I am not that familiar with NW, and don't know if this was a blip, or part of a larger pattern, or indeed if arbitrators would agree with me that NW vocally defended a blatant BLP (and WP:SPS) violation here. But I think it is worth bringing up, even if only to correct any misunderstanding on my part. If anyone is aware of similar incidents involving NW, please propose diffs to be added. -- JN 466 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, of the 5 admins reviewing this request (see permalink), 3 saw this as a content dispute without clear BLP violations (NW, The Wordsmith, and BozMo). One (LessHeardvanU) suggested topic-banning all climate-change ArbCom participants, which may well have been a good idea but did not address the BLP question directly. And one (Lar) castigated KDP and William, stating: "I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation."
Given that a majority of the reviewing admins didn't see a BLP problem here, it seems grossly unwarranted to single out NuclearWarfare, and even more unwarranted to berate him for "failing to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator". It seems more like people looking at this just weren't as convinced as you that this was a major BLP violation, as opposed to a more garden-variety content dispute. I don't think we need to elevate isolated disagreements over gray areas to the level of proposed findings. MastCell Talk 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant part of WP:BLP is, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. The dispute was about an external link to a self-published attack piece. -- JN 466 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel that what I wrote has been misrepresented, but I am not interested in getting involved with this at this moment in time. If Arbitrators do want to look into this and propose a Finding of Fact/Remedy, then I ask that they read the situation in its original context, as linked by Jayen466 in original comment and as I will relink now. Could the matter please be left to the Arbitrators? I don't think anything is served by refighting these disputes. NW ( Talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) I have been following this discussion since it unfolded and find myself broadly agreeing with Mastcell's comments. Quite apart from that, the guiding policy here is probably the "not perfect" one: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I would incidentally make the observation that Scott MacDonald, an admin for whom I have the very greatest respect, is something of an expert on BLP, has played a major role in the community's discussions on the subject, and is unafraid to make controversial BLP calls. Roger Davies talk 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) This one has pretty much run its course too so I'll cap it off shortly. Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare stated that "Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong." If NuclearWarfare still maintains today that this view is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, then this remedy unfortunately appears necessary to prevent a repeat. -- JN 466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.
For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues). [5] Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.
I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.
It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom could be clearer about the principle it applies, at least. In a similar case it presented the following:
Assuming this remains the case it would seem sensible to say it. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the opening premise of this discussion, that "often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all" is quite mistaken. It's normal to revert disputed edits and I'm aware of no arbitration case in which this has been presented as at all problematic. It's what happens after a dispute is identified that matters. -- TS 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I may have been unclear, but I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything stronger than the very common principle seen here. Consider even WP:Revert:
It's hard to draw a line, but considering that WP:BRD is well supported, I think it's a misconception that to prohibit revert warring bolsters inclusion over exclusion; if anything the strictest interpretations tend to start on the next revert where someone replaces material. Besides that, do good content contributors really revert more often within any dispute than agenda pushers? I doubt that, but especially I'd think they could learn not to. Mackan79 ( talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], including edit warring [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] , inappropriate use of admin privileges [31] and comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [32] [33] [34] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, [35] [36] [37] participated in several edit-wars, including BLPs, [38] [39] [40] editing to make a point, [41] [42] [43] and inappropriate use of admin privileges. [44] [45] [46] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated edit-wars, including edit-wars regarding contentious material to BLPs, editing to make a point, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator.
KimDabelsteinPetersen ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and policy-violating or inappropriate edits to BLP articles [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83].
I added a few more diffs of edit warring to those that AQFK had compiled showing Kim edit warring at the Climate Audit article declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place. Cla68 ( talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Verbal ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]
Most of these drive-by reverts were to revert back to WMC version when he was on an editing restriction and had already reverted. All of these articles have BLP issues, except HSI. In each case, Verbal did not participate in editing the article or engaging in discussion on the talk page to try to resolve issues. Minor 4th 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
07:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 ( talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. -- TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is also in the middle of peer review.
Minor
4th
14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP
The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [120] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [121] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [122] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [123] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [124] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them. The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling. He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations
After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess [125] please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley ( talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In my view ScienceApologist made a
good faithed redirect, as he appeared to have
reached consensus with other editors for the redirect. I suppose it would be fair to say that he should have given it an extra day or two for other people to chime in on the redirect proposal but I do not see anything deliberately provocative. This is not to say the redirect was or was not a good idea, it is to say that it was not malicious from an outsider's (my) viewpoint. I do think that
(outdent) To expand on my earlier comment in this section. I would just like to clarify something based on further discussion in below sections. Per this comment and other comments I am convinced that ScienceApologist's edits regarding adding denialist labels to BLP articles are done in good faith, even though I still have concerns with these edits. I have struck the word misuse in my above comment. It is really difficult for outsiders to get to the root of what exactly is going on on these articles and thus I didn't chose my wording carefully enough. I can see why ArbCom are taking their time with their decision.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs) (and his alternate account Tasty monster ( talk · contribs)) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] and unhelpful or tendentious editing [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148].
I haven't checked the diffs, but I assume that Cla68 is unaware that I disengaged from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject some months ago and have no intention of getting mixed up in the subject again. -- TS 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be so literal-minded. Quantitively I have not edited in the subject area for many months. The 3 August edit was a single reversion of a ridiculously poorly sourced, and if you are honest, very provocatively sourced, edit. That kind of edit must stop. -- TS 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Now I have looked at the edits, I don't think there's a case to answer. Should a majority of active arbitrators think there is, however, that's good enough for me. -- TS 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Tony Sidaway has violated WP:BLP [150].
I remain unconvinced. If anybody else thinks this is even credible, could they please speak up now? I'm utterly flummoxed by Cla68's representations. In case Cla68 is under any serious misapprehension, I have a great professional respect for Hans von Storch. That respect for a professional scientist does not extend to people who write on science while not themselves possessing any expertise in science. This speaks to verifiability. -- TS 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks at least I now understand where this comes from.
A Quest For Knowledge, What I see you striking seems a little nit picky and I'll explain what I mean. I take what you are striking here
Tony Sidaway has engaged in baiting, contributing to a battleground atmosphere on climate change-related pages. [151] [152] & [153] [154] & [155] These represent three separate incidents. The second baiting incident (second and third diffs above) is explained here [156] and here [157] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant edits by John W Barber are here. John abruptly moved from editing articles about poetry to making some very inflammatory comments about the behavior of people who were proposing the deletion of an article related to global warming. He subsequently requested the deletion of an article that he claimed was equivalent to the one that had been listed for deletion. Some related proposals were discussed on the probation enforcement page ( approximate link which covers the timeframe, please do uncollapse and examine the retaliatory filing by John W Barber). I find this tit-for-tat battling exhausting, because it's impossible to wind-down such a process once it has begun. At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. They do seem to have had some association on wiki. There's nothing wrong with that, but the switch from poetry to sniping seemed so out of character that I thought John might be pursuing personal matters. The later comment on this proposed decision talk page related to the Barack Obama probation. I noticed that several editors, including most notably ScJessey but also including John Barber (using his username Noroton) had apparently migrated from the Obama articles. Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. I regret saying " They don't like to be taken for fools". From context, "they" clearly means "humans" and the implication is that John was being manipulative in listing for deletion an article that was well established (although if you look hard enough you'll find I have my reservations about it). -- TS 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I also regret this edit, which was part of a misguided attempt to maintain openness and parity on the climate change articles by informing every editor of the probation. While I was scrupulous in informing every single new editor, I think it was a terrible mistake because it immediately informed the new editor that he had entered a combat zone. That is no way to great a new editor. -- TS 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As the original author of WP:BAIT, I see no evidence in support of the proposed finding with regard to baiting by TS. More generally, may I humbly dubious – discuss suggest that this page has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and that the arbitrators proceed to a timely close of this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec with above) A list of the aspersions Tony cast in recent days. I've made the point that they're baiting, but I also want to make the point here that they're personal attacks, and show just how they're personal attacks by quoting them. I don't think I need to quote the specific parts of WP:NPA that apply to each one, but I'm happy to do it if requested:
