Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals2
Proposed FoF: NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP policy in the manner expected of an administrator[edit]
- User:NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator. [1]
I am not that familiar with NW, and don't know if this was a blip, or part of a larger pattern, or indeed if arbitrators would agree with me that NW vocally defended a blatant BLP (and WP:SPS) violation here. But I think it is worth bringing up, even if only to correct any misunderstanding on my part. If anyone is aware of similar incidents involving NW, please propose diffs to be added. --JN466 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. NuclearWarfare wasn't alone in his view of that particular dispute. One of the other reviewing admins, The Wordsmith (talk · contribs), commented: "I think this issue isn't a clear-cut BLP violation, but a content dispute." Another reviewing admin, BozMo (talk · contribs), suggested a simple solution to the dispute, and concluded that he was "a bit disappointed that everyone went for the mattresses without much attempt to find a compromise text. But I think this is at heart a content dispute where some constructive approach from both sides would help."
In fact, of the 5 admins reviewing this request (see permalink), 3 saw this as a content dispute without clear BLP violations (NW, The Wordsmith, and BozMo). One (LessHeardvanU) suggested topic-banning all climate-change ArbCom participants, which may well have been a good idea but did not address the BLP question directly. And one (Lar) castigated KDP and William, stating: "I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation."
Given that a majority of the reviewing admins didn't see a BLP problem here, it seems grossly unwarranted to single out NuclearWarfare, and even more unwarranted to berate him for "failing to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator". It seems more like people looking at this just weren't as convinced as you that this was a major BLP violation, as opposed to a more garden-variety content dispute. I don't think we need to elevate isolated disagreements over gray areas to the level of proposed findings. MastCell Talk 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- If Prof John Abraham had wanted to publish his presentation here on Wikipedia, it might have been a BLP issue (we'd have had to review all his sourcing very carefully indeed). But he didn't; it was published by his University. Stating the fact that it was published there is not a BLP issue - it certainly was published there, and it certainly was very critical of Christopher Monckton. To the extent that that act of publication was reported here, it wasn't a BLP issue. There could be notability or due weight questions to discuss, and like NW I would suggest removal or refactoring of the clause, "rebutting all of Monckton's claims". --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've always understood WP:SPS's injunction, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources (emphasis in the original) to be one of those bright lines that you just don't cross. NW argued at length that WP:BLP did not apply to everything in a BLP, only to material that is biographical in character (verbatim: "Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met."), and I disagree with that interpretation. As far as I am concerned, everything in a biography is biographical, and I found that line of argument very disquieting. Let's make no mistake about it: the self-published presentation that was at the heart of this dispute, and was included as an in-text external link, was a self-published hit piece aimed at the BLP subject. I found the other admins' responses just as worrying.
The relevant part of WP:BLP is, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. The dispute was about an external link to a self-published attack piece. --JN466 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is the slide show currently used as a source in the article? I don't think so. That being said, however, as MastCell pointed out, NuclearWarfare was not the only admin to state that the slideshow might be ok as a source. Unfortunately, since then NW has edited that article and made comments to influence content on that article's talk page. I believe that NW is no longer an uninvolved admin in the CC articles because of this. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, NW's argument was that because it was included as an external link, it wasn't being used as a source, and therefore could be included. NW said, "This is not a source of material about a living person, even though it is in a biography.", which struck me as logically flawed. (Here is one of the edits where the presentation was added to Monckton's BLP. Other diffs can be found in the discussion linked above.) NW also argued in that post, "Therefore, normal WP:SPS rules apply, which this qualifies under as the material is self-published by a notable academic and scientist", which contradicts the categorical injunction in WP:SPS, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. --JN466 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The External links guideline, which is referenced in WP:BLP ("In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline."), states: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. The attack piece was first introduced as a ref citation, and later on as an in-text external link.
- So the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, and I don't see them reflected in NW's argument. --JN466 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is the slide show currently used as a source in the article? I don't think so. That being said, however, as MastCell pointed out, NuclearWarfare was not the only admin to state that the slideshow might be ok as a source. Unfortunately, since then NW has edited that article and made comments to influence content on that article's talk page. I believe that NW is no longer an uninvolved admin in the CC articles because of this. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've always understood WP:SPS's injunction, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources (emphasis in the original) to be one of those bright lines that you just don't cross. NW argued at length that WP:BLP did not apply to everything in a BLP, only to material that is biographical in character (verbatim: "Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met."), and I disagree with that interpretation. As far as I am concerned, everything in a biography is biographical, and I found that line of argument very disquieting. Let's make no mistake about it: the self-published presentation that was at the heart of this dispute, and was included as an in-text external link, was a self-published hit piece aimed at the BLP subject. I found the other admins' responses just as worrying.
I feel that what I wrote has been misrepresented, but I am not interested in getting involved with this at this moment in time. If Arbitrators do want to look into this and propose a Finding of Fact/Remedy, then I ask that they read the situation in its original context, as linked by Jayen466 in original comment and as I will relink now. Could the matter please be left to the Arbitrators? I don't think anything is served by refighting these disputes. NW (Talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Arbitrators please note that NuclearWarfare also blocked User:Marknutley for edit-warring that day at the Monckton BLP. Marknutley had claimed WP:UNDUE and the BLP exemption to remove the self-published presentation, removing it three times that day: [2][3][4].
- As far as I am aware, NuclearWarfare did not warn or block any of the editors who edit-warred to keep the link to the self-published presentation in the article. In my view, justice was not done that day. --JN466 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The material Marknutley had edit-warred over was finally removed by an admin (Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs)) more than one month later, along with other material, while the article was locked for editing. Scott MacDonald claimed BLP exemption to make his series of edits while the article was locked:
- "wow - that type of format is hardly a disinterested way of recording info on a contentious BLP. Yes this is protected, but I've removing this under WP:BLP"
- "whatever else, this violates WP:OR and is unreferenced - removing per WP:BLP"
- "stubbing - BLP material with long-standing neutrality and WP:UNDUE concerns. We err on the side of removal until we are confident of policy compliance. There's a prima-facie case this is not." This edit removed the paragraph about the self-published presentation that Marknutly had tried to remove one month prior, until he was blocked by NuclearWarfare. --JN466 11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) I have been following this discussion since it unfolded and find myself broadly agreeing with Mastcell's comments. Quite apart from that, the guiding policy here is probably the "not perfect" one: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I would incidentally make the observation that Scott MacDonald, an admin for whom I have the very greatest respect, is something of an expert on BLP, has played a major role in the community's discussions on the subject, and is unafraid to make controversial BLP calls. Roger Davies talk 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I accept Doc's judgement on that subject; I learned to trust his judgement and his mettle in the early days of the BLP when sometimes it seemed impossible to give the policy the teeth it needed. I don't agree with him on this occasion, actually, because I see no BLP issues at all in the expert critique by Dr Abraham of Christopher Monckton's claims (I only wish I could say the same for Monckton's utterly ridiculous mud-throwing response). But the Abraham critique is just one of many and it isn't so important. I don't find it surprising that other good admins can disagree with Doc on this matter. --TS 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The key issue here, I suppose, is that the blog/SPS policy is a bright line covering a sensitive area. That overrides, in my view at least, any other considerations. Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, Abraham's presentation is self-published, and we do not permit editors to link to self-published criticisms of BLP subjects, even if the author is a a well-known professional researcher or writer. We either apply this policy consistently, or invite never-ending strife.--JN466 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Roger. MastCell said it was perhaps unfair to single NW out. I disagree that it was unfair; of all the admins involved, NW was the most vocal in stating his view that including the external link to the presentation was not a BLP violation, and it was he who blocked Marknutley for removing the material under BLP. In combination, these factors amply justifies devoting more attention to his actions than to those of the other admins.
