Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: WMC lost his admin tools over his block of me during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but that was not by any means an isolated incident. Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet for a provocateur? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet for a provocateur? Charles Sprite? Spriggan? Boggart? Ogre? Hmm... Can't quite put my finger on it. -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement with WMC and others active with the global warming article. This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their expertise. Global warming nutters are really special. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote: 2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement with WMC and others active with the global warming article. This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their expertise. Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct confidence. (1) The RfC mentioned did not lead to any ArbComm case. I was not taken to arbitration. I filed the case over a ban by an involved administrator, and no RfC was undertaken because it had become apparent that it would merely multiply words with no benefit, and ArbComm agreed and took the case. (2) The only mention of global warming in the case was evidence that I presented that WMC was involved negatively with me prior to his unilateral declaration of a ban of me from Cold fusion. I did not claim he was involved with Cold fusion, but that he was involved with me, that it was a personal dispute. With regard to a situation where he wheel-warred with Jennavecia over the protection of the Global warming article, I pointed out that he quite explicitly, in discussing this, admitted a view of a clique of editors maintaining that article, against outsiders and interlopers and trolls, and anyone disagreeing, not merely on the topic of global warming, but simply with WMC's approach as being in conflict with fundamental Wikipedia policy, was one of these. Meddlers. These meddlers, in fact, include sitting arbitrators. (3) I did propose, not that experts be banned from editing articles in their field of expertise, but that they be, on the one hand, considered to have a conflict of interest in general, and thus obligated to refrain from controversial editing *of articles*, but, on the other hand, generally protected as to expressing expert opinion on Talk pages. We should respect experts. WMC sometimes was quite reasonable when it came to actual facts and finding compromise text; the problem was when he used his administrative tools to enforce his position. Global warming nutters are really special. Not. Nutters are nutters. But I'm not a global warming skeptic, is Mr. Gerard attempting to imply that I am? My concern wasn't WMC's point of view on global warming, as such, but the use of administrative tools by him and others, to favor that point of view, by quick blocks and bans of editors with different points of view, and the support of this by a clique with consistent, long-term revert warring as distinct from following consensus process. The skeptical position was utterly rejected, instead of appropriately being incorporated as supported by reliable sources, and according to due weight, as found through consensus. As an example, the major scientific report on global warming, I forget the title, contained precise definitions of the terms used, which were not necessarily what one would commonly assume. Incorporating these precise definitions into the article, however, would slightly dilute the polemic effect of simply presenting the conclusions without defining the terms. And that was rejected. Too much detail. Too confusing to readers. Whitewashing. Anyone who has watched the global warming articles, long-term, would see what was happening, and it happened over and over for years. This produces a reaction, which reaction includes Scibaby and all the rangeblock damage, negative press, etc. Predictable. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote: This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their expertise. Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct confidence. snip (3) I did propose, not that experts be banned from editing articles in their field of expertise, but that they be, on the one hand, considered to have a conflict of interest in general, and thus obligated to refrain from controversial editing *of articles*, but, on the other hand, generally protected as to expressing expert opinion on Talk pages. We should respect experts. WMC sometimes was quite reasonable when it came to actual facts and finding compromise text; the problem was when he used his administrative tools to enforce his position. We have moved from the smoke without fire assertions at the head of this thread to this distinction without a difference. It needs to be said, tirelessly, that we do not consider anyone to have a conflict of interest unless they are putting their other interests ahead of the encyclopedia's. (Strangely enough, in a part of the post I snipped, you were making some comments and claims about the misuse of technical language in climate change articles. You are doing precisely this shuffle in involving COI in a sense that has no necessary application to WP in this manner.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Nathan wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet for a provocateur? Charles Sprite? Spriggan? Boggart? Ogre? Hmm... Can't quite put my finger on it. This may not be the best time to bring this up, but I am sort of annoyed that perfectly fine mannered (relatively speaking) mythological beings have been smeared in this manner. Vandals being used as a smearword for folks who show disrespect for places where they pass through, is really borderline understandable, though I have it on good authority that they are getting a serious bum rap on that deal. The historical Vandals were nothing like what their name has been put to carry as significance. The Trolls of mythology, however, totally got the shaft. In internet terms. Trolling was always a verb, originally, and never a pronoun; and it referred to techniques of fishing. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
The next strategic planning office hours are: Wednesday from 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is: Tuesday, 8-9pm PST Tuesday, 11pm-12am EST As always, You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia- strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Hope to see you there! Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: The Trolls of mythology, however, totally got the shaft. In internet terms. Trolling was always a verb, originally, and never a pronoun; and it referred to techniques of fishing. Thank you. I have often despaired of finding anyone on the net who understood that. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