Tony has repeatedly made personal attacks on this page, in violation of Principle 6 on the P.D. page. He's repeatedly been challenged to provide evidence. So far, he hasn't. He has made personal attacks routinely -- on several different occasions. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
08:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Viriditas has engaged in comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]
Statement from FellGleaming: This is a regular pattern with this user. In my only dispute with him, he began revert warring over a trivial dispute. I took it to the NOR message board and, when an editor from there supported my interpretation, he began attacking verbally them as well. When two more editors joined and we began thrashing out a compromise text, he started repeatedly section blanking the entire portion of the article: [194] [195] I won't go into that dispute further but I'll add a few more to the list of incivility remarks:
UPDATE: In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several new articles, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses both in article talkspace and my own talk page, and going so far as filing noticeboard actions against me: Some examples: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205]. I think such obviously retaliatory behavior speaks for itself. Fell Gleaming talk 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
←This "finding of fact" is an absolutely disgraceful abuse of this page. With all due respect to those affected, "denial" is not a word claimed by people who have been affected by either the Holocaust or AIDS. A "denier" is someone who eschews overwhelming factual evidence because it doesn't fit with their own ideology/position/philosophy/whatever. If someone ignores overwhelming scientific evidence, they are "science deniers". "Scientific skepticism" refers to the natural caution of a scientist, not the blind refusal to accept what is patently obvious from overwhelming evidence. The continued insistence that using the term "science deniers" is derogatory (and this has cropped up in several FoFs aimed at individual editors) is wholly inappropriate. It is a factual term with plenty of support in reliable sources, just as "anti-abortionists" is the proper term for the self-described "pro-lifers". I urge ArbCom to look at JohnWBarber's behavior on this talk page with respect to these frivolous complaints against editors who don't share his "climate change skepticism". -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
<od> John Barber's source is rather interesting, but not so much for the article itself, but from the comments. Amusingly, WMC makes the first comment and he admits that "deniers" is in reference to holocaust denial, but seems to assert his right to still use it - these people know full well that they are being intentionally inflammatory. David Archer is also in the comment section, another Real Climate contributor who's been cited to prove that the GW articles are well-made. It really is such a small world. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
06:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
William M. Connolley has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the article about RealClimate, of which he was a founding member, and other articles related to the topic of RealClimate, including edit warring and removal of reliably sourced text without discussion [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]. In at least one case, an administrator intervened to stop the edit war [224].
The Arbs have indicated they are interested in seeing a larger pattern.
Minor
4th
19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Alternate proposed FoF: William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs) COI editing and NPOV violationsWilliam M. Connolley ( talk · contribs) has engaged in violations of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, by editing RealClimate in a manner that constitutes advocacy and violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline [226] [227] [228] [229] [230]. In promoting the RealClimate point of view, William Connolley has added the RealClimate blog as a source, often as a SPS in BLP's [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236] and questionable wikilinking to RealClimate [237].
There is a long enough history of persistent edit-warring to justify this (see finding 6), and the edit-warring has continued unabated throughout these proceedings, and still continues. It is also one of the most conspicuous ways in which the "uncivil and antagonistic behaviour" mentioned in finding 8.2, which appears to be passing, manifests. -- JN 466 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
|
There is too much reverting in the climate change pages. Probably, a global 1RR all over wiki would be good, but putting one on to the climate change pages would be a start William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing for readibility. Community dealing and can continue to do so.
Roger Davies
talk
08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
FellGleaming ( talk · contribs) has used dubious sources [249] to advance his POV [250]; violated BLP (e.g. [251] (note that was done *after* Cuccinelli's investigation had been rejected by the judge, see Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Cuccinelli); edit warred to remove material purely because he doesn't like it [252] (see Talk:Frederick_Seitz#Deleting_info); misrepresented consensus to bias discussion [253]; and repeatedly engaged in bad-faith tendentious wiki-lawyeing to defend his favoured versions (e.g. Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Removal_of_sourced_content). Note that FG was censured by the CC panel [254] [255] and was given a final warning to avoid aggressive posturing. He has previously been blocked for edit warring on Cl Ch articles [256]; and been annoying other people elsewhere [257] William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [259]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [260] (see this: [261]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content." [263] I've also encountered what VsevolodKrolikov calls "misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion" on many occasions. His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that." In my view his editing behavior is far more destructive than most of the editors cited in the current FoF listings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC) William's complaint is a bit odd. He claims this source [264] as dubious, which presumably means unreliable. However, the quote cited is accurate, a fact William doesn't dispute. The underlying fact -- that RealClimate was founded to be a proactive source of information on climate related stories -- has been widely reported. Given William, as a founder of RealClimate himself well knows this to be accurate -- complaining that the source is "questionable" appears to be simple Wikilawyering to build a case against an editor he disagrees with. The article content certainly wasn't harmed. Charge #2 is that I "advanced my POV", in this talk page comment [265]. This is even stranger. He challenges a fact as irrelevant (a fact first added by another editor besides myself, by the way). I explain why I feel it's notable. He claims my explanation is a violation. If an editor's explanation of why he believes an article should take a certain form is a crime, then I respectfully submit that anyone whose ever made a talk page comment is guilty. My statement that it should be included is no more "POV pushing" than his statement that it should be excluded. His is worse, in fact, as I detailed a specific argument as to why the material was relevant, whereas his justification for removing it was the unhelpful, "take a look at the website", followed by his personalizing the debate with the statement "This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace." [266] His third charge of a BLP violation is nearly a month old and over 1000 edits ago of mine. If he truly thought this actionable, it's odd he didn't report it then. The material is properly supported by sources. In fact, when he near-instantly reverted the edit [267], he didn't call it a BLP violation, he simply said "please see talk where this has been discussed". The talk in question was a two-week old thread [268] that as I read it, had no clear consensus either way. And, of course, even had consensus been reached, it doesn't remain indefinitely. But the larger problem with William's accusation is I believe it's clearly made not to improve the content, but simply to attack me. Consider. A several weeks-old edit, instantly reverted by him. What's the point of dredging this up, especially given its clearly not a BLP violation? Is he simply once again trying to squelch editors whom he disagrees with? Fell Gleaming talk 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (this may need to be re-updated depending on how the thing pans out) FG has now been blocked for 72h [269] and threatened with loss of talk-page access [270] William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
I am not that familiar with NW, and don't know if this was a blip, or part of a larger pattern, or indeed if arbitrators would agree with me that NW vocally defended a blatant BLP (and WP:SPS) violation here. But I think it is worth bringing up, even if only to correct any misunderstanding on my part. If anyone is aware of similar incidents involving NW, please propose diffs to be added. -- JN 466 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, of the 5 admins reviewing this request (see permalink), 3 saw this as a content dispute without clear BLP violations (NW, The Wordsmith, and BozMo). One (LessHeardvanU) suggested topic-banning all climate-change ArbCom participants, which may well have been a good idea but did not address the BLP question directly. And one (Lar) castigated KDP and William, stating: "I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation."
Given that a majority of the reviewing admins didn't see a BLP problem here, it seems grossly unwarranted to single out NuclearWarfare, and even more unwarranted to berate him for "failing to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator". It seems more like people looking at this just weren't as convinced as you that this was a major BLP violation, as opposed to a more garden-variety content dispute. I don't think we need to elevate isolated disagreements over gray areas to the level of proposed findings. MastCell Talk 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant part of WP:BLP is, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. The dispute was about an external link to a self-published attack piece. -- JN 466 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel that what I wrote has been misrepresented, but I am not interested in getting involved with this at this moment in time. If Arbitrators do want to look into this and propose a Finding of Fact/Remedy, then I ask that they read the situation in its original context, as linked by Jayen466 in original comment and as I will relink now. Could the matter please be left to the Arbitrators? I don't think anything is served by refighting these disputes. NW ( Talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) I have been following this discussion since it unfolded and find myself broadly agreeing with Mastcell's comments. Quite apart from that, the guiding policy here is probably the "not perfect" one: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I would incidentally make the observation that Scott MacDonald, an admin for whom I have the very greatest respect, is something of an expert on BLP, has played a major role in the community's discussions on the subject, and is unafraid to make controversial BLP calls. Roger Davies talk 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) This one has pretty much run its course too so I'll cap it off shortly. Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare stated that "Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong." If NuclearWarfare still maintains today that this view is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, then this remedy unfortunately appears necessary to prevent a repeat. -- JN 466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.
