climate articles are POV and have attempted to make corrections have been bullied right out of Wikipedia -- many of them banned outright. Nobody, as far as I can tell, who has been a pro AGW POV pusher or sympathizer has been pushed out. There are a fair number of people who were baited and bullied out of the picture -- more, I would say, than the side that pushed them out. The side that pushed them out has the most annoying habit of saying that the majority supports their POV and pushing out anyone who disagrees. What is wrong with that picture?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that I am an egregious and disruptive POV pusher myself and/or a sock or whatever else they use to ride people out of town on a rail. Still, would you entertain what I feel is an idea that has some hope of restoring balance to this subject area and removing the terrible black eye that is the denial (ironic, no?) of the existence of Climategate? Here is my idea: anyone who has made more than a tiny number of edits to the body of Climate related articles, should recuse themselves or be recused forcibly from making any changes to these articles for a year. Any admin that is not clearly at arm's length from the subject should similarly be recused. There are a bunch of admins who clearly are involved and more who have participated in a way that makes them similarly unfit.

Allow the recused editors to help to identify the articles in question (there are a lot and about half should be removed IMO). Send the new admins and editors out on a mission to tag, hack, slash the obvious stuff and allow the clear interest in the community at large to bring new editors in to do the 'heavy lifting' of article re-write.

During this one-year hiatus, the WP community needs to find some way to prevent a long term campaign of subtle vandalism like this from happening again or at the least some effective and rapid mechanism for correcting it when it has been found out. This stain has existed in WP for years and the Climategate blot has existed for months and appears impossible to correct. Wikipedia in other languages generally have a proper 'Climategate' entry, for instance. I expect that is because they are not within reach of the community of gatekeepers that have hijacked the English version.

The above is an extreme prescriptive and this entire entry (my text included) is a cheeky intrusion on the time of someone in the public eye who is very busy. However, there appears to be no mechanism in place to allow an effective way to fix this and the problem, is severe. There is no question at all that the Climate articles have been manipulated by a group of editors with a clear point of view. There are even conflicts of interest that do not stop some editors. The articles reflect very badly on Wikipedia. They are inaccurate or misleading themselves and so taint what has become an import subject affecting the public. They also call into question the relative verity and fairness of the entire enterprise. If this subject area can be so thoroughly dominated, controlled and skewed in a way that decreases their quality, then why not others? There is no shortage of people in this world with axes to grind, of that you can be sure.

I *LOVE* this encyclopedia. It is a thing of great beauty, warts and all. It is one of my favorite things. Its system of governance (and/or lack thereof) has allowed it to grow and flourish in a spectacular way. I am sure you would be understandably reluctant to tinker with this formula for success. I am not asking you to intervene personally in the particulars, because I do not feel that would be appropriate. I am asking you to intervene to have trusted admins and editors bring order and balance to an area of Wikipedia, that despite its excellent systems of governance (and I particularly *like* the lack thereof part) has been injured by (perhaps well-meaning) zealots.

I believe there has been impropriety. However, I am not asking that you act on that assumption. I am asking you to act because whether it exists or not there is a strong appearance of impropriety and, even if it is only that, it is stain on this grand enterprise that should be and can be removed. Just fixing the appearance of a problem will increase trust and confidence in the work as a whole and at the very least there is very definitely the appearance of a problem. DeepNorth (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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. Not only does the event appear to be presented pretty comprehensively in the main article, we even have a separate article detailing the contents of the leaked emails: Climatic Research Unit documents. Now, I'm sure many complaints could be made about how this has been written about at various times. Yet, I don't think it is particularly helpful to wildly overstate the case, as you appear to have done. How does English Wikipedia's coverage of this incident differ from other language versions? Please be detailed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Major part of the dispute is about naming the article: Should the name of the article be Climategate? If not should Climategate redirect to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident or Climatic Research Unit documents? Should Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be renamed to Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy. Sole Soul (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There are no so-called "gatekeepers". There are, on the other hand, a small but determined minority of people - many of them brand-new editors who have been urged to come here by anti-science blogs - who have wasted a huge amount of time complaining that their POV is not sufficiently covered, arguing that partisan nicknames should be used instead of neutral and descriptive article titles, citing the latest blog-promoted controversies as issues of earth-shattering importance that must be covered immediately, and so on and so forth. They are basically partisan campaigners, seeking to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. DeepNorth is a case in point, as his short list of contributions shows - to date, he has not contributed to a single article, instead spending all of his time arguing on talk pages and posting rants such as the one above. DeepNorth's complaint is essentially that his preferred POV does not dominate the article as he presumably wishes. As for Jimbo's question of how other language versions have treated the controversy: the quality of the coverage is very varied, to be honest. The English version is (as you would expect given the location of the controversy) the most comprehensive and the best-sourced version. Non-English versions are generally shorter, less well written and very variably sourced. NPOV, verifiability, undue weight and (especially) BLP have been continuous problems but the high degree of scrutiny of the English version has helped to tackle these problems reasonably well. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
When people search for Climategate in google, the first result is "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" from Wikipedia, which is really silly. I think a good compromise and the logical thing is to redirect Climategate to Climatic Research Unit documents. Sole Soul (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Or simply redirect to the article titled 'Climategate'. The 'documents' article was created (partly) to decrease the size of the article. So by the same logic we have 'Climategate documents'. I see a name change as a minor issue in relation to how we ended up here on Jimbo's talk page. I believe I was the one who first brought up the comment of how different language versions of WP carry a different title. My point was that other language versions have reached a different conclusion (consensus). Should we not try to learn from them in regards to both process and content? (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume that "Climategate" is the natural name for the article in question. (I have no idea, since I don't follow American media.) Here is why the article is still not called "Climategate": Initially the term was not (or not widely) used, so that the article obviously started with a different name. Then there was a huge influx of new editors who were as clueless about Wikipedia as they were about the background of the debate (as opposed to the partisan information that they had just read on a blog). At times the talk page had to be archived several times a day because of the walls of text that were being produced. Naturally that produced a defence reflex in many established Wikipedians.
At the time when it would have been reasonable to rename the article to "Climategate", the discussions had long ago deteriorated to the point that everything that one side proposed was rejected by the other side because they proposed it. That's a perfectly natural reaction (see reactance (psychology)) and occurs frequently on Wikipedia. That's why it's an exceptionally bad idea for a partisan blog to incite its readers to swarm to Wikipedia: It backfires. Hans Adler 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the article's name has been discussed to death on talk pages but the general upshot is that "Climategate" is a POV nickname, like "Rathergate" or "Attorneygate"; NPOV specifically requires neutrality of article names; Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles specifically rejects -gate nicknames in favour of neutral descriptive names ("Dismissal of US attorneys controversy", not "Attorneygate"); and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal also specifially deprecates -gate nicknames as they "imply wrongdoing or a point of view" to discredit the subject. The bottom line is that "Climategate" was coined by one political faction to frame the issue from a particular POV. The term is pejorative, partisan and non-descriptive, and its use here would go against NPOV and Wikipedia's long-standing avoidance of such terminology. It has been proposed repeatedly by a small minority of editors, but the majority of editors - from both sides of the dispute - have recognised that a POV nickname is either unacceptable or is unlikely to win consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a case to be made at some point that Wikipedia could not and should not endorse the nickname, because it would be POV pushing to do so. However, that point has long since passed, and it is now overwhelmingly the name of the incident in all media. You can find examples of the use of the term by people in favor of the term and against the term. It is no longer POV pushing to call it that - the name was coined, and the name stuck. It is an abuse of the notion of NPOV to claim that no article can have a title that some people don't like, see for example Swiftboating for just one example of a political term that stuck.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What you say about the term's provenance seems clear to me. I think the real question is whether the coinage was successful: Whether basically everybody uses that term now. Writing from Vienna I can only say that it's certainly not the case in German-speaking countries. I have no opinion on this. Hans Adler 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is hardly unheard of either. Try Google with the words: climategate wissenschaft (ger. science), and select News. Hit #1. 10 March, Frankfurter Allgemeine (Newspaper). I think it depends on your chosen source of information. There are clearly sources both avoiding using Climategate and sources choosing to use it. A green blog will not use it while a critical blog will. The main concern should be that there are mainstream sources using it. (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO, a thought has occurred to me: While "-gate" is indeed a word to avoid, WP:AVOID is only a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy. When policies and guidelines conflict, policy always trumps guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Both warring factions are guilty of treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dear Mr. Wales, I am rather taken aback by your responses. I had supposed that you would either ignore me, or remain neutral, or have someone respond by proxy, or maybe say something that would weakly but without commitment acknowledge the problem. It was my hope, I must admit, although not my expectation, that you would actually take the matter seriously and investigate it before responding. I'll have to say that I didn't even consider that in the worst case you would get back in a few hours and just casually declare your sympathy with the editors who wrote these disgraceful climate change biographies. You say you don't want me to quote you out of context, but you said what you said. I have no intention of being unfair to you but the public has the right to know this. I realise that you're not a climate scientist and I can't expect you to already understand the full extent of the problem, but it seems inconceivable to me that you haven't looked at, say, S. Fred Singer's disgraceful article, after Lawrence Solomon has repeatedly pointed it out to you in the press. I just double-checked it, and it's still a disgrace. So I can only conclude that you think it's roughly what Singer deserves. Anyhow, here's some news for you: It's Not. It's not your right to allow juvenile, anonymous trolls to trash the lives of great living scientists -- even if you think they're bad people. If I type Fred Singer into Google, I am directed immediately to your site. I see two brief paragraphs about his life, and then it's just environmentalist propaganda all the way to the finish. It's not right. And you ask me for diffs, but I can't for the life of me understand why you would want diffs. How could you possibly think that my experiences can be communicated as a convenient set of diffs for you to review? I am talking about disputes that have lasted weeks, months, and in the Lindzen article case, years, and you ask me for diffs. I can't spoon feed this to you. If you want to understand what one must endure in order to fix this awful problem you have created, you will need to either read the talk pages from beginning to end, or read my publicly archived contribution history. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that you're really not very interested. I'd still like you to prove me wrong though... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to understand my position on these matters, you're going to have to help me. This is a two way street. I can easily go through various articles and point out diffs that I think are good, and diffs that I think are awful. This is not unique to this area, of course. But me hand-picking things that I don't like or do like is not likely to help you understand my views. It will be better for you to show me specific problems and ask my opinion in particular. I went through a few of the articles you mentioned, yesterday, but not Fred Singer in particular. Why don't you walk me through your current objections to the article - I can try to look at it tonight.
Yesterday I carefully read Garth Paltridge and so I am fully prepared to comment on that one. Can you point me to what you find objectionable about it, and then I can respond precisely with my views.
Please understand that your attitude here is disturbing to me and makes it hard for me to engage you in a serious discussion - I feel that you've got an agenda, that you're looking to quote me out of context, and that you're unwilling to seriously engage me in a discussion of the real issues here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex, it seems to me that your interest in these scientists is primarily for their role in the AGW debate, is that not so? What is it that you take objection to in that article? Unomi (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(editconflict) Dear Alex. I'm an uninvolved editor. Let's get this clear.
  • A war is being fought. And this war is being fought over the backs of scientists, science organizations, newspapers and peer reviewed magazines and yes, Wikipedia. Any problems related to this war will always be visible in Wikipedia, as much as they are visible in the news, blogs and what not. To expect anything different is unrealistic. The only way to prevent this is to assign babysitters to each and every editor that touches one of the climate related articles. This is not possible of course. Time will produce the truth (or whatever will pass for it) for the future. It has always been that way and will always remain. And because Wikipedia only follows and never leads, it will always be a tad behind on what is the current 'truth'. But unlike your old history books in school, this 'book' gets corrected.
  • It is not Wikipedia's duty to investigate real world events. Wikipedia presents the 'truth' as it is presented by the world. If you want to change that, I advise you to hire a few authors and start writing books and editorials. Or get an investigative journalist and start bringing the truth. Anything but edit Wikipedia would be my advice.
  • You ask for support, but for any request of support, you will have to show that someone is bypassing the rules. You cannot just walk in and say: "This is the truth, now do as I say". So get diffs about editors not following the rules of Wikipedia and prepare your case.
  • I suggest you also take your cause up with some people that claim to have created the Internet as a whole. This 'thing' they have created has been feeding an 'awful problem' on Wikipedia, blogs and news websites around the world and they clearly don't care about it. And definitely do something about Gutenberg, I mean with all those books out there.. and 'awful problem'. Or perhaps you just need to change your expectations a bit. I don't know....<sarcasm definitely intended here>
  • Now please try again to state your case, and this time please with less rhetoric and more facts, news paper articles and diffs. Wales is listening I'm sure and when needed, necessary changes will be made.