- The policies and guidelines quoted in green above clearly and unmistakeably direct that the link should have been removed: nevertheless, it was the editor who removed the link who was blocked. Nothing undermines editors' trust in Wikipedia's impartiality, and the fairness of admin processes, more than admins allowing BLP policy to be disregarded for some BLP subjects, while strictly upholding it for others. It has a corrosive effect and engenders feelings of hopelessness and despair. It contributes to a breakdown in civility, to accusations of a cabal, and to a battleground atmosphere. These are not trifling matters.
- It should also give us pause for thought that if an acknowledged BLP expert and admin removes the material from the locked article, claiming BLP exemption, he is accorded respect; but if Mark performs the same edit, citing the same BLP exemption, he is reverted and blocked, with his reputation permanently sullied. Again, these are no small matters for an editor. Is there something you can do to give him some redress here, perhaps in the finding of fact related to him? The block log including NW's block is cited as evidence against him.
- As for NW, this may well have been an isolated incident on his part. I have not made a study of his admin history in this area, and no one to date has come forward with documentation of any similar incidents. If that remains so, your reluctance to make an FoF and remedy on an isolated error in judgment is understandable and generous; but the same generosity of spirit has so far not been extended to Mark. --JN466 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the key difference is that Marknutley's case it was far from being an isolated incident and could easily have been seen as more of the same? Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) This one has pretty much run its course too so I'll cap it off shortly. Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit]
- NuclearWarfare should cease carrying out admin actions related to biographies of living persons, and should not comment as an uninvolved administrator in BLP-related arbitration enforcement discussions in the Climate Change topic area. He may participate in such discussions as an ordinary editor. --JN466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare stated that "Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong." If NuclearWarfare still maintains today that this view is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, then this remedy unfortunately appears necessary to prevent a repeat. --JN466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
A principle for edit warring[edit]
I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.
For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues).[5] Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.
I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.
It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this would solve anything. It may well encourage people to make more contentious edits using dodgy sources, knowing that such material could not easily be removed. Something like one edit a day (whether adding or reverting) might be better -- you get one shot, so you need to do your best with good writing and sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. But also the problem I often see is an assumption that a smaller number of good editors can overcome a larger number of bad editors simply by reverting more and then having the wiki-bureaucratic complex come down on their behalf. This may have worked at some point, but I don't think it's a long term solution. The risk is that you will get the opposite: bad editors will revert more (because what do they care about Wikipedia anyway), and then you don't have a clear rule to deal with it. My hope would be that by strongly discouraging multiple reverts (as ArbCom always ends up doing), you force real consensus seeking which may be cumbersome but, optimistically, is more structurally aligned with good editing. Anyway, I'm also just curious what principle ArbCom would present if they presented one. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Surely the existing content policies are good enough? If what you add is well-sourced, relevant, notable, within due weight, etc. then if someone deletes it, that is unlikely to find consensus in sensible discussion (WP:BRD). The problems start when you have people who specifically want to 'level the playing field' either by adding lots of fringe stuff, or by removing well-sourced mainstream material, to make a point. It is easy enough when there's only one or two, as consensus is clearly against them. When you get a whole vociferous horde, it can be difficult to sort the sensible from the activist. When they start to adopt all of the arguments ever used against them ("I'm not a fringe activist, you are", etc) it gets messy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. But also the problem I often see is an assumption that a smaller number of good editors can overcome a larger number of bad editors simply by reverting more and then having the wiki-bureaucratic complex come down on their behalf. This may have worked at some point, but I don't think it's a long term solution. The risk is that you will get the opposite: bad editors will revert more (because what do they care about Wikipedia anyway), and then you don't have a clear rule to deal with it. My hope would be that by strongly discouraging multiple reverts (as ArbCom always ends up doing), you force real consensus seeking which may be cumbersome but, optimistically, is more structurally aligned with good editing. Anyway, I'm also just curious what principle ArbCom would present if they presented one. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that "relevance" and "due" are based almost entirely how the info casts the AGW theory and the involved players. All someone has to do is actually edit the area in an NPOV manner to see that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- To properly reflect scientific opinion, you need to have about 50 times more on the consensus version than on diverging opinions, whether counting by competent scientists, published literature, or by competent organisations. We already overrepresent pseudo-sceptical positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems, based on my experience, that some editors feel that they are supposed to be ensuring that the "truth" is presented in the CC articles, the truth being what they believe on the topic. Thus, it doesn't matter if the information in question is supported by a reliable source, it gets reverted, then the editor gets told on the article talk page that they don't know what they are talking about, know nothing about the science, and that their proposed addition is "fringe", "psuedo-science", and/or "undue." Revert warring is a symptom, not the core problem, of what is taking place in the CC topic area. The core problem is that a bloc of editors is continuously violating the spirit and letter of WP's policies with the "ends justify the means" goal of keeping the CC articles "on message."