For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues). [5] Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.
I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.
It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom could be clearer about the principle it applies, at least. In a similar case it presented the following:
Assuming this remains the case it would seem sensible to say it. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the opening premise of this discussion, that "often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all" is quite mistaken. It's normal to revert disputed edits and I'm aware of no arbitration case in which this has been presented as at all problematic. It's what happens after a dispute is identified that matters. -- TS 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I may have been unclear, but I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything stronger than the very common principle seen here. Consider even WP:Revert:
It's hard to draw a line, but considering that WP:BRD is well supported, I think it's a misconception that to prohibit revert warring bolsters inclusion over exclusion; if anything the strictest interpretations tend to start on the next revert where someone replaces material. Besides that, do good content contributors really revert more often within any dispute than agenda pushers? I doubt that, but especially I'd think they could learn not to. Mackan79 ( talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], including edit warring [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] , inappropriate use of admin privileges [31] and comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [32] [33] [34] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, [35] [36] [37] participated in several edit-wars, including BLPs, [38] [39] [40] editing to make a point, [41] [42] [43] and inappropriate use of admin privileges. [44] [45] [46] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated edit-wars, including edit-wars regarding contentious material to BLPs, editing to make a point, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator.
KimDabelsteinPetersen ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and policy-violating or inappropriate edits to BLP articles [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83].
I added a few more diffs of edit warring to those that AQFK had compiled showing Kim edit warring at the Climate Audit article declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place. Cla68 ( talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Verbal ( talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]
Most of these drive-by reverts were to revert back to WMC version when he was on an editing restriction and had already reverted. All of these articles have BLP issues, except HSI. In each case, Verbal did not participate in editing the article or engaging in discussion on the talk page to try to resolve issues. Minor 4th 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
07:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 ( talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. -- TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is also in the middle of peer review.
Minor
4th
14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP
The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [120] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [121] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [122] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [123] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [124] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them. The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling. He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations
After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess [125] please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley ( talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In my view ScienceApologist made a
good faithed redirect, as he appeared to have
reached consensus with other editors for the redirect. I suppose it would be fair to say that he should have given it an extra day or two for other people to chime in on the redirect proposal but I do not see anything deliberately provocative. This is not to say the redirect was or was not a good idea, it is to say that it was not malicious from an outsider's (my) viewpoint. I do think that
(outdent) To expand on my earlier comment in this section. I would just like to clarify something based on further discussion in below sections. Per this comment and other comments I am convinced that ScienceApologist's edits regarding adding denialist labels to BLP articles are done in good faith, even though I still have concerns with these edits. I have struck the word misuse in my above comment. It is really difficult for outsiders to get to the root of what exactly is going on on these articles and thus I didn't chose my wording carefully enough. I can see why ArbCom are taking their time with their decision.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs) (and his alternate account Tasty monster ( talk · contribs)) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] and unhelpful or tendentious editing [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148].
I haven't checked the diffs, but I assume that Cla68 is unaware that I disengaged from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject some months ago and have no intention of getting mixed up in the subject again. -- TS 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be so literal-minded. Quantitively I have not edited in the subject area for many months. The 3 August edit was a single reversion of a ridiculously poorly sourced, and if you are honest, very provocatively sourced, edit. That kind of edit must stop. -- TS 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Now I have looked at the edits, I don't think there's a case to answer. Should a majority of active arbitrators think there is, however, that's good enough for me. -- TS 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Tony Sidaway has violated WP:BLP [150].
I remain unconvinced. If anybody else thinks this is even credible, could they please speak up now? I'm utterly flummoxed by Cla68's representations. In case Cla68 is under any serious misapprehension, I have a great professional respect for Hans von Storch. That respect for a professional scientist does not extend to people who write on science while not themselves possessing any expertise in science. This speaks to verifiability. -- TS 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks at least I now understand where this comes from.
A Quest For Knowledge, What I see you striking seems a little nit picky and I'll explain what I mean. I take what you are striking here
Tony Sidaway has engaged in baiting, contributing to a battleground atmosphere on climate change-related pages. [151] [152] & [153] [154] & [155] These represent three separate incidents. The second baiting incident (second and third diffs above) is explained here [156] and here [157] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant edits by John W Barber are here. John abruptly moved from editing articles about poetry to making some very inflammatory comments about the behavior of people who were proposing the deletion of an article related to global warming. He subsequently requested the deletion of an article that he claimed was equivalent to the one that had been listed for deletion. Some related proposals were discussed on the probation enforcement page ( approximate link which covers the timeframe, please do uncollapse and examine the retaliatory filing by John W Barber). I find this tit-for-tat battling exhausting, because it's impossible to wind-down such a process once it has begun. At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. They do seem to have had some association on wiki. There's nothing wrong with that, but the switch from poetry to sniping seemed so out of character that I thought John might be pursuing personal matters. The later comment on this proposed decision talk page related to the Barack Obama probation. I noticed that several editors, including most notably ScJessey but also including John Barber (using his username Noroton) had apparently migrated from the Obama articles. Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. I regret saying " They don't like to be taken for fools". From context, "they" clearly means "humans" and the implication is that John was being manipulative in listing for deletion an article that was well established (although if you look hard enough you'll find I have my reservations about it). -- TS 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I also regret this edit, which was part of a misguided attempt to maintain openness and parity on the climate change articles by informing every editor of the probation. While I was scrupulous in informing every single new editor, I think it was a terrible mistake because it immediately informed the new editor that he had entered a combat zone. That is no way to great a new editor. -- TS 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As the original author of WP:BAIT, I see no evidence in support of the proposed finding with regard to baiting by TS. More generally, may I humbly dubious – discuss suggest that this page has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and that the arbitrators proceed to a timely close of this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec with above) A list of the aspersions Tony cast in recent days. I've made the point that they're baiting, but I also want to make the point here that they're personal attacks, and show just how they're personal attacks by quoting them. I don't think I need to quote the specific parts of WP:NPA that apply to each one, but I'm happy to do it if requested:
Tony has repeatedly made personal attacks on this page, in violation of Principle 6 on the P.D. page. He's repeatedly been challenged to provide evidence. So far, he hasn't. He has made personal attacks routinely -- on several different occasions. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
08:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Viriditas has engaged in comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]
Statement from FellGleaming: This is a regular pattern with this user. In my only dispute with him, he began revert warring over a trivial dispute. I took it to the NOR message board and, when an editor from there supported my interpretation, he began attacking verbally them as well. When two more editors joined and we began thrashing out a compromise text, he started repeatedly section blanking the entire portion of the article: [194] [195] I won't go into that dispute further but I'll add a few more to the list of incivility remarks:
UPDATE: In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several new articles, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses both in article talkspace and my own talk page, and going so far as filing noticeboard actions against me: Some examples: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205]. I think such obviously retaliatory behavior speaks for itself. Fell Gleaming talk 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
←This "finding of fact" is an absolutely disgraceful abuse of this page. With all due respect to those affected, "denial" is not a word claimed by people who have been affected by either the Holocaust or AIDS. A "denier" is someone who eschews overwhelming factual evidence because it doesn't fit with their own ideology/position/philosophy/whatever. If someone ignores overwhelming scientific evidence, they are "science deniers". "Scientific skepticism" refers to the natural caution of a scientist, not the blind refusal to accept what is patently obvious from overwhelming evidence. The continued insistence that using the term "science deniers" is derogatory (and this has cropped up in several FoFs aimed at individual editors) is wholly inappropriate. It is a factual term with plenty of support in reliable sources, just as "anti-abortionists" is the proper term for the self-described "pro-lifers". I urge ArbCom to look at JohnWBarber's behavior on this talk page with respect to these frivolous complaints against editors who don't share his "climate change skepticism". -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
<od> John Barber's source is rather interesting, but not so much for the article itself, but from the comments. Amusingly, WMC makes the first comment and he admits that "deniers" is in reference to holocaust denial, but seems to assert his right to still use it - these people know full well that they are being intentionally inflammatory. David Archer is also in the comment section, another Real Climate contributor who's been cited to prove that the GW articles are well-made. It really is such a small world. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course.
