Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 7

Worrying and not good

This article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball was proposed as a test deletion to see if other climate change BLPs could be deleted. While I am not a particularly strong inclusionist, kind of in the middle, the closure of this article for deletion has left me concerned. There were 5 votes (if you include the nominator WMC) for deleting and 12 votes to keep. An ArbCom clerk, over-ruled the community and closed it as a vote to delete. While deletion policy does say that the decision is not simply down to a head count the policy clearly states,Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, that

"These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so."

"The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept."

I won't lose any sleep over the deletion of the BLP, that is not the issue; I will leave it to someone else to appeal if they would like the article undeleted. I am not advocating for this admin to be sanctioned at all either, but I would like ArbCom to resolve devisive policy violations with regard to climate change by its clerks (which I assume were done in good faith) as it is potentially going to lead to a deterioration in the community's trust in ArbCom who are voting on remedies as I am sure this clerk would have some personal email interaction with some ArbCom members. I think ArbCom need to be as disassociated (sp?) from this dispute as possible both in commentary and actions including its clerks. BLP issues are at the core of this case and the issue which I feel most concerns the community.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's funny - I knew it had to be NW who closed as delete even before looking at the thread. The close was against consensus but it looks like it might have also been against policy and guidelines -- although Ball may have been marginal on WP:PROF, he clearly met WP:GNG. Like the OP mentions the close was even more contrary to consensus when you give additional weigh to the uninvolved editors participating in the discussion.Minor4th 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

NW was also the admin who blocked Mark Nutley for upholding BLP policy. I'm really sorry, but I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. --JN466 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to get NW to see reason and get an explaination from him on his talk page. I was not aware of past accusations of misuse of admin tools. One thing is for sure, there is never a dull moment in the climate change battleground. Maybe the BBC should make a soap opera out of it and replace EastEnders. If you are not involved in the battleground it is at times entertaining to follow (which is partly why I started following it in the first place, better than reading the newspaper). :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Prior discussion at 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. Cla68 and Lar, among others, have previously expressed concerns about NW's status as an uninvolved admin. --JN466 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally (speaking only for myself, and I'm recused)... I have no problem with NW's actions here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are recused, should you not then refrain from offering your opinion? I myself, while not complaining or accusing, am baffled by the decision. --Yopienso (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused from the decision that is being rendered by ArbCom, but I can still comment in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify, you are still able to view off-wiki discussions in relation to this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for your view SirFozzie. Your comment was indented, so I assume you were talking to JN's linked allegation? Or were you addressing my original comment?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

View, yes. Participate, no. It would be, extremely hard, if not impossible to come up with sub lists for every separate case or discussion that arises on the ArbCom-L. (for example, I'm recused on CC, Shell is recused on EEML-issues, so on and so forth). We'd have about 10-12 sublists depending on what case or cases being discussed. Talk about your email nightmare! Since I'd pretty much not be able to sit by and not comment, I pretty much archive/delete the discussions on this case sight unseen. If I had any ability to influence the decision here, I think most of the parties here know what my reaction and decision would be.

As for your question, Literaturegeek, I found his close to be within Wikipedia's policies and the discretion we grant administrators in closing AfD's (in that it is NOT a nose-counting exercise, but the closing administrator is to take the weight of the arguments and the requisite policies into their consideration on closing it.) Also, while I have the bully pulpit, may I state that I find it.. frustrating, let's say.. that's a good word, that the default action for BOTH sides in this case is to go after administrators, trying to get them declared "involved" to run them off of working in the area. If you question NW's close, the proper way to deal with things is to take the decision to Deletion Review, not attempt to have him thrown out of the area. This is something that happens on BOTH sides of the table (No matter what the label you put on them). I'm beginning to get the feeling that the sides are hoping for an administrator-free utopia, where every administrator who has the intestinal fortitude to make a decision the entrenched forces do not like, gets disqualified for being "Involved". SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I quoted policy above and it is clear that there needs to be a consensus to delete, therefore the headcount is referring to if there is a majority viewpoint to delete but the viewpoints are weak then the article is kept. How can this part of policy "Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept." mean that the page should be deleted? I appreciate your criticism of myself, and since I have given criticism I am happy to receive criticism. Although you probably won't be surprised that I do not accept your criticisms. Firsly because I do not think you are accurately interpreting policy on deletions and secondly because I clearly said that I do not want ArbCom to sanction NW. What I was hoping for is some ArbCom members quietly saying, please be more careful in admin decisions especially while the case is ongoing. How can "I do not want NW sanctioned", be interpreted as I want a remedy saying he is involved? Infact I have never advocated for anyone to be sanctioned. Perhaps going to deletion review would have been more appropriate and I can accept that criticism but I did not go to deletion review because I have never used it before and two because the issue was not that the article was deleted but rather I felt that NW had misused his position as admin with regard to the climate change dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately some of the worst culprits at getting admins pushed away from the topic area are those admins who managed to establish themselves at CCRFE. It appears a certain defence of territory has been going on. e.g. NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided - Lar 21 Aug 2010, A dig at a conversation between NW and WMC - Lar 5 September, Lar backs up Minor4ths criticism of NW's partisanship with I think that last bit is a fair question, NW - Lar 27 August, By the way, are you recallable as an admin? - Lar to NW 23 August 2010 and Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? - a fairly poor remark about VSmith by Lar 28 May 2010. I'm not nearly finished I have evidence of Lar attempting to drive away or being highly critical of several admins. I personally have only criticised Lar's actions with regard to WMC. I have not tried to drive him out of the topic area. Here is a real gem of an editor protecting the admin who will serve him best ATren telling me to move on and shouting that Lar is UNINVOLVED - ATren 27 May 2010, "you've" been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. - ATren jumping in to defend Lar and trying to push me away by saying I was a disruptive and biased admin even though I was not acting as an admin in that situation 29 April 2010, LessHeard vanU warning me away from Lar's talkpage (a warning retracted by Lar himself who hosts open discussion) - LessHeard 10 August 2010 Olap the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this is an activity BOTH sides in this dispute have tried to play, early and often. SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, SirFozzie, but it could be argued have you chosen sides, or the side of a fellow ArbCom, you cut a sentence of policy in half (presumably this half of the sentence of policy, "These processes are not decided through a head count") and then claimed I was wrong in interpreting policy. I have not ever and will not edit climate change articles. I do have an opinion on climate change which I can discuss on my talk page if people like but I have tried to be as neutral as possible, I have never asked for anyone to be sanctioned but have defended Mark Nutley and ScienceApologist (one editor from each side if you will) during this ArbCom case when I felt they were being misrepresented or being too harshly judged, so I think on balance I have succeeded in not "taking sides" despite my views on the subject matter. I commented on NW's deletion of a BLP in part because the one thing that really bothered me about the whole climate change battleground was the BLP violations by numerous editors. I initially did have more sympathy for the sceptical side early in the Arb case mainly because the BLP violations was mostly coming from the other side but then became more neutral as evidence mounted against the sceptical editors. I also had sympathy for the scientific editors in as far as them having to battle people who wanted to use newspapers instead of peer reviewed literature and tried to get this promoted to a guideline to help with these issues, but ended up just thinking all individuals from both sides need to be dealt with according to the evidence against them (and I have not interfered with that process) to fix the topic area and hopefully they can be given a second chance and return at a later date with a calmer perspective.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(deindenting is go!) Literaturegeek.. what do you think the following things (IN THIS Section) ? I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. Or Jayen's post, referring to a past proposal that attempted to cast NW as an involved administrator. Again, this is not the proper forum for the discussion of the close. That is DRV. My personal opinion would be to endorse the closure. You disagree. SirFozzie (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that is trying to get NW to leave the topic area at least as an admin, but I did not make those posts and your post was directed towards me or it looked that way.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've previously been critical of XfD closures that go against a majority (either way), because it implicitly suggests that the one closing admin can interpret policy better than the other commentators. That said, this has become more or less standard. Wikipedia policy is prescriptive, not descriptive, so while I would not have closed the XfD this way, I think NW acted fully within the envelope of current policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has evaluated deletion discussions before and had my decisions taken to deletion review I would vote to overturn in this case if it came up at deletion review. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear candudate for deletion review for sure. Expect other sceptic BLPs to be listed at AfD shortly. Collect (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Scorched Earth and aftermath

Scope and nature of remedy

Looking at the Proposed Decision page, it seems that after four months of deliberation, arbcomm is simply going to topic-ban everyone involved. This concerns me for several reasons. While I believe that the arbiters are doing what they honestly think is right, I don't think that any of them have enough experience in the non-dysfunctional parts of this topic area to understand the fallout from such a decision. In my opinion, those being banned comprise (not always mutually exculsively) subject-matter experts, disruptive, and/or undisruptive individuals who have simply edited here. Potential fallout from this will be:

• Loss of disruptive indivudals (good)
• Loss of page-building subject-matter experts (bad)
• Loss of users with no real track record of misconduct (what?) This especially will lead to the unwillingness of others (e.g., at least me) to make sure that the pages conform to the middle-of-the-road scientific consensus, for fear that some new user will complain about us, resulting in an instant topic ban (this is the precedent that this case is on the road to set)

The problem is that a blanket topic ban with no obvious criteria for who gets banned causes everyone who cares about staying around this place to flee the area. I therefore am willing to de-watchlist every single climate change page because I don't have the time or energy to deal with an arbitration case that now seems to be destined for anyone who is involved. And I am 100% sure that I will end up trying to edit-war out some totally bogus news article that flies in the face of all scientific consensus if all of these users do get banned and I am left watching these pages.

To sum up: yes, everyone needs to behave properly, and there should be sanctions for those who don't, because this is about putting together human knowledge, which should be a good experience. However, blanket topic-bans with no reason given will cause me at least to stop caring about whether this area is accurate because it will have become a third rail. So to arbcomm: please, provide criteria for the topic-bans that you are issuing, or no one will feel safe enough to edit this area (except for the SPA trolls that pop up like the furry critters in whack-a-mole and don't care if they're smacked... but they might end up running the show). Awickert (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the proposal to just topic-ban all the problematic editors is very well-advised in this case. The criteria, obviously, is the disruption generated by the editors at issue as evident from the findings. This is not about well-meaning editors losing their tempers once getting an "instant ban", this is about longterm contribution to a disruptive environment by people who, after zillions of enforcement discussions, really should know better.

At some point it is just not worth the while to make fine distinctions between degrees of individual misconduct. As one arbitrator has said, this case essentially arises from the collective inability of several editors to work together productively. As a consequence, it is better to direct them to contribute somewhere else where their content (and ideological?) disagreements won't disrupt the editing environment. The ideal Wikipedia editor should observe WP:NPOV in such a manner that it should not be possible to determine from looking at their edits what opinion, if any, they hold about the subjects they write about. If editors feel that they can't meet this exacting standard, they are better advised to write about stuff that they actually do not have any opinion about, but still find interesting. A topic ban may help the affected editors to do this in this instance.

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly. I expect the basic science of climate change to be pretty much covered by now. The only thing that may need constant work are the political developments around climate change, and that demands no particular expertise from editors. To avoid recentism, a certain time lag may even help. And discretionary sanctions should help admins deal aggressively with any problematic SPAs that emerge.  Sandstein  11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are wrong the remedy 3 does involve more than one well meaning editor. That is not to say there are any editors in there who have behaved impeccably but there are definitely well meaning constructive editors included in the blanket ban. I never thought wikipedia would turn into this sort of tough punitive justice place, in fact I thought this was against the ethos of wikipedia. Three strikes and you are out (even if those strikes never amounted to more than stealing a candy bar) that is what arbcom have turned this into. It is not a construtive approach, it may seem big and clever and tough to some but it is destructive, negative, assumes bad faith and makes wikipedia the sort of unpleasant punitive place where people don't wish to be. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This really is a bit rich. This topic didn't get into the mess it's in all by itself. The atmosphere drives away all but the most determined (or obstinate) editors. This is wholly unWikipedian. On top of which, with a few honourable exceptions, nobody seems prepared to acknowledge that they've contributed to the catastrophe. "It wasn't me. Or my friends and allies." From my point of view, it's all actually rather depressing.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That does not make your solution any better. I acknowledge I have been a bit rude on this page at times. Your solution is topic ban by remedy 3 get rid of them all, that is completely unconstructive. It is along the lines of chop off a few heads and display them on the city walls and let that be a lesson to all sort of solution, damn them if we get it wrong once in a while we will end up with a better wikipedia and they should have thought about the consequences beforehand. Have we come nowhere in the last few centuries? Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir Walter Raleigh dealt with this. [1] "Tis a sharp remedy, but a sure one for all ills." Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no other realistic options. Community sanction discussions have been hijacked and gamed incessantly; consensus discussions have been talked to death with varying degrees of bickering and unpleasantness; cooperative editing is largely a thing of the past. What's not to like about topic-bans and re-claiming the topic for the community?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For what definition of "realistic"? Much of this could be solved if ArbCom would look beyond petty behavior, either at long-term commitment and contributions, or at content. If you refuse to do that and stick to surface behavior, the best you can create is a desert, and the expected outcome is articles becoming completely useless collections of pseudo-skeptical nonsense under the flood of unsanctionable socks and trolls ("Particle physicist X said it in a letter to the editor of the Upper Bondocks Towncrier - it must be at least as notable as a formal statement self-published by the National Academies"). So far, I have not seen a single remedy that deals with the structural problems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom operates on the principle that once normal editing procedures are in place and policy once again is supreme, the content problems take care of themselves.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, all statements about elements of the empty set trivially evaluate to true. Or, in other words, once all participants in the Middle East conflict decide to behave responsibly and rationally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will solve itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Your solution is not what you portray it as. People you are getting rid of are part of the community and I and many in remedy 3 are cooperative editors. You should not deal with cooperative editors by blanket ban, it is simply not clever or justified. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And they're very welcome indeed to be a constructive part of the cooperative editing community elsewhere.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So I have been banned from editing articles I have displayed no problems editing. I didn't think arbcom could be unilaterally punitive. You do still serve the community don't you? Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree thats its unfair to ban users who have not brocken any rules. But everyone involved seems to be saying that they have not broeken them, or if they have they have not done so in a was that was un-constructive. Indead a lot of people seem to be saing that thier actions whilst against the rules were constructivly against the rules. Now it mifght be best if Arbcom looked at each case in total isolation from anything else and then topic banned if any actios wer carried out that bearched policy or otherwise is deemed to have contributed to the breakdown of working relasionships. Possilby also considering a project wide ban on any users who do not 'seem to get what they did wrong' or who claim that breaking the rulkes is OK for them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing process and atmosphere

Far be it from me to defend the (dys?)function of Wikipedia institutions, but I'm sure that taking cheap shots at Roger Davies is not going to result in any positive outcome. Take it from me: as odious as one may or may not feel this arbitration is turning out to be, fighting with an arbitrator is really self-defeating and only really enjoyable for the jailors. There is still room above for people to offer suggestions on how to fix problems. Make some daring proposals and see if consensus can be gotten. If not, then it'll have to be medical experiments for the lot of you. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to spend a couple of hours putting together the diffs that will get you added to remedy 3? Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't like it, no.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So marginally breaking any one of the many wikipedia golden "rules" should result in an editor being added to remedy 3? This is what is being said. It is not a cheap shot. This is not about unconstructive editors at all. If anyone had bothered to spend the time collecting the diffs they could easily get ScienceApologist added to remedy 3. That is part of the unfair nature of the remedy in that all anyone needs to do is collect enough problematic diffs and the editor of their choice gets added to the same topic ban as the worst unconstructive editor out there, except if that editor is Lar of course. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So its not about someone who does not break the rules, its just about some one who does not break them that much (in their opinion). My point above its not about those breraking the rules its about being allowed to break them. Sorry that does not wash. If you break the rules you break them, just being a member of some self apointed (or even real) artisticarcy should not give you special privaledges. If the Dule of Alone steals and apple he is not less (and no more gulity) then Bert the cobbsers son and deserves the same punishemnt. If you have a resord of problomoatic activity then you have that record, nothing justifies it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to warnings, advice, guidence, opportunities to engague in harmonious editing etc. etc. All bypassed by remedy 3. If this is the way wikipedia is going then it is an unsavory place which is being created by arbcom here. Some may percieve that my comment about a fellow editor was a PA just because I had said that I thought there was a problem with that editor but not provided a list of diffs (this seems to be the default reaction of policy wonks), others may not. But a topic ban for an editor who has no track record of problematic edits in the topic area is punitive and does not address anything, solve anything or lead wikipedia in a positive direction. I am a qualified school teacher and I know well that "don't do that you are barred" does not solve anything but just provokes a reaction against the teacher who in the end is shown to be incapable of managing the classroom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like Remedy 3, then make a proposal that is an alternative to Remedy 3 you think would get at the same issues. That will be much more productive. Your list of alternatives is admirable, but, IMHO, it needs to be made clearer if we're going to use it as a way out of the morass. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3 is inconsistent and therefore unfair. My advice to arbcom is, 1) specify rule, 2)when person breaks this rule then sanction according to the level of sanction you specified when you set the rule. Remedy 3 does not do this but harshly sanctions all equally when this was not measured against any set criteria, it is therefore unfair and creates a crappy environment. Arbcom has lost the classroom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That reads like a way to deal with future porbloms, at this tikme there is no fixed penalty system. So hwo do you propse to deal with the curretn nasughtyness. Are you susgesting that we just say to all invloved users. 'your being very naughty stop or i will get angry' and see where it goes from there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That is exactly how it is meant to read. When you have constructive editors if you just go ahead and sanction them all because you feel you ought to put a few heads on the city walls then that is not a solution. Really serious offenders who have been previously sanctioned and not learned from their sanctions are a different matter but remedy 3 is not doing this Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of being unfairly punitive just for the sake of being punitive. I completely agree with remedy 3. this whole group of editors has completely and wilfully ignored the principle of seeking consensus and welcoming contributions from other editors, even if they disagree with them. worse, they have misused wikipedia, and excluded people who wanted to make positive contributions. their reasons for such exclusions were very weak ones, like saying that the citations from major well-respected newspapers were not ever acceptable because they are not scientific journals. that's my view of these interactions, and my view on how wikipedia should work. just the fact that I've expressed these views here is enough for that group to identify me as someone whose views need to be excluded. this is exactly why remedy 3 is totally warranted here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of rules and Arbcom processes

(edit conflict)Olap: That system seems to me to be a good idea, but what rules do you suggest arbcom specify? If we're going to avoid endless machinations and revisiting of the issue, the rule needs to be crystal clear and have the same effect (which is, as far as I can tell, an attempt to defuse an ongoing battlefield). As far as I can tell, none of the rules currently in the proposed decision is clear enough to allow for swift and severe enforcement. In fact, rules are being intentionally left vague for administrators as per normal arbitration committee decisions (c.f. discretionary sanctions). In my opinion, specificity would help a lot. What are the problematic behaviors/activities that need to be sanctioned and how should they be sanctioned? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely this point is, in fact, covered in the new version of Discretionary Sanctions I posted a day or two ago.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. But as Coren points out, there may be unintended consequences associated with that approach. I'm certainly not sure what the solution is, and I'm pleased that we're all trying to figure it out to try to get it right. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We give warnings to editors based on the rules. Then if the editor does not take notice of the warnings we sanction. That is the way the rest of wikipedia is told to do it, but that does not seem to be the way arbcom are working with remedy 3. Also I reiterate I don't understand why you are not included in remedy 3 yourself. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the system, but specifically which rules are going to be subject to warnings and sanction and how do we determine when they are broken? WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR are all well-and-good, but it's very rare to see someone get as much as a warning for failing to adhere to them. WP:CIV and WP:NPA are classically enforceable, but also easily gamed. WP:3RR and its variants along with WP:NLT and WP:SPI are mostly cosmetic as they only affect a marginal population of editors and harsher enforcement of these kinds of rules is not, in my mind, likely to resolve issues. WP:BLP has been a popular draconian rule, but has been run through the ringer on this page. What's left? What remedy can be written that will empower an administrator to apply sanctions to end the current problems in this topic's editing environment?

If you'd like to know more about my opinions as to why I'm not mentioned in the proposed decision, please ask me on my user talkpage. I don't think it's directly relevant to this page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhpas something like a three strike rule. If a user is issued three warnings he is topic baned automaticly on the fourth offence. Taking into account all based misdemenours in the current case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are a ONE strike rule. However, the problem is, what determines a strike? This is not an easy thing to answer and the arbitrators leave it largely up to the administrators to determine what the rules are and if/how they are breached. This leads to conflicts when an administrator makes one determination which is challenged by a chorus of others. That's the definition of WP:DRAMA and it's something we'd all like to avoid. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. A user is allowed three comunnity warnings (that is warnings as a reesult of say PA or 3RR violations) issued by an admin. A fourth offence (no matter how minor) would result in an automatic topic ban. A strike is breach of policey or any action sanctioned by an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And that applies equally to an editor with, say 1000 constructive edits in between the warnings and a troll who does not provide anything useful over the same period? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If a rule is to be unbending and applicable to all that is what it must be. Otherwise we are back to what we have now Arbcom discretion. . So we are back to square one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have imperfectly enforced good rules than perfectly enforced bad rules. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A nice man is not some one who treats his equals with repects, but beats the servants. He is a man who treats the servants with respect. Any one can be a good editor on non contentious pages or when not in conflcit. You jugde them based upon what they do when it does break down.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Good to know what the arbs think. I am with Stephan in that I think that they think (dangerous!) that once the behavioral issues are taken care of, everything will get better. (I am still somewhat concerned about a trigger-happy topic ban being applied to me, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise per Sandstein.) However, I think that the loss of so many long-term contributors will allow the new-account-SPA-trolls to run ironshod across the carefully-constructed science pages. So how about this: if (after some period of time, say ~4-6 months) the editing environment really has improved, I will admit that I was wrong and post something (like a picture of me eating my hat - yes, really, you can pick: MN Twins, MIT, or fedora) on the talk page of every arbcomm member. But if it seems that things have gone to pot, arbcomm will take that into consideration when the 6-month appeal limit is reached. Deal? Awickert (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say that things might "go to pot," what are you basing that on? would you like us to abolish the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that Remedy 3 needs to be set up for the worst of the worst, like editors who misused sources and breaches that bad or equalivent. I think for the others that have been named, looking at the difs to see how severe it is, then maybe a three month, 5 month or something like this depending on the severity. I really don't see all of the editors fitting under one remedy like this when the problesm are so different in how badly they behaved. The ones who actually caused damage to the articles like using sources wrong, esp. multiple times after being told not to, should be the ones receiving the stronger sanctions. Just a thought I figured I throw out here, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I rthink the problom (from arbcoms pOV) is this. User A accuses user B of mis-reprsenting a source, and does so repeatedly. User B has not mis-represetnted the source, but user A is. But user A has not been accused of doing so. So who should be blocked? Now I am not saying that has been done, but I am using it to demonstrate what appears to be the complexity of this situation. Both sides have behaved very poorly its its hard to see who is really to blame (ignoring the wikitocracy argument), or perhpas it might be fairer to say more to blame.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(I'm sliding this in here, I hope it's ok but it clarifies my comment above and is a response to Slatersteven) If you look at the difs on the PD page you will see at least two editors that the arbitrators show as misusing sources so you don't have to use hypotheticals, use the real ones. Like I said, look at the difs that the arbitrators are already showing and then make a decision on how serious the behavior is. Using sources as the PD shows is one of the worse things for writing an article so I would say that would fit under the remedy 3 actions. Also according to the difs and then some comments on this very page, it shows that some editors accused of edit warring were actually reverting sock puppets which is allowed. This also needs to be addressed. Doing it this way and showing on this page why the difs are fair to do under our policies and guideline or the opposite why doing what the difs say are against our policies and guidelines need to be done now. Do you see what I mean, am I clearer on what I am suggesting, I hope so? I also suggest if you take this on you be precise and not wordy. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at some of the alleged mis-use of sources, but sadly one link is broke so cannot judge. One other I do not see misrepresenting the source (and seems to have noting to do with CC anyway). So I do see that not all representations of misrepresenting sources are strictly true and may themselves be misrepresentations. Of course this is all subjective, that’s the problem. As to reversion of vandalism there are a lot of edit wearing links and it will take to to wade thru them, perhaps you would care to provide some yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is that ArbCom does not look into content. Obviously, in the current set-up that would be difficult to do, even if they decided they should look into content issues, because that would make the Arbitrators seem to be no longer uninvolved. However, SlimVirgin and I have commented some time ago that you could let ArbCom cases be andled by a jury of editors and Admins. ArbCom's role would be just to supervise te proceedings, to accept or reject cases. But a jury of editors can also take into account content issues to see if some party is editing in an unreasonable way. obviously the jury would have to consist of experienced editors who are capapble of putting aside any prefrencesabout content they personally have. But I think long term experienced editors are capable of doing that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said I was using the (hypothetical) content dispute to illustrate that this is not a black and white case of User a being a very bad person and user B being a paragon of virtue. As to long term edss being capable of putting aside preferences, is that not one of the issues that fact that experienced edss have been dredged into conflict by not letting go. Not only feeding but actually gorging the trolls to the point of a food related hernia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But there are things that are "true" and "false" at stake here, which makes it a content issue. I'm with Count, and like his idea. Any takers on the bet? Awickert (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources policy discussion

Sources general concepts

No there are things that are currently believed to be true or false at stake, as I say below science is the history of being proved wrong. There are no dogmas in science (and the danger here is that this does read like a debate about dogma). Moreover wikipedia is not about right or wrong, its about verfifiabitly. Its about the sum of all human knowledge not just the authorised (dare I say catholic) version.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP guidelines place the scientific mainstream as the view that should be presented on scientific topics. There are many notable examples of revisions to scientific theories, but mostly it gets things right (you just don't hear about that), and in any case, the other options ("it's a conspiracy" or "the world is going to end") are unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I am not talking about dogma; there are plenty of things in climate change that we don't know. But we must represent the knowns properly, and if you are suggesting that the newspapers have as much authority to be encyclopedic about climate change as scientific papers, you'll find we disagree, and rather strongly at that. Awickert (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) what Awickert said. (2) this isn't the place to try to renegotiate the neutral point of view. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. (3) if you want an encyclopedia where newspaper articles on science are regarded as reliable sources, choose another encyclopedia or construct your own. --TS 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone here agrees with you on that. do you feel that gives you the right to unilaterally decide to exclude everyone who sees this question differently than you do? If so, maybe you haven't learned much from this whole Arbcom proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And the scientific mainstream is aloowed on science articles to have pride of place. Tne issue here is not allowing views to be put into pages about the persons holding those views (for example). This is about an attmept to exert a kind od scientifc group ownership over both wikipedia and specific pages realted to CC.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I don't edit the articles. The use of newspapers as authoritative sources on science is not allowed on Wikipedia because of our Verifiability policy. Science is an activity pursued by scientists, not newspaper reporters. Even if we're writing about a person with contrarian views it's enough to state that their ideas are not mainstream. It definitely isn't necessary to explicate their ideas or the mainstream refutation in their biography. A "See also" link to the relevant science article would normally be enough. --TS 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To emphasize again: this isn't a matter to be decided here. Go to the appropriate policies and guidelines if you think Wikipedia has got it wrong. --TS 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

telling me that my opinion merely equals saying that "wikipedia has got it wrong" is simply your opinion. Please see WP:NEWSORG. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

well, fair enough, but here's what it says. seems to support my viewpoint on this as well.

Quote: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

end quote. Also, see WP:NEWSORG. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that a quote showing that newspapers are not RS on this subject is produced. If it is shown that users have misrepresented policy in order to 'win' debates then they should be blocked I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a quote. Where newspapers get it wrong (and when people show up here with a newspaper quote and nothing else, that's an odds-on bet) we go with the scientific literature, with which a lot of Wikipedians are quite familiar. You cannot seriously be asking that we go with some newspaper reporter's paraphrase where we have several scientific review articles in the journals saying the opposite. I only wish that was a hypothetical question. --TS 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually wish that wording in WP:V were a bit stronger, and made the difference in reliability between scholarly and journalistic sources clearer. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available" is a good beginning, but then it gets watered down a bit. I tried the other day on the WP:V talk page, but in the end the proposal went nowhere. Newspapers are good for politics and current affairs, but not for science proper. WP:NEWSORG has it about right: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Or at least, it would have if it didn't then add "and high-quality non-scholarly sources". :) --JN466 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone says something is against policy we need a quote, not someone opinion of what policy says. Either its against policy to use newspapers in this context or its not. Is a newspaper says the moon is made of cheese your point has some vitality, if however it says that X as said the moon is made of cheese (and that is what we have in the article, that X has said the moon of made of cheese) your point ahs no validity. Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven is absolutely, 110% right. the comment above is the best summation one could find of the real gist of this whole policy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't get a quote. For heaven's sake just read the verifiability policy and consider the fact that the scientific literature is more reliable and real than some newspaper reporter's fumbling attempt to paraphrase it. There are more scientists on the planet than at any time in history before now, and very few of those have time to pursue an alternative career in professional journalism. Do the math.

No argument with reporting that "X has said the moon is made of cheese", but obviously that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the facts, not the comments of people on the facts. --TS 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

X = John Heywood, see here

It likely originated in 1546, when The Proverbs of John Heywood claimed "the moon is made of a greene cheese." (Greene may refer here not to the color, as many now think, but to being new or unaged.)[3]

 :::Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tony, the problem is that WP:V as currently written gives a certain amount of succour to people who wish to cite press sources. Read the WP:V passage or WP:NEWSORG carefully. It practically puts respected mainstream publications and scholarly sources at the same level. And if you read the discussions at the WP:V talk page, it becomes clear why people are resistant to changing that. --JN466

If we could get this guideline off of the ground, WP:SCIRS it would help the topic area I feel. Replacing peer reviewed scientific sources with newspaper sources is very bad editing form and I think that guideline could help resolve this issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[2] --JN466 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources policy resolution and clarification

In practice this isn't a problem. If somebody shows you some newspaper article saying "global warming has stopped" or some other nonsense just dig out some reliable scientific literature that (1) defines a realistic timescale over which a trend in global surface temperature is measured, (2) analyses all or most of the global sources including surface measurements and satellite measurements, (3) shows the close agreement between all of them and (4) shows the strong upward trend measured by all of them. That kind of evidence is enough for science, I expect it will be enough for Wikipedia.

For brownie points, hunt down the story and look at the responses on various websites run by actual scientists working in the field. There are quite a few now and they eat this kind of stuff up like doggy chocs. They aren't reliable sources in themselves (they're just blogs) but all of them I know of cite sources so reliable they will blow Wikipedia's socks off. --TS 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For something that isn't a problem in practice, editors here are sure typing a lot of words arguing about it. And I fear as long as the policy is so elastic that anyone can interpret anything they want into it -- "scholarly sources are best, but press sources are excellent too" -- these arguments will continue. It needs to be solved. --JN466 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That surely is easily fixed by removing or ignoring the false statement. --TS 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. You will ignore the false statement, and your opposite number will tell you that you are ignoring policy. And to remove the false statement you have to address the concerns of those who don't want it removed. --JN466 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be playing a game. If somebody cites an unreliable source, the solution is to produce a reliable source saying the opposite. If some journalist comes out with some nonsense (I've given an example above), remove the reference to the nonsense and replace it with the reliable reference. --TS 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See this for an example of how this kind of thing tends to play out. Guy comes up with newspaper article, other guys expound on the theme from more reliable sources, death of half-baked idea. --TS 00:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems we were talking at cross purposes. (I thought by "false statement" you were referring to the statement in WP:V policy that seemingly puts press sources at the same level as scholarly sources.) --JN466 00:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did mean that false policy statement. Obviously it can be ignored because a review article in any field of science wipes out a piece written by a bloke who works for a newspaper. Science does matter. --TS 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those who say that the policy needs to be revised. JN466, Literaturegeek, please ping me if I can help on this and seem unresponsive (rather busy at the moment). In the meantime, regardless of policy, I refuse to place newspaper sources about science on equal footing with the original papers on articles about science (biographies, histories, etc. are a different matter), because it isn't the right thing to do. Awickert (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If a law is wrong or you don't like it is not an excuse to ignore or break it. Nor does it allow you to claim its not a law. Policy is clear that newspapers (and electronic medai) are RS on this topic. If you think this is wrong take it to the appoprriate notice board.This seems to me to sum up what is going on here, and its not what I initlay thought. This seems to increasingly be about wikilayering about non exsistant policy in order to maintain keep POV out of artciels (most of whicappear to be BLP's and not science articels). An (rather dishonest if I am honest) attmept to portray the main gulity party as in some way the victims.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I've been editing and improving and making FA's out of scientific articles for ages now, there are guidelines that say that academic papers are the best sources, and I have followed those to write excellent scientific articles. On the way, I have run across issues with newspaper articles that contradict science, and have removed them and replaced them with scientific sources. The fact is that these are the most accurate sources on science and WP policy says so. So really, go ahead and call me dishonest and whatever else you like. On the way, why don't you ask for me to be topic-banned too, using the FA's I have written and reviewed as evidence. Good grief. Awickert (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am responding because I feel that this issue is absolutely vital. No, mainstream newspapers are not great or the best sources on scientific facts and findings. However, they are great, 100% reliable absolutely valid, 100% acceptable sources when it comes to reporting debates and discussions within the scientific community itself. That is why you will often find some editors adding citations from newspapers when seeking to present the full scope of this or any other debate.

Editors who categorically remove well-sourced material from a particular type of source, just because they have personally decided those sources are not ever acceptable, are completely violating the guidelines for editing. also, they are completely sidestepping any effort to reach consensus, and then blaming others for the resulting decline in the editing atmosphere and process. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

“ [Newspapers] are absolutely great, 100% reliable sources when it comes to reporting debates and discussions within the scientific community itself. ”

I know of no scientist that agrees with that statement. This is also nowhere stated in Wikipedia policy. Mainstream newspapers routinely invent controversy where there is none. A recent, unrelated example is where 60 minutes pretended a few months back that there was scientific controversy over cold fusion by almost exclusively interviewing fringe advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor does it say that are not, end of argument. We can use newpapers as much as we like for sourceing scientific debate. Noe take it to the RS noticebaord.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, ok, have revised my comments above. your point is valid; they may have their flaws in regards to specific stories. however, my main point is that newspapers articles are absolutely acceptable when seeking to reflect the scope and nature of a debate within the scientific community, or any other professional community. there is no basis for deleting a whole group of sources without any discussion, merely because of one's own opinion on editing, in contradiction to policy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(to Slatersteven) We can't use newspapers "as much as we like". Sometimes it is okay to use newspaper articles, but it's usually a bad idea when it comes to describing a "controversy" real or imagined. Especially a supposed controversy in the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(to ScienceApologist) errr, sorry but it's not usually a bad idea. if there is major disagreement at a scientific conference, that would make headlines around the world. using some of those articles to report an event or discussion which is plain to everyone would be quite fair and valid. it's not usually a bad idea; if we adopt your formulation of usually, that would mean that more than 50% of all newspapers articles on this are bad for use here. Ironically, this would mean that the more something is reported, the less ability we would have to use it. i will agree that there is a discrete set of newspaper articles, within the minority of all such coverage, which should maybe not be used for basic or fundamental citations here at wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Major disagreements in scientific conferences happen all the time. Usually the disagreements are so esoteric and boring to the rest of the world that no one except the immediate community takes notice. When such disagreements are covered by the media (and most of the time they are not), the media is often implicated by those in the know for doing a very poor job of describing exactly what happened or what the controversy is about. I haven't done a study of all the newspaper articles ever written on scientific controversies, but from my own experience, I'd venture to say that a significant percentage of them report some sort of inaccuracy or are unbalanced in some way in their reporting of "scientific controversies" and more than 50% does not seem outlandish to me. Your logic is faulty when you claim that the more something is reported the less ability we will have to use sources that describe it. Every source has to be considered independently. Some sources may be found in newspapers that are fine for describing the controversy. The more articles that are written on the subject, the more sources that are likely to be good (and bad). If there is only one newspaper article on the "controversy" and it can be determined that it does a poor job describing the situation, we shouldn't use the article. The controversy itself may even fail notability guidelines per WP:ONEEVENT if there is only one poorly-written newspaper article on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(to Sm8900)I would never advocate outright dismissal of an article just because it is in a newspaper, but we ought to be extremely wary given the fact that newspapers are bought and sold on the basis of some level of sensationalism. I can point to articles in the best newspapers in the world that are problematic. I can also point to articles in scientific journals that are problematic. One must consider all relevant sources and balance against the editorial opinion of other reliable sources before making judgment, of course. But we should not be in the game of accepting or rejecting classes of sources solely on the basis of their type. However, it is entirely likely that newspaper articles may end up being excluded more often from articles about scientific controversy than other sources due to the problems I outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(to ScienceApologist) I'm starting to agree with you and your formulation of this. as you say, care needs to be exercised, and discretion needs to be used based on the specific facts of each case. we can't exclude anything or any type of sources outright or all the time based on category, but we definitely can pay attention to factors of credibility and content. this is helpful, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that some would like to claim this topic is mostly about science, and therefore that scientific sources should reign supreme across all of it. They are falsely framing it. The topic, especially the problematic areas of it, is mostly not about science. Climategate isn't about the science, for example. Nor is Fred Singer's BLP. Don't let this be reframed so as to make the debate come out incorrectly. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You start out fine, Lar, but then you descend into histrionics. You claim "Climategate isn't about the science". Really? In our own article on the subject we detail the claims of climate denialists who believe that the e-mails somehow "prove" that global warming "isn't happening". That's a scientific claim. The "Hide the Decline" meme itself is almost completely about science: how scientists go about emulating and displaying data, what the difference is between excluding unreliable data from reliable data, etc. This is mentioned in a wide range of sources so to say, unequivocally, that climategate isn't about science is either to say that all the claims regarding the science surrounding climategate should be excluded from our articles on the subject or it is to say that you don't think that science has any relevance to the advocacy of the denialists who argued on-line and in the British media that this "gate" somehow showed scientific impropriety.

To be clear, I'm not the one who brought up "scientific controversy". But you better believe that when I see those words in Wikipedia I'm going to demand accountability to scientific sources.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lar

I am begining to get the impression that Lar has not been included in remedy 3 because he is getting special treatment due to his position. I hope to see Lar included in remedy 3 for all of the stiring up of the battleground situation he has done having Lar remain involved in any way in the topic at an admin level or even commenting as an observer is not conducive to a new start for this area which remedy 3 now appears to be attempting to do. Personally I would advise the dropping of remedy 3, but if you insist on sticking with it then this is a major oversight. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Below I bring together some appropriate diffs regarding Lar's pushing away of admins from this area. It was requested on my talkpage that I put these diffs in the right section on this page.

Admins such as Lar who have managed to establish themselves at CCRFE are generally the worst culprits in pushing away other admins. e.g. NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided - Lar 21 Aug 2010, A dig at a conversation between NW and WMC - Lar 5 September, Lar backs up Minor4ths criticism of NW's partisanship with I think that last bit is a fair question, NW - Lar 27 August, By the way, are you recallable as an admin? - Lar to NW 23 August 2010 and Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? - a fairly poor remark about VSmith by Lar 28 May 2010. I'm not nearly finished I have evidence of Lar attempting to drive away or being highly critical of several admins. I personally have only criticised Lar's actions with regard to WMC. I have not tried to drive him out of the topic area. Here is a real gem of an editor protecting the admin who will serve him best ATren telling me to move on and shouting that Lar is UNINVOLVED - ATren 27 May 2010, "you've" been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. - ATren jumping in to defend Lar and trying to push me away by saying I was a disruptive and biased admin even though I was not acting as an admin in that situation 29 April 2010, LessHeard vanU warning me away from Lar's talkpage (a warning retracted by Lar himself who hosts open discussion) - LessHeard 10 August 2010 Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've held back from commenting further in this case of late (my message was delivered and what the Arbs choose to do with it is their remit), even under some rather strong provocation (such as the commentary from EdChem) but you go too far, Polargeo. There is a finding that I've engaged in behavior that is not optimal, and a remedy advising me to stay out of enforcement action, and that's what I intend to do. Isn't that enough? You seem to have stormed off in a huff (followed by a not unexpected list of folk expressing dismay at your departure) and when that apparently didn't get the desired result, you're back with the same stuff again. Really, you should stop. It makes the case for sanctions against you nicely if you continue, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice a dig at editors who support me. How battleground. Are they the cabal Lar? And does "the same stuff" which you are trying to dismiss mean the diffs showing your poor behaviour in this topic area? I'd like arbs to note that Lar hasn't come in trying to defend himself but instead just puts me and other editors down. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not covering old ground at all. I have presented a load of new diffs stating the case for Lar to be included in remedy 3. Please allow time for other arbs to view these. This is not tangential and applies directly to the PD. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but my colleagues are all able to click on a [show] button. Now EOT, please.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but you well know that your colleagues will read your dismissive summary and not bother. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of the kind. Now EOT.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You assume I know what EOT means. I don't but it seems very dissmisive and you provide a dissmissive and incorrect summary as just covering old ground when collapsing a thread that has new evidence in it. This only goes to confirm my impression of you protecting Lar. Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this section?

I was reading this section titled Polargeo and was going to comment when the software told me there was no thread? The thread is gone, where to? Was this removed on purpose or was it due to say an edit conflict? I really think this should be discussed and that if possible Lar should comment if he is interested in to doing so which might clear some things up. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean this one? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No I mean this one, Polargeo. It was right after the Rleves/Cla one but disappeared. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged here --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --FloNight, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting here that Lankiveil had actually pointed you to the correct diff. You just need to scroll down to see the text that was moved in the diff he gave. If you ever have this problem again, copy and paste a phrase in what you are looking for, and search for it on the current page or in the archives (looking in the edit history at recent edit summaries can help as well). If you are doing text-search on a page that you have opened, you may need to uncollapse section to find the text in question. I think doing a text search using the Wikipedia search function will work regardless of whether a section has been collapsed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing the entire page should also enable you to search collapsed text, although bear in mind things like wikilinks, formatting etc may mean you need to search for something else (i.e. the raw wiki text will be different from what you see. Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Searching is not something I am good at yet but I'm working on it. Thanks again for the help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jury system

Take new dispute resolution proposals to an appropriate venue. Shell babelfish 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly any such Jury could only include users who (much like a real world jury) have never been pesecuted, which in wiki terms means never been had a sanction imposed (also it would have to be an offence to not declare a previously sanctioned account). The Jury would have to have no involvemnt with any of the parties or the page. Any of the parties would have to have to ability to block any jurer.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC) This is off-topic for this case. If you want to propose new dispute resolution systems, please do so elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Setting up novel dispute resolution systems (that are case specific) is within the remit of ArbCom and within the scope of the page, so this is certainly on topic. I'm not sure such a novel system is needed, nor that this proposal is workable as written, but try not to be so dismissive. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Discussions about failings of the current system and the need for adaptions or additions have been deemed off-topic before. See User_talk:Roger_Davies#Collapse.... I don't necessarily agree, but it seems as if ArbCom is reluctant to apply or discuss anything but standard remedies to a very non-standard situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know that this situation is all that non-standard, unfortunately. We have other examples of multiple factions going at it (one of which defends the House POV) while many look on in dismay and those trying to do something about it get subject to "shoot the messenger" syndrome. This just happens to be one of the worst, currently, with one of the most skewed balances of power among the warring factions. But it's far from unique, regrettably. ArbCom tends to fail to come to grips with these in one go, it often takes multiple cases. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Your opinion remains as prejudiced and wrong as it was 6 months ago. Feel free to strike this reply if you strike your coatrack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC) If there is an inbalnce of power its been casued by throwing whole bakeries over bridges. If there is a porblom edd reprot him, if community does not think he is maybe you are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC) @ StS: Calling a realistic assessment of how things are a "coatrack" is where we veer into "prejudiced and wrong" territory. As you well know, but then you are as much or more a part of the problem as I am. I at least can admit I am not without fault. No, let it all stand. Including your unhelpful response. If it wasn't one of the worst, we wouldn't be here. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Structural thinking

It seems to me that Wikipedia's structure and policies are based on the self-correcting nature of various crowd feedbacks. These work at many levels from, If somebody adds some rubbish to an article, someone else will come along and remove it to larger effects like, If something important happens anywhere in the world, someone will start an article on it and people will be drawn towards improving it. The discussions here seem to be emphasising, If a set of articles become an incomprehensible battleground of accusations and counter-accusations, and all the main parties involved are topic banned, others will move in to take their place, and the articles will be maintained adequately. I now have a worry at the next level out: If a sufficiently large number of determined new editors descend onto any Wikipedia topic area, then given about six months of determined effort, they can get themselves and all the people who created and tried to maintain that topic area indefinitely topic banned from it. Is that a reasonable summary, and is that a useful mechanism to build into Wikipedia's evolving structure? --Nigelj (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but ther is also don't feed the trolls. If a series of edds are porblomatic then it should be possible to ban them wihtouot getting yourslef banned. The excuse of 'he called my climate change articel a poof' is not an excuse for glassing some one. Do as you say not as you do should be the motto.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that discretionary sanctions are highly likely to pass in this case. Used fairly by admins, those are likely to be a very strong deterrent to anybody tempted to mix it up on our very high quality, highly praised, scientifically accurate articles about climate change. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a risk that all that italic has made my point difficult to read or to see. I'll try expanding the same structural feedback examples here - it's the last one that worries me:

• If somebody adds some rubbish to an article, someone else will come along and remove it
• If something important happens anywhere in the world, someone will start an article on it and people will be drawn towards improving it
• ...
• If a set of articles become an incomprehensible battleground of accusations and counter-accusations, and all the main parties involved are topic banned, others will move in to take their place, and the articles will be maintained adequately
• If a sufficiently large number of determined new editors descend onto any Wikipedia topic area, then given about six months of determined effort, they can get themselves and all the people who created and tried to maintain that topic area indefinitely topic banned from it

--Nigelj (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, nobody's picked this up, so let me have a go myself. The following is pure fiction, any similarity with anything is entirely in the mind's eye of the reader. Suppose that at some time in the future, a perfectly 'normal' area of human activity starts hitting the blogs, getting opinion pieces thrown at it, and eventually becomes a new fringe/conspiracy cause. I don't know, but let's pick dentistry. A dozen new editors arrive in the area demanding that 'reliably published' opinion pieces get plenty of coverage - dentists are crooks, most treatments were never needed, charges are ten times what they need to be, whatever. The existing WP dentists revert frantically, then drag the newcomers off to the various boards, and call in a few administrators to try to restore order. The admins and the denizens of the boards collectively say, "I don't know the first thing about dentistry. This looks like it could be an ArbCom case one day. I'm not going to self-tutor myself up to bachelor-degree level in dentistry just so I can mediate intelligently on these complex squabbles. I'll ignore them." So, the existing WP dentists, with their doctorates and their years of experience in the field, have to try to sort it out for themselves. A few of them are admins, so it seems to go all right. Add a sentence or two to acknowledge the fringe views, then protect a few articles, hand out a few short blocks and these new 'attackers' seem to be on the back foot. But more arrive, and more (there are blogs out there teaching them how to open an account and running online courses in wikilawyering, maybe). Tempers get thin. An ArbCom case starts, arbs don't know anything about dentistry, and don't have to decide on content anyway, so topic ban most of the dentists and a handful of the newcomers for incivility and battleground language. Other admins, et al, breathe a sigh of relief that they were not involved, thankfully they spotted the toxicity early and so they did nothing to help the dentists at the start. So, soon we have all the dentistry articles freely getting altered to talk about 'alleged cavities', 'dental criminality' etc. (It's not about science, it's about commerce, and so price comparison websites are reliable sources...) One day some more experienced dentists may show up to fix them all, after the media bandwagon has moved on. What were the dentists supposed to do? Where did they do wrong? Is WP open to this kind of attack at any time, by any group with enough blogs and a few activists who can get onto Fox News or into print somewhere? I honestly don't know the answers, but if this is the way these things go, I'm clearly tempted to join the 'don't knows' every time. I hope no one takes any offence at my simplified story, none is intended. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

N rays. The lay man does not have a monoply in making scientific errors, if fact it could be argues that science is the history of proving the last fact wrong. Besides your story (like N rays) is slightly mis-laeading. Perhpas you should have wrote

Say a one day a denistry commentator is asked by the newpaper they write for to write about the idea that dentists are part of shape changing alien plot. They do so and write they belive it (having previously writen a book about the dark secrets behind authordontology). All the dentits say this is a lie and undentristic. Whats more any denistry source will deny this is true so can't be in the BLP about the author and thier views on denistry.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is somewhat far-fetched. the parable violates the principle of WP:Assume good faith, especially among those who may disagree with you. Calling it something else here will not change that. the crowd of "dentists" in question, according to Arbcom, has continually violated WP:AGF, and circumvented many principles of editing here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case you didn't know, here at Wikipedia, anyone can edit articles. So your point that the dentists have "their doctorates and their years of experience in the field," as usual is a self-serving argument. on matters of editing methods, everyone has a right to be involved and to contribute. sorry if being here at wikipedia has made you feel that wikipedia is great, except for the fact that it is not something which is completely different than what wikipedia currently is. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Being an expert (or being an admin, or being a newbie, or being baited, or being a multi FA writer, or being a ____ (insert any term you like there) ) is not carte blanche for any misbehavior no matter how egregious. Making allowance for circumstances is appropriate. But there needs to be a limit. Nigelj's fictional account doesn't fit the facts in this case very well at all. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj's example is interesting, but I think an appropriate analogy with climate change should be made slightly differently. What often happens in these sorts of disputes is that there are plenty of lay editors who know very well that some views held by some significant minority published on blogs, FOX NEWS etc. are bogus views. So, we don't need experts to keep those views out of Wikipedia, or at least make sure they are not given too much weight. What does happen with less experts around is the way this happens. There will be far less room for detailed discussions of the topic, because the lay editors won't have the depth of knowledge to argue about the small details that prove the advocates of bogus views wrong. Even if such arguments are presented, they will come from other blogs or other news sources and those sources will be attacked. Such discussions become toxic very fast, precisely because the content isn't discussed on its merits.

We have to note that despite the problems in the CC area, there have been many fruitful discussions between experts, sceptics and other lay people (e.g. environmental activists). We would have had far more trouble here on Wikipedia had there been no input from experts here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your (Nigelj) concern is obviously whether the WP structure and policies (including the dispute resolution processes which can result in curtailing or eliminating the rights of some to contribute) could ever reach the situation in your last bullet point. You did not complete the thought, I trust it is implicitly obvious "... and then this group of determined new editors can write the article in their preferred POV, to the detriment of the overall encyclopedia".

My first response is, never say never, so I don't summarily dismiss the possibility that such a scenario could ever occur, but I doubt it will occur, in the abstract, and I strongly dismiss the notion (not expressed , but possibly implied) that we are close to such a situation now.

In the abstract, it is conceivable that a major edit war (more than we've witnessed), might catch up a material portion of the editors with relevant subject knowledge, and the improvement of the articles might slow, and perhaps even degrade a bit. However, there are many thousands of active editors with a goal of a better encyclopedia, and many hundreds of sysops with a similar goal, who would not stand by and watch a collection of articles degrade into a fringe view screed. They might not be quite as nice as they could be without perfect harmony, but it won't be a material regression.

In the particular, I think there is a bit too much hand-wringing over the likely loss of some expertise. A fraction of all editors in the subject area are potentially going to be unable to edit for a relatively short period of time. Remaining editors will be on a short leash. Aggregate editing may be decimated, but in the literal sense of the word, perhaps down by 10%, for a limited mount of time. I daresay that a future historian, looking at the article evolution only, would be barely able to detect a change in emphasis of the articles in aggregate in the six months following the end of this decision. I don't mean to suggest this decision is unimportant, it may rescue what otherwise might have become a material deterioration, and, of course, it will be quite significant to individual edits editors, but from the point of view of the CC articles in aggregate it will not result in a material deterioration. --SPhilbrickT 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Relatively short period of time? Could you please point me to where arbs suggest this will be a relatively short period of time? All remedy three measures have the potential to be indefinite and I cannot see arbs conceding editing rights after a relatively short period of time (ie 1-2 months). Can you? 194.66.0.122 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anon: There is no deadline. Depending on the timescale the entire project timespan so far is a "relatively short period of time" and 6 months in my view will go by in a blink of an eye. It's been 10 months since the enforcement regime was put in place (10 months of my hobby time I'm not going to be getting back... sigh. ) after all... Sphilbrick is right, those handwringing are suffering from a lack of sense of proportion. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think arbcom are the ones suffering from a lack of sense of proportion here. Six months is a very long time in the life of a wikipedia editor and sanctions proposed to last for 6 months or a year are usually reserved for the worst offenders. Those completely unconstructive trolls. Or at least editors who have had reasonably clear specific warnings that this would be the sanction they would face if they did not comply with x or y. Therefore remedy 3 applied to users who do not meet these community criteria goes against all normal wikipedia community principles and should be challenged as arbcom stepping outside of their terms of reference. Maybe they think they are employing Jimbo Wales's prefered solution but this is a different case to that previous case where a general ban was employed. Also Jimbo Wales's opinion should not be involved in these extremely complex decisions as he has less on the ground experience than those he trusts to make these decisions. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For example I have not ever recieved a block, a previous sanction or even a reasonable warning that this might happen and yet I find myself faced with an indefinite topic ban from climate change across all namespaces with the option of begging arbcom to be allowed to edit in this area again like some repentant troll. Why? How is this even slightly fair? 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean relatively short. The arbs haven't called it relatively short AFAIK, but I have. Some of the proposed bans are six months. That's relatively short. Some are longer, but not many, and the indefs carry with them either implicit or explicit ability to review after some period of time (I think minimum six months). I understand that six months may seem like a lot to an individual editor, but from the point of view of the project, it is not much more than an eyeblink. As to your own specific case, I cannot comment, not knowing who you are. I'll assume that some have figured it out, but that's not my forte, and I'm not interested in guessing games.--SPhilbrickT 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

discussion re hat

This discussion was recently talking about about remedy 3. How is that not relevent? Why would you hat at the stage when the PD is being discussed in detail unless you did not wish us to discuss this? I do understand you are one of the prime advocates of remedy three. I feel some other arbs may be needed to balance these hatting decisions and dismissive comments on the discussion, such as not relevent, in the interests of fairness. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with anon. Unless you are a clerk for ArbComm, please do not hat discussions, especially if they are obviously still in progress. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hatting of threads with dismissive summaries

The hatting of threads that are adressing aspects of the PD along with the addition of dismissive summaries seems to be occuring recently. Particularly from the arbs Roger Davies and Shell, these are the two prime advocates of remedy three. It may not be their intention but it appears to me as though they are using their rank to defend their position and whether this is their intention or not they should probably be advised to steer clear of this sort of action. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Even though I support remedy 3, this dismissal of editors' discussions here is not helpful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep the discussion on topic, productive and stop taking swipes at each other and it won't get closed. Shell ^babelfish 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that closing entire discussions along with dismissive summaries penalizes all contributors no matter how on topic they were and how many good points they made. In a situation where editors are being topic banned indefinitely it is not fair for those arbs who are doing this to be making those decisions. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to think that anyone (arb or clerk) is going to wade through a discussion and pick out the bits that aren't constructive. It's certainly disappointing that those involved in the case don't have more restraint; it's not like it hasn't been mentioned, repeatedly (there are two sections on the page currently). Finally, your drama isn't helping the situation either - I fail to see how "close" and "archive to..." and "please..." are in any way dismissive. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh so when you cannot win you argument you put your foot down. Most of us are not allowed to do that, only arbs. I was just about to comment on remedy 3 and you went and archived the discussion. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Why is discussion over the last three days or so (the time it takes for this page to get unmanageable) more important than similar discussions on the same subject started on 18 Sep, 24 Sep or 28 Sep? Are arbitrators expected to base their decisions entirely on the discussion de jour and ignore the old stuff?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, arbitrators would arbitrate, i.e. engage with the participants, explain their current understanding of the situation, and actively guide the discussion by pointing out where they need more information. As long as most of the arbitration discussion happens behind closed doors (or mail accounts), and as long as the "let's throw more mud, some will stick" approach seems to work, you will get mountains of mud, with some very few nuggets in them. To answer Shell, yes, I do expect Arbs to wade through the discussion and pick out the bits that are(n't) constructive - as far as my understanding goes, that's exactly what you volunteered for when you stood for the job.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've seen, arbitrator input in discussions here doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see few significant examples. Coren up at the Scibaby thread is a laudable exception, although I'm somewhat disappointed by what he says. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well. We'll just have to agree to differ on that.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) ArbCom have no choice but to do it this way (please try to think logically everyone, i.e. sheer volume of text, chaos etc). Remedy 3 is the best approach I feel given the size and severity of the battle field. The only alternative is voluntary binding topic bans in my view. People seem to think topic bans are about a punishment, they are not they are remedies to fix the topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with aggressive archiving particularly at this stage when most discussion is just a noisier and more acrimonious rehash of earlier themes. There is also evidence of a misunderstanding of what arbitration is about and how it's conducted. By their nature arbitration decisions over-rule the community and the community doesn't over-rule arbitration decisions.

The unruly conduct on this page mirrors the dispute area quite well and I wouldn't be surprised if activities here turned out to have been a decisive factor in convincing the arbitration committee that quite stern measures are needed.

One recent comment stands out. From memory, it was a remark that the topic on Wikipedia has attracted argumentative people. That rings true; earlier I referred to an apparent migration from another dispute area, and on the list of those being considered for a topic ban more than a few of those seem to have a record of inserting themselves into controversial topics and exacerbating them. A reset is needed. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest if editors want to discuss the Remedy 3 which has been called the nuclear option they start a new thread and make the discussions precise about why they are for or against this remedy? The collasping of the thread I believe is the one that Roger Davies was polite enough to come to my talk page and tell me he was collasping and why he was doing it. Everyone, please calm down and comment directly on what you are disputing or in favor of in brief and to the point comments. I think that will make everyone happy, including the arbitrators and the clerks. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanquish

I'll take six months off from Climate Change, no problem. Would prefer to keep a clean record as best as possible. Thanks for the opportunity to disengage. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it the heading is a Freudian slip?--Scott Mac 14:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I am to subdue my battleground behavior I'll have to vanquish those things that are causing them. I wish I had better guidance on what they are, but all I have is a bunch of diffs put the point that I was causing concern. I received my warning and remedy all at once, with little substance to comprehend the error of my ways. I guess I'll have a few months to figure this out. Peacefully participating in talk and dispute resolution turned into less resolution and greater confusion for me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 claims to be taking a voluntary break from Cl Ch [3]. But in fact continues [4]. I've tried to clarify this but, as is usual with ZP5, no clarity is available [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He said he wasn't going to contribute to article space; you provided a diff of him contributing to talk. And again, you are well aware of what his actual words were since in the conversation provided by your third diff you ask if the voluntary ban included article talk.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I prayed the battleground behavior would be set aside. Now I must ask for it here, please put the battleground behavior aside WMC. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

• In the Blocking and Banning section, I suggest deleting "new to the topic". As it now stands, some people will try to use this decision to silence long-term editors from expressing points of view resembling those of banned editors, which clearly (from the first sentence) is not the intent.
• "(such as discussions of the blogs themselves)" (here) is not too bad, but "typically articles about the blog or source itself" (here) goes a little further and could unfortunately be interpreted by some as cancelling the provision in WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) which says "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I seem to have read that the "new to the topic" specificaly is there in orer to make it clear that editors expressing points of view resembling those of banned editors is not a reason to get banned. So it seems to me that that concearn is invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it that way as well. As for the second point - I would assume that the arbcomm members are fairly well aware of what the policy says, so presumably are intentionally being more restrictive than what policy says. I would, of course, be interested in seeing this explicitly spelt out. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I obviously cannot speak for all of us, but I certainly understand that this is more demanding that policy, and that is the intent. In general experts' blogs can be used as sources for certain things without straying too far from WP:V and WP:RS — but when every citation becomes a battle then it's best to shy away entirely from the gray area. — Coren ^(talk) 22:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a great way of gaming. Just make every edit of an expert blog a battle, and the expert will lose (and so will Wikipedia). This is generally what has happened to RealClimate - no matter how many times RS/N and other boards have determined it to be a reliable source for expert opinion - there has been people who've removed it, because A) they didn't like it B) its a blog, and therefore it must go - no matter what SPS says. And this is when we talking entirely about usage on non-biographical pages. Fortunately i'll be out of that for a bit, but to me it (to repeat) seems to be a loss for Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is obvious why RealClimate is inappropriate, for one, one of the major editors to climate change WMC was a former contributer. There is a legitimate concern that RealClimate blog opinion pieces could be written and specifically aimed towards use as a source on wikipedia. Climate change is such a widely researched topic area, what is so wrong with just following what the peer reviewed recent secondary sources say on a given area of climate change? It is not like there is a drought of sources in the area. People can cite policy for the use of newspapers for stating citing scientific facts, it doesn't mean it is appropriate. For discussing matters of science really should be kept to the peer reviewed literature with a preference for recent secondary peer reviewed sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC is not and hasn't been a contributor to RC for a long time, so that one is moot. When Realclimate is talking about science, then they are speaking as experts with a long and impressive publication record in exactly the area that is being discussed. Which is exactly within the rationale for the WP:SPS exceptions. We should always keep to using the more direct sources - but once in a while specifics aren't discussed in detail in specific peer-reviewed papers - mainly because it is basic knowledge instead of new knowledge, or as is often the case, they can discuss issues that are brought up in mainstream media, which isn't discussed in peer-reviewed sources, because quite often the issue is silly, seen from a scientific viewpoint.

If and when such blog postings are written directly to address wikipedia points, then that should be taken up - and (imho) lead to a blacklisting of the site (if it is gaming). Funny enough though, we have mainstream media articles that are written this way. - --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but it is not subjected to peer review, it is just the thoughts of the writers, not referenced etc. There are good quality peer reviewed books which can be useful for covering issues and gaps which are not discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Experts also speak in newspapers and are quoted in newspapers, that doesn't mean newspapers are appropriate for making scientific statements of fact. Wikipedia scientific articles should not be discussing issues brought up in newspapers and other media, therefore the use of RealClimate for refuting media in wikipedia climate change articles is unnecessary. Yes but how does one prove that RealClimate contributers do or do not liase with wikipedia editors? I am sorry but I feel that peer reviewed science sources particularly in a controversial battleground should be the sources used and it is unnecessary to resort to blogs. I suppose if there was a concensus among editors for a non-controversial use of a blog it might be of use but it certainly should not be used to make controversial claims, the peer reviewed literature must be used for this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And when Real Climate is attacking or discrediting people? Is that okay if "the science proves it?" I think the concern isn't so much about WMC writing his own sources for Real Climate, but asking (explicitly or implicitly) for others to write articles that can be used to mold wikipedia. Let's be clear here, you guys have used blog sources to discredit people on several occasions (For an example unrelated to Real Climate I recall WMC using his friend's (Tim Lambert) blog to discredit someone). I don't expect the sourcing issues will go away anytime soon though - not until people come to the conclusion that the UN's climate change body is about as reliable on global warming as the UN's Human Right's Council is on human rights (COI's and politics are the norm w/ both). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is fine as a general principle, and something that i'd strongly endorse (ie. only ref. PR material on science), but the reality of it is that you then will lose most of the tiny minority opinions on several articles, and the capability of discussing tiny minority/fringe material where it is relevant and within weight. Notice that most (>80%) of the controversy in the climate change area exists in mass-media, and is to a large extent non-existing in the peer-reviewed literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If newspapers are being used in a science section to discuss a scientific fact it should be replaced with a peer reviewed source. When I say facts I am meaning like discussing results, conclusions and viewpoints on academic research and conclusions of panels. Your use of the word controversy, is another issue. Newspapers are fine in non-scientific sections, such as controversy/criticism sections, where political, social and dissenting views which are notable but outside of the peer reviewed process, can be mentioned and accorded due weight in a non-scientific section. To understand further what I mean, read over my comments on this talk page of a proposed science guideline.Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) If this guideline were to get up and running I think NPOV and the battlegrounding would be greatly improved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are here, I have concerns about the quality of sourcing in climate change articles, there is way too much citing of partisan left wing newspapers in preference of peer reviewed literature; take for example reference 6 in Hockey_stick_controversy. Why is the Guardian used instead of the scientific report itself? I am not saying that you Kim made that edit, you probably didn't, but there are many many examples of the use of partisan sources written by journalists in preference of the peer review literature, in these articles. Ironically I don't see any concerns raised by editors who class themselves as defending the science on these articles. What is needed Kim is not a worsening of sourcing standards for these articles but an increasing focus on strengthening sourcing standards and sticking as best possible to the peer reviewed literature. This comment is not aimed at Kim but is a general statement of sourcing standards in these articles aimed at everyone. I do recall that you said that you felt newspapers tended to be more alarmist than the scientific literature, so hopefully you and everyone else will agree with me that sourcing standards in these articles could do with improving.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indenting sharply, so I can bring this up. Do you mean that this sort of edit should be made? NW (Talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to bring this up on the article's talk page rather than here. Guettarda (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that means engaging in the battlefield, which I do not have the time, energy nor enough interest in the subject to bother. The bigger picture and my point was not just aimed at editors here but at ArbCom, to say that the proposed decision with regard to sourcing standards should not be relaxed but if anything they need to be strengthed with a preference for peer review literature over newspapers for sourcing scientific facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the problem should be initiated there, but noting the problem? That's fine here in my view. It has been remarked before that sourcing is skewed in this area, here's more evidence of it. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you will find a single editor on what Lar calls the science team, that would disagree with you on that one. Unfortunately reality is different. There are also cases where references written in laymans terms are productive as a secondary reference, that says the same as the peer-reviewed material referenced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is the first time that I have heard that reasoning before, that using a poorer source is a better idea because lay people can understand poorer quality sources better. That is not a good idea and my concerns about sourcing these articles remain. This guideline if it could be passed would resolve a lot of misperceptions regarding sourcing I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I have heard of editors who have said that technical sources should be summarised in easy to understand wording for the layreader though and I believe it is mentioned in a guideline somewhere.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Two points: First, if mainstream coverage is in accord with what you'd find in peer-reviewed sources, then it meets a requirement for secondary sources, and makes no material difference, to use quotes from the mainstream. That has nothing to do with 'left-wing' bias. When it is clear (especially to experts, but actually to anybody who would take the time to read up the original science on the issue being discussed) that the mainstream reports are focusing on a fantasy or where the reporter has clearly not grasped the issue, then they are of no use to us (other than as commentary on themselves, perhaps). That isn't a 'right-wing' thing, although the correlation if it exists may be interesting to some. Second, I want to second KDP that it tends to be media-fuelled non-expert editors who flock to climate change articles wanting to insert coverage of 'latest revelations' from the press. These often sound plausible on first reading, and it may take a few days for the scientists to dig out the figures, the theory and the fuller story that puts the 'latest news' into context. Adequate refutation may already exist in the peer-reviewed literature, or it may take months to find its way there. Sometimes the point is so trivial that it never will (for example, some 'skeptic' has simply made up figures or misused good data in a graph on his Powerpoint slide). Either way, it is in the science-run blogs that these refutations will first appear. To allow the use of dodgy mainstream media reports, but disallow the use of established scientists' blogs and university home-pages to refute media blunders, 'tilts the playing field' alarmingly. --Nigelj (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I imagine this is your personal opinion; I disagree that journalists can be just as good at reviewing scientific sources as experts publishing in the peer reviewed literature. I have in past discussions acknowledged the problems of editors on the skeptical side pushing newspaper sources (many of which would be right wing). The "wing" is irrelevant, other than to say journalists have their biases and are not better or as good as the peer reviewed literature for summarising scientific literature. Really the beliefs some people have on sourcing standards is almost depressing, no wonder there is a WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has veered off topic now, although it's interesting and certainly should be continued at a more appropriate venue. --TS 08:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, hence my short replies to wrap things up. Who knows, ArbCom may strengthen their principle(s) on sourcing after reading all of this, might not be a waste of time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)