Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute

message: I did forewarn that WMC would focus his response as an attack on my competence and credibility.  I am a physicist, but my claims of physics expertise are intentionally vague.  I don't believe ego should have much of a place on Wikipedia, since it only prevents us from working together.  I edit a variety of articles, and you can assess my expertise and attempts to provide encyclopedic content at your own discretion.  That the majority of my edits are currently under climate related articles is primarily because contributions, which would typically be accepted and worked with in other areas, are usually immediately reverted due to the emotionally charged states surrounding this group of articles.   — Cortonin | Talk 08:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to WMC's statement 

message: Cortonins response is deceptive in all respects:
* That the majority of my edits are currently under climate related articles is primarily... this underplays his edits strongly. Going back over his last 500 edits , to 1st feb all but a tiny handful (perhaps 10) of his edits are under climate articles... except... just after I commented that he never edits physics articles, he has suddenly made a bunch of edits to them, presumably to disguise this. Its a welcome development though. Perhaps he'll help reverting vandalism too.
* Mesospheric: the solar-climate stuff is primarily tropospheric-stratospheric, because thats where the bulk of the atmosphere is. Cortonin made a careless mistake by pulling in an irrelevant reference; sadly ego prevents him from admitting this.
* Biased abstract... judge for yourself.
* There are prominent papers, textbooks, and researchers which quote values as high as 90-95% for water vapor's contribution - this is utter twaddle: note Cortonins failure to reference them (oh dear, this is going to get confusing if he starts modifying his stuff: he now adds a ref to the wiki GHG page , which is weird, because it precisely supports what I'm saying: there are no credible estimates of WV above the 60-70% range; only if you start considering a case with other gases removed can you push it up higher to the 90-95% Cortonin, wrongly, states are plausible. Cortonin is essentially trolling here: he is wasting everyones time on something that has been agreed on the page for ages William M. Connolley 11:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Cortonins response ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 09:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) 

message: (William M. Connolley 20:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know it is not so I don't see much point either way. Nor do I care if it is moved - so long as the other arbs agree to a move or at least don't care. --mav 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 19:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is the role of the arbcom to perform such a move, and not for yourself to do.  The rules written at the top of the template state, "If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it." and "If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move."   — Cortonin | Talk 20:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 20:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page move to WMC vs Cortonin 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the bad news, but: This case will take some time since we have not heard a case like it before. Injunctions would only apply to those people involved in this case, so that isn't a viable option either. --mav 04:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute continues 

message: WMC and I seem to agree that a resolution would be helpful.  There is a group (consisting of WMC, Vsmith, and occasionally Marco Krohn) which in the last week seems to have given up on compromise and discussion, and has simply been reverting without giving reasons, regardless of what edit is tried.  It is difficult to do anything if we can't get them to discuss the matter, and can't get them to explain the merits of their reverts.  In addition, I would appreciate if the resolution of this RfA contained some sort of clarification of the relationship between advocacy and NPOV, because this has become a rather significant problem on the climate pages.  It would also be helpful if you issued a clarification regarding at what point it is desireable for editorial majority to override NPOV.  Currently, the method being employed is to gather people together who support advocating a single POV, and formulate the articles to endorse that view.  By my reading, the NPOV policy does not say, "whatever the majority of editors think the article should say, it should say," but instead, it expresses a specific style of writing such that nothing is endorsed, sources are not called "right" and "wrong", and everything is simply described in terms of the neutral things which can be attributed to sources.  It seems it would be very helpful if you could clarify the mechanism by which NPOV is achieved, and these relationships between NPOV, the editorial majority opinion, objectivity, advocacy, and other related issues.  This conflict runs deep, I think, and if these questions remain unanswered, I don't think the matter will be resolved.   — Cortonin | Talk 00:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute continues 2 

message: Cortonin has made some rather serious and misleading charges here. And as he has included me in his gang of three I will reply. Cortonin has been insisting on his POV in this series of articles, although he always refers to his edits as NPOV of course. The various unfortunate revert wars he is involved in, and he is just as guilty as anyone, have intensified over the past few days. The intensification is largely due to the return of Cortonin's ally JonGwynne with his particularly abrasive edit style and POV pushing. I and the others named above usually do explain our edits over and over, but I must admit due to irritation with the apparent trolling edits of JonGwynne we have been more terse.
Now, Cortonin states sources are not called "right" and "wrong", however he does just that in his edits on Greenhouse effect and Solar greenhouse (technical) and of course his sources are right and ours are wrong. Of course he was not referring to that was he? He seems to hide behind "unencylopedic" claims quite often. He says we have given up on compromise which means that we don't buy his view of compromise. And we have discussed on and on and on...
He states everything is simply described in terms of the neutral things which can be attributed to sources. OK, but that does not mean to be totally gullible and give all sources equal treatment - there are lots of sources out there that are utter garbage, we all know that. So we do have to be selective about our sources and not give the trash equal treatment. And if sources are questionable it needs to be pointed out. Of course he would call that POV editing - we must accept all as equal - total NPOV means totally gullible. And of course Cortonin is quite selective about his sources - and oddly they all support his POV.
He calls for clarification of the relationship between advocacy and NPOV because he sees a significant problem on the climate pages. The POV pushing and advocacy of climate skeptics which he and JonGwynne are engaged in would of course not be what he is referring to. The climate pages give plenty of balance to the skeptic view, but it seems Cortonin thinks it should be 50/50 even though the skeptical view is in the minority within the science and is supported mainly by politicians , economists, journalists and bloggers.
I guess I've babbled enough for now :-) Vsmith 04:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Cortonin's view of the universe

message: This is a continuation of an earlier case, and I see no indication that JG has moderated his behaviour since then.
:This is not a continuation of another case, but simply another attempt by WMC to silence those who would challenge his extreme POV which undermines the credibility of the wikipedia articles on climate-change.  Instead of being an objective discussion of the facts, they are simply IPCC propaganda.  --JonGwynne 18:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

message: Have a look at ... now how does that remind you of? Now check that IPs contribs ... hmmm... climate change and automobiles... who does that remind you of? For example, on Mars, this ; also the Kyoto stuff.
So it looks like JG is back, breaking his 6 month ban, and no more sensible than before.
William M. Connolley 09:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The return of JonGwynne? 

message: The Enforcement section is empty.  User:Cortonin and User:JonGwynne have not contributed for months; is that because were they blocked?  Or did they voluntarily obey their bans?  (SEWilco 07:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement updates?