Climate Change Redux, Finally something about the actual case Options

[Anna]

Hello, Herschelrustofsky!

Cla68, what language are you speaking? Because it's not normal English.

Whatever "the rules" of which you speak are, the survival of the species is more important. It's disrespectful to the Earth for the Arbitrary Committee to go on and on about trivial social concerns when such serious matters are at stake.

This post has been edited by Anna: Mon 27th June 2011, 1:00am

[NuclearWarfare]

- If Kirill is going to discuss the case on the ArbCom mailing list, then he should have voted in the proposed decision.

Err...he did?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision (T-H-L-K-D)

[gomi]

Whatever "the rules" of which you speak are, the survival of the species is more important. It's disrespectful to the Earth for the Arbitrary Committee to go on and on about trivial social concerns when such serious matters are at stake.

Indeed. If the survival of human society on Earth (as we know it) is your utmost concern, neither Wikipedia nor Wikipedia Review are likely to be the best venue for your evangelism. Many of us here believe these matters to be serious, but discuss them elsewhere.

[Anna]

Gomi --

Well, yes, Change.org is the best venue for my evangelism. Already have an account there, and use it frequently. But lately, I've been getting annoyed at people who start spouting these ridiculous ideas and then tell me they got them from Wikipedia, and thus I wanted to say something about it.

What exactly is your evangelism here are the Wikipedia Review? Are you trying to review Wikipedia is such a way that readers of Wikipedia can understand why they shouldn't really take it seriously, as it's more of an encyclopedia-ISH than an encyclopedia? Doubtful, given how little of the conversation here on the Wikipedia Review is actually comprehensible to a person who has not joined Wikipedia and been indoctrinated with their secret language. Are you perhaps trying to review Wikipedia in such a way that the people over there might actually improve their website? I doubt you will get very far. Or are you cheering them on? Because, you know, it's sort of hard to tell sometimes. In fact, it doesn't look like you're doing any of those things in this thread. You haven't commented on the discussion Malice forwarded to us; you seem intent instead on telling me... what exactly? That this *isn't* the forum to warn readers not to take Wikipedia seriously, despite the name? So, what the hell *is* this the forum for?

This post has been edited by Anna: Mon 27th June 2011, 11:26am

[Minor4th]

Did Kirill not vote on the PD?

Pretty much as I imagined discussions regarding the case. They figured out who they wanted gone and who they wanted to stay according to how knowledgeable or "valuable" they judged an editor, and then went looking for diffs to justify their gut feelings, which in many cases appear to be based on personality issues unrelated to Wiki policy and/or arbs' personal biases about climate change.

I thought the ChrisO discussion was interesting too.

[Cla68]

Did Kirill not vote on the PD?

Pretty much as I imagined discussions regarding the case. They figured out who they wanted gone and who they wanted to stay according to how knowledgeable or "valuable" they judged an editor, and then went looking for diffs to justify their gut feelings, which in many cases appear to be based on personality issues unrelated to Wiki policy and/or arbs' personal biases about climate change.

I thought the ChrisO discussion was interesting too.

I think the discussion shows that most of the arbitrators were trying to be fair, but your comments made me realize something that was nagging at me. That email exchange seems to show the arbitrators trying to come to a conclusion using deductive, rather than inductive reasoning.

As you say, they appear to be first identifying editors who they think are wrong, then finding evidence to support that. Instead, they should be asking each other what the evidence says, then forming conclusions, such as, "Cla68 says in his evidence section that Stephan Schulz and WMC have been bullying editors on the Global Warming talk page for years, could someone check to see if this is true?", or conversely, "Dave Souza says that Cla68 is, in fact, a POV-pushing, partisan editor. Could someone check to see if the evidence supports this assertion?" I know this would have been a more time-consuming way of coming to a decision, but I think the ultimate decision would have been more comprehensive and fair.

[Abd]

I think the discussion shows that most of the arbitrators were trying to be fair, but your comments made me realize something that was nagging at me. That email exchange seems to show the arbitrators trying to come to a conclusion using deductive, rather than inductive reasoning.

That's correct. They start with a story, formed very quickly from immediate impressions, then they look for evidence to confirm the story. They most certainly do not start with neutral investigation, way too often. Occasionally some do, and they get good decisions when they do it.

If evidence presented by others is not heavily edited to become pure and effective polemic, they don't read it with any care, I'd bet. They simply assume that whatever the editor presents is like what they'd present, evidence dug up to prove what the editor already believes. An editor who actually investigates neutrally will come up with evidence for more than one position, which, to them, is confusing, they dislike it. tl;dr.

As you say, they appear to be first identifying editors who they think are wrong, then finding evidence to support that. Instead, they should be asking each other what the evidence says, then forming conclusions, such as, "Cla68 says in his evidence section that Stephan Schulz and WMC have been bullying editors on the Global Warming talk page for years, could someone check to see if this is true?", or conversely, "Dave Souza says that Cla68 is, in fact, a POV-pushing, partisan editor. Could someone check to see if the evidence supports this assertion?" I know this would have been a more time-consuming way of coming to a decision, but I think the ultimate decision would have been more comprehensive and fair.

It seems more time-consuming, but it would, in fact, save a great deal of time in the long run. To be practical, ArbComm -- or individual arbitrators! -- would need to name trusted investigators, who would do two things:

1. Prepare complete reports on situations or issues, based on careful investigation that aims to develop accurate and balanced reports, not to create some desired conclusion.
2. Prepare analyses of these with regard to implications.

(These are really two separate functions, and the second can contaminate the first, so, ideally, the functions should be separated, so, to make a legal parallel, the first function would be that of a court-appointed investigator, and the second function would be that of judges in an administrative hearing.)

An arb could submit such a report for review to an entire committee of trusted users, if the arb has any doubt about it. Otherwise the arb presents the report, to ArbComm, on his or her own authority, being adequately convinced to stand for it. If this is an individual process, the arbitrator would have complete authority over these tasks.

Structure. But not exactly bureaucracy. This could be done by any individual arbitrator without the consent of the committee or any other body. But would an arb have the cojones, would arbs even realize the possibility?

I tried to explain this, in part, to arbs in 2009. They reacted by banning me for the temerity of advising them. The bans were not based on any cogent evidence, they even cited, in my cold fusion ban, "evidence" provided by a highly adverse editor, who later revealed his firm and staunch POV, wherein he cited his own opinion in RfAr/Fringe science, an opinion directly contradicting ArbComm's own decision, an opinion delivered at a point before I had ever edited cold fusion and it had nothing to do with me. I think they looked at the diff and the title of the edit and simply assumed what was in it, they thought, my guess, that I had said what this editor had actually said.

That particular "allegation" was not even about me, but about the editor's view of the general, long-term situation. There is no way that it was evidence of my "tendentious editing," as claimed.

In later bans, "tendentious editing" alleged was simply discussion considered to be too long, without any regard for necessity or cogency or collaborative character. I was, later, acting under COI rules, so there was *no* contentious article editing.

Now, I did point out this problem with Enric Naval's evidence on the Talk page when the finding was made as a proposal. There was no answer. I think they were not reading the case. Why bother? Too much work!

And I agree. Too much work. It's a set-up, a structural problem. But ... they don't want to fix the structure, since this is a structure that empowered them, and independent investigators? Who knows what they might find?

[Minor4th]

I really don't think they read the evidence.

And Cla -- the amount of time it took them to conclude the case, there was certainly enoygh time for them to go through the more time consuming analysis you described. Fact is, it's too tedious, ans there's no oversight of yhe process, so why bother being thorough, comprehensive or even-handed?

I havent been to Wiki more than a handful of times in the last 9 months and havent looked at climate change at all. Has it changed? Is there a noticeable absence of edit wars, tag teaming, socking and activism?

[Abd]

I really don't think they read the evidence.

My conclusion as well.

And Cla -- the amount of time it took them to conclude the case, there was certainly enoygh time for them to go through the more time consuming analysis you described. Fact is, it's too tedious, ans there's no oversight of yhe process, so why bother being thorough, comprehensive or even-handed?

It's definitely tedious, but if the goal of the project is neutrality, it's necessary. That's why tasks must be delegated. It's completely untenable without that, arbs are *forced* to rely on knee-jerk impressions. They are volunteers. If we wanted better performance, we would either pay them or set them up to supervise their own volunteer staff.

Instead we sit back and take potshots at them. Me too, by the way. By accepting the job and playing it the way it is set up, they do become responsible.

I havent been to Wiki more than a handful of times in the last 9 months and havent looked at climate change at all. Has it changed? Is there a noticeable absence of edit wars, tag teaming, socking and activism?

I haven't looked either. Like I should care?

From what I could tell, ArbComm's response to the Climate Change arbitration was weak and inadequate, but definitely the cabal was dinged. (Users editing contrary to the cabal position were banned, but some cabal editors did get some sanctions applied.) But I don't know where it went then.

I barely watch Cold fusion, and that's connected now with one of my businesses. Mostly, even thinking about editing Wikipedia makes me feel ill.

[Cla68]

I havent been to Wiki more than a handful of times in the last 9 months and havent looked at climate change at all. Has it changed? Is there a noticeable absence of edit wars, tag teaming, socking and activism?

Unfortunately, no.

[Abd]

I havent been to Wiki more than a handful of times in the last 9 months and havent looked at climate change at all. Has it changed? Is there a noticeable absence of edit wars, tag teaming, socking and activism?

Unfortunately, no.

KimDabelsteinPetersen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Cabal editor, reliably editing in support of cabal positions.

This is the lead of article with typical claim, weight on "sceptics," i.e., anyone concerned about a conspiracy to manipulate data, is a "climate change skeptic." The other side is "scientists and policy makers." You know. Reputable people.

KDP does not discuss the change on the Talk page. Of course, neither did Hobby Lobby (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The latter doesn't want to waste visibility. Any bets on how long before HL is blocked? (Yes, the HL edit was also POV.) However, HL has a point, and is simply imbalancing in the opposite direction. KDP is restoring the status quo, which is the same old, same old.

[Cla68]

I havent been to Wiki more than a handful of times in the last 9 months and havent looked at climate change at all. Has it changed? Is there a noticeable absence of edit wars, tag teaming, socking and activism?

Unfortunately, no.

KimDabelsteinPetersen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Cabal editor, reliably editing in support of cabal positions.

This is the lead of article with typical claim, weight on "sceptics," i.e., anyone concerned about a conspiracy to manipulate data, is a "climate change skeptic." The other side is "scientists and policy makers." You know. Reputable people.

KDP does not discuss the change on the Talk page. Of course, neither did Hobby Lobby (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The latter doesn't want to waste visibility. Any bets on how long before HL is blocked? (Yes, the HL edit was also POV.) However, HL has a point, and is simply imbalancing in the opposite direction. KDP is restoring the status quo, which is the same old, same old.

There were a few scientists who were fairly critical of the East Anglia team, including Judith Curry, who isn't a global warming skeptic. A few journalists were also critical. Of course, a more neutral thing to say in the lede would be something like "observers said...", but, of course, something that neutral isn't acceptable to activists trying to put their side in Wikipedia's voice.

[Abd]

There were a few scientists who were fairly critical of the East Anglia team, including Judith Curry, who isn't a global warming skeptic. A few journalists were also critical. Of course, a more neutral thing to say in the lede would be something like "observers said...", but, of course, something that neutral isn't acceptable to activists trying to put their side in Wikipedia's voice.

Yes. And, with the cooperation of ArbComm, editors who actually stood for neutrality (despite their own POV), were banned.

Standing for neutrality and consensus requires discussion. The cabal detests discussion. After all, they are right, what is there to discuss? Go away, fringe nutcase POV-pusher!

Oh! ArbComm? You don't want us to say "nutcase"? Okay, okay.

"Go way, stop pushing your fringe POV, or we will ban your ass."

[Kelly Martin]

I'm utterly amazed that the username patrols even allowed someone to register as Hobby Lobby. Surely they're heard of them, they're probably the largest retailer of hobby supplies in the US. Isn't there a policy against using a business name for your username on Wikipedia?

[Somey]

I'm utterly amazed that the username patrols even allowed someone to register as Hobby Lobby. Surely they're heard of them, they're probably the largest retailer of hobby supplies in the US. Isn't there a policy against using a business name for your username on Wikipedia?

I would assume so, but I'd also assume they don't have an automated way of comparing new registrant names against a list of prominent businesses... And since the two edits were at 5:39 AM UTC, the patrollers would have been mostly in the UK (or possibly India/Australia, etc.), where presumably they would call it "Hobby Foyer" or perhaps "Hobby Vestibule."

[Abd]

Blocked as sock of Scibaby. How you can identify Scibaby from that editing is obvious: you look for signs of Scibaby POV.

That this means, in effect, that the POV is banned, well, too bad! That's why they get for being fringe nutcase POV-pushers. Honestly, don't they have any sense?

(I see that the account was checkusered. That was pretty fast. Multiply this by the better part of a thousand socks, and you can get an idea of what refusal to negotiate consensus does to the project.)

Hmmm... A Modest Proposal.