| Revision as of 15:56, 15 June 2010 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →Part II - the socks!: excuses?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:28, 21 July 2021 edit undoTerasail (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors25,447 editsm Changed depreciated "box-width" parameter to "style" parameter in Template:Archives. (User JS) | ||
| (922 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{RFARcasenav|case name=Climate change|clerk1=Amorymeltzer|draft arb=Newyorkbrad|draft arb2=Rlevse|draft arb3=Risker}} | {{RFARcasenav|case name=Climate change|clerk1=Amorymeltzer|clerk2=Dougweller|draft arb=Newyorkbrad|draft arb2=Rlevse|draft arb3=Risker|general=yes}} | ||
| {{Archives|style=width:10em;| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| == Summary == | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley == | |||
| This page was for discussing evidence presented in the case (opened 13 June 2010). The main evidence submission period closed on , with the case moving to the workshop page. With the temporary closure of the workshop page on to allow drafting of the proposed decision, further evidence was only accepted by prior request. At the time of writing (22 August 2010), the case is about to move to the proposed decision stage and no further evidence is being accepted. The discussions that took place on this page during the case can be seen in the archives of this talk page. Any further discussion between now and the close of the case should take place on the ] or (when a proposed decision is posted) on the ]. Please '''do not''' post new discussion sections on this page. ] (]) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I notice that, weirdly, ZP5 has ref'd ] under "inciviltiy". All of those requets were wrong, and none had anything to do with incivility. This case is likely to have quite enough confusion in it, what is the point in bringing in obvious irrelevance? ] (]) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't followed the links and cannot comment on the content, but it says they are offered as examples of editors commenting about your behaviour, which presumably they did whether the charge was proven or not. It seems though that if that is the case, specific diffs of useful comments would have been better. Charges without specific diffs have been referred to on various boards as "mud slinging" I think. ] (]) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Removed. ] (]) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: (e/c) Looks like ZP5 has seen sense ] (]) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: WMC, per ], I don't see how comments like "''weirdly''" and "''ZP5 has seen sense''" address the topic at hand, which is your civility. As always, please stay focused on content and avoid discussing the users, which may help you avoid disruptive inappropriate comments ]. ] (]) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ''focused on content and avoid discussing the users'' - for someone who has jsut added 70 diffs *only* addressing user issues, that it deeply ironic ] (]) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I find it ironic, that you as the subject here, who purports to care about the project and the length of this case, has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles. But, may chose defend to the end, taking the community time with them. ] (]) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait. WMC asked a valid question, Weakopedia clarified, and ZP5 removed. Let's leave it at that. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Err no. I asked why ZP5 added some obvious irrelevance; Weakopedia said something wrong; then ZP5 removed the irrelevance. There is no clarification in Weakopedia's comment, just muddying of the waters. Meanwhile, ''has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles'' is incomprehensible ] (]) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Whether you found Weakopedia's comment to be helpful or not is a different matter, but the fact remains that nonconstructive back-and-forths have no place here. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Climate Change RFE references == | |||
| Would be easier (and more accurate) to simply link ALL of the filings with a summary of the case. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Easier who and for what purpose? ] (]) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the purpose of ''not'' trying to equate scientific knowledge, no matter how inconvenient some of it is, with just one person. --] (]) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Could you explain how your statement is relevant? ] (]) 13:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ZP5's evidence == | |||
| ZP5 has spammed so many diffs it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll begin at the beginning. The first two of his diffs are: | |||
| * . Someone asks if the page is suitable for PR; I say no, since it fails stability, having just come off page prot. There is no incivility there (while we're on the PR request, the reviews incomprehension of what ZP5 is trying to say - see ] - is instructive). | |||
| * No incivility there either. | |||
| In short, ZP5 appears to have submitted a meaningless list of harmless diffs, rpesumably as mudflinging ] (]) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to admit, I'm puzzled at exactly what one is supposed to read into from the list submitted by ZuluPapa5. Maybe he could enlighten us as to how this demonstrates problematic editing? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Each diff demonstrates WMC objections with his "no" or "not" language. In each example WMC has written "no" or "not". Together they show he's highly objectionable in this single article. Would you have a suggestion as to how I could improve the presentation of this point? ] (]) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you find a diff where WMC avoided "no" or "not" in his language, then I will remove it. ] (]) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: (a) attempting to ban the word "no" from wiki is unlikely to be fruitful (b) MastCell has already provided you with such a diff ] (]) 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wait... so saying "no" or "not" is uncivil? ] (]) 22:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior, which is in contrast to Misplaced Pages guidance on ] and principles of ]. If you contribute, you must offer consent and compromise to other's reasonable changes without your OR. In addition, above all you must consent to civil means. I suggest providing evidence that shows collaboration to counter this claim. ] (]) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. There is no need to compromise with wrong position, and such a claim is outright nonsense. And that does not change if the same nonsense comes up once or thousands of times, and disagreeing with it is no more false or uncivil the thousands time than the first time. --] (]) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Consistently endorsing that WMC is the owner of the correct POV, is my cause for concern with Stephan Schulz. Such a view would produce climate change articles that have WMC's narrow POV. Generally, the false precendent here is that the owners of the correct POV are entitled to treating others badly to exclude their sourced POV, by some expert status, but for civility. This is the essence of ]. Thankfully, i have faith Misplaced Pages is better than that and holds a high value on civil behavior to achieve a NPOV. ] (]) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not "consistently endorsing the fact that WMC is the owner of the correct POV" - that's nonsense. I'm sharing with him and ], not to mention the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature, a certain broad view on climate change. I cannot parse your second sentence. But simply attaching a source to a statement does not make it verifiable. ''The source also needs to support the statement''. And it needs to be a reliable, non-fringe source, of course. --] (]) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How does using the words "no" and "not" violate ] again? I'm becoming more, rather than less, confused. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: ] objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior. ] stems from ] see ] where is says editors do not own their content (to the point of tendentious). ] (]) 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::ZP5, I'd like to make sure I understand your concerns. Is your main point that WMC has made too many comments that use the words "no" and "not"? ] (]) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Try ... my concern is WMC and ] in case you didn't hear that. The "no" and "not" is symptomatic of an editor who demands rights to control the content without compromise. ''"Misplaced Pages contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the'' 'owner of a particular article."''''' Would you, or any one else, suggest any other way to demonstrate WMC's article ownership concerns? ] (]) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The title of your evidence section says hostile, not alledged ownership. I got confused by your evidence as the examples were not hostile or abusive. You probably need to consider changing the title of your evidence.--] | ] 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Specifically this subsection title "'''Example of WMC hostile edits in a single article'''" confused me a little. Anyhow, looks like the talk page throughout this arbcom is going to be endless arguing. Sigh.--] | ] 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::(e.c.) I agree with Lg and others who have expressed concern. As far as I can tell there are a few problematic diffs there, but they get lost in the dozens you posted, and it's still not clear to me what exactly you mean by "no and not". Perhaps you should organize and formulate your evidence in your private userspace before posting here. There is going to be a ton of evidence in this case, and we have to be sure to keep it as clear and concise as possible. ] (]) 02:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: To me, ] is hostile, a bad karma king of thing. Who but an owner would require such uncivil means in wikipedia to work with others by abruptly negating their contributions, with revert first, talk later. I agree, the presentation can be improved. Thanks for the feed back. Think of the child who says "no, no, no you can not play in my sandbox", then calls you names. ] (]) 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::You ask who, and I would say, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. A modern, advanced and complex scientific discipline, like climate science, is not equivalent a child's plaything. We do not all have an equal ability (or right) to be able to join in such a process without any particular knowledge or expertise. That right is earned by long, hard study, application, dedication, reading, practising, discussion and so on. The climate science articles are not a sandbox. --] (]) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Where do WMC's rights to treat other editors uncivilly with personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and plain rudely biting newbies come from?] (]) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Well said. I suggest you put something like this as a proposed finding of fact/principle later... --] (]) 09:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::: Surely wikipedia should prize "good karma" over scientifically accurate articles? Doesn't that go without saying? ] (]) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::: Again for IDHT, I have faith that Misplaced Pages prizes civility to produce a NPOV. Karma says ...where there is smoke, there is fire.] (]) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Might I suggest this thread has long passed its use-by date? ] (]) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : SHould we assume the arbs have read it? They maintain their usual cryptic silence so it is hard to know ] (]) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Part II - the socks! === | |||
| Re . Apparently I'm now responsible for some unknown individual creating socks to impersonate me: ]. Strange days indeed ] (]) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : It is unfortunate how uncivil behavior can breed further uncivil behavior (i.e. karma, with smile). Better responsibility with your POV, would benefit the articles. ] (]) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're making excuses for sockpuppeteers? ] (]) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:28, 21 July 2021
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk) |
 Archives |
Summary
This page was for discussing evidence presented in the case (opened 13 June 2010). The main evidence submission period closed on 28 June 2010, with the case moving to the workshop page. With the temporary closure of the workshop page on 19 July 2010 to allow drafting of the proposed decision, further evidence was only accepted by prior request. At the time of writing (22 August 2010), the case is about to move to the proposed decision stage and no further evidence is being accepted. The discussions that took place on this page during the case can be seen in the archives of this talk page. Any further discussion between now and the close of the case should take place on the general discussion page or (when a proposed decision is posted) on the proposed decision talk page. Please do not post new discussion sections on this page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)