- To properly reflect scientific opinion, you need to have about 50 times more on the consensus version than on diverging opinions, whether counting by competent scientists, published literature, or by competent organisations. We already overrepresent pseudo-sceptical positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that "relevance" and "due" are based almost entirely how the info casts the AGW theory and the involved players. All someone has to do is actually edit the area in an NPOV manner to see that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrators, one thing you will notice about the non-BLP CC articles is that one bloc of editors is constantly engaged in removing and reverting reliably sourced information from them [6], using a variety of rationales, often along the lines of what Stephan said above. The reverts usually begin around 0700 United Kingdom time. You can almost set your watch by it. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting example, Cla68, while Pearce as a source is generally good, the statement you added is inaccurate – you put "simplistic" in quotes, but it's a word used by Pearce and not by the subject of the article who you appear to credit with the term. It's also a simplistic reading of Pearce's brief opening note on "main players", and is better examined in light of pp. 28–31 of the book. Oh, and your info was reverted back in by what may be a SciBaby sock, as commonly seems to happen. . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- One more thing, if it's really only about "properly reflecting scientific opinion," then why does this bloc of editors remove and revert so much information from non-science articles, like Watts Up With That? [7] [8] [9] [10]? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a "bloc" now? Please check the edit comments, misspelled as they are. How is [11] removing information? And who said that it is "only" about properly reflecting scientific opinion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is "Watts Up With That?" a non-science article? It appears to be a website devoted to putting forward [fringe] views on science. . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dave souza brings up an important point in that there is no sharp boundary between "science" and "non-science" articles. The non-science articles often are used as a way to present minority views unimpaired by reference to the majority view. This violates WP:NPOV, which states that even in articles specifically devoted to minority views "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would also perhaps behoove the arbcomm and/or the community to come to some resolution about what to do when BLP concerns conflict with fringe concerns. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dave souza brings up an important point in that there is no sharp boundary between "science" and "non-science" articles. The non-science articles often are used as a way to present minority views unimpaired by reference to the majority view. This violates WP:NPOV, which states that even in articles specifically devoted to minority views "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is "Watts Up With That?" a non-science article? It appears to be a website devoted to putting forward [fringe] views on science. . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a "bloc" now? Please check the edit comments, misspelled as they are. How is [11] removing information? And who said that it is "only" about properly reflecting scientific opinion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrators, one thing you will notice about the non-BLP CC articles is that one bloc of editors is constantly engaged in removing and reverting reliably sourced information from them [6], using a variety of rationales, often along the lines of what Stephan said above. The reverts usually begin around 0700 United Kingdom time. You can almost set your watch by it. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that a finding on edit warring addresses a larger concern in the CC articles, which is constant civil POV pushing and over- over- over-arguing over settled points. The best example I can cite involves Climate change alarmism and the attempted use of a paper co-authored by WMC, over his protests, to prove that global cooling "alarmism" was a problem in the 1970s. This was a straight-up instance of WP:SYN, and it was settled on AN/I in the context of an action against one of the editors involved, but it still[12] is being argued on the article talk page. Some editors have a "never say die" attitude that complies with the spirit of civility rules while actually undermining settled policies. The lengthy volume of argumentation over these points, a sampling of which we saw earlier on this page, has the effect if not the intent of "wearing down the opposition." That was one of the first things I noticed about the CC pages, months ago. See[13], "too much talking."ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Scotty, this is not the way to respond to new arguments and new evidence (see "GregJackP's inappropriate use of sources" section above). If the new arguments and evidence hasn't already been addressed, calling for the end of discussion is contrary to maintaining a good working atmosphere here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is precisely my point. I don't see anything materially "new" in that discussion thread. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then it shouldn't be difficult to post diffs for the past edits that already refuted the points I and others later made. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is precisely my point. I don't see anything materially "new" in that discussion thread. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Scotty, this is not the way to respond to new arguments and new evidence (see "GregJackP's inappropriate use of sources" section above). If the new arguments and evidence hasn't already been addressed, calling for the end of discussion is contrary to maintaining a good working atmosphere here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Back to the topic, Mackan79 wrote, Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. All true, and every one of us knows it's all true. Perhaps arbs should have a principle on this ("edit warring" is listed in the "Disruptive editing" principle 12 right now, but that's it). I don't think minor cases of reverting should be in the findings of fact section because we then have Wikipedia dangling the temptation of reverting to editors in emotional situations (where their strong beliefs and what may be hours of previous work is at stake), with admins ignoring the conduct for many months and then ArbCom swooping in at the end and issuing a sanction. Certain admins and editors will then use the findings of fact in the future to disparage these editors. Does anyone disagree with any part of this scenario? In other words, Wikipedia sets up a trap for editors who edit in any contentious area. ArbCom can help Wikipedia avoid entrapping editors by looking the other way on the less egregious reverting (I haven't looked at all the new evidence on that, so I don't know whether the newer Fofs on editor misbehavior already do that.) Other than doing that, and perhaps a separate finding about edit warring, ArbCom can't really do anything and I doubt the community ever will. Maybe the solution is for editors to try like mad to stay out of the most contentious fights, which is a kind of "heckler's veto". Maybe that's the nature of a self-governing wiki. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom could be clearer about the principle it applies, at least. In a similar case it presented the following:
- Edit-warring
- 4) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.
Assuming this remains the case it would seem sensible to say it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. I would add something like Administrators are encouraged to enforce Wikipedia:Edit warring policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- How about this addition, "Editors who revert or remove reliably sourced content are expected to suggest alternate or compromise wording on the article talk page before making further reverts of the same material. An absence of such attempts at compromise may be considered as evidence of a violation of the spirit of the policy on edit warring even if the letter of the policy is not broken." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I personally agree with the old Jimbo edict: if something is unsupported, then don't wait around for discussion, just remove it. In theory compromise should come from everyone, in the sense that someone adding material can just as well come up with a compromise if another editor articulates a reason for removing it. You may have noticed Nigelj suggests the opposite presumption, against adding contentious material, below. I think this is why there generally hasn't been a presumption toward removing or including, simply a principle that you should resolve disagreements through discussion and not through reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) However, sometimes the issue is that content, even if reliably sourced, has no place in the article. Compromise is often the right answer, but not always. We don't want to tilt things to a direction where people add 2x the amount of content they actually want in the article just so they can compromise their way down to what they actually want. NW (Talk) 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Mackan79. People who remove or add controversial content repeatedly are expected to discuss their concerns on the article talk page. Otherwise they risk being seen as violating the policy on edit-warring. It's always been that way. I don't see any need to grant artificial and "special" status to adding content, vs. removing it (or vice versa) - that's just going to be relentlessly gamed. MastCell Talk 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- NW, I disagree with you, and perhaps your recent involvement in the topic area is to blame. We don't assign to one group of editors responsibility for ensuring that articles on a topic are weighted a particular way or reflect a particular balance of views. That's not how the wiki works. We're all supposed to work togethter to build these articles. If the resulting article represents compromise wording from many different viewpoints, then the wiki is working. It's just that one bloc of editors, from what I've observed, rarely attempt to suggest alternate or compromise wording when they revert material they disagree with [14] Actually, WMC did propose alternate wording here. It seems they just want it gone completely if they don't agree with it. If you're an editor who has just spent 30 minutes putting together and adding some new, reliably sourced content, it can be very frustrating, and, of course, may lead to increased edit warring. If it is made clear, and enforced, that any editor who reverts sourced information must suggest a compromise on the talk page before they revert again, it will establish that cooperation, compromise, and collaboration is the expected behavior in the CC articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC
- It's well known that a requirement for compromise encourages each side to stake out increasingly extreme positions -- see e.g., Overton window or argument to moderation. Rather than compromise, we should aim for principled agreement based in policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- You mean that POV editors will argue from an extreme in order to try to game a compromise which favors their position? It seems to me that if that occurs it would be very easy to see which involved editors are working from an agenda and which ones genuinely want to reach a compromise and get these articles expanded and improved. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Boris, MastCell and Mackan. In any event, the best that can be done here is for ArbCom to encourage enforcement of the policy on edit warring (which would help slightly). Once we see which editors are working from an agenda -- what then? We can see that now. I think the more cunning, diehard editors will game it and the more impatient editors, both agenda-driven and not, will get caught up in not suggesting a compromise. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- You mean that POV editors will argue from an extreme in order to try to game a compromise which favors their position? It seems to me that if that occurs it would be very easy to see which involved editors are working from an agenda and which ones genuinely want to reach a compromise and get these articles expanded and improved. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's well known that a requirement for compromise encourages each side to stake out increasingly extreme positions -- see e.g., Overton window or argument to moderation. Rather than compromise, we should aim for principled agreement based in policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- NW, I disagree with you, and perhaps your recent involvement in the topic area is to blame. We don't assign to one group of editors responsibility for ensuring that articles on a topic are weighted a particular way or reflect a particular balance of views. That's not how the wiki works. We're all supposed to work togethter to build these articles. If the resulting article represents compromise wording from many different viewpoints, then the wiki is working. It's just that one bloc of editors, from what I've observed, rarely attempt to suggest alternate or compromise wording when they revert material they disagree with [14] Actually, WMC did propose alternate wording here. It seems they just want it gone completely if they don't agree with it. If you're an editor who has just spent 30 minutes putting together and adding some new, reliably sourced content, it can be very frustrating, and, of course, may lead to increased edit warring. If it is made clear, and enforced, that any editor who reverts sourced information must suggest a compromise on the talk page before they revert again, it will establish that cooperation, compromise, and collaboration is the expected behavior in the CC articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC
- I agree with Mackan79. People who remove or add controversial content repeatedly are expected to discuss their concerns on the article talk page. Otherwise they risk being seen as violating the policy on edit-warring. It's always been that way. I don't see any need to grant artificial and "special" status to adding content, vs. removing it (or vice versa) - that's just going to be relentlessly gamed. MastCell Talk 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- How about this addition, "Editors who revert or remove reliably sourced content are expected to suggest alternate or compromise wording on the article talk page before making further reverts of the same material. An absence of such attempts at compromise may be considered as evidence of a violation of the spirit of the policy on edit warring even if the letter of the policy is not broken." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Principle on edit warring, continued[edit]
I think the opening premise of this discussion, that "often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all" is quite mistaken. It's normal to revert disputed edits and I'm aware of no arbitration case in which this has been presented as at all problematic. It's what happens after a dispute is identified that matters. --TS 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- There certainly has been edit warring and that needs to be addressed. But I think that this is one part of a larger problem of general fractiousness, POV pushing and inability to edit cooperatively in these articles, the "never say die" attitude I mentioned earlier. One concern I have is that clamping down too hard on edit warring will give an edge to editors who want to add questionable sourcing and content. As others have noted, removing text can improve the encyclopedia as much as adding, depending on the circumstances. I can't speak to previous Arbcom practice, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I may have been unclear, but I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything stronger than the very common principle seen here. Consider even WP:Revert:
- Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's hard to draw a line, but considering that WP:BRD is well supported, I think it's a misconception that to prohibit revert warring bolsters inclusion over exclusion; if anything the strictest interpretations tend to start on the next revert where someone replaces material. Besides that, do good content contributors really revert more often within any dispute than agenda pushers? I doubt that, but especially I'd think they could learn not to. Mackan79 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just having trouble relating that to the CC articles. Both sides in any given CC dispute feel they are "on the side of God" and standing forthright for Wikipedia principles. I've noticed that overt edit warring tends to be addressed pretty quickly via page protection, and then, for days or even weeks, we have gridlock of the kind we've seen in the Climate change alarmism article over the use of the WMC paper. Gridlock, "I didn't hear that," misconstruing of policy and endless bickering is the more serious problem, because it is more commonplace and harder to address. I keep returning to the alarmism article because it is a realtime example of this problem. Some arbitrators themselves were swept into the maelstrom, and had the pleasure of personally experiencing gridlock first-hand. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz[edit]
Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct[edit]
Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], including edit warring [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] , inappropriate use of admin privileges [31] and comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [32] [33] [34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like mudflinging to me - indeed this proposed FoF looks like scorched-earth battlefield behaviour itself. Are you ready to defned those diffs you've put up? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. See below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked. Even unwrapped, they still look like mudflinging. Hopefully, arbcomm will judge you on that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. See below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, given that ArbCom was the one who asked for a FoF regarding StS, I doubt that will happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct (Alternative wording)[edit]
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[35][36][37] participated in several edit-wars, including BLPs,[38][39][40] editing to make a point,[41] [42][43] and inappropriate use of admin privileges.[44][45][46] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated edit-wars, including edit-wars regarding contentious material to BLPs, editing to make a point, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator.
- Incivil Comments
- "Oh, not all of them are idiots. And only the better ones are honestly clueless."
- "Talking about the stupidity/idiocy/yahooness of Wikipedia editors in general is an opinion, not a personal attack"
- "Trigger-happy, stubborn, misguided, and uninterested in the difference between form and content, yes. Biased, not very. I'd say about 1e-17 micro Lar. Of course a Lar is a unit where an object with a full Lar of bias has to rotate at near light-speed to avoid collapsing into a black hole from the sheer weight of it"
- Editing to make a point
- [47] Stephan Schulz, an involved admin in the CC dispute, disruptively posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section for an RfE.
- [48] This was then moved to its proper place.
- [49] Schulz then falsely accuses Lar of being disruptive for moving his comment to the correct location.
- [50] A Quest for Knowledge asked Schulz if he is intentionally posting in the uninvolved admin section.
- [51] but Schulz responded with a less than helpful "Ummm....?"
- [52] which he then changed to an equally unhelpful "What....?".
- [53] Then, Schulz disruptively posted a second comment in the uninvolved admin section knowing that he's an involved admin, and daring uninvolved admins to edit war with him.
- Edit-warring to include contentious material in a BLP (Fred Singer)
- [54] Participates in edit-war to include a BLP violation sourced to a blog.
- Participates in long-term edit war to remove "environmentalist" from Lawrence Solomon article
- [55] Removes "environmentalist".
- [56] Participates in edit war at Lawrence_Solomon - Removes "environmentalist"
- Edit-warring at Lawrence Solomon article
- [57] Yet another edit war at Lawrence Solomon. Removes external link. Note: StS rationale about EL may be correct. But he still shouldn't edit-war over this.
- [58] Does it again.
- [59] Does it again.
- Misc
- [60] Protects Phil Jones (climatologist) to preferred version[61] claiming dubious BLP violation.
- I invite the committee to investigate all of the provided diffs in detail and in context. In particular, I would welcome an opinion on this 12 months old semi-protection of Phil Jones, an admin action which at that time was not even commented on, and which was my first ever action at this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed FoF: KimDabelsteinPetersen has engaged in disruptive behavior[edit]
KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and policy-violating or inappropriate edits to BLP articles [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83].
I added a few more diffs of edit warring to those that AQFK had compiled showing Kim edit warring at the Climate Audit article declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You might offer the arbitrators [84], [85], [86], [87], etc. for review, with respect to the Monckton BLP issue. --JN466 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm? Is it invalid to discuss issues? As far as i can tell, these talk-page comments are from July 2010, and i haven't been editing the Monckton article since April 2010. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, why did you argue for the use of a self-published slide show as a source for adding negative or pejorative information to the BLP of an AGW sceptic? Article talk pages are where content disputes are usually decided, so you know that your comments there could very well have an influence on the content of that article. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have you tried reading the comments i made? (the links) They explain it quite well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC) nb: i rather dislike your "have you stopped beating your wife" style of questioning, it is rather obvious that several admins and other users disagree with you on your take of this particular content. Could i entice you not to do so again? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, why did you argue for the use of a self-published slide show as a source for adding negative or pejorative information to the BLP of an AGW sceptic? Article talk pages are where content disputes are usually decided, so you know that your comments there could very well have an influence on the content of that article. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm? Is it invalid to discuss issues? As far as i can tell, these talk-page comments are from July 2010, and i haven't been editing the Monckton article since April 2010. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the Climate Audit diffs, where Cla68 claims i "declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place":
- Climate Audit was merged by Atmoz on Feb 5, 2009 without objections[88]. Then split and remerged again on May 3, 2009 (with discussion here). Finally it was split again on April 25, 2010 by Nsaa[89], with discussions here, and an AfD was created by Nsaa[90] in what i would describe as an attempt to filibuster/force the article into existance during the AfD - The final result of the AfD was[91]:
- The result was keep. Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- which was again discussed on talk, with one side arguing that it must mean (singularily) keep, and ignoring the discussion part of the closing admins decision.
- Basically the article has been merged into Stephen McIntyre for over a year, when Nsaa and Marknutley decided that this shouldn't be so. Attempts to move the discussion to Talk:Stephen McIntyre unfortunately failed (here fault can be put on all participants). I've reverted back to the redirect 3 times (May 5, 2009; April 25, 2010; and May 4, 2010) which are the 3 diffs given[an apparently very very slow editwar]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, Atmoz first redirected that article without discussion and then he and WMC reverted to keep it redirected. Can you show me where in this thread there is consensus for the merge? I can't see it. After the thread, you and Guettarda edit warred to keep it redirected, with you falsely claiming a consensus. When marknutley brought up the discussion again, you again claimed this nonexistent consensus. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see this diagram. When something stands uncontested for over a year, then it becomes the consensus. Bold is fine - in fact it is important... Atmoz was bold, and no one contested his redirect. But as i said in the edit-comments, it is bold-revert-discuss - not bold-revert-revert-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, Atmoz first redirected that article without discussion and then he and WMC reverted to keep it redirected. Can you show me where in this thread there is consensus for the merge? I can't see it. After the thread, you and Guettarda edit warred to keep it redirected, with you falsely claiming a consensus. When marknutley brought up the discussion again, you again claimed this nonexistent consensus. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The next 5 diffs are on Phil Jones where people were inserting "alleged theft" instead of "stolen" about the emails. This is (imho) a significant POV violation by the people inserting it - there is no doubt, and there wasn't at that time either, that the emails were stolen. Even in the hypothetical case where they where "found" on an ftp-site, or "leaked" by an inside source, they were appropriated by data-theft. This was discussed at the time on several articles, and most of the people involved were aware of these discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Has it been proven in a court of law that they were stolen? If not, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to adopt a wording such as "alleged theft". Jprw (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- What is determined in court, is not the act of theft, but the guilt of theft. If you steal the Mona Lisa, and you never get caught, then there will never be a trial, but that doesn't make it an "alleged theft". The material was appropriated from the legal owners, and distributed without consent of the owners - that is data-theft, nothing alleged about it. (unless you go out into conspiracy theory, and propose that the CRU themselves leaked the material - but that is a theory that i haven't even seen on sceptic sites - a whisleblower perhaps, but that would still be data-theft) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make is that unless it is 100% conclusive and there are no grey areas then as WP editors we should still be reserving judgement by using a hedge word like "alleged". Jprw (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Appreciated. But at no point in time was there ever doubt that a data-theft had occurred, thus the grey area doesn't exist (in anything other than the blogosphere) - on the other hand there were editors who were pushing for this view despite the overwhelming material in reliable sources saying differently. We are here to describe events, as secondary reliable sources describe it, not to create confusion. A hypothetic whisleblower for instance, is still committing data-theft, he (or she) just might have a reasonable excuse in a court of law for such an act, but it is still data-theft. [which btw. couldn't have been the case here, since legally a whistleblower in the UK, must turn the material over to authorities]. The act of data-theft is (and never was) in doubt... Any writings on the Who, How and Why, on the other hand, is purely speculative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make is that unless it is 100% conclusive and there are no grey areas then as WP editors we should still be reserving judgement by using a hedge word like "alleged". Jprw (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- What is determined in court, is not the act of theft, but the guilt of theft. If you steal the Mona Lisa, and you never get caught, then there will never be a trial, but that doesn't make it an "alleged theft". The material was appropriated from the legal owners, and distributed without consent of the owners - that is data-theft, nothing alleged about it. (unless you go out into conspiracy theory, and propose that the CRU themselves leaked the material - but that is a theory that i haven't even seen on sceptic sites - a whisleblower perhaps, but that would still be data-theft) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Has it been proven in a court of law that they were stolen? If not, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to adopt a wording such as "alleged theft". Jprw (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The next 2 diffs (i'm assuming that the last one is mislaid?) are reversions of content that Cla68 inserted, i explained the reversion here. Summary: Cla68 inserted content that failed verification when i looked up the references given (which was hard - since Cla68 doesn't give links in his references, despite the content being available). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "policy violating" edits, seem all to be from S. Fred Singer and are in the same category as the previous discussion on Monckton. It is controversial, and opinions are very much split, every time the issue surfaces. It leads to a question, that i would have loved to have on this ArbCom case, since it is pertinent to a lot of issues raised, but it seems that ArbCom is not going to look into content-issues:
- Is or isn't all content in a biography, no matter whether it is biographical or not (ie. about the person), under the strict rules for WP:BLPSPS.
- The content in question is critique of a report that Singer was part of. Notice that only the Realclimate part in these diffs seem to be a problem, since the first part is reliably sourced to ABC News. If ArbCom is going to rule on this, then they should be aware that they are taking a policy decision, which they at the beginning of this case, ruled that they would not. Again: I'd love for this issue to be resolved, but then ArbCom will have to take a discussion and a stand to this particular grey-zone. [I won't be able to comment during the weekend, since i'm on a family reunion]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_discussion_of_a_person.27s_work_.22material_about_a_living_person..22 seems to be the most recent incarnation of this particular issue. Please note that i'm not saying that my view on this issue is correct, but rather that this is a grey zone where no resolution so far has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any grey zone here at all. WP:SPS is very clear: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.. The lead section of WP:BLP clearly stakes out the policy scope, and WP:BLP is furthermore absolutely clear on what to do about contentious material from self-published sources: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources ..."
- It is impossible to argue in good faith that someone's self-published statement in a blog that "X's writing is rubbish" is (1) not contentious, and (2) "not about X". --JN466 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The grey zone lies in the interpretation of "...as third-party sources about living persons" (and the "about" part is deliberately there (see various discussions on BLP-talk). This isn't about a living person, it is critique of a work written by living persons. As for the "X's writing is rubbish" - well that isn't what the text said.... But lets analyze it a bit: Does the critique raise a red flag? No, there is a mainstream source that is significantly harder in its critique. Would the text be considered a BLP violation if it occurred in a regular article (in the same context)? No. (otherwise we could never present negative reviews of published works - since mostly such are written as opinion) Is the source one of those that are excempt in the SPS guidelines? Yes, it is written by subject matter experts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I put it to you that this is only a grey zone in your mind, because you cannot resist the temptation of using a blog or other self-published source whose POV you agree with. What is the problem in sticking with reliably published sources for contentious material about the value and integrity of someone's work? --JN466 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is rather rude isn't it? I presented a link to a discussion that states that this isn't just something "in my mind", and this is rather similar (but not completely) with the Abrahms case, discussed above. But anyways - you've presented your viewpoint, and i've presented mine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- And the arbitrators have presented theirs: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Use_of_blogs. --JN466 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is rather rude isn't it? I presented a link to a discussion that states that this isn't just something "in my mind", and this is rather similar (but not completely) with the Abrahms case, discussed above. But anyways - you've presented your viewpoint, and i've presented mine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I put it to you that this is only a grey zone in your mind, because you cannot resist the temptation of using a blog or other self-published source whose POV you agree with. What is the problem in sticking with reliably published sources for contentious material about the value and integrity of someone's work? --JN466 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The grey zone lies in the interpretation of "...as third-party sources about living persons" (and the "about" part is deliberately there (see various discussions on BLP-talk). This isn't about a living person, it is critique of a work written by living persons. As for the "X's writing is rubbish" - well that isn't what the text said.... But lets analyze it a bit: Does the critique raise a red flag? No, there is a mainstream source that is significantly harder in its critique. Would the text be considered a BLP violation if it occurred in a regular article (in the same context)? No. (otherwise we could never present negative reviews of published works - since mostly such are written as opinion) Is the source one of those that are excempt in the SPS guidelines? Yes, it is written by subject matter experts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_discussion_of_a_person.27s_work_.22material_about_a_living_person..22 seems to be the most recent incarnation of this particular issue. Please note that i'm not saying that my view on this issue is correct, but rather that this is a grey zone where no resolution so far has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, Kim, please contrast and compare your sober attitude here about the use of reliable sources to add neutral information to Lawrence Solomon with your actions above in which you used blogs to add negative information to another BLP. Do you see, on reflection, any contradictions or discrepancies in your reasoning? Also, I take it you don't agree with this outside opinion from a BLPN regular on your interpretation of the sources I added? Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if you stand by your assertion that the sources failed verification, why didn't you answer this question? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because i already answered the question? (the line just before Alex's question). And yes, Cla, i do still stand with my assertion that the sources failed verification - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Now don't get me wrong here, i consider both yours and Alex's input as valuable - but calling Alex Harvey a BLP regular, and his comment "outside opinion" is like calling WMC uninvolved in the climate change area.
- Context in the two situations are quite different, so they cannot be directly compared. As i've said before: Context is everything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- A little late on my part, but it is not definite there was a data theft, on two points:
- It could have been someone with legitimate access to the E-mails (or to the backups).
- To the extent that the material was required to be released under the FOIA, it is not "theft" to release it.
- Neither point has been discredited. KDP's edits were not consistent with the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is incorrect - both cases are data-theft. Lets take them 1 by 1. Even if you have legitimate access, you are not allowed to "take" it, and distribute it. That is data-theft (in fact it is the most common form of data-theft). As for the FOIA - that has no relevance, sorry. Even with FOIA material, you are not allowed to distribute the information, without permit - again that would be data-theft.
- But even more important: The overwhelming majority of reliable sources say: The mails were stolen (or words to that extent), we are not here to speculate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong, as reported on the article talk page. However, at last report, someone was trying to state that only reliable sources who have specific knowledge should be included, and they all say it's theft. But even that is incorrect. UEA says, in an obviously self-serving manner, that it's theft, and the police say they are investigating it as a data breach. (Not "theft", at least under US law.) It may be a trade secret violation, or a copyright violation, but neither is "theft". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- A little late on my part, but it is not definite there was a data theft, on two points:
- Also, if you stand by your assertion that the sources failed verification, why didn't you answer this question? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed FoF: Verbal's battlefield conduct[edit]
Verbal (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality[92],[93],[94],[95], [96],[97],[98], [99], [100], [101]
- Minor4th 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Verbal's conduct is disruptive and contributes to a battleground atmosphere. He frequently engages in edit-wars, often with solo drive-by reverts, and without discussing issues on the talk page. I was about to organize some diffs myself[102][103] but I see that someone else beat me to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Explanation of diffs because I would really like Arbs to understand why this is a problem in context -- these are all drive by reverts:
- [104]- Verbal reverted 6 edits by ATren to restore Hipocrite's version on Lawrence Solomon after Hipocrite had already reverted 3 times. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert in POV labels of this skeptic BLP. ATren attempted to address Verbal on the talk page, but Verbal did not respond or otherwise comment or explain his reverts on the talk page. (July 10)
- [105] Verbal reverted Kelly Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted 1 time while on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 5)
- [106] - Verbal reverted SlimVirgin on Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted and while WMC was on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 3)
- [107], [108]-Verbal reverted Minor4th twice on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming back to WMC version after WMC had already reverted. Verbal disregarded the talk page discussion and did not make a comment until a day later. (August 21)
- [109] - Verbal reverted marknutley on Anthony Watts (blogger) following 1 revert by WMC while on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. The WMC and Verbal reverts were removing reference to The Hockey Stick Illusion as a reliable source. (July 20) Verbal reverted marknutley two other times to reinsert COATRACK tag on July 16 [110] and July 19 [111] and did not engage in comments on the talk page until warned after the July 19 revert. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert.
- [112] -- Verbal reverted on Fred Singer to KDP's version after a series of other reverts. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert. Verbal made no comment on the talk page and made no explanation in edit summary.
- [113]- Verbal reverted GregJackP on Robert Watson (scientist) following 1 revert by WMC when WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made (WMC did not initiate talk page discussion when he reverted on this occasion). Verbal disregarded GJP's explanation of his edit on the talk page and Verbal did not explain his own edit on the talk page other than "obvious reasons" after the fact. This was part of a revert war that was made a finding in this case.
- [114] -- Verbal reverted ATren on Hockey stick controversy after 1 revert by WMC while WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate discussion on the talk page for any revert he made. Verbal did not particpate in editing the article other than to revert. Verbal made no comment on the talk page and no explanation in edit summary.
Most of these drive-by reverts were to revert back to WMC version when he was on an editing restriction and had already reverted. All of these articles have BLP issues, except HSI. In each case, Verbal did not participate in editing the article or engaging in discussion on the talk page to try to resolve issues. Minor4th 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- For info, we're already looking at a FoF. Roger Davies talk 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Minor4th: I've begun working on my own FoF regarding Verbal. It's in my user space here.[115] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed FoF: ScienceApologist (SA) disruptive editing[edit]
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies talk 07:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. --TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is also in the middle of peer review. Minor4th 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP
The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [120] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [121] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [122] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [123] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [124] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them. The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling. He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations
After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess [125] please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In my view ScienceApologist made a good faithed redirect, as he appeared to have reached consensus with other editors for the redirect. I suppose it would be fair to say that he should have given it an extra day or two for other people to chime in on the redirect proposal but I do not see anything deliberately provocative. This is not to say the redirect was or was not a good idea, it is to say that it was not malicious from an outsider's (my) viewpoint. I do think that
(outdent) To expand on my earlier comment in this section. I would just like to clarify something based on further discussion in below sections. Per this comment and other comments I am convinced that ScienceApologist's edits regarding adding denialist labels to BLP articles are done in good faith, even though I still have concerns with these edits. I have struck the word misuse in my above comment. It is really difficult for outsiders to get to the root of what exactly is going on on these articles and thus I didn't chose my wording carefully enough. I can see why ArbCom are taking their time with their decision.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
Proposed FoF: Tony Sidaway has engaged in disruptive behavior[edit]
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course. Roger Davies talk 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) (and his alternate account Tasty monster (talk · contribs)) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] and unhelpful or tendentious editing [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148].
I haven't checked the diffs, but I assume that Cla68 is unaware that I disengaged from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject some months ago and have no intention of getting mixed up in the subject again. --TS 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be so literal-minded. Quantitively I have not edited in the subject area for many months. The 3 August edit was a single reversion of a ridiculously poorly sourced, and if you are honest, very provocatively sourced, edit. That kind of edit must stop. --TS 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Now I have looked at the edits, I don't think there's a case to answer. Should a majority of active arbitrators think there is, however, that's good enough for me. --TS 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Addendum: BLP violation[edit]Tony Sidaway has violated WP:BLP [150].
I remain unconvinced. If anybody else thinks this is even credible, could they please speak up now? I'm utterly flummoxed by Cla68's representations. In case Cla68 is under any serious misapprehension, I have a great professional respect for Hans von Storch. That respect for a professional scientist does not extend to people who write on science while not themselves possessing any expertise in science. This speaks to verifiability. --TS 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks at least I now understand where this comes from. A Quest For Knowledge, What I see you striking seems a little nit picky and I'll explain what I mean. I take what you are striking here
Addendum: Baiting[edit]Tony Sidaway has engaged in baiting, contributing to a battleground atmosphere on climate change-related pages. [151] [152] & [153] [154] & [155] These represent three separate incidents. The second baiting incident (second and third diffs above) is explained here [156] and here [157] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant edits by John W Barber are here. John abruptly moved from editing articles about poetry to making some very inflammatory comments about the behavior of people who were proposing the deletion of an article related to global warming. He subsequently requested the deletion of an article that he claimed was equivalent to the one that had been listed for deletion. Some related proposals were discussed on the probation enforcement page (approximate link which covers the timeframe, please do uncollapse and examine the retaliatory filing by John W Barber). I find this tit-for-tat battling exhausting, because it's impossible to wind-down such a process once it has begun. At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. They do seem to have had some association on wiki. There's nothing wrong with that, but the switch from poetry to sniping seemed so out of character that I thought John might be pursuing personal matters. The later comment on this proposed decision talk page related to the Barack Obama probation. I noticed that several editors, including most notably ScJessey but also including John Barber (using his username Noroton) had apparently migrated from the Obama articles. Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. I regret saying " They don't like to be taken for fools". From context, "they" clearly means "humans" and the implication is that John was being manipulative in listing for deletion an article that was well established (although if you look hard enough you'll find I have my reservations about it). --TS 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I also regret this edit, which was part of a misguided attempt to maintain openness and parity on the climate change articles by informing every editor of the probation. While I was scrupulous in informing every single new editor, I think it was a terrible mistake because it immediately informed the new editor that he had entered a combat zone. That is no way to great a new editor. --TS 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As the original author of WP:BAIT, I see no evidence in support of the proposed finding with regard to baiting by TS. More generally, may I humbly[dubious ] suggest that this page has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and that the arbitrators proceed to a timely close of this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec with above) A list of the aspersions Tony cast in recent days. I've made the point that they're baiting, but I also want to make the point here that they're personal attacks, and show just how they're personal attacks by quoting them. I don't think I need to quote the specific parts of WP:NPA that apply to each one, but I'm happy to do it if requested:
Tony has repeatedly made personal attacks on this page, in violation of Principle 6 on the P.D. page. He's repeatedly been challenged to provide evidence. So far, he hasn't. He has made personal attacks routinely -- on several different occasions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Proposed FoF: Viriditas battlefield conduct[edit]
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course. Roger Davies talk 08:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Viriditas has engaged in comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]
Statement from FellGleaming: This is a regular pattern with this user. In my only dispute with him, he began revert warring over a trivial dispute. I took it to the NOR message board and, when an editor from there supported my interpretation, he began attacking verbally them as well. When two more editors joined and we began thrashing out a compromise text, he started repeatedly section blanking the entire portion of the article: [194] [195] I won't go into that dispute further but I'll add a few more to the list of incivility remarks:
UPDATE: In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several new articles, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses both in article talkspace and my own talk page, and going so far as filing noticeboard actions against me: Some examples: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205]. I think such obviously retaliatory behavior speaks for itself. Fell Gleamingtalk 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
←This "finding of fact" is an absolutely disgraceful abuse of this page. With all due respect to those affected, "denial" is not a word claimed by people who have been affected by either the Holocaust or AIDS. A "denier" is someone who eschews overwhelming factual evidence because it doesn't fit with their own ideology/position/philosophy/whatever. If someone ignores overwhelming scientific evidence, they are "science deniers". "Scientific skepticism" refers to the natural caution of a scientist, not the blind refusal to accept what is patently obvious from overwhelming evidence. The continued insistence that using the term "science deniers" is derogatory (and this has cropped up in several FoFs aimed at individual editors) is wholly inappropriate. It is a factual term with plenty of support in reliable sources, just as "anti-abortionists" is the proper term for the self-described "pro-lifers". I urge ArbCom to look at JohnWBarber's behavior on this talk page with respect to these frivolous complaints against editors who don't share his "climate change skepticism". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
<od> John Barber's source is rather interesting, but not so much for the article itself, but from the comments. Amusingly, WMC makes the first comment and he admits that "deniers" is in reference to holocaust denial, but seems to assert his right to still use it - these people know full well that they are being intentionally inflammatory. David Archer is also in the comment section, another Real Climate contributor who's been cited to prove that the GW articles are well-made. It really is such a small world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
|
[edit]
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies talk 06:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
William M. Connolley has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the article about RealClimate, of which he was a founding member, and other articles related to the topic of RealClimate, including edit warring and removal of reliably sourced text without discussion [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]. In at least one case, an administrator intervened to stop the edit war [224].
The Arbs have indicated they are interested in seeing a larger pattern. Minor4th 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Alternate proposed FoF: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) COI editing and NPOV violations[edit]William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) has engaged in violations of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, by editing RealClimate in a manner that constitutes advocacy and violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline [226] [227] [228][229][230]. In promoting the RealClimate point of view, William Connolley has added the RealClimate blog as a source, often as a SPS in BLP's [231], [232],[233], [234],[235], [236] and questionable wikilinking to RealClimate [237].
Proposed remedy: William M. Connolley restricted to 1RR[edit]
There is a long enough history of persistent edit-warring to justify this (see finding 6), and the edit-warring has continued unabated throughout these proceedings, and still continues. It is also one of the most conspicuous ways in which the "uncivil and antagonistic behaviour" mentioned in finding 8.2, which appears to be passing, manifests. --JN466 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Proposed remedy: global 1RR on climate change pages[edit]
- All users are restricted to 1RR in the climate change topic area, for one year.
There is too much reverting in the climate change pages. Probably, a global 1RR all over wiki would be good, but putting one on to the climate change pages would be a start William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed FoF: FellGleaming multiple violations[edit]
Collapsing for readibility. Community dealing and can continue to do so. Roger Davies talk 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has used dubious sources [249] to advance his POV [250]; violated BLP (e.g. [251] (note that was done *after* Cuccinelli's investigation had been rejected by the judge, see Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Cuccinelli); edit warred to remove material purely because he doesn't like it [252] (see Talk:Frederick_Seitz#Deleting_info); misrepresented consensus to bias discussion [253]; and repeatedly engaged in bad-faith tendentious wiki-lawyeing to defend his favoured versions (e.g. Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Removal_of_sourced_content). Note that FG was censured by the CC panel [254] [255] and was given a final warning to avoid aggressive posturing. He has previously been blocked for edit warring on Cl Ch articles [256]; and been annoying other people elsewhere [257] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [259]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [260] (see this: [261]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content."[263] I've also encountered what VsevolodKrolikov calls "misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion" on many occasions. His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that." In my view his editing behavior is far more destructive than most of the editors cited in the current FoF listings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Response from FellGleaming[edit]William's complaint is a bit odd. He claims this source [264] as dubious, which presumably means unreliable. However, the quote cited is accurate, a fact William doesn't dispute. The underlying fact -- that RealClimate was founded to be a proactive source of information on climate related stories -- has been widely reported. Given William, as a founder of RealClimate himself well knows this to be accurate -- complaining that the source is "questionable" appears to be simple Wikilawyering to build a case against an editor he disagrees with. The article content certainly wasn't harmed. Charge #2 is that I "advanced my POV", in this talk page comment [265]. This is even stranger. He challenges a fact as irrelevant (a fact first added by another editor besides myself, by the way). I explain why I feel it's notable. He claims my explanation is a violation. If an editor's explanation of why he believes an article should take a certain form is a crime, then I respectfully submit that anyone whose ever made a talk page comment is guilty. My statement that it should be included is no more "POV pushing" than his statement that it should be excluded. His is worse, in fact, as I detailed a specific argument as to why the material was relevant, whereas his justification for removing it was the unhelpful, "take a look at the website", followed by his personalizing the debate with the statement "This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace." [266] His third charge of a BLP violation is nearly a month old and over 1000 edits ago of mine. If he truly thought this actionable, it's odd he didn't report it then. The material is properly supported by sources. In fact, when he near-instantly reverted the edit [267], he didn't call it a BLP violation, he simply said "please see talk where this has been discussed". The talk in question was a two-week old thread [268] that as I read it, had no clear consensus either way. And, of course, even had consensus been reached, it doesn't remain indefinitely. But the larger problem with William's accusation is I believe it's clearly made not to improve the content, but simply to attack me. Consider. A several weeks-old edit, instantly reverted by him. What's the point of dredging this up, especially given its clearly not a BLP violation? Is he simply once again trying to squelch editors whom he disagrees with? Fell Gleamingtalk 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Update[edit](this may need to be re-updated depending on how the thing pans out) FG has now been blocked for 72h [269] and threatened with loss of talk-page access [270] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |