Revision as of 01:04, 9 September 2010 editWoonpton (talk | contribs)1,108 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration: wrong button; I was still editing that← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:10, 9 September 2010 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration: large numbers of empirical observations do, indeed, establish a baseline for randomnessNext edit → | ||
Line 763: | Line 763: | ||
@Collect: ''Pretty much in line with random chance.'' As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the degree of departure from random chance is a statistical concept that must be established by a statistical test in order for the statement to have any meaning. The wikistalk tool does not provide a statistical test, so there appears to be no basis for these emphatic statements about how consistent something is with "random chance." You stated on the case pages that there was a "significant difference" between the overlap among six arbitrators (27 user talk pages in common) and the overlap among six pro-science editors on climate change articles (29 user talk pages in common). From this statement, one can assume that in your scheme of "statistical reasoning," in a group of six editors, two user talk pages in common would have to be considered a significant departure from "random chance." (this follows logically from your assertion that a difference of two--29 vs 27-- is "significant.") Extending that logic, one would have to consider that if two pages in common is a significant departure from "random chance" for a group of six editors, then one page in common among a group of ten editors (as shown on Viriditas' wikistalk link), which is much less probable by chance than a page in common among a group of six editors, could well also be a significant departure from chance. The point I'm trying to make is that this whole line of reasoning is simply without any statistical foundation, a house built on sand, and no one should draw any conclusions about degree of cooperation among editors, one way or the other, from using this tool. ] (]) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | @Collect: ''Pretty much in line with random chance.'' As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the degree of departure from random chance is a statistical concept that must be established by a statistical test in order for the statement to have any meaning. The wikistalk tool does not provide a statistical test, so there appears to be no basis for these emphatic statements about how consistent something is with "random chance." You stated on the case pages that there was a "significant difference" between the overlap among six arbitrators (27 user talk pages in common) and the overlap among six pro-science editors on climate change articles (29 user talk pages in common). From this statement, one can assume that in your scheme of "statistical reasoning," in a group of six editors, two user talk pages in common would have to be considered a significant departure from "random chance." (this follows logically from your assertion that a difference of two--29 vs 27-- is "significant.") Extending that logic, one would have to consider that if two pages in common is a significant departure from "random chance" for a group of six editors, then one page in common among a group of ten editors (as shown on Viriditas' wikistalk link), which is much less probable by chance than a page in common among a group of six editors, could well also be a significant departure from chance. The point I'm trying to make is that this whole line of reasoning is simply without any statistical foundation, a house built on sand, and no one should draw any conclusions about degree of cooperation among editors, one way or the other, from using this tool. ] (]) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Empirical data from 300 editors taken 6 at a time establishes a pretty good basis for determining "random chance." Ask a math professor how much data is involved in 300 people taken six at a time seeking to maximize amount of overlap - and where said empirical data never got to 15 pages where all 6 people edited out of all the empirical observations (and only occurred once in all those observations), whether amounts much greater than 15 would be non-random. ] (]) 01:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Woonpton, the tool most certainly establishes relationships between editors, and this is not in any dispute. You appear to be very confused on this point. Anyone can use this tool to create an ], and we used to have a tool (can't find it at the moment) that created these models based on RfA data, showing relationships by nomination. Beyond that, you appear to enjoy engaging in fantasy and fighting with strawmen, with statements like "I suppose, then, that Viriditas endorses the use of wikistalk results introduced as evidence in the CC case to establish the existence of a coordinated pro-science "bloc" on climate change pages". I've said nothing like that. I've said that it establishes relationships between editors, and your reply, "it does nothing of the sort" is wrong. Along these lines, I would encourage someone, anyone, to model the relationships of participating editors in the current arbcom case and analyze them closely. ] (]) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | :Woonpton, the tool most certainly establishes relationships between editors, and this is not in any dispute. You appear to be very confused on this point. Anyone can use this tool to create an ], and we used to have a tool (can't find it at the moment) that created these models based on RfA data, showing relationships by nomination. Beyond that, you appear to enjoy engaging in fantasy and fighting with strawmen, with statements like "I suppose, then, that Viriditas endorses the use of wikistalk results introduced as evidence in the CC case to establish the existence of a coordinated pro-science "bloc" on climate change pages". I've said nothing like that. I've said that it establishes relationships between editors, and your reply, "it does nothing of the sort" is wrong. Along these lines, I would encourage someone, anyone, to model the relationships of participating editors in the current arbcom case and analyze them closely. ] (]) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:10, 9 September 2010
To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats Googlebombing: Coton school UK
I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log • Count watchers • Edit count • WikiBlame I'm Number 11 |
The Holding Pen
Ocean acidification
On hold |
---|
A reader writes:
I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Your ArbCom userpage comment
Need to finish this off |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
Ditto |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above. As a result of this case:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
InterestingHardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
|
Fools and their foolishness
Yes, it needs finishing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding , you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bozmo. I've cut my hair recently so we may not be too far opposed on that aspect (unless you now have long hair). As to expanding the page - that will come in time. I'm glad you (V) are watching but I'm afraid I've grown rather discouraged by arbcomms ability to learn, so I won't be in a hurry. That page is mostly for me, though you are free to ask questions there if you like and I'll probbaly answer. In the meantime, on the "fools" issue, User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility#Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff refers William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Current
I just found this
Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Wondring aloud
I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thermal underwear
Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below |
---|
May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well. My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows:
where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2. In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour). In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2. My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way? Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium. So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation:
(the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere,
(the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis. Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, this and the linked also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Blast from the past
Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Misplaced Pages in 2010 ?
OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
More thermals
All at Idealized greenhouse model it seems |
---|
Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true.
| G ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S G V ^ S+G | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4 Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ 0 | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ G_T | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T. So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Service award update
Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.
Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Some help with links would be appreciated
I see that you're (still) neck deep in "The Dramaz!", but when you get a chance I'd appreciate it if yourself or someone you know could take a look at Eric Rignot and try to straighten out the climatology related redlinks there. Don't worry about the link to Lew Allen Director's Award, I'll take care of that myself eventually (unless someone else wants to write a little article about the award. Don't let me stop you!). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK. By golly, but that is an awful photo! William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done a bit, others have too. You might want to pay attention to the regrettable possibility of it being a copyvio, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
Code fragments found
Just thouht you might be interested in this news item about code fragments being found. It came to my attention as it was next to this story which has a pretty decent subheading. I don't have access to more than the abstract, doubtless this will lead to interesting discussions. Perhaps a bit offtopic at the moment, but something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the water vapor, email me and you will get a PDF. (Re: Roman law - very cool.) Awickert (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have this page watchlisted anymore. I am willing to provide copies for papers behind paywalls within reason. -Atmoz (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours
I have enacted a 48 hour block on your account LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your lack of interest in the actual content of the wiki is duly noted; as I said above: you've chosen the worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I've removed the goo and dribble from the above, leaving only the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Simple:Misplaced Pages
I want to make sure that you are aware of this edit to Black Body. I had never heard of Simple:Misplaced Pages before, but apparently, I can now create a page there with the same name as a page here and they will be automatically linked. I don't know how to get that bot banned, so I am telling you. If you think that this is no big deal, please say so. (And yes, I know you have an account there. As of today so do I. Do you want **baby or should I take it:) Q Science (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
24 hour block, and extension to warning regarding inappopropriate words and phrases
Per the preceding section, you have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restriction on Climate Change related articles.
You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good grief you're a biased bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Although I usually disagree with you, I just wanted to say thanks for all your contributions to the various global warming related articles. And also for occasionally making me smile. Thepm (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
- Why thank you, that is very kind, both for the thought and the manner of giving William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
My Compliments
I don't often see myself agreeing with /these, so when I do, I thought I'd take the opportunity to compliment you. Fell Gleaming 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Dynamic topography
To William and his talk page stalkers:
Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?
I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.
Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For many years of defending Misplaced Pages from the forces of the abyss. Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
- You were here when I joined Misplaced Pages, and you've been much more constant than I have. I've learned a great deal from you, and while we have not always agreed on who is evil and who is just different, I have always respected the passion with which you have fought what we both regard as monsters from the abyss. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! It could not have come at a happier time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ben and William, take heed, take heed, battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice of page reban
Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:
- William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) ...is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer, or the associated talk page, talk:Fred Singer, for a period of three months.
This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like the kind of malice and stupidity I expect from you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
wp:tea
wp:tea 99.102.176.21 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- That took a while for me to work out what it was for. I'll look at CCD tomorrow. It is, oddly enough, controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
CC enforcement
Hi WMC, I am just about to enact a sanction against you regarding the latest RFE. I see now that you have joined the discussion as to whether I am "involved" in the topic area. Please be aware that should I be the drafting admin, it is not a retaliatory action. I was ready to act last night when my internet connection went down and I believe the admin consensus is clear enough. Since I refute the notion that I am in any way involved in the topic area, I am not going to hold back on enacting a sanction against you, likely within the hour - unless someone comes up with a smoking gun that proves I am grinding axes and goring oxen (insert your metaphor here). Regards! Franamax (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think your readiness to act when there are credible claims that you are involved is disreputable. Mind you the entire thing is in disrepute, as Lar is clearly involved and has heavily skewed the result. Your assertion that you are not involved is meaningless, since you're happy to reject such assertions from other admins William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've not seen anything to make the "claims" "credible" and I've seen no outside opinion that my edits to Antarctica make me involved. Remember, I raised the subject when the sanctions regime was being crafted. It rather seems a game to me, if an admin is leaning one way, attack their independence to neutralize them - and if so, I am not going to play that game. You have the usual recourse, start a RFC/U or go to one of the admin noticeboards, AN or AN/I. Franamax (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're judging yourself, and finding yourself innocent. How unusual. Do I get to judge myself too? The discussion on your involved-ness or not is ongoing. You have questions to answer on why you consider PG involved taht you haven't answered William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've not seen anything to make the "claims" "credible" and I've seen no outside opinion that my edits to Antarctica make me involved. Remember, I raised the subject when the sanctions regime was being crafted. It rather seems a game to me, if an admin is leaning one way, attack their independence to neutralize them - and if so, I am not going to play that game. You have the usual recourse, start a RFC/U or go to one of the admin noticeboards, AN or AN/I. Franamax (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
JEH's bit
None of this ever happened |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
JEH: you're in no position to make any such ruling, and I reject it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
|
This has become unnecessarily convoluted. As I noted above, JEH first "lifted" the sanction, then didn't, but now has re-"lifted" it, but without troubling to tell me. But I note his decision to restore the status quo ante which means that the sanction never existed, as I said. I think this is a good resolution William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Links
- http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/the-orrible-pink-portcullis-house-of-lords-not-happy-with-monckton/
- http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/03/what-have-wegman-and-said-done-lately/
Of interest? Tim Kasser Human Identity: A Missing Link in Environmental Campaigning
Of interest? Tom Crompton & Tim Kasser Human Identity: A Missing Link in Environmental Campaigning 99.155.145.126 (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice of sanction
Per the outcome of a recent enforcement request against you, I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from editing comments made by other editors for a duration of two months. The Wordsmith 04:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, you don't get any better, do you? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
An episode of group hysteria, now resolved
Blocked
An extensive outbreak of stupidity by TW and others, now rejected as invalid |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
{{unblock|Your reason here}} , but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
I draw your attention to the following part of the CC general sanctions (emphasis mine): "Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The restriction was valid and had consensus, and you willfully violated it. My post to your talkpage was not a personal attack or BLP violation where you might be able to claim an exemption. You were free to remove my comment or archive it, per user talk page guidelines, but not to modify it. The Wordsmith 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Suboptimal behavior by all concerned, IMO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Pointless and invalid block Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Per CI. This block is pointless because it doesn't prevent me repeating this behaviour, viz editing my own talk page. Invalid because nothing in the CC probation permits restrictions on editing of users own talk page William M. Connolley (talk) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Per the reasonning immeadiately above. Note further that PK's reasonning above is invalid: this is not an arbcomm block, but a CC probation block, which is totally different Decline reason: There's no acknowledgment that the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated (quite the contrary), and consensus at WP:ANI seems to support the block at the moment (or at the least doesn't object to it). I disagree that the block was invalid. As to the pointlessness, when misbehavior continues on a user's talk page during a block, revocation of talk page privileges is common, so a block certainly isn't pointless nor toothless. -- Atama頭 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. The following decline of this unblock request edit-conflicted with Atama's decline above: You are correct that the block as currently implemented doesn't prevent you from repeating this behaviour on your own talk page. You demonstrate this by repeating the action that led to the imposition of your block, i.e., editing the comment of another editor, by inserting the text "" into it. Therefore, since you insist on being blocked in a way that also prevents you from repeating the conduct you are blocked for on this page, I am re-blocking you without allowing you access to your talk page. I am also doubling the duration of the block as a result of the aforementioned continued violation of your restriction. You can still appeal this block to ArbCom by mail. Sandstein 21:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) To your e-mail I reply as follows: You may appeal to to ArbCom because they are empowered to review blocks (see Misplaced Pages:BP#Unblocking), not because the block was made in relation to an arbitration case (it was not). I forgot to mention that you can of course also request a review by e-mailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Sandstein 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Block change notification
A brief outbreak of sanity, now superseded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I thank SF for re-enabling access here. I reject his condition and note that the original block remains invalid: nothing in the CC probation allows restriction of non-CC related pages, such as this one William M. Connolley (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Blocked again
I draw a discreet veil over SF's stupidity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As completely moronic actions go, that one scores highly. An indef block for no harm at all seems about the most stupid action I've ever seen on wiki. Well done Sir Fathead William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Injustice
Helpful comic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
JEH - thanks for the comic (I've had some disputes with G but the comic is spot on) and also for the work in making people see sense. My web access is slow right now so I haven't had the chance to read all the exciting details I've missed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
Unblocked
Sanity returns |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please note. I have revised to the GSCC restriction to note that it applies only to climate change comments and venues (interpreted broadly). I have noted this at ANI. That said, even if the issue is technically outside the scope of GSCC, I think most people would agree that frequently inserting parenthetical comments into other people's text is annoying and disruptive. So, I think it would be better for all concerned if you generally avoided doing that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
A note to all: having now browsed the lengthy ANI thread I see I have a number of people to thank but you know who you are; I'll get onto it. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC) A note, mostly to me: the ANI thread is . A note to others: if you want a brief summary to the "sides" in the current CC case, that thread is a useful starting point. Most of the usual suspects are there, together with a number of uninvolved (but be careful: some who declare themselves uninvolved aren't) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Epilogue
Well, that was exciting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please do your best to refrain from stuff like that. You not only got blocked but you gave certain arbitrators ammunition for the arbcom case, and your behavior will to some extent be generalized to the rest of the cabal/clique/faction/whatever-term-Lar-prefers-this-week. It worked out in the end, but just barely. I've preached enough that doing the right thing isn't just an altruistic act but also is to your personal benefit, so I won't go over that again. But one more thing to think of is this: There are plenty of people who are itching to do you in and looking for any excuse. Paradoxically, the best way to frustrate them is to be as nice as possible. (This is not any great insight of mine; the basic idea goes back over 2000 years.) So remember that by Keeping Your Nose Clean At All Times, you are irritating the living daylights out of those who wish you ill. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
|
PD initial thoughts
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision looks about as stupid as I'd expected, though not as stupid as some others expected. The failure of any meaningful remedies for admin involvement, which wrecked the CC probation, is a flaw. But to be fair, the PD is capable of becoming moderately sensible with the correct votes. The real test is who votes for that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's utterly useless, actually. It's a standard 'ban one from each side' decision. While the proposed principles do identify some of the problems (sourcing, due & undue weight), it's like they forgot about them beyond that point. There's nothing in that decision which actually suggests that they read any of the evidence or workshop, or did anything to actually educate themselves about what's going on. And there's absolutely nothing in that decision that will do anything to defuse the situation. Guettarda (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are likely right, though it will depend on the voting. What puzzles me is how they took so long over this - any fool could have scrawled that on the back of a fag packet in 5 mins from the opening of the case William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- They have not gotten hold of the situation by the scruff of the neck and it appears that Lar agrees on this. This has not really solved anything. WEAK WEAK WEAK Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps intentionally so. There seemed to be an intent to lower the volume of the controversy by doing the bare minimum. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- An acceptable strategy if CC enforcement was not in place already but not acceptable if there is a failled system overseeing CC enforcement. Arbcom has effectively endorsed a failled system. Polargeo (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I doubt it. If you haven't already, read Boris' Pocket Guide to Arbitration. That pretty much sums it up. I have seen dozens of cases that simply default to something like this - ignore the underlying issues, and hand out a few bans. Arbitration enforcement (AE) was an innovation a couple years back, which helped a little. So it's now thrown at every case as well. This result could have been written without looking at the case. In fact, it was, if you look at what the vandal was posting on the PD page yesterday. They captured the essence of the decision. Guettarda (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- So a cry going out to all editors. Lets get rid of enforcement as a community and replace it with somthing better, agreed by all and not depending on arbcom. Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would want to see all editors involved in this. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The CC enforcement failed, because it was hijacked by involved admins pretending to be uninvolved. There is no sign of arbcomm dealing with this, nor any sign of the community being able to William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I often feel that it was my lone voice when I discovered CC probation and realised that it was not fully community approved but being strongly pushed by a couple of editors that things were going badly wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Replacement of the CC enforcement page with Arbitration Enforcement, which presumably gets a wider readership, was a good idea. One general comment: in retrospect, the process is amazingly opaque. This may seem like a newbie sentiment and it is, but to somebody looking at this process fresh it is amazingly contrary to Misplaced Pages practices, almost like a star chamber. First people have to make proposals, not having any idea if they'll be entertained by the committee. Then the committee deliberates like a jury for weeks or months. The process needs to be opened up. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- @PG: I think we're actually in disagreement, at least in part. I think you view the entirety of the CC probation as bad. I think it could have been helpful, after being setup, had it not been subsequently hijacked by Lar and LHVU William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but what you don't appreciate is that I had been dealing with enforcement on balkans articles and only saw CC probation as bad and a poor solution based on experience, I found no agreement at the time unfortunately. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I often feel that it was my lone voice when I discovered CC probation and realised that it was not fully community approved but being strongly pushed by a couple of editors that things were going badly wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The CC enforcement failed, because it was hijacked by involved admins pretending to be uninvolved. There is no sign of arbcomm dealing with this, nor any sign of the community being able to William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would want to see all editors involved in this. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps intentionally so. There seemed to be an intent to lower the volume of the controversy by doing the bare minimum. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- They have not gotten hold of the situation by the scruff of the neck and it appears that Lar agrees on this. This has not really solved anything. WEAK WEAK WEAK Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are likely right, though it will depend on the voting. What puzzles me is how they took so long over this - any fool could have scrawled that on the back of a fag packet in 5 mins from the opening of the case William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The PD is exactly as many of the Cabal members expected -- it's well known that Risker and Rlevse despise you, and the long delay was because they had to win over Brad to get sufficiently humiliating sanctions. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the arbs pay little or no attention to the Evidence/Workshop pages and base their decisions on broad impressions of who the good guys and bad guys are. (It has to be said that your recent actions gave R/R ammunition.) I think Risker's tactic here has been to set the Overton window at her desired boundary; the final decision may not be as extreme. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean initially propose something totally absurd, and hope the rest are too dumb to notice that the final result is still absurd? Anyway, NYB gets his first two tests here William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've tended to bend over backwards and to say that arbcom needs time to do this, that they need to read the evidence to make a thoughtful decision. Now I see how wrong I was. This wasn't a thoughtful decision. It doesn't even pretend to be a thoughtful decision. It certainly doesn't read as if it had been carefully hammered out. I was definitely naive in my expectations.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, glasshopper, you have much to learn. Meanwhile NYB wimped out of his test so now everyone gets their chance William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was a reasonable position to take. You're just not an old cynic like some of us. In general terms, the decision is entirely in keeping with Boris' Guide to Arbitration. In specific terms, the vandal got it pretty much right (taking into account the fact that the vandal's version was parody). Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was a lot of truth to that parody, apart from it being very funny. With some modifications it might be usable as a comedy essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&oldid=380300292 if anyone is wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing I don't like about it is the snide reference to articles on the NY Subway system. Some of us are into that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- If it doesn't offend you in some way, then it's not good satire. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing I don't like about it is the snide reference to articles on the NY Subway system. Some of us are into that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&oldid=380300292 if anyone is wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was a lot of truth to that parody, apart from it being very funny. With some modifications it might be usable as a comedy essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've tended to bend over backwards and to say that arbcom needs time to do this, that they need to read the evidence to make a thoughtful decision. Now I see how wrong I was. This wasn't a thoughtful decision. It doesn't even pretend to be a thoughtful decision. It certainly doesn't read as if it had been carefully hammered out. I was definitely naive in my expectations.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_WMC, in case you missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In memoriam
Another valuable editor gone User:ChrisO while the trolls remain William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
PD continuing thoughts
Rlevse has gorn . That's interesting. There is no hint of why, though. Can't say I'm sorry but it would be interesting to know why. R has done some really wacky things with the PD William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Naughty boy, you ignored Boris' warning to keep a low profile and not to challenge the faulty system too much, yet again. But like last time, your opponents exploited your actions a bit too vigorously, causing their efforts to backfire on them. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom is coming down heavily in favor of Lar and his faction, going so far as to rewrite the definition of "uninvolved" so as to specifically exclude Lar. WP:ADMIN sez "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Notice how Arbcom has refudiated the "current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)" bit and focused solely on content? It's hard to escape the conclusion that Arbcom knew what they wanted to decide long ago, and are assembling the evidence and rewriting policy to fit their preferred outcome. So at the end of the day it wouldn't have mattered if WMC had behaved himself. They were going to nail him no matter what. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to hear you say that. I don't see that supported by the current round of votes, though who knows what the future will bring William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
FoF thoughts
I'm minded to put forward a couple of extra FoF's:
- GJP has been disruptive (I think the totally inapproriate GA review at a time when people were trying to step back was the most obvious; now reversed, happily )
- Minor4th has been disruptive
- ZP5 has been disruptive (in the sense that his disruption to valuable content ratio is infinite)
- JohnWBarber has been disruptive
Other obvious ones are ATren and Cla.
Thoughts? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm chatting with ATren at the moment, who seems (in spite of our disagreements) to be a decent well-meaning fellow.
- I would be opposed to any sort of trouble for Cla68; he is a good content contributor and plays by the rules, and I find his behavior to be generally very respectable. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mixed feelings. Cla68 is good at following the letter of the law but disregards its spirit when it suits him. I find his view that we should prefer newspapers above the peer-reviewed literature to be deeply disturbing, but he may come by it honestly given that he appears to have no understanding at all of the scientific aspects of the articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that this is Cla68's background: he does a very good job of writing various history articles. In all of my interactions with him, he has been very reasonable, so I am sure that we will be able to work out the sourcing issue with him. I feel that, of all of the above, he is by far the most likely to do a substantial amount of useful writing. Awickert (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cla is fine on milhist, I presume; and if he stayed there, all would be well. If you want to see bad faith from him, then Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#InterAcademy_Council_report will do. Or his repeated attempts to insert HSI as a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody remember his antics on the Warm period article? That was strange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who could forget As far back as geological proxy measurements go, each warm period has been followed by a cool period. Ed Poor loved it. Though admittedly, I had forgotten. Mind you, Don't you think it would be more helpful to then change the article text to fit what the ref's say? was quite a classic too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody remember his antics on the Warm period article? That was strange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cla is fine on milhist, I presume; and if he stayed there, all would be well. If you want to see bad faith from him, then Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#InterAcademy_Council_report will do. Or his repeated attempts to insert HSI as a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think that this is Cla68's background: he does a very good job of writing various history articles. In all of my interactions with him, he has been very reasonable, so I am sure that we will be able to work out the sourcing issue with him. I feel that, of all of the above, he is by far the most likely to do a substantial amount of useful writing. Awickert (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mixed feelings. Cla68 is good at following the letter of the law but disregards its spirit when it suits him. I find his view that we should prefer newspapers above the peer-reviewed literature to be deeply disturbing, but he may come by it honestly given that he appears to have no understanding at all of the scientific aspects of the articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Might also be worth noting the addition of blog-sourced content to a BLP by Minor4th, which failed to evince the usual moral panic by subsequent editors. Granted, it's a step up from Cla68 and Tillman trying to source content from blog comments, but it's still (a) a BLP, and (b) potentially embarrassing. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Scope of climate change: Koch to Commies
I do not know if anyone in the climate change arbitration case has really understood the scope of the issue. There are two teams; one is "scientists". The other is not really "skeptics", as their common interests extend beyond climate change. By looking at the edit histories of those involved is easy to see, that the potential for team work extends from the Koch family to Communist mass killings. Other topics in the scope are the Tea Party movement and a number of candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections. The problematic behavior evident in CC also extends to the other topics in the scope, it is only in the climate change area, where it has met such stubborn resistance.
I have the fear that if the climate change arbitration will issue topic bans, it will only lead to the conflict escalating in other parts of Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting... Collect and MN in two arbcomm cases at once. That looks a bit excessive William M. Connolley (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not "in" the CC case, nor was I ever in Digwuren either. Note also that I defended Polargeo - so much for Petri's dishing. Collect (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you position in the Cl Ch case is quite clear William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? My position has been simply that WP policies and guidelines should be followed. Collect (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are not, but if you were, would this mean that Rlevse would have to recuse himself? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's what all the boys say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? My position has been simply that WP policies and guidelines should be followed. Collect (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you position in the Cl Ch case is quite clear William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not "in" the CC case, nor was I ever in Digwuren either. Note also that I defended Polargeo - so much for Petri's dishing. Collect (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sometime long ago I suggested to ScienceApologist that that he would use his "understanding" in proper sourcing to achieve some sense in the DIGWUREN topic area. He did not seem too interested, but the discussion itself brought major progress in a very narrow topic. Today I was kind of wondering what you will be doing in your upcoming CC break :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Discretion is the better part of valor
William I think you would benefit reading your comments (especially those on the ArbCom page) from the standpoint of a stranger. Pretend they aren't your's. Pretend they're mine (for the sake of the conversation), and then ask yourself if "my" behavior is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. --*Kat* (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration
Reviewing this, there's something very interesting about the flocking of the user accounts who voted keep here. If you run a wikistalk on the 10 or so users, you'll find a few patterns emerge. It also looks like some users have a closer working relationship than would otherwise appear. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- That debate is six months old....--*Kat* (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- What kind of pattern? Coke or tea? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a working link to the list I compiled. – I left out the four who had the lowes edit counts or who did not show any correlation. This left 9 so I added Mark Nutley's today's closest supporter to the list (number 10). There is a high level of correlation, even outside climate chance. The cooperation however does not seem to be politically driven. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um -- 1 case of 6/10 and 5 cases of 5/10? Sorry -- Random chance at work. I went to the UT overlap for them to save time as well. 1 solitary case of 7/10 (to this page, in fact), 4 cases of 6/10. Pretty much in line with random chance. A lot less than found for other assortments, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly as I already said further down the page it shows nothing. I don't think there is anything particularly random about it though. If you start with editors voting in the same way on a similar article you will expect several non-random ties to come in to play. These will be so complex that any analysis based on random correlations is inherently flawed. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also note that I did not !vote on the article cited. Period. At all. Nada. No connection. Collect (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Why add you into the mix? Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Petri has now run into me on (I think) three quite disparate pages, and has specifically announced a combative attitude about procedures at User_talk:Wgfinley. Somehow I think announcing a deliberate decision to "wiki-lawyer" on that page is going to benefit him much <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really wish you wouldn't act like that. PK's comment is clearly intended a a humourous way of saying "discuss in detail". If everyone has to avoid anything vaguely amusing for fear of being misquoted by the Humour Police elsewhere, wiki will be the poorer William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I added Collect to the list because he seems to have a particular correlation with Mark Nutley. I have pumped into him and Mark Nutley in three separate context strangely related to climate change advocacy. I wanted to see if any of the others have this interest in coke, tea and caviar. The result is that they did not correlate. From this data we cannot extract signs of Organised Political Editing on Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Related to Climate Change??? Um - how in heaven's name does Mass killings under Communist regimes remotely connect to climate change? Indeed, the three of us overlap on a total of two articles. Total. And this is some sort of major coincidence? BTW, I do not consider Koch Industries to be especially related to climate change, and a teesny bit unrelated to mass killings as well. Petri -- complaining about an overlap of a total of two articles is outre at best. Collect (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you see above, I am not complaining. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Related to Climate Change??? Um - how in heaven's name does Mass killings under Communist regimes remotely connect to climate change? Indeed, the three of us overlap on a total of two articles. Total. And this is some sort of major coincidence? BTW, I do not consider Koch Industries to be especially related to climate change, and a teesny bit unrelated to mass killings as well. Petri -- complaining about an overlap of a total of two articles is outre at best. Collect (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Petri has now run into me on (I think) three quite disparate pages, and has specifically announced a combative attitude about procedures at User_talk:Wgfinley. Somehow I think announcing a deliberate decision to "wiki-lawyer" on that page is going to benefit him much <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Why add you into the mix? Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um -- 1 case of 6/10 and 5 cases of 5/10? Sorry -- Random chance at work. I went to the UT overlap for them to save time as well. 1 solitary case of 7/10 (to this page, in fact), 4 cases of 6/10. Pretty much in line with random chance. A lot less than found for other assortments, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a working link to the list I compiled. – I left out the four who had the lowes edit counts or who did not show any correlation. This left 9 so I added Mark Nutley's today's closest supporter to the list (number 10). There is a high level of correlation, even outside climate chance. The cooperation however does not seem to be politically driven. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not describe wikistalk results using words like "cooperation" or "coordination" or phrases like "close working relationship" or "high level of correlation;" such interpretations are unwarranted. I didn't take time to count up the results, but the link Petri gave doesn't me show much of anything on a quick run through. The vast number of overlaps are 2/10; when you have ten things, there are a lot of combinations of two, but the fact that a lot of pairs of two taken from this group of ten editors have edited articles in common doesn't mean diddly; the only thing that jumps out is that that Nyttend, Tillman and Drmies share a broad interest in geographic places in the US, although not all three of them are interested in the same places; different pairs of the three have edited different place articles. There are very few articles that even 4 or 5 of them have ever edited in common and only one I saw that 6 have edited in common (and remember, all wikistalk tells you is that these people have each edited this article one or more times in its history. It doesn't mean that they have edited it at the same time, much less that they have edited it in a coordinated or cooperative way) and they seem to be mostly climate change related, as you might expect from a group of editors voting on a climate-related AfD. The degree of overlap is so small that to call it a "high level of correlation" is misleading, to say the least. Woonpton (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is not correct. The problem is with Petri Krohn's query, which failed to search for all namespaces, and left out one or two users who voted keep. The link he posted does not include these results. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't see anything particularly astonishing in wikistalk relating to that AfDs keep voters. Just a few misguided regulars, a banned user and a sockpupetteer. Exactly what I would expect. Polargeo (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- After seeing that list, I edited a few of the articles on it just to add a little fat to the fire. Fell Gleaming 11:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- And now a user that should be clearly topic banned then Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why Poleargo, surely you didn't take that comment seriously? Here's a quarter; go buy yourself a sense of humor. Fell Gleaming 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was my sense of humour. I can't believe you missed it. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why Poleargo, surely you didn't take that comment seriously? Here's a quarter; go buy yourself a sense of humor. Fell Gleaming 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- And now a user that should be clearly topic banned then Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- After seeing that list, I edited a few of the articles on it just to add a little fat to the fire. Fell Gleaming 11:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not used to reading wikistalk results. I can't see anything very obvious in the list (Nyttend is a new name), other than a lot of 2/10 with Nyttend and Tillman. Is that what I'm supposed to see? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything there at all. Polargeo (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say I know exactly what's there, but it does establish relationships between editors. I'm looking at this and User:Joepnl/Vault/Climate change exaggeration, which I wasn't aware of until now. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- No still nothing. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say I know exactly what's there, but it does establish relationships between editors. I'm looking at this and User:Joepnl/Vault/Climate change exaggeration, which I wasn't aware of until now. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I can't say I know exactly what's there, but it does establish relationships between editors. No, it does nothing of the sort. I find it rather surprising (although I guess I shouldn't be surprised any more by anything that happens on this project) that someone who is so apparently concerned about a political campaign to discredit science would be so willing to take a pseudoscientific (or maybe I should call it pseudostatistical, to be more precise) approach to establishing relationships. I suppose, then, that Viriditas endorses the use of wikistalk results introduced as evidence in the CC case to establish the existence of a coordinated pro-science "bloc" on climate change pages? Those results, while showing much more overlap than these do, were no more conclusive in showing a degree of cooperation or coordination among editors than these are, as I demonstrated on the PD talk page. And as I also pointed out on the same page, groups of SPAs who have actually been shown to have worked in concert to promote a single-purpose agenda on Misplaced Pages, tend to score very low on this tool, and groups of editors who are not working together, but who have been around a while and edit a lot and in a lot of different areas, tend to have a much higher degree of overlap with each other.
@Collect: Pretty much in line with random chance. As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the degree of departure from random chance is a statistical concept that must be established by a statistical test in order for the statement to have any meaning. The wikistalk tool does not provide a statistical test, so there appears to be no basis for these emphatic statements about how consistent something is with "random chance." You stated on the case pages that there was a "significant difference" between the overlap among six arbitrators (27 user talk pages in common) and the overlap among six pro-science editors on climate change articles (29 user talk pages in common). From this statement, one can assume that in your scheme of "statistical reasoning," in a group of six editors, two user talk pages in common would have to be considered a significant departure from "random chance." (this follows logically from your assertion that a difference of two--29 vs 27-- is "significant.") Extending that logic, one would have to consider that if two pages in common is a significant departure from "random chance" for a group of six editors, then one page in common among a group of ten editors (as shown on Viriditas' wikistalk link), which is much less probable by chance than a page in common among a group of six editors, could well also be a significant departure from chance. The point I'm trying to make is that this whole line of reasoning is simply without any statistical foundation, a house built on sand, and no one should draw any conclusions about degree of cooperation among editors, one way or the other, from using this tool. Woonpton (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Empirical data from 300 editors taken 6 at a time establishes a pretty good basis for determining "random chance." Ask a math professor how much data is involved in 300 people taken six at a time seeking to maximize amount of overlap - and where said empirical data never got to 15 pages where all 6 people edited out of all the empirical observations (and only occurred once in all those observations), whether amounts much greater than 15 would be non-random. Collect (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Woonpton, the tool most certainly establishes relationships between editors, and this is not in any dispute. You appear to be very confused on this point. Anyone can use this tool to create an entity-relationship model, and we used to have a tool (can't find it at the moment) that created these models based on RfA data, showing relationships by nomination. Beyond that, you appear to enjoy engaging in fantasy and fighting with strawmen, with statements like "I suppose, then, that Viriditas endorses the use of wikistalk results introduced as evidence in the CC case to establish the existence of a coordinated pro-science "bloc" on climate change pages". I've said nothing like that. I've said that it establishes relationships between editors, and your reply, "it does nothing of the sort" is wrong. Along these lines, I would encourage someone, anyone, to model the relationships of participating editors in the current arbcom case and analyze them closely. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Digression
- If you guys are looking for something to do, you could help out with expanding the Climate Audit article. It needs a section added to it detailing the website's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy affair. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- In my own case I am waiting on the arbcom ruling while I watch people fuck up CC articles and I also note with a little sadness for the sake of neutral POV the return of FellGleaming to the topic area. Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- CA is best merged back. But I agree there is little point working there until the case if resolved William M. Connolley (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- In my own case I am waiting on the arbcom ruling while I watch people fuck up CC articles and I also note with a little sadness for the sake of neutral POV the return of FellGleaming to the topic area. Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming
So there is this judgement and shortly after this case which closed as wrong venue as stands without prejudice on some or all issues being raised elsewhere or here. The reason these issues were then not raised at the time is because FellGleaming withdrew from the topic area of climate change Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 3#FellGleaming. However, FellGleaming is now back (e.g. ) just as the arbcase has stopped allowing evidence or new proposals for sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see the complaint was made by User:Ratel who has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- But you filtered out the problems seen by me, Boris and Tony Sidaway and focused on Ratel. Come on AQFK please show some respect to your fellow editors. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't remember much about FellGleaming, but unless both sides get topic-banned, we need more CC skeptics to balance out the articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really need to repeat the arbcomm case here? Your idea is meaningless, and thoughtless, and if it had a meaning it would be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. I have to admit, I do enjoy reading your comments, and if you get topic-banned, I will miss reading them. And I'm not being ironic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- AQFN, following your argument do we need more geocentrists to balance out the astronomy articles? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- If geocentrists are intentionally inserting contentious information into the BLPs of their ideological opponents just to make them look bad, then yes, we do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's not what you said earlier. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So AQFK says we need more geocentrists to introduce more contentious info into BLPs to make them look bad, this seems to highlight AQFK's philosophy. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Well, it's part of the problem. The other part is the suppression of minority/fringe viewpoints in articles about minority/fringe viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo: No, I don't agree with that either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So AQFK says we need more geocentrists to introduce more contentious info into BLPs to make them look bad, this seems to highlight AQFK's philosophy. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's not what you said earlier. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- If geocentrists are intentionally inserting contentious information into the BLPs of their ideological opponents just to make them look bad, then yes, we do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- AQFN, following your argument do we need more geocentrists to balance out the astronomy articles? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. I have to admit, I do enjoy reading your comments, and if you get topic-banned, I will miss reading them. And I'm not being ironic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really need to repeat the arbcomm case here? Your idea is meaningless, and thoughtless, and if it had a meaning it would be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't remember much about FellGleaming, but unless both sides get topic-banned, we need more CC skeptics to balance out the articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- But you filtered out the problems seen by me, Boris and Tony Sidaway and focused on Ratel. Come on AQFK please show some respect to your fellow editors. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The other part is the suppression of minority/fringe viewpoints in articles about minority/fringe viewpoints. Really? I saw no evidence of that presented during the case, though I may have missed it. Which articles are you thinking of? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley: That's probably because that's a content issue, not a conduct issue. The article in particular that I'm thinking of is Climatic Research Unit email controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed up your trolling. OK, now we know which article you mean, exactly what is being suppressed William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been a struggle just to include what the allegations against the CRU scientists are. Even the way it's currently written, it starts with the rejection of the allegations:
"Subsequent inquiries rejected allegations that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is, but the UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information.""
I think a more natural way to say this is:
"Critics/skeptics/deniers/(whatever word you want to use) allege that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Subsequent inquiries rejected these allegations but was the UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information."
In fact, I'd like to compare my work on this article with my work on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The opening sentence is:
"9/11 conspiracy theories allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government."
It does not say:
"Inquiries have rejected rejected 9/11 conspiracy theories which allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government."
In fact, the refutation of the conspiracy theories doesn't even happen until the second paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't help but smile at the fact that you're drawing parallels between global warming contrarians and 9/11 truthers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Smile indeed. But what about the substance of AQFK's allegations? This isn't about suppression of viewpoints, there is no info suppressed. We have to describe this in one way in that place, you can't sue both. So either is says "people make allegations, and they turned out to be wrong" or it says "some allegations that turned out to be wrong were made". AQFK would prefer the first, but the article says the second. The article initially said the first, before the inquiries came in; now we know the answer (the allegations were wrong) it naturally says the second.
- So I don't see how this example supports what AQFK wanted, viz 'suppression of minority/fringe viewpoints in articles about minority/fringe viewpoints. This *isn't* an article about minority viewpoints (though if he thinks it is, that could explain some of the problems) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The analogy is flawed, but one thing that "side" does have right is that skeptic BLPs seem to be treated much more harshly than those that support the scientific consensus. That isn't necessarily the fault of any specific editor, but there does appear to be a problem with the way we handle people who disagree with us. The Wordsmith 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that's how I got involved in this topic-space. I seem to have a bizarre interest in conspiracy theories. When I first heard about Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I found the notion of a global conspiracy of scientists to be ridiculous and went to check out our article on the topic. Much to my surprise, our article didn't actually explain what the critics were saying. Thus began my nearly year long effort to include this information. For some strange reason, this got me labeled as a skeptic. Sadly, some people don't seem to realize that explaining minority and fringe theories is not the same thing as agreeing with them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- At the same time, your "side" has been overly aggressive in pursuing your goals. There are established ways of dealing with content disputes, and pushing until you wear everyone out is not one of them. The Wordsmith 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- TW/AQFK: this discussion is going to get difficult if it goes off into tangents. Can we stay with AQFK's original example, and if anyone has any BLPs to raise, start a new section? Also, vague statements just aren't useful: I disagree with your vague statement, but until we have an example to discuss, the discussion isn't likely to progres. Meanwhile, back at AQFK's original point: you haven't answered me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that's how I got involved in this topic-space. I seem to have a bizarre interest in conspiracy theories. When I first heard about Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I found the notion of a global conspiracy of scientists to be ridiculous and went to check out our article on the topic. Much to my surprise, our article didn't actually explain what the critics were saying. Thus began my nearly year long effort to include this information. For some strange reason, this got me labeled as a skeptic. Sadly, some people don't seem to realize that explaining minority and fringe theories is not the same thing as agreeing with them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Wordsmith: No offense, but I don't think you read very carefully what I wrote. When I first started editing this article, there were only 2 other editors I noticed genuinely trying to follow NPOV. Since then, one has dropped out completely and the other only posts to talk pages. So there is no "side", not for me anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley: As I said, it was struggle just to get the allegations into the article. I had to jump through hoops to get that in there. It shouldn't be that hard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Errm, well you need to actually demonstrate your point. Your original assertion was that things *are* (present tense) being suppressed. If you're now saying that you can find no examples where they are presently suppressed, I guess that is good. But you haven't provided any evidence that these allegations ever were suppressed, either. So far I think you've completely not demonstrated your point William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not going to spend my time digging through diffs. You can either trust me on this or not. Well, if you want a current example, there's the 'insider' issue and, of course, there's the list of POV issues here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not going to spend my time digging through diffs - if you're going to run away when challenged to support your assertions, it would be better not to make them in the first place. As to the insider: there is a whole pile of discussion there, but the central problem you have is reliability of sources for it being an inside job. The one that you yourself say is the best is and that is entitled "Global warming research exposed after hack" andd it is entirely clear from the text that the "insider" stuff is pure speculation. Based on that, text for the page along the lines of "various sources have speculated on the basis of no information at all taht it was an inside job" could be acceptable, from an accuracy POV. What text did you actually propose? As for the list oF POV issues... that was so silly I never bothered read all the way through. If you're going to insist on a POV tag until you can get the article title changed, or it says scandal far more often, then you aren't being sensible. If you want people to take that list seriously you need to trim it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not going to spend my time digging through diffs. You can either trust me on this or not. Well, if you want a current example, there's the 'insider' issue and, of course, there's the list of POV issues here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Errm, well you need to actually demonstrate your point. Your original assertion was that things *are* (present tense) being suppressed. If you're now saying that you can find no examples where they are presently suppressed, I guess that is good. But you haven't provided any evidence that these allegations ever were suppressed, either. So far I think you've completely not demonstrated your point William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that AQFK's original assertion that the way it's currently written, it starts with the rejection of the allegations is wrong. In fact, the article actually starts Allegations by climate change sceptics and other observers that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media. The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. I was referring to the specific allegations later in the paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh look. As soon as I ask AQFK / TW for actual diffs, they're gone. How very... expected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Asked and answered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which I've already refuted, above. If you can't do better than that, you have no case William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
How to deal with the IPCC
In particular, any "predictions" and "projections" about the future must be entirely based on observations William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Or, for the "skeptics" here: "For each unbalanced alarmist reference, there must be at least one skeptical reference in order to assure fairness and balance" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like someone has been to journalism school... :P MastCell 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, I just found http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n7/full/embor201084.html from you. Nice William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd love to see the PD rewritten as a comic strip, limited to 20 pages ... Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you want something that resembles the actual PD then get several years of comics and do a Burroughs cut-up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd love to see the PD rewritten as a comic strip, limited to 20 pages ... Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)