User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Sep

Odd

The PD is odd in many way, but this [1] as a BLP vio is probably the oddest. Is that a pasto or did you really mean it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here: is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See note two threads above. Please post comments such as these to the proposed decision talkpage so that everyone—arbitrators and others—will have the opportunity to read. Please also note that, contrary to what seems to be an emerging popular belief (although I do not say that you necessarily hold it), I did not write the whole proposed decision myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, [3]. Re the authorship, I assumed you had, since you edited it last; but now I see it is Risker's. Sorry for tarring you with such a terrible thing William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There were contributions to the decision by all three listed drafters (and some others). Everyone should please focus more on the merits of the proposals—comments of all sorts are welcome as long as they are civil and constructive—rather than on personalities. As indicated, the best place for comments is on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only drafter, but as you are an user who has promoted "balanced findings of facts" in the R+I case, I do have to say that misstating the community consensus in Fof 8 and excluding mention of the CC probation review (particularly what fully uninvolved users determined on the matter) in Fof 3 sort of promotes the opposite of balanced + accurate findings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice now that you say will have the opportunity to read. You (and indeed the other arbs) also have the opportunity to comment, but have declined it. Presumably this implies that you're happy for the PD discussion to continue in the face of obvious errors in the PD? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it implies that we are reviewing the comments so that we can modify or improve the proposed decision as appropriate. There are, as you can imagine, a fair number of comments for us to digest—many of which claim the opposite of each other, so we need to review them and decide what changes are appropriate. (It is, however, a novel experience for me to be accused of not saying enough.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

RfAr/Climate change note

Just by way of an update for those keeping track, I will be tied up tomorrow (Monday) night, but plan to use Tuesday and (if necessary) Wednesday nights to finish my analysis of the input we've received on the talkpage, suggest modifications to the proposed decision or make any new proposals, and finish my voting on the case. (Please provide any additional input (non-duplicative please) on the talkpage of the proposed decision, not here so that all arbitrators can review it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still at it, and will continue tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom related Deletion Req @ commons (scientology decision quote)

Hi Brad,

If the committee or one of its members has an opinion on this ongoing deletion request @ commons, I invite them to comment or participate.

Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no role on Commons, but for what it's worth, the way this image is truncated on the right creates, I am sure inadvertently, the impression that our decision was gibberish. I would prefer that the image be redone in a way that addresses this objection, either by including the whole of the quoted paragraph, or making it more clear that the right half of the paragraph is missing. You might also want to run your query by Roger Davies, the arbitrator who wrote that decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IPv6 and the future of wikipedia

First things first, 1) Thanks for adding something to mu guestbook 2) you need to start using the IRC channel, seems like a good idea to have a arb on it at all times. Also to get to the point, what will wikipedia do when IPv6 comes along? Since everyone will have a new IP vandals will start flooding wikipedia, do we even have vandal tools that will be able to report IPv6 users? I think you should talk to some higher ups to try to get some sort of martial law in effect for unregistered users during the IPv6 transition or else wikipedia will look like the bottom of a rats ass. Peter.C • talk 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded elsewhere. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quibbling

Given some of your other votes, this is going to seem like quibbling, but I note that you voted for FoF6 as "factual". I realise that probably seemed quite uncontroversial, but it isn't. For example, the Michael Mann article was protected on 5th, but the only "edit warring" there was by Scibaby socks (User:SezGruppen111, User:Catch21). That is the most obviously wrong of those listed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will recheck it this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to copy edit Wikipedia:Edit warring to add a section called "What is not edit warring". The list should include reverting: socks, SPA cranks, misrepresentation of sources, vandalism, and other clear editing abuses. There is a big problem in some areas where the number of policy-violating editors (or apparent editors) exceeds the number of policy-compliant editors. This allows of revert limitations. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Intent to misrepresent sources would be hard to prove/uphold; some cases are obvious, but some editors do it unwittingly because of their biases. But I'm really here to commend and encourage NYB for plugging away at such a difficult case-- all eyes are watching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have an excellent counter-example where the source misrepresentation was quite blatant. Somebody skimming the edit history counting reverts might conclude there was an "edit war", when in fact there was no such thing. (In fact, one administrator was tricked into protecting an article when he really should have just blocked the bad editor.) See Wikipedia:ANI#TruthSeekerT4C. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree in that case, but it was so obvious that it was quickly dealt with at AN/I-- not all cases are that obvious, and we have a means for dealing with those obvious cases without opening a can of worms by changing the definition of edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy, also , allowing multiple accusations to void 3RR is seriously problematic, accusations of socks is not an excuse to revert past 3RR , you would need confirmation for that. We have semi protection and discussion for such issues. Calling someone a SPA crank would also be a bit rude. What articles did user Jehochoman experience these issues on?Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's why we need an essay WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE! Those damn edge cases. The gist of the essay would be, yes, watch out for the slippery slope when dealing with edge cases, but when you've got a blatant case, don't be afraid to act boldly. At the moment we have many editors and admins who are afraid to act, even in obvious cases. (@Off2riorob, The articles in question were 2009 influenza pandemic and swine influenza. No, you don't ever call somebody an SPA crank, but you can think it.) Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What, from 11 months ago, I don't think rewriting policy as regards edits from such a long time ago is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The flu edits happened in the last few days. Are we taking over NYB's talk?  :) As a counterexample, sources are routinely misrepresented at Hugo Chavez, but not intentionally, rather because editors don't recognize their own biases, which leads to cherrypicking. Imagine the admin debacle if they had to decide on edit wars if sources are misrepresented-- that would require admins to judge content disputes and read sources extensively, and would lead to enormous issues and backlogs. It seems to me that the flu case was simply an admin mistake -- it happens :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We can relocate the discussion to the new essay which explains some of this. Wikipedia:Slippery slope. Yah, we can't have people reverting willy nilly all the time, but sometimes they should be able to. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example of misrepresentation of sources occurs in the medical realm, when editors add one statement-- usually pulled from a PMID abstract only-- without accessing the full text of the article, and the full text often reveals cherrypicking. They do it in good faith, and admins shouldn't be asked to judge those cases-- they'd have to access full text of medical articles to realize the misrepresentation of sources. I'm off for the day-- feel free to move my comments, but leave my commendation to NYB here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments, which I will review carefully this evening. I feel compelled to state once again that I was not solely, or even primarily, responsible for the draft decision. My colleagues Risker and Rlevse deserve equal credit and/or blame. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My impression of this finding was that it was a general indication of edit warring among parties, not intended to be precise in the numbers. So perhaps it can be modified to simply indicate that edit-warring occurred and that the editors in question participated in a majority of them, and do away with hard counts. ATren (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And since this is still going... Robert_Watson_(scientist) is a similar case. It is covered (somewhat, because that predates the actual prot) in my evidence Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Addendum:_Robert Watson_.28scientist.29. So using that as an example of edit warring (generic) is grossly unfair: what we had there was "skeptics" inserting rubbish into a BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll review this as well; I didn't collect this set of diffs. Answer me this, though: if that edit-war had been brought to you while you were a main active administrator on the 3RR board (assume that there were multiple reverts on each side within 24h), would you have found that a 3RR exemption applied or would you have blocked? (This is not a merely rhetorical question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the question: had this been brought to me for determination, I would have passed on it, since it was from an area I was too involved to block (or determine 3RR) in. Discarding that quibble: no-one got to 4R (at all, let alone in 24h, as far as I can see) so there would have been no case for a 3RR block. Ah, but reading your question more carefully: clearly the side adding the material could not claim an exemption, so would have been eligible for block. Had Hipocrite removed once more he would have hit 4R. In that case... I think it is iffy. It is arguably BLP-violating, but not strongly so. Had it been in a non-climate-change-area article and got to 4R I think I would have been inclined to apply the rule-of-thumb that nothing in BLP obliges *you* to violate 3RR; if it is bad enough, someone else will. That isn't a clear-cut answer but I don't think this was a clear-cut case, in the sense of the exemption. However (moving right along), had I been free to act without conflict-of-interest as an admin there, I would have warned/blocked those who were disruptively re-adding junk material that they didn't understand: GJP, WVB, MN William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

NYB, as long as you are reviewing these edit wars, please review Monckton, where editors were trying to push an unpublished critique as a source, then as a link, and Marknutley was accused of warring for removing the unpublished material under clear BLP grounds. You might also want to review Solomon, where BLP concerns caused several of us (including MN and me) to revert the insertion of "free-market" into the lede based on a single, obscure, highly partisan source -- even though Solomon himself (in an email to me) indicated that the poorly-sourced term was not only inaccurate, but, according to him, was pejorative. My view is that the list as presented in the PD should be considered representative of the issue even if it contains a few borderline cases -- but if there is going to be a whittling down based on BLP, then it should be done for all, including those cases where MN was clearly warring to protect BLP. Maybe it doesn't matter in the overall decision, but I just wanted to make sure this point is not lost. ATren (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. The objection to the material in the RW case wasn't BLP-violation (as I've said, that was marginal). The objection was that the material was rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But if warring to remove of non-BLP "rubbish" is subject to review here, certainly warring to remove outright BLP vios should be reviewed as well, right? ATren (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• You should be aware that what WMC said on the Michael Mann edit-warring is completely wrong. ChrisO was inserting inaccurate material and being contested by other editors AND it was protected on Aug 4th for "Edit-warring". NW, who has never taken action against the cabal, protected it for "socking" on Aug 15th when the actual problem was continued POV editing by ChrisO. The other assertions by WMC are likewise incorrect. Finally, this conversation should not be taking place here, as it seems to be the Wiki equivalent of an ex parte communication. Anything dealing with findings and proposals should be on the PD talk page. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, we have yet another spurious edit war. See [4]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been protected after edit warring with only two reverts. This seems rather trigger happy on User:John Vandenberg's part William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic coverage of science

[5]. Which is the "science article" or section and which is the "general article" or section for, e.g., Michael Mann? Global Warming? Please explain at the arbitration page (and here as well if you like).--67.161.94.10 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record

Many scientists, political leaders, and others assert that anthropogenic global warming represents a grave and growing threat to the lives and well-being of billions of people and endangers the very physical existence of many countries and communities. Many who deny the existence of sustained anthopogenic global warming assert that existing or proposed measures to reduce carbon emissions themselves constitute a threat to human freedom and well-being. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of imperative public importance provides a powerful test of whether the Wiki collaborative editing model is viable in such an area.

There is no veritable equivalence between these two views and I object to this portrayal. The former represents the scientific consensus on climate change, based on hard data, academic study, and published, peer-reviewed journals. The latter is only the paid, public relation efforts of external activist groups funded by the fossil fuel lobby and their front organizations masquerading as "think tanks" who plant stories in the press and seed doubt on the subject to benefit their personal interest. For example, I showed, in the section Harassment of William M. Connolley, that attacks on Connolley were coming from the Media Research Center, which receives funding from ExxonMobil. Furthermore, science historians have documented beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire climate change denial movement is, at the end of the day, only an astroturfing campaign that began in the 1980s. The sources supporting this statement can be found listed in the discussion section of Climate science and culture wars. For decades, scientists have been harassed by this political campaign, which seeks to discredit and deny the science by any means possible. I fail to see how good scientific evidence is reasonably equal to, in terms of validity, weight, and careful judgment, to a disinformation campaign run by lobby groups. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to spell out my own views in a little more detail. My understanding of the credible evidence is that there is at this point a very substantial, though not universal, scientific consensus in favor of the thesis that anthropogenic global warming is real and that it is dangerous for the future of humankind. At the same time, there are millions of people who believe, for whatever reason, that the contrary is the case. I am not prepared to say that each and every one of them is part of, or has been brainwashed by, an activist group or a political movement.

I have made and make no statement intended to equate the two groups (very very loosely, the climate-change believers and disbelievers) in terms of the correctness of their views, the size of the groups, or the level of scientific inquiry that their members have made before adopting their opinions. And for what it is worth, my personal view, though it is not relevant to my role as an arbitrator and is not influencing my drafting or voting, is that human-caused climate change is a very real and very serious problem; and my understanding based on my reading of the newspapers is that the scientific consensus in favor of this view is further increasing. But that does not mean we can classify each and every human being who disagrees with the consensus view as a politically motivated, corrupt ignoramus (though we can say that their views are not supported by the consensus of the scientific community). Climate change skepicism may be poor science, it may even be non-mainstream science or fringe science or non-science—those are real-world and, in turn, content issues that do not get resolved in arbitration decisions. My personal view is that human well-being might well be increased if our political and economic leaders worldwide could be unanimously convinced that climate change is a real and growing problem that requires coordinated attention. But that does not mean that we can close the discussion and put those who disagree on the list of to-be-ignored crazies along with the flat-earthers and the 9/11 truthers and the Velikovskians.

More important, you have missed the whole point of my comment, which was that the editing environment on the climate change articles reflects the strength with which the two opposing camps hold their views, and that this has translated into the edit-warring and battleground atmosphere that has made the climate change topic area on Wikipedia a miserable one to work in. There can be little dispute about that, and the comment you object to so strongly is really a truism; there is plenty to disagree with about this case without bitterly disputing statements of the obvious. In any event, my remark had and has nothing to do with the merits of the opposing views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, said NYB. I contend that, and I think that the evidence shows, that one "side" is more than willing and able to represent all the views on AGW in proportion to their weight in the media, while the other side wishes to show only one side and almost completely censor any mention of the alternative, not matter how briefly mentioned or reliably sourced. I could show some diffs just from the last 24 hours to support my point. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've put your finger there on the crux of the case, really: does NPOV mean basing the weight of the discussion on the respective views' "weight in the media," or on their "weight in the scientific literature," which in this instance are radically different? I tried to express my view on that distinction in another comment on the proposed decision (FOF 9) last night, but judging by how it's been misinterpreted on the talkpage, failed spectacularly to communicate intelligibly, so I may take a little time off before trying again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said "media", I was also including media sources which publish scientific opinion in addition to mass media, such as academic journals. Often, the attempts to remove alternative opinions from AGW articles is not only of newspaper articles written by journalists, but also contrary opinions by climate scientists. Again, I have at least two examples of such that occurred just within the past 24 hours. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

does NPOV mean basing the weight of the discussion on the respective views' "weight in the media," or on their "weight in the scientific literature," which in this instance are radically different? If we want to earn credibility as an encyclopaedia, rather than a press mirror, we should look at what reputable encyclopaedias out there do. An encyclopaedia like Britannica would get a scholar to write a science article, not a journalist. Such a scholar might reference or summarise popular opinion, but the bulk of the article would be science, and reflect mainstream scientific opinion. This applies to hard science topics like global warming as much as it does to medicine, or articles on the humanities. We have realised that we should not rely on the popular press for medical articles, and have privileged academic sources in this content area; but it seems we are still years away from doing the same for other fields. --JN466 01:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the editing environment reflects the strength of the astroturfing campaign. For example, I found it interesting that the NewsBusters (a Media Research Center site) hit piece on Connolley and Wikipedia was published on December 19, 2009 at 15:34 ET[6] and User:Marknutley created his account on December 20, 2009, at 07:35 (UTC), which according to the respective time zones, is only 12 hours after the article was published. Marknutley immediately began edting the Michael E. Mann article, claiming that "The hockey stick has since been proven to be a Fraud".[7] I am curious how many of these editing accounts are connected in some way to the astroturfing campaign, promoting ideas from think tanks such as The Heartland Institute, which coincidentally enough, Cla68 and Marknutley are busy editing at this very moment.[8] Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you want to debate the topic, as me and NYB were beginning to do, I don't think your approach to it above will be very helpful or productive. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with V (and thank him for the evidence he has posted): your statement is flawed. But I slightly disagree with his reasons (for the record, and since personal opinions are de jour, there is a long-ish explanation of mine over here written most of 2 months ago). Where I differ from V is that you (both?) have failed to distinguish between the science - where the portrayal of competing visions is quite wrong; there is overwhelming agreement on the basics - and the economics / political response, where I accept that it is possible to hold opposing opinions in good faith.

This continues in to the PD not really properly identifying the locus of the dispute. If you look back at the disputes we've had, not much of it has been about science (as far as I recall) because its not really in question. And not much is about economics, because we all know it is in question. The bitterest disputes have been about shades of opinion on the frontier - most obviously, the CRU email stuff (and I still maintain that is where this stuff began, and that the conclusion of that - in favour of the science - ought to be a signal to wiki)

Re weight of media / science: another valuable distinction, and the answer ought to be subject-matter related. On science articles, the media is of little importance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments. To WMC: I tried making, embryonically, a similar distinction in another comment on the proposed decision last night, but as I said above don't think I communicated effectively. In any event, I've probably said enough now about my personal opinions, and should go back to diff-reading for awhile.

Everyone posting, here and there and everywhere, should please remember that I'm just one of the arbitrators. It will be of interest to see what my colleagues have to say on these issues, Or perhaps they will have more sense than I and make fewer longish comments about them. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I totally and completely disagree with NewYorkBrad about the reason for the dispute; it is not that there are two opposing sides, each holding their own belief so dearly and passionately that it plays out as edit warring and POV pushing. If you polled factions, you would find that most of us in the "skeptic" camp are not really skeptics at all. We do not hold dearly or passionately beliefs in opposition to the scientific consensus. I started editing in this area having no view whatsoever about the science because I was not informed. I am not much more informed now, although I have edited in this area almost exclusively for the last while. What grabbed my attention was the manner in which rules were being disregarded, BLP's denigrated and no trace of civility in sight. The more I investigated, the more I came to realize that the abuses of the Wiki collaborative rules were far and away being carried out by those supporting the scientific consensus. The hardcore push to keep "skeptic" information out, to make "skeptic" BLP's look like a bunch of nutters, the extreme warring to make AGW BLP's pristine and saintly -- all by the AGW POV in 95% of the cases -- rather than convince me of the scientific consensus, it has made me question any information that comes out of that camp, because the truth does not fear dissent or disagreement. The truth has no need to hide or obscure or spin. There is so much hiding and obscuring and spinning from the "science club" that it creates suspicion around the message they're trying to deliver. Having said that, I still don't know about the science. I don't necessarily oppose the consensus, but I oppose the tactics of the consensus. And that right there is a phenomenon playing out on Wiki and in the real world. Ironic that the IAC report came out right at the time of the PD's -- calling for complete overhaul of IPCC process, chastising the panel for suppressing alternative views and comments, and for overstating probabilities of global warming events for which there is not enough evidence to state such probabilities. Minor4th 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I certainly accept your explanation for your involvement in disputes in this topic area; but do you think it is typical of all of the other editors mentioned regarding the case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My reason for getting involved is basically the same as Minor4th's. I believe ATren has also said basically the same thing, that he believes in man-made AGW but he became involved after witnessing the continued abuse of sceptical BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if I were to make a statement as to my views, it would probably look very much like Minor4th's. In fact, Now that I think about it, I have stated my view -- here. ATren (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Brad, yes, I do think that is typical of those who would be placed in the "skeptic" camp. I can think of exactly two editors who are probably true skeptics. One is topic banned and I havent seen the other edit in a while -- he may be topic banned as well. Minor4th 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Three. I am a skeptic, but not a denier, although that is not why I came to this area. I believe that the planet is warming. I do not believe that the science can show that the GW is caused by humans, and I'm extremely skeptical of the scientific methods used by Mann, et al. in "proving" that we are in an unprecedented warming period. I don't know why the planet is warming, but the AGW cabal doesn't either. More research needs to be conducted, using transparent, rigorous methods, and under review by the entire scientific community, not just by the priests of the Church of Global Warming. I came here because I didn't have a clue who WMC was, mentioned him in a really bad article I wrote, had appropriate sources for anywhere else in Wiki, and was immediately attacked by the cabal, blocked by a cabal friendly admin (who won't take action against the cabal), and sent to an SPI. Had a CU not cleared me, I would still be blocked because of their actions. I started to look at the area and was appalled by what I saw. No rules for the cabal, and every new editor is accused (directly or indirectly) of sockpuppetry. I was asked this week if I had used any other accounts by a cabal member. It needs to stop or it will ruin Wikipedia. I would much rather be writing articles about how the Indians were screwed and how this played out at SCOTUS (and yes, I'm biased, but I still can write those from an NPOV). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Count me #4. What grabbed my attention was the manner in which rules were being disregarded, BLP's denigrated and no trace of civility in sight. That's a pretty good description of what kept me involved. I'm sympathetic to the skeptical side, but I haven't believed in it for years. Unfairly presenting climate-change skepticism is not justifiable. And yet Wikipedia's principles have been violated flagrantly by editors doing just that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried not to bother arbs too much, but I have to comment on this because it is so demonstrative of some of the problems. Obviously Viriditas believes there is some massive conspiracy because he can't conceive how someone could rationally disagree with him - this is a common belief on his side. Because they think the people who disagree with them are evil fossil-fuel funded shills they feel there is no reason to be civil to them and, in fact, there are many reasons to behave in just the opposite manner - in doing so they can bait skeptics and get them banned for the actions they mirror in muted frequency and intensity. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy. "The Deniers", as Lawrence Solomon calls them, have been very open about who and what they represent, and where they get their money. This isn't a secret nor is it covert. It's all done out in the open. The problem is that the public, for the most part, lacks the critical thinking skills to tell the difference between an opinion from a scientist and one from a pundit. And the media answers only to their advertisers, who often are the same groups funding and disseminating the punditry. I don't see any nefarious conspiracy here. Looks like business as usual. The interesting thing about your accusation, however, is that the climate change deniers are themselves the ones promoting a conspiracy, claiming that climate scientists are conspiring to fool the public, and ironically, this is the conspiracy you promote. For only one recent example of this conspiracy, see The Hockey Stick Illusion (2010) by denier Andrew Montford. It is interesting how when one closely and critically examines the accusations made by TheGoodLocust and other editors, they always seem to be rooted in some kind of grand, overarching psychological projection of their own beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation as Minor4th. I'm a PhD-holder, and I could not believe the ham-fistedness of the clique that asserted its ownership over the Global Warming/Climate Change article. You literally could not raise a point or ask a question without being attacked by these people. I almost left the project rather than get into dung-flinging matches. Instead, i ignore the topic completely.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And that is the nub of the problem. The area needs new blood. Not that recruited from outside to push a particular POV, but the new blood of normal interested editors who come to edit in good faith. The blocs editing in a battleground way have driven all but hardened POV warriors (and those who despite slings and arrows really want our principles upheld) away. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@SpoonkymonkeyYou raise an important point about being a PhD holder. I too hold an advanced degree, and I would challenge anyone to make a legitimate claim that I am unintelligent or unable to comprehend any concept found on Wiki. Yet, there is a fairly pervasive arrogance among the AGW bloc that any disagreement with their view or their methods must necessarily come from the intellectually inferior -- as if the dissenters are incapable of understanding the finer points of climate change, while they have exclusive and perfect understanding. There are also those like Viriditas immediately above who attribute skepticism to special economic interests (or alternatively attribute skepticism to lack of critical thinking skills -- perfect illustration of this point in his post). The arrogance is so pronounced that this group simply cannot accept that reasoned, intelligent people can disagree with what they have decided is correct. It makes this a very difficult area to edit in. Minor4th 01:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NYBrad, since I see people here expressing interest in uninvolved editors getting involved in the issue, there's probably a simple reason why many do not. I can certainly at least tell you why I do not. I don't really mind getting a few rocks thrown at me—I do CSD, I have a pretty thick skin. What is problematic, however, is the issue of "all views are created equal". For the basic premises behind global warming, they are breathtakingly simple. First, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make a planet warmer. That's high school astronomy, and if any "skeptic" denies this prong, I invite them to take a nice vacation to Venus. Second, burning hydrocarbons produces an awful lot of CO2, a greenhouse gas. Any "skeptic" who denies this prong would have to disprove basic theories of chemical reactions that have been accepted for decades. Thirdly, we burn a lot of hydrocarbons. Any "skeptic" who doubts that prong, to be quite honest, needs his head checked.

There is legitimate room for debate about the speed with which warming will occur or the exact amount of its impact. In this area, scientific study is still the answer, and scientific sources are still best, even if they may not all concur. There is legitimate room for debate about what constitutes an appropriate response. On this aspect, media and political sources may matter. But on the idea that AGW will occur and is occurring, there are no "skeptics"—they are denying basic chemistry and astronomy to the point of being deniers. Having to treat those "viewpoints" with any kind of legitimization would infuriate me, and I'm sure it infuriates a lot of people.

The ArbCom could actually solve this issue, by stating unequivocally that for matters of science, sources reflective of scientific consensus are the most reliable source possible. I don't know if that will happen, but I hope you will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you would make a poor admin in this area since you are predetermining a POV that must be reflected in reliable sources. There is not anyone trying to make a "skeptic" (questioning the scope and impact of AGW) the prominent POV on the science. That has never ever happened. What you'll see in this topic area is a hardcore push to keep out any POV that in any way diverges from the "consensus" that is the alarmist/extreme POV. The conflict plays out not in the science articles, but in the more subtle trashing of and coatracking of skeptic BLP's and the canonization of alarmist BLP's. The AGW bloc will not even acknowledge that noted climatologists of the skeptic persuasion are even scientists -- their affiliations and titles and education histories routinely get deleted and replaced with "right wing, think tank spokesman ...blah blah ..". For months, you could not find the word "climategate" anywhere in any of the articls --- even the Climategate article-- because there was such an extreme effort to sterilize the articles of any dissent from the alarmist view. That ain't science, that's political advocacy! Minor4th 02:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or editor in that area, and other than to block/revert an obvious vandal or the like, likely never will be. I would not be able to stomach treating these two viewpoints "equally". But I think this is reflective of the problem—you're rather distracting from my main point and setting up a straw man. Nowhere did I say BLP violations were acceptable, or advocate a specific POV. What I did advocate was that we use the scientific consensus when we discuss science. That, I stand behind entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding -- you said "uninvolved editors" and I was thinking "uninvolved admins" since that is what a large focus of discussion has focused on. My mistake. Your other points are unnecessarily antagonistic -- I did not say or imply that you found BLP violations acceptable or advocacy of a specific POV. I was simply illustrating what the real problem is for those who seem to think that it is the science that is causing all the chaos in this topic area. Minor4th 02:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, would you agree, then, that those who violate BLP regularly should be removed? A large portion of this conflict and this case are related to the treatments of BLPs, not the science. ATren (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, no objection to that whatsoever. I think in all but the most gross cases the editors should be counseled first, as BLP can have some very subtle implications, and there isn't absolute agreement on the edge cases, but certainly editors who continue to violate it despite being told they are must go. However, BLP is only one content policy. Those who despite repeated counseling violate neutrality, especially undue weight, also must go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To the AGW crowd, WP:UNDUE is a code word for excluding ALL mention of GW skepticism, which is not what the policy says. It is used to whitewash articles that they favor, and to trash BLPs that they disapprove of. GregJackP Boomer! 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And NPOV means the AGW POV -- including other POV's "unbalances" the articles and violates NPOV according to the warmists, or some of the more strident bloc members anyway. Minor4th 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But if one breaks out of the Wikipedia bubble for a moment to look at the outside world, it quickly becomes apparent that for all the talk of suppression of skeptical POVs, Wikipedia in fact gives exponentially greater airtime to these viewpoints than any comparable general-purpose reference work. That's sort of the Achilles heel of all of these claims about warmist hegemony. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really true. I think skeptic POV gets less airtime when you consider what's reported in the reliable sources. Granted, the media probably gives inordinate time to skeptic related news just because it's more controversial and more interesting than reporting that another scientist agrees with the consensus. But anyway, on Wiki, it's extremely hard to bring articles in line with NPOV and every bit of content that is not promotional of the warmist bent is very very hard fought. Minor4th 06:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

quick observation on your vote

Oppose:

Unless I am misreading the logs, I see no actual administrator actions by Stephan Schulz in this topic area in at least the last six months. Rather, I believe the controversy surrounds whether Stephan Schulz should be commenting in discussions on the Climate change noticeboard in the "uninvolved administrator" section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that his commenting on the sanctions noticeboard section for 'uninvolved admins' is an admin action. Not a 'mop handling action' such as page protection, blocking or similar. And those are the ones that have gotten people riled up. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in my comment to Rlevse, I expect to make a revised proposal that will clarify this. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And, now done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding regarding Lar and Jehochman

Regarding the proposed sanction against Lar and Jehochman, which you seem to be opposing, it would be useful to have something in the decision that says, "Administrators are advised to attempt discussion before undoing each other's closure or re-opening of noticeboard threads. Taking such actions without prior discussion may set a poor example for other users, and could lead to edit wars." There is a value in defining best practices. I'll cross post a proposal to the PD talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club since 2006 [9] and try very hard never to revert more than once. What happened between me and Lar was at most an incipient edit war, which fortunately did not continue. Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that it did not continue; the fact that it was an isolated incident is a large part of why I am opposing a remedy for it. I will consider your suggestion for an addition to the decision, though it is getting ungodly long already; if you go ahead and post to the PD talkpage, the other arbitrators can also consider it. Teasing sidenote: with regard to your section heading, please see hypercorrection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A rule about closing noticeboard threads not related to this case (like ANI threads) should not be included in the decisions of this case. Sole Soul (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

CC votes

I removed Rlevse's votes, and deleted a 'per Rlevse' in one of your comments, but that leaves a comment or two which you might want to tweak as they either mention a now deleted vote or a now deleted comment. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Clerk list, I shouldn't have been asked to remove these, just indent them. I can't undo because of your edits. Can I just restore the version before I undid Rlevse's votes, indent them, and you do any editing still required or let me fix them? Replacing the votes manually individually will take forever, and as you probably know, there are very few Clerks around, indeed I seem to be the only one. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand this is a pain in the neck for you. Please let me know when you are done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:For the record

Some distinctions should be made:

1) There are groups out there which are alarmist about global warming: claiming dramatic weather events like Katrina are somehow proof of global warming. This kind of advocacy is poorly argued and anti-scientific as much as any person who argues that the anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide is not associated with a climactic increase in global temperatures. To this end, the true "anti-science" positions are on both sides.

2) One particular anti-science side has gotten most of the attention here at Wikipedia: those of the second sort. This is due to a consistent tilt in the coverage toward positions favored by well-funded interest. Does everyone who disbelieves in the anthropogenic nature of global warming receive a kickback from industry? No. But the coordinated effort to muddy the waters is helped out a lot when there are millions of dollars pouring in to boost up this particular brand of anti-science.

The closest we can come to comparison would be the evolution vs. creationism debates. The money there is of a far smaller amount and generally based on donations to individuals. Yes, the Heartland Institute and the Discovery Institute share a lot of commonalities, but the interesting thing is that one of the institutes is generously funded by multiple parties while the other is funded by, essentially, one wealthy individual.

You say that AGW-denialists are not in the same boat as Velikovskians, flat earthers, or 9-11 truthers? Interesting. Is it purely a numbers thing? Millions are creationists. Does that mean we treat creationism and evolution the same way as we treat AGW denialism: with kid gloves?

Just curious.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this take. And is a reason for highlighting science v. non-science articles in the topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is much merit to some of ScienceApologist's comments. I wonder, thoughif one relevant distinction between how, one reacts to anthropogenic global warming dissenters versus some other types of dissenters from accepted scientific theories might be based on the sheer length of time that the accepted theories have been the subject of consensus. I won't pretend to know as much of the history and philosophy of science as you, so I have stricken the particular example I had typed here, but I trust you will take my point.

It bears emphasis to my readers here that little of the discussion of my personal views on these issues has much to do with the resolution of the arbitration itself. Suffice it to say that I have managed to made statements that have been disagreed with by those with strong feelings on both sides, which means that either I am very right or I am very wrong. (Deciding which, if either, of these alternatives is correct is left as an exercise for the reader.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it means you're a (maddening) arbitatrator who is not likely to be persuaded easily by talk page advocacy.

That aside, in response to ScienceApologist -- To even mention flat earthers and AGW skeptics in the same breath is a fallacious comparison -- similarly comparing AGW skeptics to creationists. Creationists are no so much anti-science as they are pro-faith. I don't know that any flat earthers really exist, but it so they are way out on the fringe. The AGW skeptics are not anti-science at all-- their theories are grounded in science. There's just a disagreement about the science, and the field is in flux and still developing. Even Michael Mann acknowledges there are many uncertainties and there are issues with the data that create some doubt. Plus I think it's fair to say that most skeptics would not go so far as to say that human behavior is not the cause of global warming -- it's usually cast in terms of an inability to predict with accuracy and an inability to confidently attribute the cause. Those who deny that recent warming is anomalous in the earth's history also base their beliefs in science, as there is evidence of prior similar levels of warming in the earth's history, and its not exactly known if prior warming was global or regional -- but there's scientific evidence to support the theory. "Warmists" tend to cast off all skeptics as opposed to science or in delusional denial about the science, as if it is settled as fact and skeptics simply refuse to believe it because of some kind of faith-based ideological bent that is unsupported by any scientific data. That's simply not the case. The theory of AGW is consistent with the scientific data, but it's not the only theory that is consistent with the scientific data. It's simply wrong to label skeptics as a whole as "anti-science."Minor4th 19:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I challenge you to make this argument to an avowed and thoughtful creationist and see what they say. There are a few left on Wikipedia, if you want me to get you in contact with them. They really, honestly, do believe that they are doing the same work as the AGW skeptics. The Discovery Institute has been very quick to jump on the bandwagon of opposing IPCC consensus as they see it as the exact same battle. Who are you or I to say it isn't? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reading: "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets", New York Times, 3 March 2010. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, thoughif one relevant distinction between how, one reacts to anthropogenic global warming dissenters versus some other types of dissenters from accepted scientific theories might be based on the sheer length of time that the accepted theories have been the subject of consensus. This type of argument doesn't really work in a scientific context. Either the data supports the claim or it doesn't. Either the tests are exhaustive or they aren't. Either the models are rigorous and well-tested or they are not. Either the theories fit the data or they do not. How long the idea has been around is so minor a concern as to be normally relegated to the speculations of historians of science who notice trends and data but, as far as I know, never go out on the limb to say that the older the consensus is the more anti-scientific it is to dispute it. IPCC has done an incredible job at summarizing and getting disparate scientists to come to an agreement on the science of the subject. This is no small feat. The personalities, ideas, and structural thinking involved in the scientific community makes getting any consensus statement akin to successfully herding cats. Normally, Wikipedia takes such reliable sources extremely seriously, but right now we have a concerted effort by a number of Wikipedians including an administrator (!) who seem to be of the opinion that there is a great, grand conspiracy to overplay global warming as a threat orchestrated by WMC, Michael Mann, etc. That there are administrators who actively support this idea and have taken action within the climate change area to me indicates something has broken and broken bad. Normally WP:RGW works to stave off the people who are convinced that there is a conspiracy, but when these people think Wikipedia itself is in on the conspiracy they just do not take such warnings seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Which admin? ATren (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to name names on this page at this time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "length of time" argument, I think it was Max Planck who said "science advances one death at a time." That's only for the scientists, though. The public often takes many generations to catch up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@SA, I've been involved in this topic area for more than 2 years now, and I can't recall any admin who ever expressed anything remotely similar to the opinion that "there is a great, grand conspiracy to overplay global warming as a threat orchestrated by WMC, Michael Mann, etc." If there is such an admin, and if they can be shown to be acting on such a belief, then they should be brought to the attention of the committee immediately, so that they may be dealt with. ATren (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There actually is a "massive conspiracy" theory that the sceptics believe in, but this is a rather subtle "hidden" theory. It is the belief that the scientific process in the climate change field is not so reliable. There isn't a shred of evidence for this belief, but almost all sceptics I've talked to will make statements in this direction. In their opinion, there is a lot more room for sceptical scientific ideas about climate change than what you can distill from the top scientific journals, because they think that the peer review process unfairly filters out good sceptical theories, that the way grants are awarded brings in left wing political influence on scientific research etc. etc.

This then leads sceptics Wiki editors to consider information from outside the scientific realm as reliable information while the editors editing from the scientific perspective will consider such information to be unreliable (precisely because it bypasses peer review and because it usually is incompatible with other peer reviewed studies). This is the fundamental basis for the conflict on Wikipedia, because you ultimately do need an agreement on reliable sources. Then on the main global warming page and other articles on the science, there is an agreement to base all statements about the science on the peer reviewed literature, so on these ages there isn't much of a conflict. But on the BLP pages and the pages that are about organizations that are related to the climate change problem such as the IPCC, there is a big conflict.

This then is the correct background one needs in order to understand the dispute between e.g. William and Cla68 about the IPCC article. Statements by Pielke, who is an advocate for scpetics, is argued to be a reliable source that can balance a statement from the journal Nature, but the Real Climate blog which advocates against the sceptics and for the results of climate science cannot be put in. This logic is very unreasonable if you don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the sceptics subscribe to. Count Iblis (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For a good overview of this topic, everyone should read and understand the article that Nigelj was kind enough to link to in a related discussion: "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics. 17 (3). Routledge: 349–385. 2008. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) The climate change denial movement is not science but advocacy, and the so-called "think tanks" are actually activist groups. Lar's misguided proposal to address this problem, namely banning active editors on both sides, would have the unintended consequences of giving ammunition and momentum to anti-science, activist editors and their agenda of climate change denial advocacy. By removing editors concerned with the accurate, encyclopedic portrayal of climate science, the climate change denial activists will have succeeded in their campaign. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The climate change denial movement is not science but advocacy There's something to this. After creating an AfD for Climate change denialism and looking into some of the sources, I came to believe there has been a denialist campaign financed by various industrial interests. (I still think the separate article on this topic is a bad idea.) A more sophisticated take on this would incorporate some other facts: (1) a corporate-financed denialist campaign is not the only reason many people have held either denialist or skeptical opinions: More goes into widespread movements and widespread opinions than corporate-financed campaigns, and it should be obvious that this isn't even most of the reason for the influence of denialism or skepticism; (2) Simply following science isn't the entire reason that every believer in AGW, or pro-AGW activist or even all of the scientists think and act the way they do (although I think it's most of the reason for most of them): There are always a variety of motivations (economic interests, closed-minded ideology, political advantage, pursuing government grants), some better than others, in any political movement, therefore identifiying some of the bad motivations is seldom decisive in any political discussion and concentrating on motivations is usually ineffective, in addition to being poisonous (most of us know this instinctively and most of us should be suspicious when people concentrate on the bad motivations of their opponents); (3) Closer to home: MOST (here, let me repeat that, just a bit louder:) M-O-S-T of the Wikipedia CC disputes occurred outside questions about science but were often connected to (a) politics, or, most poisonously, (b) personalities (BLPs) and allegations of scandalous behavior. I think it's very fair to redo Viriditas' words slightly and say: The climate change conflict on Wikipedia has never turned on questions of science but of advocacy. Science is the current MacGuffin, and many of the same actors in this one will be in another Hitchcockian horror piece at some point down the road when this drama is replaced in Cinema Wikipedia. The real "locus of dispute" here -- the reason for the ideological battling that is shown conclusively by diffs that violate WP policy -- is the attitudes of editors who don't think Wikipedia behavioral policy should apply to them. And when we find editors who evidently don't think Wikipedia rules should apply to them (they almost admit it), do you really think a hint or the example of others is going to convince even most of them to change their behavior? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian again

Hi. Another editor left the following message on my Talk Page:

Hello there, I am new to Wikipedia and just edited my first article. I added an "original plot" section to God of War III, as I think that the vision of the series creator is relevant information. I am not a native speaker, but I think my English isn't too bad. A fellow editor from Sydney (IP 125.xx) keeps deleting my section instead of improving it due to "poor grammar and weak, colloquial language". The user's history shows that he regularly uses the same comment when changing other edits. His wording is similar to that of user "Spartancourage", who was blocked for being the new account of user "Asgardian", who was banned. Can you please have a look into this? I would also appreciate your feedback on the quality of my "original plot" section, which I have posted on the talk page of God of War III. Many thanks in advance. 84.56.59.199 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over that article's edit history, it appears that our newbie IP editor is referring to editor 125.63.185.218, which is indeed a Syndey IP, where Asgardian lives. His emphasis on "colloquial" language" and reverting edits do to poor "grammar" ([10][11]) is indeed a habit of Asgardian's, as is his blanking of an entire talk page, with the rationalization that it's "not illegal". Though this is true for registered users, I don't think anonymous IP's are supposed to do this, since IP pages are not necessarily the sole domain of one user. Blanking the page also has the effect of concealing past warnings for disruptive editing.

In addition, it also appears that 125.7.71.6 is Asgardian as well, as that is also an Australian IP from which he cites "weak colloquial language when making the same reverts as 125.63.185.218, and who also blanks the talk page, concealing past warnings and blocks for disruptive editing.

I left this message on Amalthea's talk page, since she reset Asgardian's block when he was found to be evading his ban with sockpuppets, but she hasn't responded. Can you look into this? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your votes on the PD talk page

You've been very good at explaining your reasoning and votes in several areas of this case, but I (and I'm sure other editors) would like explanations of more of them. I'm particularly concerned about your Fof 10.1 on William Connolley and BLPs. I've set up a section at the PD talk page here. [12] Discussing specific votes and the reasoning for them is the most likely way for most editors to avoid intense frustration. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

(Off-wiki matter redacted)Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can help you with this, but please send me an e-mail to discuss it, as I don't think it belongs in a public forum. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Modification of future editing behavior

I I posted a proposal on the PD talk page on this issue raised by you. Count Iblis (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

CC arbitration

Please could you or one of the other drafting arbitrators respond and/or give some thought to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#2_comments – it would be useful to have these points resolved before the arbitration closes. Thanks, --JN466 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

These comments have now been archived to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision/Archive_4#2_comments, but the only arb to have responded to them to date is Cool Hand Luke, who voiced agreement, but is not active in this case. I know you guys have your hands full, but the question whether WMC may edit talk pages of CC BLPs is bound to come up soon after the case closes, if remedy 4 does not make it clear one way or the other (as remedy 3.2 does), and I do think we owe ChrisO some findings of fact. If you could please find a moment to look into it, that would be great. --JN466 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Newyorkbrad, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi Brad. User:Freakshownerd has asked you to look at his situation. here - Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An issue here is that Fsn has repeatedly asked to be unblocked, only to be told to wait for an ArbCom decision, while it's clear that ArbCom isn't interested in pursuing the matter. Regardless of the merits of the case (and I think the circumstantial evidence for sockpuppetry is strong) it's only fair for ArbCom to explicitly butt in or butt out. PhGustaf (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about getting in or out though I'm less sure about the evidence. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Coren posted for the committee, here. Basically saying that there was in their opinion not enough evidence to sanction User:ChildofMidnight for socking and that a block of User:Freakshownerd's for his behavior was correct and that the community should decide the severity of that block. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A typology for topic bans

I don't know where you and Roger are going with this in the climate change arbitration, but perhaps introducing a typology might help. Introduce these as principles, something like:

• Type 1 topic ban: all articles, talk pages and processes.
• Type 2 topic ban: all articles and talk pages. Participation in processes permitted.
• Type 3 topic ban: all articles. Participation in processes and on talk pages permitted.

(extend as necessary)

Put this onto a Committee-controlled page, then you might have something that can be understood and applied more easily at AE. Everybody knows where he stands. Anybody who has been topic banned in the past can ask the Committee to tell him what type of ban applies to him going forward. --TS 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking the lead on the remedies against individual editors, but I agree with your listing of the different types of bans that could be imposed. I will try to make sure that whatever sanctions we imposed are at least clearly defined, to prevent unnecessary arguments going forward. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate the work you and Rlevse put into drafting the proposed decision in the early stages. You broached some difficult issues without igniting a full-scale civil war. --TS 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Risker was also heavily involved at that stage, and as is obvious, others are pitching in now. Although, if what we've had in this case wasn't a full-scale civil war, I don't ever want to see one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. If you think it's bad, then you've forgotten the Badlydrawnjeff case, not to mention what I call "Badlydrawnjeff 2", the mass deletion of unsourced BLPs earlier this year. Now that was nearly civil war. And yes, come to mention it, you've all been cooking along nicely in this arbitration. I love the contrast between the project page and the talk page. --TS 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, Brad. Can you help me out? I'm trying to figure out what's going out with the sockpuppet investigation that I opened in response to this editor's request to me for help, and I can't seem to get a straight answer from the investigation page or anyone that I talk to, ([13][14]) even though I've never had this problem before with past sock investigations that I started. Can you tell me what the conclusion of the investigation was, or whether the ArbCom is going to make some statement about it eventually? Thanks.

Btw, is it okay if I call you by your real name now, since it's displayed on your user page? Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked on the status. Hersfeld sent us a note, and it will be followed up on. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently checkuser-savvy to be the best person to deal with the problem myself.

As for my name, it's probably best to stick with my wiki moniker on-wiki. My real first name has been public information for two years now ("Brad" is my middle name), so it's not against the rules or anything to refer to it, but it would be a little jarring to suddenly see it start popping up on the wiki, and more importantly, people who don't happen to know it would probably get confused. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your super support vote in my RfA. I'm kind of late in posting this message NewyorkBrad, but wanted to personally thank everybody, including you. Thanks and sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for your perspective

Hi Newyorkbrad... I was looking at your comments here in the Abd-WMC case on the problems with Abd's style of interaction. As you may be aware, Abd's cold fusion topic ban expired a few days ago, and he has returned to posting walls of text at talk:cold fusion. Looking at the history, you will see that:

• when the talk page was archived last on 30 August the page was 83 958 bytes in length, down from 123 426 bytes as two threads over 30 days old were removed
• by 8 September the page had grown to 90 835 bytes, and there was then no posts for a week
• Abd returned on 15 September and now (3 days later) the page has doubled in length to 184 881 bytes, thanks largely to Abd

• A series of posts adding 11 700 bytes on 16 September
• A series of posts adding 13 800 bytes on 17 September
• A series of posts adding 10 200 bytes on 18 September
• Another series of posts adding 13 500 bytes on 18 September
• Another series of posts adding 17 700 bytes on 18 September
• Two more series of post from 18 September, adding another 8 600 bytes

This totals over 78 000 bytes from Abd in three days, and doesn't include all of his posts. Looking at his contributions, cold fusion has become almost his sole focus since the ban ended, and looking at the content he is starting to re-argue issues (like his contentious poll from before the case). I was wondering if you would please have a look at what he has been posting and if you see it as starting down the wrong path, perhaps you might offer him some friendly advice. I don't believe he would respond positively if I said anything to him, but perhaps he would listen to you if you expressed concerns. Obviously, that depends on whether you consider that what I have raised is of concern; if you don't, my apologies for wasting your time. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now over 100 000 bytes in four days, and Abd is displaying ownership issues - see posts at user talk:Kirk shanahan. Please, some calming comments from you as an editor whom everyone will respect would be helpful and welcome. EdChem (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have long since thought that one of Abd's purposes on the Wiki is to make FT2 and me look succinct. More seriously, I appreciate that there is an issue here, but I don't know that I am someone whose comments Abd would entertain as valid, given that I was one of the arbitrators who voted against him on some finding and remedies in the case last year. There is also the concern that if this matter comes back before the committee, I would have to comment and vote again on any proposals that are made. Therefore, I don't propose to parse his comments in detail or seek to admonish him at this stage. But what I will say to Abd, if he is reading this or if it is drawn to his attention, is that he is very likely to wind up back before the committee in short order if he does not conduct his return to editing these articles in a collegial, moderate, and reasonable fashion. Suffice it to say that if we were to find that an editor was behaving inappropriately and seeking to take control of a topic area immediately after having come off a topic-ban from that area, our reaction would probably not include a series of barnstars. Verbum sap. suff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. Let me start by saying that I was not seeking to compromise your independence as an arbitrator, nor asking for you to examine his posts in detail. If Abd continues as he is going, I believe he will end up back before ArbCom, and I was looking for someone who Abd might respect who could say "it looks (at a glance) like you are returning to wall-of-text edits, this is a potentially hazardous path". Certainly, I knew from experience that Abd would not listen to me, he has made his views of me abundantly clear. You are a well-respected member of ArbCom, your comments (in my view) still carry significant weight, and I was hoping some comments could be made before it got to the stage of admonishments or sanctions. In any case, looking at user talk:Abd it looks like others have starting commenting to him, so hopefully something will come from that.

      By the way, Abd might make you appear succinct but remember that another important difference is that your longish posts are coherent and cogent; Abd's posts generally take some effort to comprehend. EdChem (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad, you are incorrect about how I'd respond to comments from you. I am seriously attempting to conduct myself collegially at the article page. However, thanks for your moderate response. I have responded to complaints from TS and Rlevse on my Talk page, promising to comply with what I believe are incorrect interpretations of my ban, so there should be, I'd hope, no need for AE; I will file a request for clarification if I choose to pursue a disagreement with those interpretations.

However, one important point: the topic of cold fusion is one where, since the early 1990s, the balance of publication in the field has favored what is called, by many of our editors, the "fringe view." In 2004, the US DOE held a reconsideration of the field, and the most notable fact about that review, found in the report, has long been suppressed from the article: in 1989, the possibility of low energy nuclear reactions, "cold fusion," was massively rejected. In 2004, the panel was evenly divided on the crucial excess heat question, and one-third of the panel thought that evidence for LENR had become "convincing" or "somewhat convincing." This was in spite of the presence of some reviewers who, in their comments, showed that they would not consider any review until there was an "explanation." Which is backwards. Science looks for explanations when it has experimental results to explain! Since then, publication that accepts LENR as a fact has exploded, research is ramping up in many countries, and increasingly prestigious publications and organizations are signing on to this field being legitimate science. Yet it is still true that "most scientists," probably, meaning those not familiar with the evidence that developed since the original fiasco, think it's bogus, hence the reactions of someone like EdChem.

If we simply follow our RS policies and guidelines, and other guidelines, there would be no problem at Cold fusion. If we simply followed the decision at RfAr/Fringe science, there would be no problem. But it will require a lot of discussion! This is a field where many people believe old stuff that has since been shown, in reliable source, to be incorrect, or moot.

However, in deciding to ban me from the topic for a year, ArbComm accepted -- and cited -- evidence that was essentially an editor's own disagreement with the policy at RfAr/Fringe science (I think that arbitrators misinterpreted it, thinking that I'd made some claim being refuted.) The other editor who knew the evidence, Pcarbonn, returned to editing, and, as he was now COI, having obtained employment in the field, he kept himself to Talk. He was still "community banned," by request of JzG -- who should not have touched this with a ten-foot pole, at AN, in a request that asserted that Pcarbonn was still asserting his "POV," as if his POV had been banned, and with no evidence that what he'd written was actually improper. He was completely disgusted and simply went away.

There is no decision for you to make now, but, NYB, I would certainly value your advice. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I came here because of (now) more than 100 000 bytes added in 4 days at talk:cold fusion and beause of NYB's own words about your editing style: "It is just too many words, too much, too often, and despite being begged by seemingly dozens of people to tone it down. To be fair, gosh knows that I use too many words myself sometimes. But to be even slightly tolerable, long posts hopefully have a beginning point, an endpoint, and a coherent argument along a guiding path somewhere in the middle. And there should only be one or two of them on a given page on a given topic, rather than, as I have written on the talkpage, eleventeen." Since your return, something like 80% of what has been posted to talk:cold fusion has come from you, which looks like dominating rather than engaging in a discussion. I came here in the hope that you might listen to NYB in a way I know you won't listen to me. EdChem (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, don't you think you should raise an issue like this with the editor, directly, before taking it to an arbitrator whom you think might favor your position?

Probably most of that volume was in collapse, and whatever I put in collapse may be disregarded as to article process. NYB is welcome to advise me, if he wants to discuss it, and I'm willing to waive recusal, if he'd prefer that.

I will say this, that almost everything left visible was aimed at the end of pursuing changes to the article, and if it seems incoherent to you, it maybe that you don't understand the field, and/or you haven't carefully read it. Or, of course, that I made mistakes. I do make mistakes, unlike some others. That's okay. I'm COI on the topic, and if I fail to convince you, that's my problem, not yours. I proposed one actual edit to the article, directly and clearly, and you have not commented on that, you only commented on a small piece of dicta, as have some others, turning a molehill into a mountain. I only mentioned the old poll to establish that the change I was proposing was reasonable, i.e., every commenting editor supported it or something quite like it, not to attempt to force some conclusion. That material was removed, not by editorial consensus, but by an admin acting in a way that was later admonished by ArbComm.

What I'd really like to see at Cold fusion is some kind of standing mediator or facilitator. Given two COI experts (relatively speaking), at least one of whom doesn't agree with WP policy, and doesn't understand consensus process, and given a fairly substantial set of editors who don't know the literature, but who are very clear on what they think it shows, it's going to continue to be a mess, with or without me, unless something like this is done.

It was a mess before I arrived, it was a war zone while I was there -- ArbComm never really examined the behavior of other editors, some of whom cheerfully revert warred, including, during the case, revert warring with an admin who unblocked me and restored my Talk page comment, it was a mess for the year I was gone, and the serious problems that the article continues to have were not addressed. (I have many, many things I could put in the article based on very reliable source, facts well-known and accepted and published in peer-reviewed and academic sources, about the science and about the history, which is fascinating, in fact, many books have been written about it, by "skeptics" and "believers" and even by a few who were clearly neutral. There is material for many articles, and trying to cram it all into one page is part of the problem, creating unnecessary disputes over WP:UNDUE.

Maybe NYB could suggest someone! It should be someone neutral, someone willing to become familiar with the issues, it takes effort, or, at least, to guide and support -- and refactor -- discussion, to keep it on track. This could resolve what has been and will continue to be a magnet for disruption, as it was more than a year ago, and had been for a long time. Bans don't fix articles! But a facilitator could issue temporary bans for people who refuse to be civil and to respect orderly process. Just like the chair of a meeting may ask a disruptive member to leave. That's not expelling them from the organization! It's just settling things for the moment so that sober deliberation can take place. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(Placeholder. I have court this afternoon and will respond here tonight.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughtful input is eagerly awaited. My view is that cold fusion is an itch Abd cannot stop scratching; he has become friendly with some proponents of the technology (at least two of whom are banned, and some of his past restrictions were the result of proxying for them) and his input in that area has, to date, been characterised by stonewalling, arguing the case not the coverage of the case, and refusal to accept any POV other than his own. I believe it is a hot-button topic for an editor prone to crusading for causes, and past experience indicates that he is best separated from these causes for his own and everybody else's good. When he keeps away form his hot-button topics he seems to be perfectly pleasant, but he acknowledges that he has issues of obsessive behaviour. We can manage that by separating him fomr the targets of obsession and thus hopefully maintain the productive part of his activity without the constant battles. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone has asked so politely, here are a few thoughts:

1. I am by no means the right person to opine on whether there is any substance to "cold fusion" at all or whether it will forever remain relegated to the realm of "fringe science" or mistaken science or non-science. My general background, layman's understanding is or had been that the strong scientific consensus about cold fusion parrots Gertrude Stein's view of Oakland: "there's no 'there' there." If anything, it struck me as sounding like what has been called "pathological science," always at the borderline of detectibility and one tantalizing step away from confirmation and reproducibility, much a la N-rays. But I'm hardly up-to-date on the literature, nor equipped to evaluate which journals are reliable or not, so have to defer to those with more subject-matter expertise. Nor, unfortunately, do I have a suggestion for a mediator or facilitator in the area, although perhaps someone from a relevant wikiproject might.

2. I think that Abd, in his mind, plays two separate roles on Wikipedia. One is as a process-change agent and provocateur; I have seen him basically admit, on another website, that sometimes he will do something more-or-less on purpose to see if it will cause another editor to react or overreact. Any behavior of that nature is not welcome on Talk:Cold fusion or frankly anywhere else. The second is as a spokesman for potentially overlooked minority views and NPOV. That is a more valuable role, but it is one that must be performed carefully lest one cross the line into POV-pushing oneself; I am not convinced that Abd always displays the best judgment in deciding where to draw the line.

3. The problem of "walls of text" is a massive one in Abd's writings, both on-wiki and elsewhere. I sympathize, because I write overlong myself sometimes, but in Abd's case it is to an even greater extent, and more self-discipline must be shown. Putting lengthy comments in a box, moreover, does not solve the problem. That may be the appropriate way to handle a discussion that has gone off-topic or to mark off a closed subissue that does not require further discussion, or perhaps on rare occasions to mark off something (a table or a list or the like) that the reader can take or leave. But to habitually box one's own comments puts the reader to a poor choice between reading the comments (in which case the box has not accomplished much) or not reading them (in which case they are hardly equipped to continue the discussion with you).

4. I think that Abd, in his haste to return to the cold fusion discussion when his topic-ban expired, is trying to do too much too soon. An article of this nature does not get written or rewritten overnight, and if consensus is going to change, it will take some time. I am not convinced that Abd's participation is going to bring long-term benefit to this topic, but if Abd wants to participate, I suggest that he select one aspect of the article on which he would like to focus attention, and post to the talkpage a succinct description of why he feels there are issues with it. If he cannot do this without straining himself, then he is better off not pursuing his interest in this topic area.

5. Guy's comment reminds me that at one point, though I don't remember whether here or on another website, Abd acknowledged that he might at this point actually have a conflict of interest in this particular topic area. Abd probably knows our policies and guidelines in this and other areas better than I do; I am sure he will act circumspectly and within them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, NYB. Some points.

• A peer-reviewed secondary source on Cold fusion just appeared in Naturwissenschaften, a high-impact, highly reputable, multidisciplinary journal, Springer-Verlag calls it their "flagship," that summarizes the state of the field. It's not as you think, which is as someone would think who imagines that our article isn't biased. Five years ago, that view might have been reasonable, though uninformed. (The basic evidence was known by the mid-1990s. Recent evidence and theoretical work has gone way beyond that.)
• JzG is correct that I've "become friendly" with two banned editors, though with only minimal contact with one. Both these editors were banned courtesy of JzG, and he has done a great deal of damage through this. Pcarbonn, the latest, was "community banned" at JzG suggestion. He did not disclose his long involvement. He did not disclose that Pcarbonn, who had developed a COI, was only making some suggestions in Talk. Civil. The offense? "Pushing the same POV that got him banned before" (rhetorical quote, my recollection.) In other words, from JzG's point of view, there is a banned POV.
• I communicated extensively with Edmund Storms, the author of the Naturwissenschaften paper, and some of the cautious and inclusive language of that paper came from me; he credits me. I also expect to author papers in the field, I'm doing real research, to confirm certain highly notable, but mostly unconfirmed, U.S. Navy results. When I saw the topic ban coming here, I also started a business selling kits to do this, but so far, until I've done the experimental work to show that the kits are useful, I'm just selling materials, some of them are hard to get. I'll never get rich from this, I expect!
• Yes, I'm COI, which means that I won't make controversial edits to the article, I will confine myself to Talk. I may make occasional self-reverted edits to suggest a complex change, for efficiency.
• The issue of long posts and "POV-pushing comments" from experts and enthusiastic amateurs in a field is one which Wikipedia largely got wrong. I've suggested solutions. If you will recall, I suggested at RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley that anyone claiming expertise should be considered COI, and protected as to Talk, being supported to maintain civility and coherence, which could mean shoving some discussion off to user pages, talk subpages, etc. I could do that at Cold fusion, easily, I'm expert at it, but ... I'm COI, and as to applying this expertise elsewhere, I'm banned from it by the MYOB ban.
• As to collapsing parts of my own posts, that Talk page is full of diversions wandering off the topic of the section. I don't write anything truly off-topic for the article subject, beyond normal brief personal notes, and these side-discussions are useful for overall background *if someone is interested.* They are not needed to resolve the immediate issue. Collapse is a very convenient way to deal with this layering. Before I was COI, I'd have collapsed the off-topic comments of others as well. There are other ways to deal with this, and I'm being increasingly careful about it.
• One serious charge you make, Brad. Trolling. I don't troll. What I do, sometimes, is make an instinctive action that, in hindsight, can be seen as trolling, the clearest example of this was when, during that last arbitration, the adverse party threatened me with ban enforcement, of his own self-declared, very involved ban. So I declared, on the RfAr talk page, that I considered the ban invalid and I'd cease my voluntary compliance. I didn't go and do something deliberate to provoke him, I simply set aside his "ban" and stopped considering it. When someone, particularly an admin, declares that I must stop doing something, I normally stop, pending discussion or resolution, even when I disagree. After about a day, I noticed a question on Talk:Cold fusion, and answered it, briefly and not contentiously, and he blocked me. Yes, I later wrote that this was one of the most brilliant things I'd done, because it cut through the noise and demonstrated to ArbComm just how extreme this admin was, it desysopped. However, Brad, that was not my goal. I've disclosed my goals many times. I assure you, my goal is not to disrupt Wikipedia, it is to end unnecessary disruption, through process or structural improvements.
• Until we fix these, we will see continual and increasing disruption. Thanks for your comments, I will, as always, take them to heart. I hope this wasn't too long!--Abd (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd, the problem is that you want the Wikipedia consensus to change before the real world consensus, and the article to reflect the subject as the pro-CF lobby would like it to be rather than as it actually is. The result is that you spend most of your time arguing the primary case for cold fusion. This is at least the third go-round of pro-CF advocates trying to reshape the article in an attempt to influence the real world, that is not what Wikipedia ids for and that is why there is a problem with Jed Rothwell, Pcarbonn and now you. Additionally you give a very strong impression of proxying for those banned users. Also, you are not, as far as I can tell an "expert" in this field. You are, as far as the evidence goes, a dilettante amateur who has bought into a minority view, largely spoon-fed to you in the early days. I have said before that I have a good friend who is a full professor, an electrochemist, and worked in Fleischmann's lab during the initial experiments. He is an expert. He read the FA version and expressed the view that it was a fair reflection of the state of the subject. Virtually all the changes since have been apologia, not unlike the constant tweets I see purporting to be "final clinching proof" that homeopathy works, which are of course no such thing. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you have no clue what I want, just as you have no idea about my background in physics and chemistry. You just acknowledged the basis for your long-time POV-pushing about Cold fusion. Your friend read that article long ago, because you first described this incident long ago. Please look at the review of the field that just appeared in Naturwissenschaften, Status of cold fusion (2010), and try showing it to your friend. I'd love to know what he thinks. Seriously.

Brad, at that link is the abstract and the first page, but it is worth looking at. If you should happen to be interested, I can send you a preprint. On a personal note, this publication means a lot to me because I helped edit it, I wrote some of the language on that first page, and I'm mentioned. In the journal where Einstein was published. This is mainstream, not some fringe quirk. I used my little "vacation" well. Thanks. Seriously.

See Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Recent sources for a listing of all recent peer-reviewed and academic sources I could find on the topic, with secondary source reviews bolded. The shift toward acceptance probably started happening somewhere around 2005, possibly as a result of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, which already showed substantial acceptance among experts, and which recommended further research and publication. Naturwissenschaften started publishing research in the field in 2005. Peer reviewed secondary review coverage of cold fusion has drastically increased since 2004, there are 15 "positive" review papers or books I counted, mainstream published. There are no negative reviews at all, recently. The opposition collapsed completely. I know that negative papers have been submitted, but they are being rejected. It is, among the experts, over. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Britz's statistics don't show an increase on publications (I guess that the peak of publications at the end of 2009 is the sourcebook?). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Those who don't remember the past are condemned to listen to Abd keep arguing about cold fusion on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but it's not just cold fusion. In the meantime, anyone who has the patience is welcome to help him on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I will answer these comments in situ, as appropriate, if at all, other than to note that Britz's chart is not designed to show what I have claimed, recent increase, the Y-axis is based on a huge number of publications in 1989-1990. Thanks for your patience, NYB. --Abd (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't weasel out of that one. The Y-axis is clearly labelled. The plot shows no recent increase. Britz says as much in his FAQ :

"On the other hand, the same people have been known to boast about how many papers there are in my collection, what with my strict criteria, showing what an active field cold fusion is. Actually, at the time of writing this, there are 1438 papers in the collection, and for an exciting field, this is not that much. I believe, for example, that high temperature superconductivity has tens of thousands of papers, and there has not been an exponential decline in the publication rate as there has been for cold fusion (see the statistics plots)."

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let's move this to the talk page: Talk:Cold_fusion#It_is.2C_among_the_experts.2C_over. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review this

[15] Thanks. Minor4th 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And this as well [16]. Thanks. Minor4th 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a great laugh!

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barney_the_overweight_purple_dinosaur&oldid=366477760#Blocked has got to be the best block message I have ever seen! Thanks for making my night! ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how you came across that message three months after I left it, but I'm always pleased to add to people's enjoyment of Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

lol - i agree this is probably the best block message i've seen as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RfArb

I see that I've been listed as a party at RfArb related to TM and that you are awaiting further statements. Future Perfect banned me from for two months from TM related articles. Am I allowed to make a statement? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may make a statement on the request for arbitration. This is generally not considered a breach of a topic-ban. You might want to link to this discussion at the beginning of your statement to avoid any doubt on the question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Will try to do it in the morning. TimidGuy (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RFAR title

NYBrad, can you make some kind of ruling on the matter of the case title? The title is a subject of some debate between parties. See the notes under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stevertigo_2 and my comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#A note on the name changes. Note the two users who have changed the title (preferring "Stevertigo 2") are uninvolved in the case proper and generally characterizable as adversarial. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there appear to be disputes concerning your overall pattern of editing, as opposed to editing of a specific article, your username as the casename probably makes sense. Additionally, "Punishment" as a casename would be confusing because at first glance, people may not realize it refers to a particular Wikipedia article but may assume it refers to our sanctions process in general (although we are at pains not to describe the purpose or effect of ArbCom sanctions as punitive). Thus, I think "Stevertigo 2" is probably the best casename. That being said, all participants should be reminded that the purpose of a casename is just to be a handy descriptor and that the selection of a casename does not, in any fashion whatsoever, confine the scope of a case, if accepted, or reflect any prejudgment of its merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But it has all the appearances of being prejudicial in favor of the prosecution, and at the very least puts the onus on the defense (ie. me) to deal away with any vague or random criticisms - for example criticism from people I've never dealt with, or people I've dealt with years ago (2009, 2005, 2003 etc.). Think about it another way - for example a foundation-l thread that someone started named "Newyorkbrad." The name itself gives a strong hint as to the scope. I don't find your claim that '"Punishment" doesn't work because its possibly confusing' to be substantive. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If the only issue in the case is a content dispute about one article, then there is no way the case will be accepted. You need to make clear in your request—this pertains to the merits of the case, not just the naming issue—what exactly you are hoping the committee will do if we accept the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. So, I have as options the ANI, where people I've never dealt with before on hearsay alone can vote me off the island (how is that even possible?), or I move forward with the RFAR as a case dealing mostly with.. myself. ? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (and AN/I stalker) Wow, that seems a very presumptive statement that assumes incompetence and gross negligence on the part of the uninvolved admins requested to comment over at AN/I. I'd hope, as seems to be the case in other situations, that the uninvolved admins would actually review the claims made, review the histories, and review the actions; in order to come to whatever conclusions they do. But that's just my interpretation of what you just wrote. Perhaps that's simply a case of you choosing poor wording (unless of course that is exactly what you were attempting to imply)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you asked the Arbitration Committee to review a dispute. When I look at the dispute, it seems to revolve around whether there is a long-term problem with your editing and conduct. I don't see much, if any, discussion of any allegations regarding a problem with anyone else's editing or conduct, except perhaps insofar as they have commented on yours. Accordingly, I don't see much of an alternative to concluding that you, rather than other people, are at the center of the case, if there is to be a case. That is not a prejudgment of anything, but the situation as I currently see it based on the statements presented and the ANI discussion that has been linked to.

Please note that this is just my own view of the situation. If you have further thoughts on this, you should present them in the request for arbitration itself, where they may be more persuasive to other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Where exactly is the proper place to interact with other arbitrators? I'm still not clear on that. The general RFAR page itself does not seem to accommodate such interaction. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just post at the bottom of your own section and arbitrators can respond in ours. The most important point I've made here is, it's still not clear to me what you'd want a case to be reviewing, other than your own editing and conduct. If you think the case should be differently focused or broader, you need to be much more clear about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Im of course suggesting that Arbcom review the current ANI, its scope, and its effectiveness. I don't see how a bunch of random editors with grudges can simply vote me off the island, when Ive been catching fish for years. If Arbcom focuses on just recent edits such as the punishment article, there would at least be the hope of a sensible outcome. BTW, on the issue of talkback with Arbs, I can't expect Arbcom would be happy if I just loaded the RFAR page with discussion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS:I moved a comment I made here to User talk:Stevertigo#RFAR, as I don't know where to put it on the RFAR itself. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

help

(non-wiki topic redacted)

Please e-mail me off-wiki (you can use the "e-mail this user" link on the left) with a little more detail on your situation, and I will see if there is any useful advice I can give you. As I said last time, I don't think it's a good idea to discuss these things here on the site. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)