The factions will war, and from their ashes consensus will rise like a phoenix. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, if I'm not mistaken, the article started off as "Climategate".[16] There is already a broad consensus to change the article name to something neutral, but the process was derailed after an editor started making false allegations of canvassing. Although that editor has been warned by the admins,[17] the article still hasn't been renamed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, you should be more careful with what you say.[18][19] If you were a newbie editor saying things like that, you'd risk being instantly attacked for being a "denier", "anti-science" and possibly called an "idiot" or a "yahoo". Even established editors such as myself are routinely attacked by the editors on these pages. The admins who are supposed to be monitoring the situation, for the most part, have done little to resolve the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately we are stuck in two middles, either they do entirely too much and assume powers they aren't granted or they sit on their thumbs. Wiki-Politics my friend. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This is really an effect of something noted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth; the scientific literature is dominated by near-total acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, with disputes at the edges around some issues not really shaking the core consensus, whereas over half the references he found in the non-scientific media were sceptical of global warming. The natural result is that the few climate sceptics in the scientific community receive massively disproportionate coverage of their views from the (largely political, not scientific) opponents of action to curb AGW. I don't know how this can be fixed. It's actually a fundamental question about Wikipedia and how we reflect topics where there is a significant difference between the scientific and the political debate - much the same as we find with evolution, in fact, where the creationists have been campaigning for years on a "teach the controversy" platform very much like the AGW sceptics like to "teach the controversy" about AGW by focusing on the limited areas of scientific difference and ignoring the fact that, for example, no scientific body of national or international standing denies AGW. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, the issue of what is happening is scientific, but the issue of what to do about it is primarily political, does not have any consensus in the United States and in many other places, and is clouded by piss-poor amateurism on the part of scientists in the public arena (responding responsibly to opponents; responding to FOIA requests; being open in a way required to allow the public to trust them) and some scandalous behavior by scientists in the scientific arena [20][21][22][23]. A string of very public scandalous behavior erodes the public's trust. In terms of the politics of climate-change issues, "teach the controversy" is the only course for Wikipedia to take. There is a consensus about global warming in general on the science among the reliable sources, but, as the UK government's chief science advisor says (first diff), there isn't a consensus on everything. There is absolutely no consensus on the politics among reliable sources. Wikipedia's main problem with this is a lack of a real commitment to adhere to NPOV because tempers are often high and conduct is often barely regulated. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm disappointed to see you expressing opinions supporting a partisan term used to promote fringe or pseudoscientific viewpoints in an area of contrived political controversy over a clear majority scientific view. Please note that while the partisan term "climategate" is common, it is by no means universal and is treated carefully by more reputable sources – for example, Hacked climate science emails | Environment | . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Jimbo said it doesn't matter what we think is "right". Wikipedia is not the judge, we just follow where the sources lead us. I don't know if the anyone really did anything wrong in Climategate or what effect, if any, it will have on climate science in the long run. However, I do know that there is currently a scandal and that it is widely called Climategate. To deny this is to deny the social phenomenom currently taking place. Describing and documenting is not advocacy or promotion! I was originally an uninvolved editor who searched for the term "Climategate" and found the controversy that had been stewing for months...and left the following argument. Remember, WP:TITLE states that "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense" and "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Moogwrench (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sir: I agree with AH that there is a lack of even-handed treatment of climate scientists in Wikipedia, and it is a disgrace. I have been paying attention here only a short time, but I have seen contrarians with sound references driven out by a pack of harridans - Nightmote is one I recall. I have seen skepticism dismissed as the foundation of scientific method. Peremptory dismissal was all that was accorded a suggestion I made a month ago that "Climategate should be reserved for an article discussing the perception of scientific scandal, its dimensions, and the denials of same. It will have the advantage of the ability to incorporate other events of similar nature such as the China UHI revelation, the pruning of world temperature stations from 6000 to 1500, the Darwin Australia homogenization, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) data adjustments, NOAA's adjustments to Central Park data and others, and any further events that may transpire. The other article (the residual of this current) should preserve the discussion of the origin and compilation of the file and of the release of the documents and any legal proceedings or ramifications which may ensue." I hope it may now receive consideration. Oiler99 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, Oiler, whether or not one is skeptical of AGW is really beside the point. One does not have to be at all skeptical of AGW to say 1) Some people believe that there was some serious wrongdoing in the UEA, and 2) everyone is calling it Climategate. Those are the only two things that matter. We just document what is happening. I personally think that the reason some pro-AGW editors reject this is because it damages or goes against their belief system, which in my mind is a serious conflict of interest. Calling the controversy Climatic Research Unit hacking incident instead of Climategate is akin to have an article titled Drug-crazed hippy concert of 1969 instead of Woodstock Festival. It is inartful, POV (especially in that it focuses on a more minor aspect of the content, the hacking, instead of the overall controversy), and certainly not the common reference to that event or phenomenom. Moogwrench (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"everyone is calling it Climategate" – I find it hard to get an overview of how this is reported about in the English-speaking world, but this statement is simply false in its extreme form: Hans Adler 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
When I said everyone, I meant in the colloquial sense, not reductio ad absurdum. A good comparison would be between GNews results for Climategate - 1213 and the GNews results for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (without quotes for maximum results) - 10 See what I mean? Moogwrench (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think these results are pretty compelling. Dave Souza, I notice that you used the example of an article in The Guardian of the UK as an example of what "more reputable" sources are saying - but although The Guardian is of course a high quality newspaper, I don't think it's clearly superior to, for example, the New York Times [24]. Also, you may not want to use The Guardian as the bedrock of the argument that reputable sources don't use the term, since google counts 9,830 pages using that term on the site. One can firmly believe in science, the scientific method, the scientific consensus, etc., and still acknowledge the simple truth that the name of this incident which matches Wikipedia policy is "Climategate". I'm quite sure you wouldn't deny that this is, in fact, a scandal - and even some of the scientists involved have admitted that some of the emails were 'pretty awful', etc. If there's anything partisan here, it is the attempt to control political language by Wikipedia editors, no matter how well-intentioned. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what it is called - it is up to the world at large, and they have - overwhelmingly - decided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, that was very impressive. Thank you for putting it so well. (As far as the title "Climategate" goes, that word is still spreading but I'm not sure it's spread far enough in the reliable sources to make it worth the fight, although I suspect it eventually will -- words like this spread over time, but right now, when major media uses it, including The Guardian, I'm still seeing it in quotes.)
The fact is, editors at that article have been fighting so hard that the article ignored the considerable shocked reaction to the CRU unit scandal (what was put in the article was later removed; early last December I tried to get the simple statement that the emails involved potential violations of the UK's Freedom of Information Act -- sourced to Science magazine quoting a UK legal expert on the subject, and editors insisted that must be a BLP violation; even though it went to the BLP noticeboard, numerous news reports were cited saying the same thing and consensus at BLP was that there was no problem with it, the information never went back into the article -- subsequent investigation showed that FOIA had indeed been violated). Partisan editors who try to plug up Wikipedia, preventing it from covering information they don't like even when that information should be in the article, are only hurting Wikipedia. This is the Internet: If readers don't see the information here, they're still going to see it somewhere else, and when they check Wikipedia and find the information missing here, their esteem for Wikipedia is going to drop. This is exactly what happens sometimes with The New York Times when it looks like it isn't covering something because of bias. Anybody with a blog can criticize the Times or any news outlet or Wikipedia and link to the reliable sources themselves. Look at how Walter Russell Mead slices, [25] dices [26] and fillets [27] the Times. It could happen here -- or rather, it could happen again, much worse. Unlike the Times internal decisionmaking, all the diffs are here of Wikipedia's internal POV pushing. Just substitute "Wikipedia" for "US media" here, and you can see how damaging this is for the encyclopedia:
The blogosphere has shamed some leading US newspapers into paying perfunctory attention to one of the biggest stories in several years. But there’s still no sign that the US press is ready to pursue this still unfolding story with anything like the determination it deserves. Until then, Americans will have to rely on the internet to watch this story unfold — and every day that goes on, the mainstream US media lose readers and respect. [28]
For those who want the public to better understand the scientific reasons for global warming, this blogger [29] over at the Washington Post has some ideas about the Internet's role in helping to do that: Take the high road and educate the public about the science. This journalist [30] over at the New York Times agrees with him. And instead of having Walter Russell Mead pounding on the Times, that blog post produced this [31] praise. In a public debate, taking the high road is ultimately more productive because credibility needs to be maintained, and Wikipedia editors should remember that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ Jimbo, thanks for your thoughtful response. As you suggest, I've had a look at the coverage in the NYT. Although a search shows considerable use of the term in their letters pages and blogs, as with the Guardian, they too have been pretty careful, using it specifically regarding "The e-mail episode, dubbed 'climategate' by critics,"[32] or "a recent controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate scientists that some have dubbed 'Climategate.'"[33] In other coverage of controversies referring to the e-mails, they've not used the term,[34][35][36] and it's noticeably absent from an op-ed,[37] and from an Associated Press story they ran.[38] Less reliable sources have been more indiscriminate, using "climategate" as a catch-all for complaints about mainstream climate science completely unrelated to the e-mail issue.[39][40][41] The scandal isn't confined to the behaviour of the scientists, as the Guardian noted in its 12 part investigation, as in Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. Underlying issues include the extent to which data, preliminary calculations, and private e-mails should normally be provided for non-scientific criticism – this could mark a shift in the way science is done.[42] The term "climategate" is indeed political language, and we're looking at adding a specific article about the term, but the background and issues raised by this incident go well beyond that particular political aspect of the science. . . dave souza, talk 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, a couple quick points for you, among several... we aren't looking at whether or not the controversy has merit, merely that it exists and is called Climategate. So saying the "'Climgategate' scandal is bogus" is barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter for the sake of documenting it if it has true merit or not. There is a difference between saying a scandal does exist and a scandal should exist. As far as title concerns go, besides looking at the NPOV argument for Climategate, I think citing large hits/results showing widespread use of the Climategate term on Google News, etc. is more convincing than citing a couple articles/Op-Eds that don't happen use the Climategate term. Moogwrench (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs

@Alex Harvey and Mr Wales, I've not been very active in many of the bios mentioned by Alex Harvey, but I've seen some disturbing patterns in at least the Lawerence Solomon article as I've noted earlier [43]:
[...] I can examplifies it with this article Lawrence Solomon and some of the diffs: [44] [45] [46] by WMC [47] by WMC, he is not an environmentalist according to the AGW, even if its supported by many WP:RS sources, [48] Nsaa (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Suppress ease of Navigation
I've earlier pinpointed how some editors have done everything to keep the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident(i.e. Climategate scandal) and/or the Hockey stick controversy out of navigation template {{Global warming}}
See these diffs: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]
Remove critical reactions to official reports with huge financial impacts
Example: In the Stern Review this section [60] was twice removed on what I see as dubious grounds [61] and [62].
Removal of the {{press}} template from articles talk page
We have numerous instances of removal of commentary articles by Lawrence Solomon and James Delingpole from a couple of talk pages. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (removed by many "well founded" comments), Wikipedia:BLPN#Talk:William_Connolley (and all the referenced underlying discussions).
Removal of Climategate as a term
The term was over and over again in the beginning totally removed from the article even if it had many well sourced references (See last part in Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_1#Name_of_article for the first talk about it, and many more in the archive). In todays article the term has survived at least, but not bolded or in it's proper place right after the current naming of the article as an alternative name (and what most sources uses, see some at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Climategate usage). Now even books has this title in use, see [63])
Nsaa (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dear Mr. Wales, the Garth Paltridge article is the only article I was able to get into a stable, approximately sane state, and as it is not attracting internet trolls at the moment I'd say I've done a fair job. Which is not to say I am 100% happy with it. I think it probably should mention that since retirement Paltridge has declared himself a skeptic on CO2 caused climate change -- I think both Paltridge and the reader would be happy with that -- but not mentioning his skepticism at all was a compromise acceptable to both factions. But if you are interested in that article, I suggest you start with its very first revision, rather than the state it is in now, and then read through the talk page. If you read through the talk page, you will most likely be horrified by what you find. Regarding Fred Singer's article, there is a section called "consulting" but no section called "scientific work". Does that mean he was a scientist, or a consultant? After the career section, we find ourselves in the year 2007, then in 1994. Then we get to the 1980s, then to 1997, 2004, 2009, 2008, we stop by at 1991 for a bit of gossip, before we go back to 1960 just for one sentence, then to 1981, then 1994, and finally to 1991 again where the article concludes. Is the problem that Wikipedia's editors have no sense of chronology, or is it that they simply don't like Fred Singer? As the reader, I want to know what happened in the 1960s and 1970s? There are doubtlessly other problems with the article, but I haven't researched Singer's career at the moment so I'll leave you with the self-evident stuff. Finally, I am sorry if I have offended you. I am tired, so I will stop here. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex. When I looked at Talk:Richard Lindzen, I found that one of the biggest disputes (may be the biggest) is whether to include the reference about "no statistically significant warming since 1995". What I did not understand is why you are assuming that removing that reference is "defending" Mr. Lindzen? how do you know? I mean... it is not obvious. One could argue that removing something he saide is an insult to him. Your opposition of including that info is a legitimate position, but implying that that is what the subject wants is at least questionable, IMO. Sole Soul (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sole Soul, the problem with a site run by volunteers is evident right here. You don't have time to read through 12 pages of archives (and I can't of course blame you for that) so you quickly conclude that what I'm saying is not obvious. And why would it be obvious? If it's not obvious, shouldn't you just reserve judgement for the moment? In this particular instance, I do know what I am talking about because I have read all of Dr. Lindzen's recent papers, and most of his op-eds. The text that we are fighting over, I am afraid, is just plainly wrong, and is completely distorting Lindzen's position, and there's ultimately no way the opposing editor will win this particular dispute. I didn't come here because of this statistical warming business. You need to read the whole talk page. Sorry, that means all 12 (or 13) pages of it. And I guess you need to know your Lindzen too. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What you are referring to as "the problem" is following exactly your advice of reading the talk page starting at the top. I would be happy to go through 12 pages if reading them would make it more obvious that removing the statistical warming info is "defending" Mr. Lindzen. We simply cannot base our editing on something a volunteer like you know or read. Your problem is not juvenile volunteers, your problem is a Wikipedia principal called verifiability. You want us to trust you without us being able to verify your claims, because you cannot prove your case to neutral people. Sole Soul (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well spoken Sole Soul. If mr. lindzen has a problem, then he (or his representatives) can send and email to our system. The contact us page has the necessary information. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this conversation has run its course. I am truly sorry I was not able to help Wikipedia. If Mr. Wales would like to contact me privately, without these yes-men interrupting, I'd be happy to have a rational discussion about the problems. And just so that we're clear. Mr. Wales's quote above -- the one he pleads with me not to quote "out of context" -- is WP:V verifiable. That's the irony. Here you are lecturing to me that all that matters is Wikipedia's high ethic of so-called "verifiability", which allows anonymous volunteers to willfully distort the views of others without any regard to context, and you fail to note that Mr. Wales himself just pleaded with me not to be taken himself out of context. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This "yes-man" voted "oppose" on Jimbo's latest poll. While Jimbo's quote is verifiable if you provide link to it, taking it out of context is against the spirit of verifiability. Your claim that Mr. Lindzen's views were taken out of context may be true, but unless you provide proof, it is not verifiable. Sole Soul (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And how am I supposed to deductively "prove" that Lindzen is taken out of context, especially when you want it to be obvious? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
By providing the right context for his statement. Sole Soul (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. Well Lindzen has written three books, 230 papers, and probably 20 op-eds. So how much context would you like with that? I already recommended in the talk page that to begin to see Lindzen's views on recent temperature trends in context, one could begin with the Lindzen 2007 Energy & Environment paper. I was told, E&E is not a real journal, therefore we should prefer a journalist's take on the matter from Newsweek. Is that your position too, or have you read the Lindzen 2007 paper already? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex, I've not been involved with the Lindzen article before now, but I've had a look at the talk page and I have to agree with Sole Soul and The DJ. I think the problem here is that you are approaching this article with the mindset of being some kind of defender or champion of Lindzen and other fringe commentators. That is not a useful approach for an encyclopedist. Part of the problem is clearly that you lack wider expertise in how Wikipedia works, which is evident from your lack of understanding of verifiability and your frankly ludicrous demand that Wikipedia be "forcibly taken over either commercially or by government". I see from your contributions that you are pretty much a single-purpose account focusing almost entirely on climate change related articles. I have observed in the past that SPAs are often at a disadvantage, because they see Wikipedia only through the narrow prism of their particular focus. Rather than obsessing about this particular article, I suggest that it would be better for you to widen your editing to address other topic areas, work with a wider range of Wikipedians rather than the ones you are spending all your time arguing with, and in general improve your understanding of Wikipedia. It is a very different environment from the blogosphere. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO, you may not be responsible for the disgraceful Lindzen article, but as you are responsible for quite a vast number of the other POV abuses in the climate change BLPs (e.g. the Lord Monckton incident), I kind of resent you turning up here and pretending to be a good little Wikipedian. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I've only substantially edited a handful of articles in this topic area I think you're exaggerating. You can resent all you like, but the advice is sincerely offered. I've been a Wikipedian for a very long time, I have a very large number of contributions across thousands of articles in a wide range of topic areas and I think I have a pretty good idea by now about how it works. By contrast, you have only substantively edited a limited number of articles in a single topic area over the last year. That is inevitably going to give you a narrow perspective. You also appear to have adopted the hostile, conspiracy-minded attitudes of anti-science blogs, which you apparently frequent. It's revealing that you talk in martial terms - when you speak of "defending" fringe commentators' biographies, you show that you perceive them to be "under attack." But as I've said below, Wikipedia is not a battleground. You would do well to bear that in mind as it's clear that you haven't grasped that principle yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex, ChrisO's advice is sound. It does not mean that you should completely stop editing in your current favourite subject area. ChrisO has told you how to gain credibility and friends in our community and how to make sure that when your character is under attack in the field that you are editing, editors who disagree with you will not assume the worst about you. I do some editing in the pseudoscience area. While everything I do is based strictly on encyclopedic concerns (IMHO – but of course everybody thinks that about themselves) I sometimes had to "defend" the accurate presentation of pseudoscience against a mainstream of editors that tried to turn the articles into pure debunking pieces. I survived in this area without any injuries for the following reasons: (1) I didn't treat the articles as battle grounds; I was on different sides of the debates depending on the strength of the merits. (2) I was uncontroversially and successfully active in completely unrelated areas. (3) I was active in some related areas where I was on the side of the mainstream trying to solve problems with disruptive editors.
You can do the same, you can give up, or you can become a martyr. It's your choice. Hans Adler 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Adler, with due respect I will believe it when I see you get this to work in the climate change pages. I have little to offer outside of the area of biographies and it is only the climate change problem that interests me at the moment. I can assure you that I am always willing to defend the same principles in the climate change pages regardless of my feelings for the subject, e.g. Rajendra Pachauri. But it makes no difference. At Pachauri's page I was beaten down by the skeptical faction and I might have stayed for longer were it not for the fact that it was (and still is) completely coverage of breaking news and I have no interest in that. I also realised then that both of these factions care far more about taking revenge against the other side than they do about defending or adding anything positive. I suppose it is true that Wikipedia's climate change pages are a microcosm of the climate change debate itself. Voices on the left want to see beaten down those voices on the right and vice versa -- with just a tiny few in the middle curious enough to listen to both sides. My communication skills are not perfect, and I agree that I am too aggressive. Thank you for your advice though, and I'll be interested to have a look at these pseudoscience pages. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jimbo, I came here to warn you that the climate change BLPs are truly awful things and to remind you that, unfortunately, in any organisation, whether business, government or NGO, accountability rests ulimately with the executive. You seem to opted for a sort of figurehead role here but it is not clear to me that you have actually delegated any responsibility. So it seems to me that you must remain personally accountable for the abuses of this system. (If that is wrong then let me know who I should talk to.) If I seem nasty, or ill-tempered, I still mean you well. I came here to your talk page because there was nowhere else to go. Will you act? If you wish to do something, I am willing to continue to help. I should like to assure you that I have no intention to quote you or misquote you or in any way attack you personally but it does remain clear to me that something has to be done. You need neutral, mature, strong people to step in to fix the climate change pages. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I came across this page (for a totally unrelated reason) and found this issue being addressed. It doesn't surprise me that Alex's initial concerns have spilled over to involve many of the other issues surrounding this subject matter. For too long, these articles have been manipulated by a small group of frighteningly coordinated activists with endless patience for subverting the efforts of well-meaning editors, many of whom quickly find their patience in fighting for what's right and good for the encyclopedia simply cannot match that of those fighting to protect an agenda. Those who do risk sinister repercussions.
I only became aware of the struggles with this subject a few months ago. Finding the base global warming article a bit off, I opted to assess it. As with anything I do here (including this post, which took over an hour to write), I was thorough, objective, and meticulous in my assessment.
I've always considered the time and effort I apply to even the most mundane tasks at wikipedia very valuable and well-spent. And recently, it has bothered me to have to make every effort to ignore the state of articles relating to global warming. In fact, I do my best to avoid them altogether because, despite having met several editors with similar concerns, I never feel more alone, or that my effort is more wasted, than when I make suggestions for improving them (actually editing them has essentially been rendered unconscionable).
That the encyclopedia has been subversively denied a proper Climategate article simply breaks my heart every time I think about it. Even if it doesn't mean it will be immediately resolved, seeing Jimbo is now actually aware of it has done wonders for my morale. I have the utmost faith in his objectivity.
What I saw in my research for the aforementioned assessment (and then the response to it), was extremely disheartening. And I guess having borne witness to the organization, duration, and extent of manipulation, I could not muster the wherewithal to oppose it. Like other well-intentioned editors before me, I simply could not find it within me to take up the sword and fight the good fight.

And that makes me sad.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: the english wikipedia had at some time an article about the Roman Warm Period. It's gone. The german wikipedia still has one: Optimum_der_R%C3%B6merzeit How about deleting that as well for consistency? Have fun. (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's unhelpful and unfair. That article was created and redirected by its author. With such variable terminology, I wouldn't be surprised if the intended content survived somewhere, but then the converse would not surprise me either. It's probably very unwise to read conspiracy theories into mundane functional edits. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The absence of an article on Roman Warm Period is unconscionable, particularly in view of its previous existence. If not due to conspiracy, what, I beg you? The link you provide [[64]] is unavailable except to administrators. Wonder why... What's next - Holocene Climatic Optimum? Medieval Warm Period? Little Ice Age? Oiler99 (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I just googled 'roman warm period' and the top ranking page is ... our page warm period, which is an orphaned stub level page that indexes all the geologically recent warm periods. In passing, I'm trying to get my head around why Google is ranking this page first. Anyhow, the earliest revision of the page is dated 11th December 2008 and in that first revision of the page there was already a link to the Roman Warm Period. So it appears to be true that Wikipedia deleted the page? The second ranking page on google is the CO2 science page on the Roman Warm Period, and all subsequent ranking google pages in the top 10 seem to be pages that assert that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than the present. Can an admin tell us who deleted this page and why? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, I find in the paleoclimatology article no reference to a Roman Warm Period and then the following simplistic assertion: Short term (104 to 106 years): Geologically short-term (<120,000 year) temperatures are believed to be driven by orbital factors (see Milankovitch cycles) amplified by changes in greenhouse gases. The arrangements of land masses on the Earth's surface are believed to influence the effectiveness of these orbital forcing effects. This is a gross dumbing down of the truth that borders on deliberate disinformation. We would not, for instance, find such a simplistic picture presented at RealClimate. The little ice age for instance is thought to be correlated with reduced sunspot activity. The Little Ice Age is not thought to be caused by changes in greenhouse gases. I would really like to know what is going on here. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, as I'm sure you're well aware, there are several areas of WP that have been bad battlegrounds involving POV-pushing editors on opposite sides, including the Palestine/Israel articles and the Irish troubles, among several others. The global warming (AGW) articles are probably the worst ones at the moment, as far as I can tell. This is a job for the ArbCom. I'm confident that the Arbcom members can look at five years worth of diffs, make judgement calls on whose edits appear to be more NPOV than others, and topic ban those editors (like they did last year with the Palestine/Israel conflict articles), who don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I don't think any action is required on your part, other than telling the press, if they ask, "Some unethical climate change advocates and skeptics have tried to hijack the wiki to promote their own agendas. But, the system worked to send them packing.". Cla68 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, thanks for this but I'm afraid I don't really know what it means. Was a Wikipedia page about the RWP deleted or are you saying it was just never created. If it was deleted, was it deleted via an AfD procedure or by some other consensus to have the page renamed? It'd be nice to hear that this was an accident or something. Your reference to {{db-author}} makes it sound like one of the database administors deleted it, but that's possibly just because I have no idea what 'db-author' means. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to this, the deletion of the RWP period page was apparently noted in the discussions at Anthony Watts' blog here. It says it was deleted by "Andrew C", whoever that is. Is that plausible? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There was never any content on either Roman Warm Period or Roman Age Optimum. The former was created as a redirect to the latter, which was itself never created. {{db-author}} is shorthand for Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 - Author requests deletion. As the template indicates, this is the criterion for uncontroversial deletion of pages that have had only one non-trivial author who requests deletion. As the only edits ever made to Roman Warm Period were its creation as a redirect and a request by the same editor for deletion seven minutes later, User:Andrew c appropriately deleted the page. The username of the deleting administrator is recorded publicly if you click on the redlink Roman Warm Period. Presumably he found it by checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, but as it was over a year ago I would not expect him to remember. There are absolutely no barriers to anyone creating a well-referenced article about this topic. Feel free to share any and all of this information at the wattsupwiththat blog if you are participating in that discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not participating in that discussion; I found this by googling. But I'll do you all a favour and respond there anyway. Thank you for clarifying this, 2/0. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Any time, and thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just stumbled upon this discussion. I'm new to Wikipedia and only just discovered that there even was a "Jimbo Wales" page, and I haven't been involved in any of these climate issues. My two cents is that neither "Climategate" nor the current mouthful of a title is adequate. "Climategate" is the term critics use, and seems to be used by the Times in scare quotes. The "hacking incident" title, I agree, just won't work either. Why not "Global warming email interception"? "Hacking" is prejudicial, and the "-gate" suffice is prejudicial too. Both take sides. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hacking is a term of art generally taken to mean unauthorised access to data. That's what happened. Next case. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikimedia

Dear Jimbo, although not a member myself, I would cordially like to invite you to a workshop where you can learn all about disrupting and decieving Wikimedia with experiments in practice. This workshop is being organised on a website you may be familiar with, Wikiversity. There is no doubt that you would be welcome to participate. Just leave your name on the page[65] Who knows, they might even design a few barnstars for exceptional graduates. If they plant an operative on the permanent staff they might even be able to pinch the petty kitty. There are many such possibilities for reward so get yourself over there before the list fills up. ~ R.T.G 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the page as being outside the scope of Wikiversity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not outside the scope, I'm afraid. See v:Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments for further discussion. I know you don't go there much (and thus missed the upheaval you caused last time you did something like this), but the results of a Community Review discussion now bears the weight of policy, so please make your case there if you want to pursue this further. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
When the rest sat around for three months talking about a project designed to attack Wikimedia, Jimbo no sooner heard about it and it was gone. ~ R.T.G 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's back now replete with begging the question in its parameters:

Possible areas of research

Feel free to make suggestions below - you may even be able to make a point while you're at it! (see no.s 5 and 6 below ;-)

  1. Comparing classes of articles - eg. how is unsourced information treated when added by editors of similar reputation in different classes of articles
  2. Copyright concerns
  3. Academic honesty / plagiarism
  4. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Isaac Asimov
    1. from Larry Sanger to Moulton: Wikimedia's war against academic scholars
    2. the destruction of content by Wikimedia's deletionists
    3. censorship, bad blocks and bad bans imposed by Wikimedia's abusive administrators
  5. Studying the effect on Wikiversity/Wikipedia relations - are experimental pursuits into Wikipedia space, amid possible claims that this workshop encouraged, which it certainly did for some time in its initial months, going to result in a polaristation from which participants in Wikiversity are seen as experimental saboteurs, sneaking into the encyclopaedia to damage? Will Wikiversity seem as a hideaway which cannot be reached in which disruptions are plotted and recruits employed? Will Wikipedia editors find themselves imposed upon as unwilling test subjects by this workshop?

And I have to say that "censorship" is one of the no. 1 red flag terms used by POV-pushers (the other being "suppression") to describe situations where policy overrules their attempts to reflect the world as they would like it to be rather than as it is. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP Abuse by activists complaint opened at AN/I

A discussion on the topics raised on this page regarding BLP abuse by activists has been opened here.[66] It is specifically a discussion documenting activity in which two Wiki editors engage in extended off-wiki wars and then edit their opponents BLP's here. (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

... where it is largely discounted as nonsense. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to write the BLP's of your enemies, and it's not just one edit but most often near complete control through dozens of edits and reversions over the course of years in articles - as in this textbook example that states that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to use malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking.[67] That's a delusional conspiracy theory which never should have entered a BLP at the hands of an attack blogger using Wikipedia to further his vendetta..
Here[68] you'll find Quiggin extolling on the virtues of explicitly using Wikipedia to write the BLP's of enemies. Quiggin states, "Winning the debate will require scientists to learn new and unfamiliar ways of communicating" "Now, anyone who performs a basic check can discover, with little effort, the full history of his efforts as tobacco lobbyist and hired gun for polluting industries" "where scientists have mounted a concerted response to their intellectual enemies" he goes on to state, 'they win'... I'll suggest here that character assassination is not a traditional part of the scientific method, nor the point of WP:BLP's.
Wikipedia does not exist as a vehicle for activists to engage in character assassination no matter how worthy their cause is. Wikipedia is weakened by such activity on so many levels in ways both small and large. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have commented over there, and hope that others will take a deeper look at this issue as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
TY for the consideration, I'll step back now as discussion begins to unfold. (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That edit was in 2007. It is simply not actionable. Neither party has edited that article in the last six months with the exception of reverting the removal of the name of one-co-author of a document. Not that it makes the edit defensible but we typically do not act on diffs that are months stale let alone years. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If the edits are in violation of WP:BLP, they still have to be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Quiggin has made, I think, 14 edits to the article on Bate over three years, I have listed them all on the noticeboard thread. I can't remember if the offending text is still there, the sources i the article right now look OK but I have not got as far as line-by-line checking yet. I also read the link that the IP posts as evidence Quiggin advocates using Wikipedia to write biographies of your enemies. He grossly misrepresents the source. The full quote is:

The rise of the internet has been a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it has generated an almost hermetically-sealed echo chamber, in which science warriors can circulate, adapt and modify the factoids, talking points and bogus quotations that are the stock in trade of opinion pieces like those mentioned above.
On the other hand, for anyone who is aware of the general strategy adopted by the advocates of ‘sound science’, resources like Google and Wikipedia provide immediate confirmation in particular instances. In the past, an opinion piece by, say, Steven Milloy, would appear with an uninformative or misleading byline, and would be given the benefit of the doubt by most readers. Now, anyone who performs a basic check can discover, with little effort, the full history of his efforts as tobacco lobbyist and hired gun for polluting industries.

This is absolutely not an exhortation to edit the biographies of your enemies, only an exhortation to be aware of the power of Wikipedia and Google. And I absolutely agree: anyone who is aiming to combat attempts by politicians to undermine science in areas such as tobacco, global warming, evolution and so on very definitely should know about these things, because those political activists sure as hell are. In fact the quotation is a neat summation of about half the work of the arbitration committee over the last couple of years!
What is completely clear here is that we have a partisan attempting to recruit support based on a highly misleading presentation of events, such as citing 2007 diffs as evidence of a current problem. But this is not the venue for this any more, it's at the noticeboard where the behaviour of all parties can be investigated, as usual. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Quiggin's instructions are clear, identify your enemy and then write their biography. When people are going about their business interacting normally they read a name and look it up, Google will find it and the enemies of that person can reach from beyond and shape perceptions. NOTHING good comes from using Wikipedia as that vehicle for attack. Try it for yourself and look up whomever it is you are reading on Google[69]. Attack bloggers, no matter how good they believe their cause, have no place writing their enemies BLP's on Wikipedia. Quiggin & Lambert have been identified by multiple respectable third parties on three continents as attack bloggers and heavily criticized for what has been referred to from this source[70] as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question"[71]. Wikipedia should not be used to further their political objectives and devolve into an attack vehicle - even for "good" causes. (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Before we go any further, I should make it clear to all concerned that the complainant is a serial disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked and is only just recently off a three-month block. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# This is not a complainant who has clean hands. I suggest that any further discussion be directed to AN/I, as Guy requests. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at the revision history of John Quiggin's own Wikipedia biography? I'm sorry, but I've read his blog posts about Lindzen, spelling errors and all, and I'm reluctant to believe a word of it. He writes against Lindzen at his cross-posted blog entry, "As has been widely noted [huh?], confusing not statistically significant’ [sic?] with ‘not significant; [sic?] in the ordinary sense indicates either deliberate dishonesty or ignorance of a point covered in excruciating detail in every introductory stats course." What point is that? That a "lack of statistical rise in temperature" might still be a "significant rise in temperature"? Or does the sentence just not parse? This is gibberish. And then I find in this diff here -- made by an editor who mysteriously only ever made a single edit -- Quiggin has frequently been awarded and recognised for his research, including twice receiving Federation Fellowships from the Australian Research Council.[3] Frequently recognised? That links (now anyway) to a nonexistent page. And I find plenty of other editors, too, in the edit history, chipping away at Quiggin's flattering biography (at one point he was one of the greatest economists in the world), who also mysteriously made nothing but a few edits to to this bio and then disappeared. And of course, there are his own edits to his own biography... I'd suggest someone check this out too... Alex Harvey (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you've pointed out the "nonexistent" link, another editor has fixed it. As to Dpanell (talk · contribs), whom you darkly describe as making only a single "mysterious" edit... based on the list of Australian Research Council fellows, I would bet that it's Professor David Pannell, a widely recognized expert in applied economics and a co-awardee of John Quiggin's. We would be fortunate to have him volunteer his time to edit Wikipedia. I'm not clear on what, exactly, your post is meant to accomplish. I understand that you dislike one of his blog posts, but I'm not clear on the relevance of that dislike to Wikipedia. The broken link has been fixed. The cited source, from the Australian Research Council, supports the language used in our biography of John Quiggin. What else needs doing? MastCell Talk 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
One might just as well single out [72] and the edits of the delightful Kerang123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). All articles on anyone with an opinion on climate change are subject to constant attack and defence. There's not much we can do about that other than watch them - unless, of course, somebody finally gets round to turning on flagged revisions. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Partly sourced articles

There is some "featured articles" (and other articles) with missing source refs in many paragraphs of the article. Administrators and ArbCom of Russian Wikipedia believes, that mass source requesting in articles - is "destructive behavior", "harrasment of authors" and "bring to the absurd". They rollbacks source requests (at example, in Russian articles Protein, Sikkim), indefinitely blocks users (for example, ru:User:SkyBon was indefinitely blocked for source requesting in Russian article Sikkim) and protects articles. In this case admins and arbiters refer to the part of rule Wikipedia:Verifiability which is called "Do not make it to absurdity". But it part of rule is absent in the English section of Wikipedia. It is long conflict (I was indefinite blocked in Russian Wikipedia 1 year ago for source requesting in the controversial articles too). In the blog ru_wikipedia we found a lot of mistakes in "featured articles" written by administrators and arbiters (for example, article w:ru:Калан (Sea otter) has more than 100 errors, article Sikkim has more than 50 errors). I think that many errors in Wikipedia caused by lack of sources. What do you think about partly-sourced articles, when many paragraphs did not contain references to the source? Can it have a "featured articles" state? Can be user blocked for source requesting at the end of all non-trivial paragraphs in "featured article"? Thank. X-romix (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. The motive for such activity (mass stamped query on links to "featured" articles written by "party of administrators") is not a private persecution, but an attempt to improve the situation with links and reliability of the information in the Russian Wikipedia. X-romix (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I propose a templates to verify text of the article:

  • {{passed}} - part of text is verified and consistent with sources.
  • {{not passed}} - part of text is verified and NOT consistent with sources.

Careful inspection reveals many inconsistencies with sources in articles written by different people. But testing and marking text as unsourced or not presented in source is perceived as a personal attack, adherence to stalinism, lysenkoism etc. by some users and admins. There is need to rule for checking articles and marking all paragraphs of text as "passed checking" (especially in "featured" articles of Wikipedia, where is so many errors, paragraphs with no any sources and inconsistencies with sources by the "ref" tag). X-romix (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Online Textbooks that comply with National curriculum standards

I am from Texas and I am amazed by the machinations of both sides of the debate over content of the public school textbooks. The problem is not at all that one group or another yearns for their world view to be mirrored in the standards for Texas textbooks (and from there a plurality of state's adopted textbooks)

No. The problem is that the debate centers on bound volumes, printed at great expense that are out of date before they appear on the shelves. The obvious solution is an open source textbook projects.

Is Wiki-world interested in this project? I would appreciate any feedback on this.

Thanks, Kirk Holden <e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvg50 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The project you describe already exists. – iridescent 12:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on "Climategate" as a title

There seems to be a general impression that the large majority of sources in English-speaking media use the term "Climategate", that a few avoid it, and that many (less than a majority) use it in inverted commas. (The results of my Google News searches confirm this.) In other words: Most media use it as a name, but a significant minority use it as a non-neutral description, clearly marked as such, or not at all.

There is also the earlier precedent of Attorneygate, which, as you will note, is also a redirect. This is explicitly mentioned in WP:TITLE since at least November. WP:TITLE also links to WP:Words to avoid, which has been saying explicitly for more than a year that titles ending in -gate are not admissible unless they refer to historical scandals.

I think that your very clear statement that the article should be titled "Climategate" has not been helpful for finding consensus.

See Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#A little policy reader and the section followed by it for further information. If you meant to override established, nuanced policies that speak almost specifically about this case even though they predate it, then you should say so very clearly. Hans Adler 00:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Hans, but you're completely missing the point that WP:NPOV requires that we, as Wikipedia editors, remain editorially neutral. That means we don't get to overrule what reliable sources have to say about the matter. Article names which incorporate non-neutral terms such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Jack the Ripper, Great Leap Forward, Alfred the Great, Corrupt Bargain, Patriot_(American_Revolution), Glorious Revolution, Saturday Night Massacre, Mugwump, Scalawag, Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March, Intolerable Acts are legitimate article titles if those are the common names in English. We're supposed to use the world's terminology. We are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have addressed this argument on the article talk page. I don't think it makes much sense to open yet another battlefield here. Hans Adler 12:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you still don't get that WP:NPOV is about editorial bias. Since you failed to mention the counter-argument, I decided to do it for you. In addition to what I said about, you should also be reminded that WP:AVOID is only a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy. When policies and guidelines conflict (such as in this case), we're supposed to follow policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I said I have addressed this argument on the article talk page and I think it doesn't make much sense to open yet another battlefield here. But do help yourself to the last word. You are welcome. Hans Adler 13:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not about who gets the last word, but the fact that you explained your position without mentioning opposing positions, and pointed Jimbo to your analysis without also pointing him to my analysis or Moog's or anyone else's for that matter. I doubt that my post or your post will be the last one on this subject so your point is moot and nothing more than grandstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this post was to alert Jimbo to a specific exchange at the article talk page that should interest him. [73] [74] (I just noticed that I forgot the links originally.) Sorry for having formulated it in a way that you could understand as an invitation to fork our ongoing discussion. I don't think this would improve its quality. Just do not pretend that I am not responding to your arguments elsewhere. Thank you. (Perhaps I should use email next time.)

This is definitely my last word here unless Jimbo decides to react. Hans Adler 13:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think this is a close call. Policy is clear. Let's be blunt about it: some people don't like what this is called, and are pushing an agenda by trying to make up an original title that no one else uses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very interesting. You wouldn't be interested in joining the discussion about the details of policy interpretation, perhaps? It so happens that I am under the impression that policy is clear and says the opposite. I think WP:NPOV is important enough that it should be clarified if two intelligent people can come to opposite "clear" interpretations in good faith, after diligently trying to understand it. Hans Adler 14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have additionally offered a compromise which may be a useful way to get past this. Please comment over there, rather than here, so others can follow along with our discussion more easily.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really, this is just another incident in Gategate, the ongoing scandal of the news media trying to pretend that every incident is as significant as Watergate in the hope that someone will believe they are still relevant, respectable and motivated by the public good despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue of whether the controversy is legit or not is besides the point. We're supposed to use whatever the common name in English is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hans does have a valid point that there can be reasons to avoid the common name in English. None of those exceptions applies here, I think, but his objection to the move does need to be answered.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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:

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:

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 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:

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

"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 (talkcontribs) 02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Short version, Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
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)

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 [[75]] 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)