Miniapolis (talk | contribs) →Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns: Removing request; declined by the committee Tag: Replaced |
FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} |
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} |
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} |
||
== Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) '''at''' 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|FeydHuxtable}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Kingofaces43}} |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[diff of notification Kingofaces43] |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=880796815 An AE request] Also an example where King seemned to make unwarranted use of DS tags, arguably weaponizing the result of the 2015 GMO case in an attempt to win an almost entirely unrelated content dispute. It was closed with 3 admins and a veteran editor unanimously disagreeing with King. |
|||
* [[Talk:Insect]] & [[Talk:Decline in insect populations]] Discussion is long and probably doesnt need to be read in its entirety. |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Insects&diff=prev&oldid=886183297 Appeal to get wiki project insect editors involved] Per the unappealing tone of the article talk page discussions, its perhaps understandable they have not responded. |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingofaces43&diff=prev&oldid=887381844 A neutral post on King's talk to explore possibilities for encouraging other editors to chime in], to which King responded non-neutrally, then immediately deleted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingofaces43&diff=prev&oldid=887497241 indicating he didnt wish to discuss further on his talk] |
|||
=== Statement by FeydHuxtable === |
|||
Dear arbitrators, I'm requesting attention to an issue that seems quite central to the reliability of our science coverage: Editors posting from an excessively pro-corporate POV seemingly using results like [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms|the GMO case]] to intimidate neutral main-stream science editors. |
|||
This is exemplified by [[user:Kingofaces43]] and a dispute concerning bugs. I'm not suggesting he's a shrill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits. Whether it's unpaid or not, determined PoV pushing can be equally harmful to NPOV, collegiality, and the reliability of our articles. |
|||
AFAIK, King has been most successful in advancing his PoV. Even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leyo&diff=prev&oldid=864508508 possibly prevailing] against the phenomenal admin Leyo, on a matter linking pesticides with Leyo's specialist subject (chemistry). If this is accepted, many more diffs are available showing King's past "triumphs" over main stream scientists. Part of his success seems to stem from support he sometimes gains from our very formidable anti-fringe editors. Some of whom are not scientists, and may have judged King to be on their side. It's interesting none has joined the debate for King in the bug dispute, perhaps due to the blatantly Fringe like nature of King's editing here. |
|||
There is unanimous consensus that insect population decline is a thing. A few scientists argue against warnings of an impending "catastrophic" collapse of nature's ecosystems. But even the most sceptical sciences accept the declines are happening. King's focused on two sceptical sources. The first, an [http://www.entsoc.org/sites/default/files/files/Science-Policy/2019/Global%20Insect%20Biodiversity%20FAQs.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SEaQCFIeDxsCsmdbtzV4L_rg7MCb-nGkhcCCK1jPjk3uxz7eDriaPF7I ESA statement], says "recent studies that show declines in global insect populations" are "very concerning" . Yet King [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decline_in_insect_populations&diff=prev&oldid=887318711 added a POV-title tag] to [[Decline in insect populations]] as if to imply there's doubt. |
|||
King's second sceptical source, a [https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2019/02/16/insectageddon-is-a-great-story-but-what-are-the-facts/ blog by a junior ecologist], effectively self admits it's advancing a minority view ("…other scientists are confirming this, so why aren't you?") Yet Kings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insect&diff=prev&oldid=884868629 gives the blog at least equal weight to rebut] the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636 only available high level review on global insect decline]. To top it off he insists on misrepresenting the blog in violation of WP:OR, despite this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations&diff=prev&oldid=887334759 being clearly pointed out.] |
|||
Expert editors have mostly not participated in the bug dispute, despite requests. Perhaps Im partly to blame, though IMO its King who has been creating a chilling effect. Many diffs can be posted on this if you chose to accept. E.g. after I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations&diff=prev&oldid=887534928 posted saying I'd accept WP:Onus favoured King if even one editor chimes in supporting him], King responds with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations&diff=prev&oldid=887634827 …we'll have to look into ways to prevent you…] I doubt he meant anything sinister, but as he was a strong supporter of a recently indeffed editor known for escalating to the real world, it might come across as threatening to some. |
|||
If this is accepted I'd not be looking for sanctions against King, and certainly not a resolution to the content dispute, but a solution to the wider problem of NPOV main-stream science editors being susceptible to intimidation from POV editors who (intentionally or not) weaponize past results like GMO. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Kingofaces43 === |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
|||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
=== Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
* |
|||
=== Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === |
|||
{{anchor|1=Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> |
|||
* |
|||
Revision as of 17:36, 14 March 2019
Requests for arbitration
Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing
Initiated by FeydHuxtable (talk) at 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Involved parties
- FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification Kingofaces43]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- An AE request Also an example where King seemned to make unwarranted use of DS tags, arguably weaponizing the result of the 2015 GMO case in an attempt to win an almost entirely unrelated content dispute. It was closed with 3 admins and a veteran editor unanimously disagreeing with King.
- Talk:Insect & Talk:Decline in insect populations Discussion is long and probably doesnt need to be read in its entirety.
- Appeal to get wiki project insect editors involved Per the unappealing tone of the article talk page discussions, its perhaps understandable they have not responded.
- A neutral post on King's talk to explore possibilities for encouraging other editors to chime in, to which King responded non-neutrally, then immediately deleted, indicating he didnt wish to discuss further on his talk
Statement by FeydHuxtable
Dear arbitrators, I'm requesting attention to an issue that seems quite central to the reliability of our science coverage: Editors posting from an excessively pro-corporate POV seemingly using results like the GMO case to intimidate neutral main-stream science editors. This is exemplified by user:Kingofaces43 and a dispute concerning bugs. I'm not suggesting he's a shrill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits. Whether it's unpaid or not, determined PoV pushing can be equally harmful to NPOV, collegiality, and the reliability of our articles.
AFAIK, King has been most successful in advancing his PoV. Even possibly prevailing against the phenomenal admin Leyo, on a matter linking pesticides with Leyo's specialist subject (chemistry). If this is accepted, many more diffs are available showing King's past "triumphs" over main stream scientists. Part of his success seems to stem from support he sometimes gains from our very formidable anti-fringe editors. Some of whom are not scientists, and may have judged King to be on their side. It's interesting none has joined the debate for King in the bug dispute, perhaps due to the blatantly Fringe like nature of King's editing here.
There is unanimous consensus that insect population decline is a thing. A few scientists argue against warnings of an impending "catastrophic" collapse of nature's ecosystems. But even the most sceptical sciences accept the declines are happening. King's focused on two sceptical sources. The first, an ESA statement, says "recent studies that show declines in global insect populations" are "very concerning" . Yet King added a POV-title tag to Decline in insect populations as if to imply there's doubt.
King's second sceptical source, a blog by a junior ecologist, effectively self admits it's advancing a minority view ("…other scientists are confirming this, so why aren't you?") Yet Kings gives the blog at least equal weight to rebut the only available high level review on global insect decline. To top it off he insists on misrepresenting the blog in violation of WP:OR, despite this being clearly pointed out.
Expert editors have mostly not participated in the bug dispute, despite requests. Perhaps Im partly to blame, though IMO its King who has been creating a chilling effect. Many diffs can be posted on this if you chose to accept. E.g. after I posted saying I'd accept WP:Onus favoured King if even one editor chimes in supporting him, King responds with …we'll have to look into ways to prevent you… I doubt he meant anything sinister, but as he was a strong supporter of a recently indeffed editor known for escalating to the real world, it might come across as threatening to some.
If this is accepted I'd not be looking for sanctions against King, and certainly not a resolution to the content dispute, but a solution to the wider problem of NPOV main-stream science editors being susceptible to intimidation from POV editors who (intentionally or not) weaponize past results like GMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)