Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 31 March 2007

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Status	new
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown

]]

Request Information

See also concurrent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Global_warming

Who are the involved parties?

I am not sure who all of the parties are, but I believe that some of them include:

• User:William M. Connolley
• User:UBeR
• User:Raymond arritt
• User:Vsmith
• User:Tjsynkral
• User:Count Iblis
• User:KimDabelsteinPetersen
• User:Skyemoor
• User:Blue Tie
• User:Ed Poor
• User:Zeeboid
• User:Mnyakko
• User:Sm8900 - The essential issue is that one side seeks to limit contributions from those opposing global warming, and has currently locked the article from further edits because of this. They also created a straw poll which many find to be invalid. --Sm8900 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

Clearly: There are on-going issues related to claims of NPOV and weasel words In the introduction. Possibly: There may be some ownership of the page issues The page is going through cycles of changes as one person or another inputs his "right" view. Discussion is ignored. Personal insults are included. Possibly one person has had his or her feelings hurt. Misplaced Pages policies governing such matters are ignored, declared to be not applicable or demeaned.

(Note by sm8900) the actions referred to above are mainly by a small group of those supporting global warming theories, in opposition to those who are skeptical. they have repeatedly struck down efforts to present opposing views.)--Sm8900 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a long history of these actions from some of the above listed members. Also hindering the advancement of the articles (and scores of others that are related) is the continuous circumvention of policies (such as the same reverts being done no more than 3 times by one person but in conjunction with others making the same reverts as many as 6 or 8 total in a 24 hour period) or the avoidance of policies through technicalities (e.g. performing the same revert 3 times and then again 3 times the following day; doing so on many articles per day). Generally on the rare instance a consensus is reached the some of long-time users listed above will wait weeks and then undo the consensus. This is usually not brought up as the people with whom the consensus was reached have moved on trusting the consensus would be honored. The categories of the chronic harmful actions by some of the listed Users is much longer than already provided and should be also explored and reviewed to provide a more accurate picture of the problems. -- Tony 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to see a coordinated discussion, with people not taking it to personal insults and having an open mind to other views. I would like to see the article have fewer NPOV issues. I would like to see a recognition of wikipedia policies as a means to help resolve the issues, rather than something to avoid and make fun of. I believe that the article could be greatly improved by a re-organization, but as it stands now, even a few words are an issue.

The long term (at least 9-12 months) history of the article (and related articles) should be fully reviewed. Those who have been participating in reverts w/out discussion, edit wars, etc should be banned for a time in proportion to their participation in these harmful activities. Extra rights, etc. should be permanently revoked of the edit-warring participants, esp. of those participating in the personal attacks or policy circumvention--especially if those extra rights/privileges were used in any manner related to these activities (e.g. blocking another user in the midst of editing disputes with that user). Also in order should be a review and possibly re-opening of previous mediation cases, complaints, etc to examine the rationales for those decisions were properly considered the histories of users involved and correct any erroneous examples set by those previous decisions or shortfalls in the decision's justifications. -- Tony 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there are so many reverts, edit wars, etc, solely in regard to this article is due to a small number of users who have decided they alone know what this topic should entail, and making it into a narrowly-stated description of one theory, rather than the broad overview of many topics which it ought to be. that is what is turning otherwise well-behaved editors without a single complaint against them into outright skirmishers. I know that is true in my case. There really is no reason there cannot be a consensus and compromise between the two sides, rather than one side deciding that the other side is too small, or too insignificant to be given any coverage at all. --Sm8900 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the reverts done by the people in question and the reasoning behind the reverts listed. Also, please look at the people in question to see if there is any WP:COI violations, as some of the people in question are Environmental Activists, and based on their edit history and protection of the Global Warming pages, I don't know that they are capable of editing with a WP:NPOV. There also seams to be a lack of consistency when it comes to sources that are accurate/reliable but support information that some people do not wish to have on these pages. The same standards for what can exist and what must be removed or pushed off onto a POV fork seam to not apply when it comes to additions that do not "go with the flow" of the POV. I'm sure this moderation issue would not come up if many of the users in question helped each other to make the additions by many Wiki authors worthy of being up, instead of outright reverting what they don't believe.--Zeeboid 00:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response

Some more help would be great :-) --Kim Bruning 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes