Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 17 June 2010

POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Rick Warren mediation Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 10 months and 10 days.

STRONG objection

to that closing summary. It has a missing parenthesis in the second to last bullet. (and can it be COINCIDENCE that it's the ... dum dum dum... CLOSING parenthesis???!??? I think not!). COMPLETELY unsatisfactory!

More seriously, thanks a lot for taking the time to put together a reasoned and balanced summary. I certainly would endorse it and I hope others would find it satisfactory as well. It contains actionable suggestions and food for thought, which NW's "not a close" did not. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know its not quite your ideal closing, but I do try to consider myself fair. I hope that you take my words to heart, and spend some time thinking about whether you truly can act in an unbiased manner. The Wordsmith 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if it was my ideal close it wouldn't have much chance of being accepted, closes are about finding a consensus position. Second, if the number of good, unbiased and thoughtful admins that participate at the enforcement board continues to increase, or if the coming ArbCom case accomplishes good things, recusal certainly becomes easier to contemplate (and more attractive as well... after all who likes comments like this one? It was calculated to wind me up, presumably... and I resisted. but you are no stranger to those either.) ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

I don't think it is necessary for an individual appeal approach on any article in Misplaced Pages. WMC doesn't own the Global warming article any more than I do. The article belongs to everybody under Misplaced Pages's current culture and system. If you post your suggestion, which I think is a good one, on the article's talk page then I and others can doubtlessly join in and hopefully make some progress on it. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. WMC is known as one of the most prolific GW editors and I wanted his opinion before I brought it to a more "public" place. If he says that they tried that and it didn't work, then I avoid making a fool of myself. Besides, most of the major GW editors probably watch his page anyway so I was sure to get a reasonable cross section of opinions. The Wordsmith 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the initial reaction probably could have been foretold with a fair degree of accuracy. I predict that after the ArbCom case concludes the regular editors involved with that article, if they're still allowed to participate in that topic area, will be more open to such suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Arbcom will have no choice but to make specific content decisions regarding this topic area. Otherwise the same disagreements will open up when new scientifically literate editors come along. The solution would be for Arbcom to mandate that no one with a graduate degree in the natural sciences is allowed to touch the article, but given the anonymity of Misplaced Pages that would likely be unenforceable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, anyone holding a doctorate, master's, bachelor's, or no degree at all is welcome to participate in the climate change articles if they're willing and able to follow WP's rules, videlict, not abusing BLPs, not bullying other editors, following NPOV, and in general being willing to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. I believe the ArbCom's decision won't read exactly like that, it rarely does, but I expect that it will at least remind the parties (including me) that observance of WP's policies and guidelines is not optional, no matter what the individual academic qualifications of the participating editors are. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled "videlicet." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SBHB, I have a sticky keyboard that is driving me crazy. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Run it under warm water for a while then let it dry. Usually works like a charm. Be sure to drain out as much water as possible before you leave it to dry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cla, you seem like a pretty clueful person who is also knowledgeable on this topic (remind me again why you're not an arb? I remember voting for you). What do you think of the compromise I proposed on WMC's talkpage? The Wordsmith 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He made too many enemies. Actually being right about things counts for rather less than one might think, and enemies accrete over time while supporters fade away. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely support your idea. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If I get some more support for it, i'll take it to Talk:Global warming. The Wordsmith 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SBHB I'm not sure I see any need for ArbCom to make any content decisions in this area. But then I don't think this is primarily a content problem. It's almost all behavior. I know you and I differ on this. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

knowledgeable on this topic - that seems to me a curious observation. I've never seen Cla demonstrate any knowledge of the science. What are you referring to? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where were you looking for such demonstrations? ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His editing? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of what? I was asking WMC, actually. And remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, H has already said the obvious. Failing editing, I suppose knowledgeable discussion on talk pages. If TW isn't up to answering (though I would hope he would be, he must have got that impression from smoething other than bluster) than you may feel free to have a go. Go on, Cla must have made some good science-based edit to Cl Ch recently: what is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You tend not to answer my questions directly. So I'll return the favor. Why do you think that making a "good science-based edit" (whatever that means) equates to knowledge of the topic area, or the converse? I don't edit in computer science related topic areas at all, which proves nothing about my knowledge of the topic area. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So, then, Lar, wouldn't you think that me refering to you as "knowledgeable on topic" of computer science would be a curious observation? Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since I assert that I am degreed in the area. (BS in Comp Sci '83 MTU MS in Comp Eng '93 Syracuse) But even if I didn't so assert... still not necessarily. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar, am I knowledgeable on the topic of hydrodynamics? You're doing that thing where you don't admit that you know you're wrong again. 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an unsigned comment I have no basis for a determination one way or the other. But, whoever you are, do you assert you are so knowledgable somewhere? (link?) Is it verifiable? But we veer from what started the thread... WMC's assertion that lack of edits implies lack of expertise. A point still not addressed satisfactorily by him or anyone else. As for the character assassination in your last sentence... pfft. Nice try. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is trying to establish why TW has the opinion he has. If you've got no idea why he might think Cla is knowledgable, perhaps you;d be best off not answering William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what you're trying to establish, yes. What I'm trying to establish is why lack of edits in an area is evidence of lack of expertise. Which view you've been asked to justify several times now and have always failed to do. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, Lar seems to be pretty knowledgable about Misplaced Pages behavioral policies ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Logic failure: what Cla is showing is lack of evidence of expertise, not evidence of lack of expertise. I'm sure you'll understand the difference if you think about it a bit. If you'd like some evidence of lack, though, Cla supplies it below William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, if being "knowledgable on this topic" is of such enormous importance to you, you might consider refraining from editing or taking a back seat regarding BLPs and articles on rhetorical subjects like The Gore Effect, or at least let editors with more knowledge on those topics take the lead. If you'd like, I could mentor you a bit on some of those subject areas, given my knowledge and/or professional experience on the topics of fair treatment of people being written about and literary devices such as satire. I'm not sure about your experience and knowledge concerning politics, but if you find it convenient, feel free leave those topics in my capable hands, as well. You just sit back and leave that technical stuff to me. I'm sure it will provide you with some relief as you concentrate on improving the science aspects of our Misplaced Pages climate-change articles. Fair trade? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You (and Lar) are failing to read what I wrote. Let me try again, in the hope that you'll understand. TW said, that he thought Cla seemed knowledgable about climte change. That seemed odd to me - I've never seen Cla say anything that demonstrated any understanding of the subject. So I asked TW to explain why he made his statement. TW hasn't responded, and neither you nor Lar have said anything useful. If you dislike the conversation and wish to derail it - which appears to be your intent - please stop. If you don't know the answer, fine - let TW answer for himself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you will get people who are skeptical and less knowledgable than WMC to stay off of all topic related to the science of global warming (including Global Warming), I can pretty much assure you that I can get him to stay away from all biographies of skeptics. Deal? Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait to see if the possible ArbCom case culls some players from the herd of independent minds, then maybe we'll discuss troop reductions . -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I was the one who tracked-down the error in the Global Warming article that the university professor had identified after you declined to do so. You know, the same professor who stated that it was obvious that the article, "was obviously not written by a professional climate scientist" or words to that effect. Remember that? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please state the course of events accurately. WMC did not "decline" to track down the review; he never said "no, I'm not going to do that." You simply got around to it first. While you helpfully tracked down the review, it was others who interpreted what the review was referring to specifically (the wording was subtle) and made the actual correction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I asked David Archer independently, which is how come I knows the context around Cla's partial quote. As Boris has already pointed out, at no point before during or after this process did Cla show any understanding of the science involved.

Archer's quote isn't quite how Cla likes to remember it, either. More exactly it is I can tell occasionally that it was not written by professional climate scientists, but it does a good job. For example, the sentence "A 2008 paper predicts that the global temperature may not increase during the next decade because short-term natural fluctuations may temporarily outweigh greenhouse gas-induced warming." is taking that 2008 paper a lot more seriously than I personally would say it warrants; the sentence seems to me naive. That paper was stuffed in by the skeptics; I'd argued for it to be de-weighted. By the time we came to discuss Archers comment it was already gone Talk:Global_warming/Archive_60. I'm sure you can all see the moral William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My phone is terrible for editing, so I would appreciate it if someone could remove the section header and indent appropriately. I meant that Cla. Seems to know about the topic's coverage on Misplaced Pages so he can probably judge the merits of my suggestion. The Wordsmith 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now had you said that to begin with none of this discussion would have happened, and Cla wouldn't have had to pretend to understand any of the science William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That last comment isn't helpful, WMC, and you've been warned about that sort of thing before. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Err no, actually it was all rather helpful. Unlike Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? which wasn't. But since it was from "your side" you ignored JWB. So please, stop being such a hypocrite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost entirely, the only sense that Lar and I are on the same side is that we're concerned about some of your actions. And how was my comment unhelpful? It was made to prompt you to some introspection about the attitude you're displaying here. Please don't consider the comment you quoted rhetorical. I really don't get how your comments were not a derailment but mine were. I thought I was building on your comment, questioning underlying assumptions behind it. Seemed like a pretty apt connection to me. (In the last sentence, I was actually thinking of my first comment in this thread, but it also applies to the derail/derailment comment.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)just added the sentence in parentheses at the end -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm confident that if you believe that, you'll be able to see that in exactly the same way my own comment was helpful. See the symmetry? See the hypocrisy? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For the apparently thankless task of drafting a suggested closing summary at the RfC/U. Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I do make an effort to be even-handed, no matter what people assume about me. The Wordsmith 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just popping by to offer some words of encouragement. Glad to see Tryp beat me to it. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Misplaced Pages project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Misplaced Pages used in Indian court, Is Misplaced Pages a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Appeal

Against my sanction Since the ban was introduced i have created several articles with not one single problematic reference.

• The Castle in the Attic
• Indur M. Goklany
• Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
• The Gore Effect

Given none of the ref`s i have used were a problem i would like to ask for this sanction to be lifted. If you decline i would like to enquire as to how i am meant to get the sanction lifted? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As recently as 8 June you have attempted to include unquestionably unreliable sources in mainspace. Hipocrite (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff please mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In this diff, you ask an admin to move your version of The Gore Effect to mainspace. That version had unquestionably unreliable sources in it. When asked who had reviewed the sources in the article, you were unable to state who had already looked at them, merely that someone said they would look at them. When someone did finally look at the sources, they removed the obviously unreliable sources - in other words, you still don't understand our sourcing policies. I note in your most recent userspace draft you yet again use obviously unreliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, sanction appeals should not be directed at an individual admin. TW doesn't own the sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not accurate hipocrite, i asked lar to move it after he checked the refs. And cla checked the refs and saw no problems with them. And there are no unreliable refs in my userspace, if there is point it out. @WMC WS said i could appeal the sanction to him, which is what i am doing mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "Your full of crap," and it's your side who is complaining about the incivility of the science cabal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If he thinks it`s uncivil i`ll strike it, however what he wrote above is crap mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mark, Cla68 did see a problem with them. In fact, his first edit to your article was "New American isn't reliable", and his second was "ditto". In your current userspace draft you use obviously unrelaible www.futureconscience.com - "Future Conscience comes from the thoughts and opinions mainly of one individual – R. A. Gordon...." This is not a review of the sources of your userspace draft, merely a cherry pick of the lowest hanging fruit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When was that ref inserted? And was it by me? Who knows, after the two MFD`s lots people worked on that article. Why do you think www.futureconscience.com is unreliable? It is a convenience link to the bbc interview. I think it is reliable enough to show a video don`t you? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Checked it and i did insert that ref back in 11:00, 7 January 2010 So quite a while ago. Since the numerous editors worked on that article and none removed it. The only two refs i added to that article before moving to mainspace were The Baltimore Sun A reliable source i believe, and the Herald Sun so since my sanction I have in fact not used a single unreliable source have I? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your attack on Hipocrite is uncivil, and it it not welcome on this page. Please redact it, or I will. In addition, I am going to have to decline your appeal. Some of your recent actions (specifically, the Gore Effect issue) make it clear that you still don't understand the purpose of the sanction. The next step for an appeal would be WP:AN, or ArbCom. The Wordsmith 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Redacted, would you please explain what you find problematic with my actions re The Gore Effect? mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)