Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Proposed decision

William M. Connolley's objections to NPOV

(William M. Connolley 10:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)) FB started a section with the above name, saying:

William M. Connolley has expressed his opposition to Wikipedia's NPOV policy as it applies to scientific articles, ([1]). He states, "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers) believes to be the truth. Opposing views should be presented, but with lower prominence." ([2]).

I believe that FB has mischaracterised my views. The link he presents on me objecting to NPOV is me objecting to LS's defn of NPOV - which is a rather different matter. I accept NPOV, and being bound by it, and I've said that explicitly in response to a challenge by Ed Poor. I believe that the quote from me above *does* represent the NPOV policy: that the majority gets the most space, opposing views get less space in rough proportion to their prominence. This is in distinct to the NPOV view that many s(k)eptics present, where they try to imply that all views demand equal space, even when those views are only held by a minority, and often no supporeted by publication.

I would like to see the arbitrators explicitly restate this aspect of NPOV policy (the problem with the NPOV policy is that it is rather large and quoting different sections can give rather different interpretations). The "principles" seciton on NPOV could be clarified in this respect.

(William M. Connolley 19:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)) FB maintains his objections, based largely it seems on my using the word "truth", with the implication of an absolute standard. I agree that this can't be used for many aspects of the GW debate, which is why I explicitly wrote, in the piece he quotes, "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers) believes to be the truth. Opposing views should be presented, but with lower prominence." . I've bolded the relevant qualification, as it seems FB has missed it - otherwise I can't understand his comment.

Comment re the value of refs, disagreeing with The Epopt

(William M. Connolley 19:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The Epopt said: Just as one person's anatomical illustration is another person's pornography, variations of opinion on the relative values of sources can be tolerated; we should not give official blessing to particular publications or types of publications. I do not believe that this is correct, in the fields of science. In climate science, references from peer-reviewed journals/books/the ipcc reports take priority; anything else, web sites, blogs, popular journals (sci american, nat geographic), newspapers are clearly secondary (for the science, not the politics bits). Wikipedia certainly *should* give blessing to certain types of references, if it wants its science articles to make any sense.

IPCC should not be given priority

No, NO, NO! The IPCC should not be given priority. I have already proven that it was created solely to justify the Kyoto Protocol and emissions trading. It is not an objective source of scientific information but is completely biased in favor of the global warming theory. Singer, et al., have exposed how the "policymaker's summaries" are systematically distorted so that they differ substantially from the conclusions drawn by actual scientists in the technical parts of their reports. More than one scientist has complained of this practice and at least one has resigned in protest! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)) And this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with: skeptics who are so badly biased they believe that Singer is a reliable source, more reliable than the IPCC. Sigh. *No* scientists have resigned because of diffs between the summaries and the technical parts; the reason is obvious: the summaries are accurate, despite Singers whinging. Ed: you *do* have a blindspot on GW type stuff.

Some of Singer's peer reviewed publications are more recent than the IPCC TAR, and should be considered more authoritative on the issues they address. Singer also discusses other results in the literature, that are more recent than the TAR. Those assessments are noteworthy.--Silverback 08:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)) This comment is weird. Its either completly ignorant of how the literature works, or deliberately skeptical - I can't tell which. One paper doesn't overturn the vast bulk of the literature, particularly poor ones like Singers (and of course its wrong to call them Singers, cos he isn't lead author). And in an amusing twist, the "Singer" papers throw away the most recent data (past 1997 I think: he does this to avoid seeing warming in the satellite record) and so, despite recent publication, really pre-date IPCC 2001.

Actually, a letter written by an IPCC author who resigned over frustration with the difference between summaries given to the media and the technical info in the IPCC reports can be found here. The IPCC is one view, not a neutral collection of all views. It does not contain the entirety of prominent scientific views. We cannot endorse it as fact and maintain a pretense of neutrality. — Cortonin | Talk 06:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) Exactly why Landsea resigned we may never know. But his stated reasons are not those you or Ed give - he disagreed with Trenberths comments, not the IPCC summaries. And your assertion that the IPCC omits prominent views is simply wrong, too.

One reason Landsea quit was due to a conflict with the IPCC summaries. Pachauri stated that Lead Author Trenbeth accurately reflected the TAR in his advocacy that 2004 hurricanes were caused by anthropogenic global warming. Your response suggests you read Cortonin's statement as being against the IPCC summaries. Landsea was actually not disagreeing with the TAR but rather over public presentations about the science. Landsea complained the text he helped write was misrepresented and was told it was not. (see page 8 of the IPCC correspondence file)[3] (SEWilco 19:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 21:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) Precisely: you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with Ed Poor and Cortonin: Landsea has no problems with the TAR (and that was exactly what I said), as both Ed and C incorrectly asserted.

You misquote me. Look up four paragraphs and read more carefully. I make no statement about Landsea having or not having problems with the TAR. It's Trenberth's summary of the TAR to the media (by authority of being a lead author), followed by the IPCC leadership failing to correct his summary, which Landsea states he has a problem with because it disagrees with the technical info in the TAR. — Cortonin | Talk 22:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Cortonin correctly stated that "summaries given to the media" were part of the Landsea conflict. WMC's comments suggest he read as if Cortonin had referred to "published IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM)". Ed Poor's statement is more ambigious as he does not name Landsea, seems oriented toward IPCC politics (references to which keep getting deleted from the IPCC article), although his phrasing of summaries is similar to references to "published IPCC SPM" being different from the Working Group technical reports which they supposedly summarize; another point which WMC has deleted from the IPCC article…see Points A and P in a IPCC Debate summary table which WMC keeps deleting. [4] (SEWilco 03:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

IPCC omits material

In something which WMC reverted, I pointed out the IPCC recognizes that it omits material.[5] This "uncertain" material includes unknowns which are explored in later research. Obviously this is one example of a situation where the IPCC can not be considered an authority over more recent research.

(William M. Connolley 21:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) What situation are you talking about? If you mean the not-really-Singer papers, then no: as I explained. For the general point, if you are saying that subsequent research may overtake the TAR, yes, of course, that is certainly true. But exactly what pieces of research are you thinking about?

The same problem extends to past research on uncertain topics, where the IPCC publications are skewed away from such topics. The decisions of a panel of experts depends upon the experts and the situation. Groups behave differently than individuals and are not infallible (see Scientific consensus and Consensus science). (SEWilco 19:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

• IPCC assessments incorporate a conservative treatment of uncertainty at a structural level. The general approach of identifying consensus among a group of climate scientists means that areas where there remains considerable uncertainty tend to be automatically de-emphasized or simply omitted.[6]

In reply to WMC's above interruption within my preceding paragraph: WMC replies to my comment as if I'm discussing some specific research. Read the entire paragraph, as I'm referring to the IPCC's process having tendencies to de-emphasize or omit certain topics. WMC has a tendency to remove such challenges to the infallibility of the IPCC. My indentation and change of subject are because I was responding to WMC's initial comment in this section about blessing certain sources (excerpted below with emphasis added to IPCC). At the time of this writing, the unindented comment by WMC which follows had already existed, and WMC there repeats his belief in blessing the IPCC. (SEWilco 03:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

• In climate science, references from peer-reviewed journals/books/the ipcc reports take priority; anything else, web sites, blogs, popular journals (sci american, nat geographic), newspapers are clearly secondary (for the science, not the politics bits). Wikipedia certainly *should* give blessing to certain types of references, if it wants its science articles to make any sense.

(William M. Connolley 14:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)) I could make no sense of what you said. We have enough words on this page already: why are you repeating things?

(SEWilco 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

Again, I was not discussing specific research.

• The IPCC process omits stuff.
• The IPCC omits stuff that people won't agree on.
• The IPCC process de-emphasizes stuff with uncertainty.
• The IPCC thus sounds more certain than the overall science.

And that's just the uncertainty reduction process which the IPCC has recognized. Just because something is not in the IPCC textbook or contradicts it does not mean it is wrong.

(William M. Connolley 19:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)) (1) Yes, the IPCC omits stuff. Of course it does. It would be useless if everything was thrown in, like the way skepticws keep trying to stuff the GW articles. But it omits nothing important. (2) No: there is a lot of stuff in the IPCC about bits people don't agree on. The solar forcing, for example. (3) Uncertain stuff *should* be deemphaised. (4) No. The IPCC includes many caveats, as it properly should.

IPCC are best summaries we have

(William M. Connolley 21:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) In essence the IPCC reports are the best summaries that we have. Wiki should give them priority, just like everyone else does.

The bible is the best summary we have of the life of Jesus. Wiki should give it priority, just like everyone else does. Gee, sounds pretty non-neutral in that case, doesn't it? Even the religious articles here manage to take their sources on less singular faith than you're suggesting we do with the science articles. — Cortonin | Talk 22:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)) Sigh. You still don't understand. IPCC should get priority as the best summary. It doesn't mean that other sources can't be used, even when they conflict with it. It *does* mean the point that you so frequently refuse to see: that wiki should describe the main view as the main view, and lesser views should be reported as such. And in climate change, the IPCC is summarising the science, and its the main view. You don't like that, because your POV is too skeptical to see straight. Which is why this arbcomm case.

The IPCC view is the IPCC view. That's what attribution means. In all my scientific work I've never seen a single person or organization authorized to speak on behalf of all of science until I saw you start suggesting that the IPCC does this. It would be like saying, "The religious view is that X is wrong," because the Pope has said something is wrong. Sure the Pope is an authoritative and prominent figure, but the Pope does not speak for all of religion any more than the IPCC speaks for all of science. Attribute things to their respective sources, and don't try to define "science" as equal to a single source on a controversial topic. This isn't about POV as much as it's about principle, but you, and many others, are too emotionally attached to this particular issue of climate change to be able to support the principle of non-endorsement neutrality. — Cortonin | Talk 16:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Facts about one party

When finding of facts name one party, should there be corresponding findings of fact about the other party? Might Cortonin often revert edits which he considers poorly referenced…? (SEWilco 19:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

Single proposed decision

Are the findings of fact supposed to consider Cortonin's "demonstrated propensity"? The only finding which mentions Cortonin also names WMC. (SEWilco 06:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC))

Yes, there is a distinct lack of logical transition from findings of fact to proposed solution. This lack of logical transition is fairly revealing about how things actually work here. It seems the policies do not match the actual practice when things people feel strongly about are involved. — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We are not done with this case yet, so yes there are holes that need to be filled. --mav 01:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Where I come from, we call that revisionist history. If you were to convict a man in the court system, and then go back and try to find evidence to justify it, then you are certainly not acting as an arbiter of justice. Whenever evidence is chosen retroactively to match the conclusion, then significantly poor logic is being used. — Cortonin | Talk 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The logic is there, it just has not be codified yet. --mav 04:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That's going at it exactly the wrong way. You've already reached a conclusion and now you're looking to organize evidence to support the conclusion? That is, as Cortonin correctly points out, like a court convicting someone and then launching an investigation to find evidence to support the conviction. Any findings based on such a procedure are invalid on their face - even in the unlikely event that they are actually correct. --JonGwynne 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What is on this page now is based on talk on the arb com mailing list and on the IRC channel. The organization and the deliberation part was held there - it just has not been all documented yet. And nothing has been decided yet - this case is still open. --mav 23:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

And for the record...

I have edited scientific method only once ever, and the edit remained entirely unconstested over the course of 122 edits until it was removed three days ago along with a large section for the purpose of shortening the article, and I did not contest its removal as it seemed quite reasonable to do so. In addition, I have never edited earth science, as it does not interest me. I have also never edited philosophy of science, although it does happen that I am expressly qualified to do so. Neutrality's inclusion of these in his recent modification is nonsensical, and not based on evidence. — Cortonin | Talk 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the addition of earth science is probably a rather broad attempt to include pages like greenhouse effect which focus on climate processes, but are not themselves directly related to climate change. Dragons flight 20:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) Then I think its unnecessary. GHE is clearly related to GW/climate change. In fact, its already *in* category cl ch.

The article which relates to scientific method and philosophy of science which I have edited is scientific consensus, where if you will note, we productively and peacefully came to a cooperative editorial consensus by discussion on the talk page, with the exception of a few sporadic reverts by WMC which indicated that he was not reading the discussion. I think the way I have conducted myself on that article is an explicit example of the way editing SHOULD be done on a controversial topic, and I think the results were positive. I challenge Neutrality to present evidence otherwise. — Cortonin | Talk 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) Much as I dislike agreeing with Cortonin (thats a joke, folks...) I personally only have a problem with her over issues related to global warming / climate change, and would suggest the ban should apply to pages related (flexibly) to that. She *has* been somewhat unhelpful at consensus science, but mostly on occaisions when it contained material related to GW.

I would like to endorse what WMC said. I see no reason why Cortonin should be censured for contributions to scientific consensus and related articles. Guettarda 21:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This will be fixed in 6-10 hours from now. I'm just waiting for other arb com members to oppose me removing the parts talked about above. --mav 15:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed per above. --mav 23:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

General (Mav) - listing SEW

(William M. Connolley 19:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)) Mav said:

To do this we would ask both parties to request arbitration against other people involved in the climate change and related articles dispute. Then we'd accept or reject each and combine those requests into this case.

I'd like to list SEW - he is continuing his POV pushing over at LIA. Should I put him on RFA as usual (presumably all the talk here would count as having gone through RFC etc?) or will you just add him to this RFA?

Go through the normal process and copy whatever material you want. Don't bypass processes with material oriented toward other situations. As I've indicated, my replies thus far have been oriented toward the current process. (SEWilco 20:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

I'd like to see what the other arb com members think about this first. I'd also like to have just one RFAr that could be voted up or down and then added to this case if accepted. --mav 15:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)) In the absence of any great enthusiasm for this, I'll withdraw my request: the MWP/LIA problem has died down and we're back to reasonable discourse. JonGwynne is also less of a problem, since he persists in getting himself banned for breaking his restrictions. However, since he is just about invariably unhelpful, is the arbcomm prepared to look at tightening up his sanctions at all?

As WEC has mentioned the topic, this seems as good a place as any to mention my own concerns. Could at least some consideration be given to adding a "timer reset" provision to JG's existing sanctions? And perhaps also some clarification of what "related to global warming" means concretely -- JG seems keen to push his own definition (based on the climate change category), but as WEC mentions, he keeps getting banned for 1 < n < 4 reverts on articles related by other interpretations, which seems to me to be unsatisfactory from at least one direction. Alai 23:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Maverick's rudeness

Note to Maverick: If commentary on the main page is limited to arbcom members, then the edit option should be disabled, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, I consider your deletion to be extremely rude - if you had wanted to move the text in question that would have been one thing but to simply delete it with a snide dismissal is clearly unacceptable. BTW, your grammar in the comment is is need of correction. You said "only arb com members can edit this page" which is obviously untrue since I did in fact edit the page. What you meant to say was ""only arb com members may edit this page". --JonGwynne 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Misspelling somebody's user name is also rude, John(sp). ;) Also, we don't bother protecting pages that don't need protection. Since there has never been a big problem with people editing the proposed decision page, there is no need to protect them. -- mav 22:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for implicitly answering the question of whether or not you are capable of admitting your mistakes and learning from them. You should resign as arbitrator on wikipedia, you don't have the temperment for it. --JonGwynne 05:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment, given the title of this section. --mav 01:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you didn't answer the question. Are you going to resign? --JonGwynne 06:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No - especially not on account of any request from you. --mav 03:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course. There are limits to how much trouble someone can make in a courtroom before the judge will put a halt to it. And in Wikipedia people have to first find their way to the courthouse, as people don't wander in from the adjacent town square. But it should be a good idea to at least protect old decisions, as over the eons those who have them in their Watchlist will go away and erosion will begin. (SEWilco 04:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

Grunt's questionable assertion

On the main page, Grunt complains that expressing views other than that which are accepted as those officially promoted by groups like the IPCC somehow "compromises the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia" without giving any details or examples of this. Hey Grunt, would you like to give some examples? --JonGwynne 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my statement - the idea there is that the primary objective of the 'pedia is to create entries that are complete and unbiased and that if undue significance is given to a certain point of view that ruins the overall quality and neutrality of an article then the significance thereof in the article should be toned down in order to maintain the quality of the article. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote certain (apparent minority) points of view. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:33, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but the statement that the expression of views at odds with any organization (e.g. the IPCC) "compromises the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia" seems not only unambiguous but absolutely at odds with the idea of the "complete, unbiased and neutral" view that you also seem to be espousing. However, I do agree with you on one thing, wikipedia articles should tell the whole story, not just parrot the views of, in this case, the IPCC. --JonGwynne 01:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder's beef with the Consensus science article

I'd like Mr. Bauder to explain what the problem is with the creation of the Consensus science article. His comparison of it to a "deceptive comment" is at best incorrect and at worst insulting. The article in question has survived attack by User:William M. Connolley as part of his campaign to censor things he doesn't like[7]. --JonGwynne 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The reference to deceptive comment is to this edit [8] by User:ChrisSteinbach. Sorry for the confusion. Fred Bauder 01:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response but may I ask you to answer my question? What's your beef with the article on scientific consensus? Why mention it in the same breath as a deceptive edit? --JonGwynne 05:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin/Proposed_decision#POV_struggles_on_Wikipedia concerns POV struggle over the global warming issue which you participated in by creation of consensus science, a perfectly legitimate article, but about a phrase popularized by Michael Crichton [9] which now gets almost 6000 google hits. The point being made in the proposed finding of fact is that a small group of Wikipedia editors, of which you are one, have engaged in struggle on Wikipedia regarding the issue. Don't you agree that the finding of fact is true? Fred Bauder 18:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a POV struggle over the global warming issue. I agree that I have participated in this struggle. I agree that the article on consensus science has been part of the struggle. I do not agree that the creation of the article on consensus science was, in and of itself, part of the struggle. I do not agree that its creation is properly mentioned in the same context as a deceptive edit. Thank you for your clarification and for being one of the few arbcom members here who has a sense of courtesy and balance. Now if only you could enlighten some of your colleagues...  ;-> --JonGwynne 05:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The contention (#6) that WMC is some sort of expert on all things related to climate

I'd also like to comment on the ridiculousness of this... "motion" or whatever it is. Whether or not WMC is "widely viewed to be an expert" is irrelevant. It should be noted that WMC's expertise is, to the extent that he's revealed his background, in working with climate models. Yet he doesn't confine his writing to that discipline. It should also be mentioned that the most bona fide expert in a field can fatally undermine his expertise by engaging in the sort of unapologetic POV-pushing that we've repeatedly seen from WMC. In addition, WMC's persistent incivility and "knee-jerk reversionism" makes substantive interaction with him extremely difficult. In other words, regardless of whatever education and experience he has had... his contributions to wikipedia are of limited value. --JonGwynne 17:35, 23 May 2005

The proposed remedy is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on wikipedia

It reads like something out of a manual on stifling political dissent. Neutrality should be ashamed of writing it and the rest of you who voted for it should be equally embarrassed. Fred Bauder is the only one of you with any sense. It makes the rest of you look like a a bunch of petty censors. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't actually your intent, but you've achieved it whether you set out to do so or not. If you want wikipedia to be taken seriously, you're going to have to let people who know what they're talking about edit the thing and not limit contributions to those whose views meet your litmus tests. I don't always agree with what Cortonin writes but he's got more credibility and authority on the subject of climate change than anyone else who posts regularly on the subject. --JonGwynne 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

He remains rather mixed up regarding how real greenhouses work. Fred Bauder 18:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

And how many peer reviewed papers have you read on the topic? Or for that matter, how many courses on thermodynamics or spectroscopy have you taken in your educational path? I have done a significant number of each, and I understand the topic of greenhouses quite well. I am being refuted by a collection of "intuitive" logical fallacies (of the type that I have seen quite often in early thermodynamics students) and a reference to a non-peer-reviewed essay from 1909. — Cortonin | Talk 20:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

So three days have passed since I posted this, and there has been no response. The only response is the inclusion of this:

In order to adequately edit a Wikipedia article a user must be able to understand and adequately interpret references which relate to the subject. A user who persistently and aggressively edits articles in areas which they are unable to understand may be banned from those areas.

and the inclusion of this:

Descriptions of the greenhouse effect, especially those intended for the general public or for children, often use metaphor, in addition to the basic greenhouse metaphor, the atmosphere may be described as a "blanket", or it may be stated that infrared radiation is "trapped" or "reflected" or "re-emited" by the atmosphere, see the top-ranked google hit for for "global warming". Taken literally, these metaphors can be misleading as the underlying physical mechanisms differ from those involved in the greenhouse effect, see Bad Greenhouse.

How about an alternate proposal, such as "In order to adequately arbitrate the content of a Wikipedia article, an arbitrator must be able to understand and adequately interpret references which relate to the subject." No one has debated the issue on its merits, but instead you are simply going on intuition and a few bad references, while simultaneously ignoring the peer reviewed literature. This is just sheer lunacy. My description of the greenhouse as functioning by thermal infrared absorption is not based on some silly metaphor, but is instead based on a thorough background in thermodynamics, spectroscopy, and the peer reviewed literature dealing with the mechanism of greenhouse function. The Bad Greenhouse page is not published, and not peer reviewed. That webpage can't even come into the ballpark of contradicting a peer reviewed model which has been thoroughly experimentally confirmed, so it's lunacy that it's being presented as such in this RfA. I challenge anyone here, anyone at all, to present a detailed physically valid and experimentally confirmed model supporting the idea of convection suppression as a primary method for greenhouse heating. You'd think maybe someone would have done that with all the certainty you are all expressing, but no one has. — Cortonin | Talk 06:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hint: Everyday intuition is not the same thing as a scientific experiment. — Cortonin | Talk 06:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this, "Cortonin has persistently and aggressively advanced views which confuse metaphorical explanations of the greenhouse effect and greenhouses with the technical scientific phenomena underlying them. Despite determined efforts by other editors to inform him and point him to information on the subject he seems to have difficulty understanding both the use of metaphor and the scientific literature in the field"  ???? Document that with SPECIFIC examples, or stop making up bogus statements. Pointing to a talk page in which I have discussed the literature on this topic at great length is not a specific example, so present specific examples of my "difficulty understanding ... the scientific literature in the field". — Cortonin | Talk 06:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for specific evidence, and making note of the charade which occurs without it... — Cortonin | Talk 18:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I note again, that three more days have passed without a peer-reviewed evidence based justification given for a ruling calling me incompetent. — Cortonin | Talk 01:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "expertise" gets thrown about quite profusely here, but with no real metric to assess expertise without also having it, it essentially amounts to, "Well gee, that sounds about right to me," which reduces the definition of "expertise" here down to the inuitive level of "well it feels like the earth is stationary, so the sun most be the one in motion. What's that crazy mathematician trying to say?" — Cortonin | Talk 20:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

(to Mr. Bauder re: his comments about Cortonin) Does he indeed? Would you care to elaborate? As far as I've ever been able to tell, he is capable of defending his contentions with data and science rather than insult and censorship like some others here I could mention. --JonGwynne 06:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Small format error

I point out #Motion to close is missing tags such as "Support:" which are usually used. (SEWilco 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

Suggested findings

I suggest a finding which is symmetric to 5 (consider WMC and Cortonin both). Reading the Evidence there are some other issues not yet mentioned. Perhaps the article template should include suggestion of presentation of Issues/Facts to guide presentation and identification of topics (in a trial the lawyers know to identify such highlights in their Statements, but we don't include people with such experience here). I also observe WMC's evidence is mostly text with few supporting links, thus the evidence:text ratio is low. (Support/Oppose/Abstain omitted here to prevent voting accidents here in Talk.) (SEWilco 21:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

(#5a is an obvious symmetric examination to #5. Both parties introduced the History of greenhouse effect as evidence.)

Cortonin's revert behavior

5a) Cortonin often reverts edits which he considers poorly referenced or which in his opinion use a heavily-biased or otherwise inadequate reference (such as citing what a popular writer said about a global warming-related topic instead of a panel of scientists in the relevant field). Recent: [10] [11] At time of WMC reference: [12] [13] which refers to details being in Solar greenhouse (technical): [14] [15] [16] [17]

WMC's attacks on opposing sources

7a) William M. Connolley often attacks opposing sources rather than their content. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

WMC's removal of Wikipedia tags

7b) William M. Connolley often removes POV warnings and other invitations for participation by other Wikipedia editors. This is a clear violation of both the intent and policy of such tags. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Talk:Global_warming/Archive_1#POV_tag (refers to [35]) [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

WMC's unexplained reversions

7c) Wikipedia:Revert states, "One of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: Always explain your reverts". Many of William M. Connolley's reverts go unexplained, both in the edit summary and on talk, in violation of this policy. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

• A WMC response: [59]

My reading of the Evidence continues. Found more issues for consideration. I don't know how many are relevant issues, and there probably is some better phrasing. My phrasing is derived from the Evidence; for example, you can find at least one section about Cortonin's POV by searching for "pushing". To my previous suggestion for Issues in RfA template, I add a suggestion for Addendum headlines so they can be linked to. (SEWilco 04:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

Cortonin POV pushing

8) Cortonin is pushing a POV. [60] [61] [62]

WMC POV pushing

9) William M. Connolley is pushing a POV. See also #7b and #7c. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

Cortonin personal attacks

10) Cortonin has made personal attacks on William M. Connolley. [71]

WMC personal attacks

11) William M. Connolley has made personal attacks. [72]

Temp. injunction

It seems a clarification of the revert limitation is needed. Both Cortonin [73] and JonGwynn [74] (see followup discussion) have filed 3rr vios against WMC based apparantly on a lack of or insufficient explanation on assoc. talk pages. Clarification is needed to prevent further misunderstandings. Vsmith 14:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Both fillings are nonsense (JGs is particularly incompetent, and lead to this: [75]). However, SEW has taken to reverting more than once per 24h on [[76]] - can he be added to the injunction please?

No clarification is needed, the injunction is unambiguous. It says that WMC is restricted to one revert in a 24 hour period and he must properly document each one (note to William, snide little offhanded remarks don't count as documentation). He was reported because he clearly failed to abide by the injunction. Oh, and take note of his ever-present incivility - it is apparently habitual. --JonGwynne 07:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Climate change dispute case inclusion

I note that User:JonGwynne has apparently been included in this case ([77]).

JonGwynne recently edited the Kyoto Protocol article with this edit [78] which removed valid sourced information and appears to be an effort to get either WMC or myself to revert his absurd change and therefore be subject to the temporary revert injunction for 3rr blocking. In context the edit appears to be 1. POV pushing 2. bad faith editing and/or 3. simple trolling. I note that the edit is an example of JG's edits on other pages and typical of his editing style.

In addition I would like to see some arbcom comments regarding JonGwynne's combative, in your face, and make it personal edits to various discussion pages including this page (above), Talk:Kyoto Protocol, and many others. His combative style makes it very difficult to have reasoned impersonal content discussions on the various talk pages. As this often seems designed to elicit an emotional, angry response rather than reasoned discussion it amounts to trolling. Vsmith 18:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) I agree with Vsmith.

What a surprise. [/sarcasm]. Hold on a second here, because you guys lose your tempers and behave badly, that's somehow my fault? Give me a break. Look, just because you can't defend your positions with logic and in a civil manner, that isn't my problem. You unsupported allegation of "bad faith" or "POV pushing" aside, if you're not able to hold up your arguments, then maybe you shouldn't be making them - perhaps you're both better off creating some sort of mutual admiration society and leaving the editing of wikipedia to people capable of making cogent arguments. --JonGwynne 07:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

ā

POV and original research

I, like others, am disturbed by the one sided nature of the proposed decisions. Take for example a recent edit [79] to Ross McKitrick by WMC. Labelled "(Rv JGs falsehoods)", it included changing "the claims are disputed" to "it is by no means clear that their claims are correct". This is justified by a link to http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/muller.html which turns out to be a blog which justifies the doubts with the phrase "William Connolley has looked at the data and thinks M&M are probably wrong" and then has a long post by WMC. In my view, the change amounts to POV, since when there is a dispute we do not label each position by every side in this way; it is also original research in that the justification for WMC editing Wikipedia to raise doubts is that a blog reports WMC as having doubts. The fact is that WMC regularly takes sides in this dispute outside Wikipedia, and then edits Wikipedia to reflect his position. Any decision in this case needs to take this into account. --Audiovideo 21:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) AVs comments above are a distortion, as the history [80] makes clear. The sequence is:

• AV removed the blog link [81], claiming it was "own research". This is... arguable. As far as I can tell, wiki has no ban on linking to your own work (it does ban original research inside wiki, of course); and this isn't my own blog, but Deltoid, by the well-known Tim Lambert. And the blog links to others [82] who share the same view. But anyway... since it is arguable, I didn't restore the link.
• But someone else did: [83] (Mel Etitis). Thats why the link is still there: not because I re-inserted it. Oddly, AV doesn't have space to mention this.
• AS for changing "the claims are disputed" to "it is by no means clear that their claims are correct".... these are near-equivalent. I prefer the latter, but marginally. The JG revert was mostly about why-rejected (as I explained on talk [84]). Notice how AV doesn't have time to comment on JGs gross POV-pushing (or does he simply agree with JGs edit [85]? If he agrees with it, then AVs biases are obvious. If he disagrees, perhaps he would like to explain why his complaints are one-sided).

So all AVs complaints amount to is a big fuss over changing "the claims are disputed" to "it is by no means clear that their claims are correct". - which I regard as near equivalent, so if he prefers the former, I won't worry.

AV makes the odd assertion The fact is that WMC regularly takes sides in this dispute outside Wikipedia, and then edits Wikipedia to reflect his position. He seems to be implying I deliberately write stuff outside wiki, to ref it inside. I don't. The McK thing is the only one I can think of. My positions, inside and outside wiki, are consistent (of course). Would you have them inconsistent?

Yes, of course I would expect him to write different things inside and outside Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia, he takes a position as a defender of MBH and an attacker of M&M, as he is fully entitled to do if that is what he believes. Inside Wikipedia, he is expected to follow NPOV, even if it means not writing everything he believes. (He did make the original link to the blog which quoted him [86].) This is a point I raised before on the evidence page, and this is just another of many examples. The point I am trying to make is not causation, but correlation - this is a disputed issue (in fact several disputed issues) and so people who hold determined views need to be especially careful when contributing. It is this which the arbitrators need to reflect when they make a decision, since it applies to both parties to the dispute. --Audiovideo 22:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 23:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) I said, posistions are consistent, not would write the same things. I'm well aware that wiki NPOV policy prevents me writing certain things within wiki. Now: how about *you* answer my question above: ...does he simply agree with JGs edit [87]? If he agrees with it, then AVs biases are obvious. If he disagrees, perhaps he would like to explain why his complaints are one-sided).

I am not sure why I am being asked to comment on an edit I did not make, one which if true seems neither to add nor detract from the article (so I don't see why people care so much). Following some of the external links a few months ago, I am under the impression that M&M claimed that their comments to Nature on the MBH corrections were not published because they were deemed too technical to be included in the short amount of space (500 words) finally offered. But this is not my issue. My real concern is that several people are behaving badly in their edits; the arbitrators seem to see this for some and not for others, while seeming to base other proposed decisions on an appeal to authority. My comments are one-sided because the proposed decisions seem to be; if they were not then I would not be commenting here. --Audiovideo 10:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)) You are being asked to comment because your messages and criticism here seem extremely one sided.

(William M. Connolley 23:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) And I really want to comment on this is a disputed issue (in fact several disputed issues) and so people who hold determined views need to be especially careful when contributing. This is fine: I agree with it. But AV is being very one sided. JG also has very determined views on this, but AV seems to feel no need to chide him. AV appears to be implying that because I've actually done some detailed work on trying to see whether McK's claims stack up or not (unlike all the other contributors here, I have actually tried to see whether the claims ar valid by testing them, rather than by reading other people words about them), I should therefore be especially barred from the article, and that makes no sense.

A Glaring Omission

I notice that in the list of names found here [88], there is no mention of WMC. Why is this? He is at least as guilty of the behavior that led to the arbitration as anyone else listed - yet his name doesn't appear? Was this an oversight by the admins or was it evidence of their bias? --JonGwynne 02:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh? WMC was already involved in the case. That list concerned other people who it was being suggested may be added - which is why Cortonin wasn't on it either. Ambi 08:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

WMC's revert parole

The ruling says that Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited. Does this mean that if WMC reverts the same change twice he must provide two separate references, or must he just refer to some reference/explanation which he has provided in the past? His current Rv, as ever are, for the most part, backed up by references/Talk. Would Rv, as ever, see [specific part of Talk page], be adequate, or would he be forced to come up with a new argument every time? Guettarda 22:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

He is expected to adequately address the concerns raised by the other editors. Fred Bauder 23:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Objecting to: William M. Connolley: Six month revert parole on certain articles

(William M. Connolley 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I object to the proposed decisions in this section (oddly enough). The arbcomm seems to have convinced itself that I indulge in sterile edit wars, and reverting without explanation. I deny this.

• There *has* been one long sterile edit war, over the greenhouse effect article, of course. However, you've already decided in my favour as to the content there, so I can't quite see what else you expected me to do: abandon the article to wrongness? Given that the talk page there is 174k long, I don't see how you can argue for lack of explanation, either. I don't see any other sterile edit wars.
• The other point quoted in the arbcomms findings concerns Morner. One of those is *on the talk page* so hardly counts as lack of explanation. Another is [89] which is fully explained on the comment field, and (correctly) removes incorrect information. The third [90] is perhaps a bit more controversial, but is also pretty well explained.
• I don't see any findings on the arbcomms part demonstrating reverting without explanation.

So, all in all, I don't think you have the findings of fact to support your proposed decisions.

Engaging in a very long edit war by itself is sanctionable by more than that; all things being equal. See the 'Reverts' finding. If you like I can add another finding that lists the number of times you have been blocked for violating the 3RR. But do note that the sanction that is proposed for you is mitigated by findings that you were more closely following our content policies while the proposed remedy for Cortonin is compounded by a finding that he has not adhered as closely to that. Thus the disparity; you get a revert parole and he gets a ban. The principles also support this line of thinking. More findings connecting the two are probably in order. --mav

Perhaps you missed what I wrote. I think you should perhaps reread those content policies of yours a little more carefully, as not one content policy suggests that a person promoting peer reviewed work that the arbitration committee does not believe should be punished more than a person promoting undetailed work which the arbitration committee does believe. In fact, the content policies explicitely prohibit this, as you yourselves have engaged in an evaluation of objective truth, in direct contradiction to NPOV policy. — Cortonin | Talk 09:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Content disputes are not about the arbcom trying to figure out what's true, because frankly and honestly, they don't know enough about enough topics (and no group of that size can) to determine what is true. Not even with advisory panels of experts can you know enough to determine what's true. The only approach you can reasonably engage in is to ensure that the NPOV policy is being actively supported by all participants, of which the most important tenet, as stated by Jimbo Wales, is that no side in a dispute is declared true. WMC has repeatedly violated this tenet, as was demonstrated in great depth in the evidence sections. All you have to decide here is whether you place more value in having Wikipedia conform to your personal beliefs, or in the principle of NPOV that Wikipedia was founded with. You cannot have both. — Cortonin | Talk 09:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. To respond:

• I don't think Engaging in a very long edit war by itself is sanctionable by more than that is adequate: as I've said, you have already decided that I was *right* in that edit war, so it seems rather unjust to sanction me for it (perfectly genuine question: what is someone supposed to do when in the right on a sterile edit war? I really don't see any guidance available). Surely you need to find a long edit war on which you *haven't* explicitly decided I was right?
• As to 3RR: please do: but you'll find that almost all of those are on GHE (so really don't apply: BTW, I'm a strong supporter of 3RR, and fully support people being banned for it, including me).
• You have (if I may say so) rather dodged my complaint that sterile edit wars, and reverting without explanation is unjustified. I'd like to see that backed up by some findings of fact: at the moment, I don't see any justification for it at all in you FoF. So I'm arguing against a vacuum. Back it up, and I'll agree (if you're right) or have something concrete to argue against.
• Parole: the parole you propose is stricter than that imposed on JG (he got 1RR, but no explanation), and you convicted him of POV pushing. Is that fair?

(William M. Connolley 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 20:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The voting goes glacially on, but still with no findings of fact to back it up. At least when Cortonin complained about this, you rustled up some FoF to back up the judgement. In my case, you've still failed to do this, and I still object. Cortonin seems to be implying that you (the arbcomm) are relying on his evidence for your decision. My understanding is that you should translate evidence into FoF, no leave it in the evidence.

JonGwynne: Failure of previous remedy

I guess I'm still annoying some people since they seem to be going out of their way to find things to complain about. The latest is some ill-defined complaint about my allegedly "combative" style - what they fail to mention is that in every single instance, when I have confronted someone it has been a response to the actions of another. Evidently, they don't mind rationalizing the rudeness of other people as the result of provocation, but when I do it, it is beyond the pale.

As before, there is no articulation of their view, just an arbitrary pronouncement and this time they're not even bothering to defend it by citing wikipedia policy, they seem content to just make things up as they go. Sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to do better. You can't just order respect, you have to earn it. --JonGwynne 22:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WFC WMC elitist?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and hesitate to comment in a forum where everyone else is senior to me in terms of their history of participation. Despite that, though, I wanted to mention the following.

(William M. Connolley 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I'm unimpressed. You've spent all this time thinking about it... and you can't even get my initials correct. William M. Connolley 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Got me there. I apologize for my failure to give you appropriate recognition. -- John Callender 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the perception I get from the proposed decision that Cortonin's actions are being perceived as more problematic than WFC's. WFC seems pretty clearly to be articulating a stronger position in terms of the science of climate change, and in those terms (which are the terms he would apply) his behavior is above reproach, while that of Cortonin is reprehensible. But Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Or, if you want to view it as one, the "peers" are of a particularly egalitarian nature. A Wikipedia article doesn't merely have to satisfy the smallish pool of scientific experts on a subject. It has to satisfy the (potentially much more heterogenous) pool of Wikipedia users who for whatever reason care enough about an article to devote their energy to it.

Building consensus in such a setting is hard. It requires a level of patience, and a willingness to spend time and effort reaching out to one's intellectual opponents, that doesn't come easily to most people. But that's the only hope that Wikipedia's model will work in terms of achieving long-term improvement in articles on controversial subjects.

In reading through the edit histories of the participants in this dispute, I'm not sure that Cortonin's behavior represents the largest problem here. I'll stipulate that Cortonin's scientific expertise in the area of climate change is inferior to WFC's. But in terms of the wikiprocess, WFC's willingness to be abrupt and dismissive with the positions he disagrees with, to cite his own expertise and denigrate that of his opponents, is a pretty serious problem.

The statements by the two participants are revealing. Cortonin talks about the process, about WFC's making unexplained reverts, being dismissive of others' views, and generally acting as if he believes (as I think it's pretty clear he does believe) that he's above the requirement to spend much time or energy building consensus with those who are his inferiors from the standpoint of expertise. In WFC's statement, on the other hand, he moves more or less immediately into the scientific details of the dispute, leaving Cortonin's process critique largely unanswered -- in effect arguing that his superior expertise, his being right on the science, trumps Cortonin's objections about the way he conducts himself.

Cortonin talks about process because he has lost on the science - as you and the arbcomm judgement makes clear. William M. Connolley 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Wikipedia needs experts if it's going to improve over time. But it needs something else, too: It needs a culture in which people feel that their contributions are valued. There's a certain type of elitism you see among some experts that is antithetical to building that kind of culture. I don't think that's an accident; people choose to become experts for many reasons, and some of them become experts not so much because they want to advance human knowledge, but because they want the status and recognition that being perceived as an expert gives them. For those experts, beating up on their intellectual opponents, painting them as less-expert and therefore inferior, can become a goal in and of itself. I worry that that's what's going on with WFC.

I don't think your "insights" into why people become experts are at all helpful. They are, at least in my case, wrong. I also disagree with your apparent assertion that *all* contributions are helpful. POV pushing of invalid science isn't helpful. You are forgetting that as well as valuing good-faith contributions, wiki also needs to *discourage* bad faith contributions. Look at the mess over at dynamic theory of gravity or Nikola Tesla. William M. Connolley 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're clearly far more expert than I could ever hope to be on the subject of your own motivations for becoming an expert, so I'm happy to defer to you there. It may well be that I've misspoken by attributing to you a failing I've noticed in others but that you don't share. If that's the case, I apologize. Also, I'm not asserting that all contributions are helpful. Clearly, some of them aren't. Some of them are helpful in some ways, non-helpful in others. I just worrying about the possibility that too much zeal could lead you to throw some baby out with the bathwater. -- John Callender 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed the possibility of too much zeal. I don't think I show this. In this case in particular, all the participants have long ago displayed their POV for all to see - there is no question of attacking newbies. William M. Connolley 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I don't think that kind of elitism is good for Wikipedia's larger culture. I guess this gets back to some of the criticisms Larry Sanger has made, and the response to those criticisms. If Wikipedia is doomed to be inferior by virtue of its failure to accord a certain type of expert the status and deference they require, then so be it. Personally, though, I think Wikipedia is doing pretty well despite those limitations. Its success is a reflection of the fact that lots and lots of somewhat-expert participants can achieve something worthwhile -- as long as there's an underlying process that encourages participation and consensus-building, so that the best work is allowed to bubble up, and so that there's a sufficient pool of caring participants who can correct errors quickly and herd the content in a positive direction.

WFC's participation in the climate change articles is at best a mixed bag. Yes, he's adding the benefit of his insights to the pages he works on. But the way in which he's doing it undermines the Wikipedia community by discouraging participation and sucking up time and energy in disputes like this. I don't think the current version of the proposed decision gives those negatives sufficient weight. -- John Callender 16:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you should delve a bit deeper into the page histories (especially the talk pages) before you make your judgement. In addition, Wikipedia's first reason for existing is to write an encyclopaedia, not to be a community or a democracy. We should never produce an inferior product just to keep people happy. Accuracy and NPOV outweigh how well you "play with others". If you feel that should change, then bring it up at the Village Pump and with Jimbo. You may be able to change the aims of Wikipedia. But there is no reason why you should expect the ArbComm to act against the currently agreed-upon goals of the project. Climate change is controvertial, but most of that controversy lies outside of the scientific community. WMC has done a commendable job of ensuring that the article related to climate change remain NPOV and accurate. As for discouraging participation - anyone will be discouraged by the revert wars, but neither William not Cortonin revert spelling corrections or other such edits. On the other hand, like many very technical and very mature articles, where every word has been discussed at great lenght on the Talk page, one should be cautious about stepping in and making changes without discussing them. Rather than discouraging participation, William is encouraging the formation of a WikiProject. Guettarda 16:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the response. As I said at the outset, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and to this particular controversy. For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting a change in Wikipedia's aims, What I'm arguing for, when I talk about the thing you refer to as a "democracy" and "playing well with others", is something that I believe might be helpful in achieving the existing aims, and that I actually think is specifically called for in the existing NPOV policy. But I'll do more homework before bringing it up next time. At a minimum, I'll take more care to get the initials of the people I'm talking about correct. :-) -- John Callender 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)