Roger Davies
talk
06:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
William M. Connolley has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the article about RealClimate, of which he was a founding member, and other articles related to the topic of RealClimate, including edit warring and removal of reliably sourced text without discussion [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]. In at least one case, an administrator intervened to stop the edit war [224].
The Arbs have indicated they are interested in seeing a larger pattern.
Minor
4th
19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Alternate proposed FoF: William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs) COI editing and NPOV violationsWilliam M. Connolley ( talk · contribs) has engaged in violations of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, by editing RealClimate in a manner that constitutes advocacy and violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline [226] [227] [228] [229] [230]. In promoting the RealClimate point of view, William Connolley has added the RealClimate blog as a source, often as a SPS in BLP's [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236] and questionable wikilinking to RealClimate [237].
There is a long enough history of persistent edit-warring to justify this (see finding 6), and the edit-warring has continued unabated throughout these proceedings, and still continues. It is also one of the most conspicuous ways in which the "uncivil and antagonistic behaviour" mentioned in finding 8.2, which appears to be passing, manifests. -- JN 466 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
|
There is too much reverting in the climate change pages. Probably, a global 1RR all over wiki would be good, but putting one on to the climate change pages would be a start William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing for readibility. Community dealing and can continue to do so.
Roger Davies
talk
08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
FellGleaming ( talk · contribs) has used dubious sources [249] to advance his POV [250]; violated BLP (e.g. [251] (note that was done *after* Cuccinelli's investigation had been rejected by the judge, see Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Cuccinelli); edit warred to remove material purely because he doesn't like it [252] (see Talk:Frederick_Seitz#Deleting_info); misrepresented consensus to bias discussion [253]; and repeatedly engaged in bad-faith tendentious wiki-lawyeing to defend his favoured versions (e.g. Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Removal_of_sourced_content). Note that FG was censured by the CC panel [254] [255] and was given a final warning to avoid aggressive posturing. He has previously been blocked for edit warring on Cl Ch articles [256]; and been annoying other people elsewhere [257] William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [259]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [260] (see this: [261]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content." [263] I've also encountered what VsevolodKrolikov calls "misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion" on many occasions. His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that." In my view his editing behavior is far more destructive than most of the editors cited in the current FoF listings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC) William's complaint is a bit odd. He claims this source [264] as dubious, which presumably means unreliable. However, the quote cited is accurate, a fact William doesn't dispute. The underlying fact -- that RealClimate was founded to be a proactive source of information on climate related stories -- has been widely reported. Given William, as a founder of RealClimate himself well knows this to be accurate -- complaining that the source is "questionable" appears to be simple Wikilawyering to build a case against an editor he disagrees with. The article content certainly wasn't harmed. Charge #2 is that I "advanced my POV", in this talk page comment [265]. This is even stranger. He challenges a fact as irrelevant (a fact first added by another editor besides myself, by the way). I explain why I feel it's notable. He claims my explanation is a violation. If an editor's explanation of why he believes an article should take a certain form is a crime, then I respectfully submit that anyone whose ever made a talk page comment is guilty. My statement that it should be included is no more "POV pushing" than his statement that it should be excluded. His is worse, in fact, as I detailed a specific argument as to why the material was relevant, whereas his justification for removing it was the unhelpful, "take a look at the website", followed by his personalizing the debate with the statement "This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace." [266] His third charge of a BLP violation is nearly a month old and over 1000 edits ago of mine. If he truly thought this actionable, it's odd he didn't report it then. The material is properly supported by sources. In fact, when he near-instantly reverted the edit [267], he didn't call it a BLP violation, he simply said "please see talk where this has been discussed". The talk in question was a two-week old thread [268] that as I read it, had no clear consensus either way. And, of course, even had consensus been reached, it doesn't remain indefinitely. But the larger problem with William's accusation is I believe it's clearly made not to improve the content, but simply to attack me. Consider. A several weeks-old edit, instantly reverted by him. What's the point of dredging this up, especially given its clearly not a BLP violation? Is he simply once again trying to squelch editors whom he disagrees with? Fell Gleaming talk 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (this may need to be re-updated depending on how the thing pans out) FG has now been blocked for 72h [269] and threatened with loss of talk-page access [270] William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |