| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Global Warming |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming
The general tone of the article is extremely POV. Specifically, the primary disputes seem to occur between those who believe that the article should be strictly science based and those who feel that it should be a combination of science and policy (ie a wider range of topics.) There is also a 'culture of revision' such that the regular editors of the page (and there are multiple editors) immediately revert comments which are not extremely Pro AGW.
SM8900 Short Brigade Harvester Boris Kim D. Petersen Dikstr Scjessey KillerChihuahua Stephan Schulz Brittainia Mytwocents DroEsperanto BozMo William M. Connolley Manticore55 Ludwigs2
There are three consistent realms of dispute based on my observation:
1) What is the central focus of the article? Some users state that the focus of the article should be on the science of Global warming with a small section on Criticism, while others want criticisms to be included within the mainstream of the article.
This is important, because if the article is about science, then criticisms have no place within it since they have no real basis in science. However, if the focus of the article is not on science but on the over arching subject, then AGW skeptics have a point in including such sources within the article.
2) The content of the lead.
There seems to be a (from my perspective) unresolvable difference between what should and should not be in the lead. Consensus does not seem to be anywhere near being achieved, with the primary article author's/editors immediately reverting things they don't like. There is no revert warring going on but it seems to be close.
3) Borderline bad faith on both sides.
Many of the AGW skeptics have used bad faith tactics in the past which seems to lead to hypersensitivity on the part of the article editor/defenders. Reversions without discussion frequently take place to the point that many of the more reasonable critics of the article seem to have simply given up in disgust.
- 'Deniers' is a negative connotation. Skeptics is a more NPOV descriptor. Dikstr ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Five points.
1) What is the article about? Is it a science article or a policy article? Is it about Global warming as it affects science or is it about Global warming as a larger issue as perceived by the public.
2) Are questionable reversion tactics being used to create an atmosphere of intimidation on those who express legitimate concerns of the article?
3) I would like to have a totally fresh perspective on the article.
4) Resolve the Lede.
5) Resolve whether or not 'climate gate' should be included in the article and to what extent it should or should not be included.
I think a new perspective would be helpful.
To be completely blunt with you all, no one is going to take up this case, at least not at MedCab. If you want even the prospect of mediation, I'd advise MedCom. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree... too much of a weighted issue... Remember guys, are we having a dispute to improve the article or to get our political views across in the article-? Mrmewe ( talk) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I might be willing to accept this one. Have all parties been notified and agreed to mediation? The Wordsmith Communicate 06:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to work with The Wordsmith on this one, maybe to see whether we can get more of the arguing split off into the Global warming controversy page. That appears to be a relatively even-handed discussion of the issue. Forsakendaemon ( talk) 05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in being involved in the mediation of this article, and quite frankly I have no idea why I have been listed as "involved" in the "dispute". I have made a total of 2 article edits ( diff1, diff2) and a total of 17 talk page edits. I haven't edited either in over a month and it is not an article on my watchlist. If there is an ongoing dispute there, I am not a part of it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me that this proposal has any credibility (I refer to the mediation request, not to the mediators). It was created by User:Manticore55 [1], whose only edit to Global warming is this [2], which is absurd, and who has made no edits at all in 2010 William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any hint of AGW skepticism is met with this kind of obdurate resistance in Global Warming. Skeptics are the AGW theologians' heretics. This kind of editorial interaction has nothing to do with science.
Dikstr (
talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- With acerbic comments like that, maybe mediation is appropriate. Also, I think refactoring the words of others is usually considered a no-no. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see it. Next to that Third opinion tagging on December 10 there was this description of a dispute that "has been ongoing since December 5th." The talk page of the article at that point looked like this.
- I suggest we close this Medcab case as it was requested by someone with no real knowledge of what's going on there. --
TS 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there are editors conspiring outside of Wikipedia to influence the nature of the article then everything required to understand 'what's going on there' is there for anyone to see. It is incorrect to say that someone who has made few if any edits to an article is incapable of understanding what is going on there. In fact since this is a mediation page it seems a bit couterproductive to come here and comment that anyone who isn't closely involved in this dispute has no place in it. Neither of you own the article and perhaps acting like you do is one of the things fuelling the difficulties. It is certainly an attitude that prevents other editors becoming involved.
Weakopedia (
talk) 20:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about this article, but there are certainly editors of this group of articles seeking assistance off-wiki (
example). --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and some of the editors of these articles (and even contributors to this discussion page) have been linked via the CRU data leak incident to shady practices involving Wikipedia. Nevertheless the concept still stands. It is why we have admins, Arbcoms, police, juries and lawcourts. It IS possible in general for an uninvolved person to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about the people involved. Therefore it IS possible for someone who has not stooped to arguing and edit warring on climate pages to have a reasonable understanding of 'what's going on there'. The suggestion that you have to be involved in the argument to understand it betrays a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and suggests a claim of article ownership. Rather than being mediated there are a number of people who should be banned from editing climate related articles. There is no one person on the planet who is more qualified to edit these articles than anyone else. Since we are striving for verifiability anyone at all should be able to follow the same footsteps. Some of the people involved in the climate discussion on Wiki have made this article their own, and it shows. Shows enough that it has been remarked upon in numerous internet articles outside of Wiki. At that point there is no value to having the same argumentative bunch continuing to edit the articles here and continue to claim ownership.
Weakopedia (
talk) 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see where this is going. You are basically saying that regular Wikipedians should be kicked out of the GW-related articles so that the off-wiki crowd can have a free reign, right? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a slightly paranoid misinterpretation of my comments. What I said was firstly that the concept expressed here that mediation in general is impossible is quite false. And secondly that people who try to establish ownership of articles should be prevented from editing those articles. I also inferred that anyone stating that the trouble at the talk page couldn't be assessed properly by anyone who hadn't contributed had made a claim of ownership on the article. Regards.
Weakopedia (
talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how I am reading it. What I'm seeing is that you are continuously making nebulous claims of
ownership against good faith editors. If you have specific issues with specific editors, you need to
resolve them instead of continuing with these vague accusations. Put up or shut up. --
Scjessey (
talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your 'opinion' is noted. Weakopedia ( talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how I am reading it. What I'm seeing is that you are continuously making nebulous claims of
ownership against good faith editors. If you have specific issues with specific editors, you need to
resolve them instead of continuing with these vague accusations. Put up or shut up. --
Scjessey (
talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a slightly paranoid misinterpretation of my comments. What I said was firstly that the concept expressed here that mediation in general is impossible is quite false. And secondly that people who try to establish ownership of articles should be prevented from editing those articles. I also inferred that anyone stating that the trouble at the talk page couldn't be assessed properly by anyone who hadn't contributed had made a claim of ownership on the article. Regards.
Weakopedia (
talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see where this is going. You are basically saying that regular Wikipedians should be kicked out of the GW-related articles so that the off-wiki crowd can have a free reign, right? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and some of the editors of these articles (and even contributors to this discussion page) have been linked via the CRU data leak incident to shady practices involving Wikipedia. Nevertheless the concept still stands. It is why we have admins, Arbcoms, police, juries and lawcourts. It IS possible in general for an uninvolved person to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about the people involved. Therefore it IS possible for someone who has not stooped to arguing and edit warring on climate pages to have a reasonable understanding of 'what's going on there'. The suggestion that you have to be involved in the argument to understand it betrays a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and suggests a claim of article ownership. Rather than being mediated there are a number of people who should be banned from editing climate related articles. There is no one person on the planet who is more qualified to edit these articles than anyone else. Since we are striving for verifiability anyone at all should be able to follow the same footsteps. Some of the people involved in the climate discussion on Wiki have made this article their own, and it shows. Shows enough that it has been remarked upon in numerous internet articles outside of Wiki. At that point there is no value to having the same argumentative bunch continuing to edit the articles here and continue to claim ownership.
Weakopedia (
talk) 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about this article, but there are certainly editors of this group of articles seeking assistance off-wiki (
example). --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there are editors conspiring outside of Wikipedia to influence the nature of the article then everything required to understand 'what's going on there' is there for anyone to see. It is incorrect to say that someone who has made few if any edits to an article is incapable of understanding what is going on there. In fact since this is a mediation page it seems a bit couterproductive to come here and comment that anyone who isn't closely involved in this dispute has no place in it. Neither of you own the article and perhaps acting like you do is one of the things fuelling the difficulties. It is certainly an attitude that prevents other editors becoming involved.
Weakopedia (
talk) 20:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
< The Global warming talk page averages over 400 page views a day. The first table shows the top editors for the GW main article page, for the past 2 months. These statisics include when the page was locked. The bulk of the edits shown here were probably undone by a handful of editors within minutes of posting. The second table shows the top talk page contributors going all the way back. It appears that William M. Connolley has made the most edits. The very first edit of the GW article [3]on January 14, 2002 included a 'Sources Bias'section, with this lede Because global warming is a controversial issue, every source of information has been accused, in one time or another, of having some kind of bias.. The earliest article may serve as a very rough guidline to a more balanced article 6 years after it's creation.
| See Contributors table 1 and 2 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
>>>>>>>>>Edits ---------User ---------------first edit -------last edit
en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Talk:Global warming
|
Mytwocents ( talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Vair exciting. So what?
William M. Connolley (
talk) 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he's suggesting you should be given a barnstar for your diligence in protecting the article from vandals and other questionable edits.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: When William M. Connolley fully comprehends the (Asian) "Brown Cloud" paradox (warmed atmosphere, but cooled landmass) all contention can be dissolved. :-) Proofreader77 ( interact) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he's suggesting you should be given a barnstar for your diligence in protecting the article from vandals and other questionable edits.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that mediation is useful here. A large part of the problems at the Climate Change articles is caused by short-lived newcomers and, in particular, socks. Mediation will have no influence on these groups, but it will drain even more time from serious long-term contributors. If a strong consensus develops that this will be helpful, I will not stand in the way, however. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I made a dozen edits to the talk namespace for that article, and none to mainspace, in December. No edits before that for about seven months. I watch the article, as I do many articles, because they attract good-faith but misguided editors with fringe views who are adamant in their belief that "NPOV" means "equal weight to fringe views"; or that their particular view is not fringe for some reason or other - usually a celebrity or politician has embraced their view, despite having zero expertise on the subject. They are in error, as is this editor, who seems to have named everyone who has tried to explain NPOV:UNDUE recently. Dismiss - this is not a dispute, this is a failure to comprehend policy. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Puppy is right. (I'm sure my saying that makes a huge difference. LoL) Proofreader77 ( interact) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- aded myself to the debate here. while I don't share the OP's rather extreme perspective, I do think that there is a lot more politics than perspective on this page, particularly from the more science-oriented editors (many of whom seem to be ignoring basic scientific methodology in the interests of securing a victory of some sort for science). mediation would be helpful if you can get people to cooperate. I'm not holding my breath on that last point, though. -- Ludwigs2 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Global Warming |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming
The general tone of the article is extremely POV. Specifically, the primary disputes seem to occur between those who believe that the article should be strictly science based and those who feel that it should be a combination of science and policy (ie a wider range of topics.) There is also a 'culture of revision' such that the regular editors of the page (and there are multiple editors) immediately revert comments which are not extremely Pro AGW.
SM8900 Short Brigade Harvester Boris Kim D. Petersen Dikstr Scjessey KillerChihuahua Stephan Schulz Brittainia Mytwocents DroEsperanto BozMo William M. Connolley Manticore55 Ludwigs2
There are three consistent realms of dispute based on my observation:
1) What is the central focus of the article? Some users state that the focus of the article should be on the science of Global warming with a small section on Criticism, while others want criticisms to be included within the mainstream of the article.
This is important, because if the article is about science, then criticisms have no place within it since they have no real basis in science. However, if the focus of the article is not on science but on the over arching subject, then AGW skeptics have a point in including such sources within the article.
2) The content of the lead.
There seems to be a (from my perspective) unresolvable difference between what should and should not be in the lead. Consensus does not seem to be anywhere near being achieved, with the primary article author's/editors immediately reverting things they don't like. There is no revert warring going on but it seems to be close.
3) Borderline bad faith on both sides.
Many of the AGW skeptics have used bad faith tactics in the past which seems to lead to hypersensitivity on the part of the article editor/defenders. Reversions without discussion frequently take place to the point that many of the more reasonable critics of the article seem to have simply given up in disgust.
- 'Deniers' is a negative connotation. Skeptics is a more NPOV descriptor. Dikstr ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Five points.
1) What is the article about? Is it a science article or a policy article? Is it about Global warming as it affects science or is it about Global warming as a larger issue as perceived by the public.
2) Are questionable reversion tactics being used to create an atmosphere of intimidation on those who express legitimate concerns of the article?
3) I would like to have a totally fresh perspective on the article.
4) Resolve the Lede.
5) Resolve whether or not 'climate gate' should be included in the article and to what extent it should or should not be included.
I think a new perspective would be helpful.
To be completely blunt with you all, no one is going to take up this case, at least not at MedCab. If you want even the prospect of mediation, I'd advise MedCom. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree... too much of a weighted issue... Remember guys, are we having a dispute to improve the article or to get our political views across in the article-? Mrmewe ( talk) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I might be willing to accept this one. Have all parties been notified and agreed to mediation? The Wordsmith Communicate 06:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to work with The Wordsmith on this one, maybe to see whether we can get more of the arguing split off into the Global warming controversy page. That appears to be a relatively even-handed discussion of the issue. Forsakendaemon ( talk) 05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in being involved in the mediation of this article, and quite frankly I have no idea why I have been listed as "involved" in the "dispute". I have made a total of 2 article edits ( diff1, diff2) and a total of 17 talk page edits. I haven't edited either in over a month and it is not an article on my watchlist. If there is an ongoing dispute there, I am not a part of it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me that this proposal has any credibility (I refer to the mediation request, not to the mediators). It was created by User:Manticore55 [1], whose only edit to Global warming is this [2], which is absurd, and who has made no edits at all in 2010 William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any hint of AGW skepticism is met with this kind of obdurate resistance in Global Warming. Skeptics are the AGW theologians' heretics. This kind of editorial interaction has nothing to do with science.
Dikstr (
talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- With acerbic comments like that, maybe mediation is appropriate. Also, I think refactoring the words of others is usually considered a no-no. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see it. Next to that Third opinion tagging on December 10 there was this description of a dispute that "has been ongoing since December 5th." The talk page of the article at that point looked like this.
- I suggest we close this Medcab case as it was requested by someone with no real knowledge of what's going on there. --
TS 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there are editors conspiring outside of Wikipedia to influence the nature of the article then everything required to understand 'what's going on there' is there for anyone to see. It is incorrect to say that someone who has made few if any edits to an article is incapable of understanding what is going on there. In fact since this is a mediation page it seems a bit couterproductive to come here and comment that anyone who isn't closely involved in this dispute has no place in it. Neither of you own the article and perhaps acting like you do is one of the things fuelling the difficulties. It is certainly an attitude that prevents other editors becoming involved.
Weakopedia (
talk) 20:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about this article, but there are certainly editors of this group of articles seeking assistance off-wiki (
example). --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and some of the editors of these articles (and even contributors to this discussion page) have been linked via the CRU data leak incident to shady practices involving Wikipedia. Nevertheless the concept still stands. It is why we have admins, Arbcoms, police, juries and lawcourts. It IS possible in general for an uninvolved person to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about the people involved. Therefore it IS possible for someone who has not stooped to arguing and edit warring on climate pages to have a reasonable understanding of 'what's going on there'. The suggestion that you have to be involved in the argument to understand it betrays a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and suggests a claim of article ownership. Rather than being mediated there are a number of people who should be banned from editing climate related articles. There is no one person on the planet who is more qualified to edit these articles than anyone else. Since we are striving for verifiability anyone at all should be able to follow the same footsteps. Some of the people involved in the climate discussion on Wiki have made this article their own, and it shows. Shows enough that it has been remarked upon in numerous internet articles outside of Wiki. At that point there is no value to having the same argumentative bunch continuing to edit the articles here and continue to claim ownership.
Weakopedia (
talk) 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see where this is going. You are basically saying that regular Wikipedians should be kicked out of the GW-related articles so that the off-wiki crowd can have a free reign, right? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a slightly paranoid misinterpretation of my comments. What I said was firstly that the concept expressed here that mediation in general is impossible is quite false. And secondly that people who try to establish ownership of articles should be prevented from editing those articles. I also inferred that anyone stating that the trouble at the talk page couldn't be assessed properly by anyone who hadn't contributed had made a claim of ownership on the article. Regards.
Weakopedia (
talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how I am reading it. What I'm seeing is that you are continuously making nebulous claims of
ownership against good faith editors. If you have specific issues with specific editors, you need to
resolve them instead of continuing with these vague accusations. Put up or shut up. --
Scjessey (
talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your 'opinion' is noted. Weakopedia ( talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how I am reading it. What I'm seeing is that you are continuously making nebulous claims of
ownership against good faith editors. If you have specific issues with specific editors, you need to
resolve them instead of continuing with these vague accusations. Put up or shut up. --
Scjessey (
talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a slightly paranoid misinterpretation of my comments. What I said was firstly that the concept expressed here that mediation in general is impossible is quite false. And secondly that people who try to establish ownership of articles should be prevented from editing those articles. I also inferred that anyone stating that the trouble at the talk page couldn't be assessed properly by anyone who hadn't contributed had made a claim of ownership on the article. Regards.
Weakopedia (
talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see where this is going. You are basically saying that regular Wikipedians should be kicked out of the GW-related articles so that the off-wiki crowd can have a free reign, right? --
Scjessey (
talk) 12:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and some of the editors of these articles (and even contributors to this discussion page) have been linked via the CRU data leak incident to shady practices involving Wikipedia. Nevertheless the concept still stands. It is why we have admins, Arbcoms, police, juries and lawcourts. It IS possible in general for an uninvolved person to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about the people involved. Therefore it IS possible for someone who has not stooped to arguing and edit warring on climate pages to have a reasonable understanding of 'what's going on there'. The suggestion that you have to be involved in the argument to understand it betrays a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and suggests a claim of article ownership. Rather than being mediated there are a number of people who should be banned from editing climate related articles. There is no one person on the planet who is more qualified to edit these articles than anyone else. Since we are striving for verifiability anyone at all should be able to follow the same footsteps. Some of the people involved in the climate discussion on Wiki have made this article their own, and it shows. Shows enough that it has been remarked upon in numerous internet articles outside of Wiki. At that point there is no value to having the same argumentative bunch continuing to edit the articles here and continue to claim ownership.
Weakopedia (
talk) 06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about this article, but there are certainly editors of this group of articles seeking assistance off-wiki (
example). --
Scjessey (
talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there are editors conspiring outside of Wikipedia to influence the nature of the article then everything required to understand 'what's going on there' is there for anyone to see. It is incorrect to say that someone who has made few if any edits to an article is incapable of understanding what is going on there. In fact since this is a mediation page it seems a bit couterproductive to come here and comment that anyone who isn't closely involved in this dispute has no place in it. Neither of you own the article and perhaps acting like you do is one of the things fuelling the difficulties. It is certainly an attitude that prevents other editors becoming involved.
Weakopedia (
talk) 20:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
< The Global warming talk page averages over 400 page views a day. The first table shows the top editors for the GW main article page, for the past 2 months. These statisics include when the page was locked. The bulk of the edits shown here were probably undone by a handful of editors within minutes of posting. The second table shows the top talk page contributors going all the way back. It appears that William M. Connolley has made the most edits. The very first edit of the GW article [3]on January 14, 2002 included a 'Sources Bias'section, with this lede Because global warming is a controversial issue, every source of information has been accused, in one time or another, of having some kind of bias.. The earliest article may serve as a very rough guidline to a more balanced article 6 years after it's creation.
| See Contributors table 1 and 2 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
>>>>>>>>>Edits ---------User ---------------first edit -------last edit
en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Talk:Global warming
|
Mytwocents ( talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Vair exciting. So what?
William M. Connolley (
talk) 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he's suggesting you should be given a barnstar for your diligence in protecting the article from vandals and other questionable edits.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: When William M. Connolley fully comprehends the (Asian) "Brown Cloud" paradox (warmed atmosphere, but cooled landmass) all contention can be dissolved. :-) Proofreader77 ( interact) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he's suggesting you should be given a barnstar for your diligence in protecting the article from vandals and other questionable edits.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that mediation is useful here. A large part of the problems at the Climate Change articles is caused by short-lived newcomers and, in particular, socks. Mediation will have no influence on these groups, but it will drain even more time from serious long-term contributors. If a strong consensus develops that this will be helpful, I will not stand in the way, however. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I made a dozen edits to the talk namespace for that article, and none to mainspace, in December. No edits before that for about seven months. I watch the article, as I do many articles, because they attract good-faith but misguided editors with fringe views who are adamant in their belief that "NPOV" means "equal weight to fringe views"; or that their particular view is not fringe for some reason or other - usually a celebrity or politician has embraced their view, despite having zero expertise on the subject. They are in error, as is this editor, who seems to have named everyone who has tried to explain NPOV:UNDUE recently. Dismiss - this is not a dispute, this is a failure to comprehend policy. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Puppy is right. (I'm sure my saying that makes a huge difference. LoL) Proofreader77 ( interact) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- aded myself to the debate here. while I don't share the OP's rather extreme perspective, I do think that there is a lot more politics than perspective on this page, particularly from the more science-oriented editors (many of whom seem to be ignoring basic scientific methodology in the interests of securing a victory of some sort for science). mediation would be helpful if you can get people to cooperate. I'm not holding my breath on that last point, though. -- Ludwigs2 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)