Misplaced Pages

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Before the heat death of the universe, and some time after lunch. Jehochman 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When you admit to being rude and pushy. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Moi? Jehochman 17:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Soon after that. "That" being defined to be this past weekend. Since we've gotten past the "that" stage, we're now into soon. :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too. --*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why some editors are so anxious for a decision. The danger is a misreading or failure to explore the quality of the evidence. What's the rush? They should take their time. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anybody is going to get a barnstar or "thanks". More likely the des(s)erts being served will be rather sour. Jehochman 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If not arid and sandy... MastCell  17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Hipocrite didn't ask for a proposed decision, he asked for an updated ETA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, but that could be construed as putting pressure on the arbiters. My advice, for what it's worth, is to cool it. If they're taking their time, so much the better. My only concern is that the arbitrators hear both sides of the story, especially for last-minute workshop proposals, and that they read all diffs provided on the evidence pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we still don't know what the case is actually about — at least, not in detail. The Arbitrators have given very little feedback to the parties on which proposals they might consider, and we don't even have a clear statement of the case's scope. We have a large number of statements from parties – from the very general to the excruciatingly specific – about what needs to be done, but no specific guidance to speak of from the Committee. Aside from a few comments by Carcharoth (and a very few notes from Rlevse), I see no comments by Arbs on the workshop proposals.

Whatever comes out of the sausage mill will be a proposed decision, not a final one. I expect that there will be (and hope that the Arbs will be receptive to) room for modification of the draft decision once it is revealed to the community. I sincerely hope that there will not be a rush to voting on the proposals, and that there will be an opportunity for parties to respond to (and rebut, where necessary) findings that are proposed. The combination of 'massive case', 'unspecified scope', and 'negligible feedback on workshop proposals' with 'strict enforcement of evidence length' means that parties' submissions (especially of evidence) are scattered and incomplete, and I think that's a poor basis on which to build a final decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

^^^^ That. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

True. I've been mystified by this entire process. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. (Fourthed?) I can't recall ever seeing an Arbcom case that was this nebulous; even the Abd-WMC case had a specific issue at its core. No wonder the evidence and workshop turned into a scene from a western movie with stuff flying in every direction and people hiding under tables. My guess is that the arbs are just going to throw up their hands and decide "something," anything, based on broad impressions of who the good guys and bad guys are. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the problem is that while the evidence is decidedly against your side, the political winds favor you (a microcosm of the bigger picture in fact). I suspect in an attempt to look even-handed they'll be harsher than they should be on people like Lar while milder on your group as a whole, which would mean relatively equivalent sanctions. However, since your group is larger, and there are fewer people on the pro-wikipedia side they can really apply sanctions against, then I suspect my smaller side will have harsher sanctions against fewer people while your side will have milder sanctions distributed over more people. Alternatively, strict(er) general sanctions may be applied in the climate change arena with only a few individuals specifically targeted for bans. Unfortunately I do not have access to any high quality computer models to help determine the outcome. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TOAT et al, when Arbcom remanded the prior case to General Sanctions and then it returned here, it sure seemed this case scope would include the recurring GS issue(s). I would be surprised and disappointed, if the GS issues were not front and center in the PD. Ignoring the obvious repeated disruptor, is what got us here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

NYB said "finalizing... and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that."(emphasis added) He said soon after the weekend, not during the weekend. The New York weekend ended 16 hours ago - give the folks a little more credit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? I don't see anyone that said NYB said it would be posted over the weekend.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but when I read "updated ETA" twice in one day I think the implication is that the previous one has proven to be false. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a far less hostile interpretation is that the request is that since the weekend is over he's hoping for an ETA a little more specific than "soon". And there are two threads because the first degenerated on a tangent.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cube lurkers inptrpretation is correct, and I believe I made that clear when I wrote "but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else." It would be really nice if an arb would give us an update on the estimate time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is all like one big "are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet?" Srsly, go find something else to do and just relax. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have started feuding at multiple locations. Perhaps they think this will speed the committee's deliberations. I've got a bad feeling about that tactic. Jehochman 03:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm the victim of a very serious personal attack on me which damages my reputation, what do you expect me to do? I'm well aware that the decision is due, but is all enforcement of normal civility to be suspended in the meantime? Do I have no recourse any more? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You have excellent recourse. Simply ignore any provocations, and let your "opponent" dig himself into a very deep hole. Don't fight with him over the shovel. Jehochman 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (This is a hypothetical comment. I have no opinion on the instant conflict.)

Let me clarify - so because of this case, in which I'm not even a party, I can no longer ask for intervention to resolve abusive behaviour towards me by other editors? Doesn't that give them free licence to go after me, and others, for that matter? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let him do exactly that until the evidence is so convincing that nobody will object to the resulting sanction. You are reacting too swiftly and vigorously; onlookers cannot tell who the trouble maker is. Jehochman 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's advice is sound. The way to keep him from going after you is not to let him know that he's getting to you. I've seen Cla68 in action before; the more you react, the harder he will push. It can be frustrating to feel like you're not defending yourself but as Jehochman says not reacting to provocation really is the best way. Notice the respondents at RS/N are less than thrilled with how Cla68 has approached the issue, proving Jehochman's point that onlookers can tell what's going on if you're careful not to join in the digging yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, my post at the WP:RSN has, in spite of all the drama, actually produced some helpful, outside opinions on an ongoing content dispute which I think will help decide the matter. SlimVirgin's suggestion in that regard I think was a good one. So, some progress is being made in the CC articles, for what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an incredibly amusing argument in general due to the hypocrisy. I've said that I didn't think the book should be used for the most part, even though policy is on your side, because they use books like Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming in the Soon and Baliunas controversy article (I recall them arguing to not use the word "controversy" in the climategate article's title, but here I guess it is okay) - be better than them, don't stoop to that level. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate Cover Up is a reliable source and I would defend its use in most articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, policy favors you in this regard, but I'd rather IAR regarding these types of partisan sources and avoid them for the most part, but at least we are both being consistent with our position regardless of which side it favors - if this was the norm then we likely wouldn't be at ArbCom right now. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's try this out...I notice that Climate Cover Up is still being used as a source in the Soon and Baliunas article. I just added some information using Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. Lets see if the Hockey Stick Illusion information gets removed while Climate Cover Up is left. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my edit lasted all of 11 minutes before being reverted by Tony Sideaway. Notice that he removed the Illusion source but left Climate Cover Up in the article. I've asked him why on this talk page, and will notify him of this discussion here. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very obviously trying to make a point and engage in further baiting by engaging in provocative actions. Please knock it off. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Check my edit, Chris, it was a legitimate addition using a legitimate source. Now, will you go restore the Illusion material or remove the Climate Cover Up material? Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It really is too bad you did this experiment out in the open due to the Hawthorne effect, which greatly limits the experiment. Kudos on the results so far though. I would think that the next logical step would be to try reverting the "Climate Cover-up" info and see if it got reverted back in, but since they know what you are doing now the experiment will likely have no more significance other than to imply (but not prove) that TS isn't privately communicating with the other AGW editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done with a clear edit summary. Lets see what happens. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they will eventually remove both sources, conceding your use of the HSI would be too much of a precedent I think, but I'm not sure if this will happen while being watched so intently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, editing of the climate change articles have suddenly gone quiet, too quiet. I did a search on Misplaced Pages and noticed that Climate Cover Up is being used as a source in the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a CC skeptic, article. I'm not sure how long it has been there. If it has been for awhile, I assume that it's ok if I use Illusion as a source in another BLP, like say, Michael E. Mann? Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And to say that he has "no training in science" no less. Yes, well, generally speaking I've always loved looking at the sources and what they actually say. It is incredible how many articles say things that aren't in their sources and how many claims are sourced to partisans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Progess is being made, I think. Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted, the Hawthorne effect has temporarily changed the behavior of the subjects. There is a high probability of atavism when they don't feel they are being observed closely anymore. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This kind of behaviour is obvious disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, specifically by conducting a breaching experiment. I hope the arbitrators are taking notes of what Cla68 is up to. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the "pro-science" editors would appreciate the value of a good old fashioned experiment. I know it isn't like your favored post-normal science, but it certainly has its charms. Regardless, I think the point Cla was demonstrating was that you guys make up your own rules and then don't even follow them when they are inconvenient. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I spoke too soon. Cla68 (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And ChrisO just removed the text as it was being discussed on the article talk page, with the usual wikilawyering. Notice that none of them recommend alternate wording, they just argue that it shouldn't be included at all. No collaboration, cooperation, or compromise is attempted. Arbs, this is what editing the CC articles is like. Can you do something to fix it? Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You just got caught by another editor making a subjective interpretation of a source, using it to cite something that is not asserted in the book. The issue is being discussed at Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy#As a result... There's nothing wrong with the normal process of fact-checking, which is all that's going on here. If you add speculative or inaccurate citations to articles, you can hardly complain if someone disagrees with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I liked this one: "Scientific criticism is a specific description, and doesn't come implicitly from it being scientists that criticise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)." So if he really felt that wording was inaccurate then why didn't he change "scientific criticism" to something like "some scientists have criticized?" Good grief. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no one would suggest alternate wording on the talk page, I tried to change it to something simpler. Let's see how that works. Cla68 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked briefly at your initial paraphrase and the full text and your wording seemed fairly accurate. I'm not sure why Chris is falling over himself to side with KDP's interpretation since not only is english not his first language, but KDP has pushed exxonsecrets.org into articles in order to slander skeptics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Cla68. It would be helpful if when you stir the pot you didn't add a running commentary here. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are attempting to get certain editors annoyed with your additions of a poor source all over the place and mild rudeness like this then you wait for the reaction and fish caught. Keep the arbs watching if you can and demonstrate how uncivil your "opposing" editors are. Quite horrible stuff really. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the storm seems to have abated. After a good dicussion which included comments like this on the article talk page, here's the resulting text in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could note who came up with that compromise (i.e. me), particularly as it disproves your claim that "No collaboration, cooperation, or compromise is attempted". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Cla How about congratulations to ChrisO for putting aside the abuse and wikilawyering type obstacles you have given him in the last 24 hours (e.g. on the RS noticeboard) and for sorting out the initial text that you added, which was not backed up by the source. And congratulations to Kim for checking the source and finding out that your addition was not supported by it. Because you are a very experienced wikipedian other editors really should be able to trust that what you add is backed up by the source. I made the mistake of trusting you had checked that the very same book (The Hockey Stick Illusion) backed up your addition just a couple of weeks ago , I will not do so again. Polargeo (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris and Polargeo, all the drama you're referring to occurred in response or chain reaction to a single question I asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and a single sentence I added to an article. During the events in question, comments of mine were hatted and/or deleted. I was taken to ANI and the Wikiquette board, and a comment was left on the AGW enforcement board. Angry comments were left on my user talk page. I was spoken of badly, including being accused of baiting and malicious lying, on ChrisO's talk page. I was attacked on an article talk page. Content that I added was reverted without discussion, once 11 minutes after I added it, and in the middle of a discussion another time. I have been told several times, most recently by Polargeo just above, that my ability to summarize or paraphrase what a source is saying is lousy and that I am untrustworthy. I'm sure that you two sincerely feel that I am to blame for 100% of it. I think this episode illustrates what the AGW article environment is like as well as any evidence presented on the evidence page. The thing is, it was like this before I got involved in it around the end of last year. I hope the impending Committee decision will resolve it. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you consider for a minute that independant editors are independently coming to the conclusion that your represention of what a source (or a diff for that matter) says is very often not adequate. Why does it have to be represented as an attack on you or a symptom of the climate change area? I have particularly noticed you popping up here there and everywhere with provocative battleground comments over the last few days. It is just not welcome. Polargeo (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My editing isn't perfect, Polargeo, but I am willing to correct my mistakes, facilitated by constructive criticism and with a dose of collaborative spirit. At the beginning of this thread, I stated that I believed that both sources in question, Climate Cover Up and Hockey Stick Illusion are reliable sources. Notice the angst that my comments about Illusion as a source are causing you and a few others, but not about Climate Cover Up. In my opinion, the fact that you object to one of the books but not the other means that you and a few others are taking a side. You feel so passionately about it that you see me and other editors who disagree with you as the enemy, not as fellow editors who have a difference of opinion. Today's events illustrate this as well as any sterile diffs could have shown. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cla that is yet more spin. I don't object to any book just your use of certain sources for certain statments, so you now try to make that look like a conspiracy. I was not even aware of you adding anything from the other source because I don't follow you about (what is Climate Cover Up? I have never come across it before, does it have an article?). Because of me not objecting to a source that I have never heard of you now try to paint me as someone who is being selective. You say I am passionate about this source, this is one statement you will struggle to support with even tenuous diffs. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman wrote that ome editors have started feuding at multiple locations... I think the word missing there is "again". I bet the arbitrators will not only be thrilled by this recent eruption of unwarranted and unwise bickering, but will also be overjoyed to see that the other open case has had an incident of idiocy involving an editor comparing an opponent to the unabomber. My guess is that some members of ArbCom must log in and wonder why they got bothered to get up at all.  :( EdChem (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)