User talk:Skullers
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Skullers. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Skullers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Skullers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Skullers. Thank you for your work on Innuitian ice sheet. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
It's a start! Happy editing!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Congrats on Fighting the Good Fight
[edit]TL;DR -- I see you bumped up against the 'Climate Cabal' here. To your credit, you gave it a shot. Good for you. Your frosty reception is typical of the gatekeepers of the Climate articles. It's not you.
In my experience with this issue online I have noticed that a majority of technical people with a science background push back on a lot of the crisis narrative. Even here on Wikipedia, if you look around enough of the Climate related talk pages you will find the same relatively small cabal policing the articles and more people fighting back temporarily until they are chased away. I'm pretty sure if you tallied all the names in those convos you would find that the Climate faithful are actually outnumbered. Despite their reliance on (the faulty argument of) 'consensus', the real consensus does not seem to support them. Unfortunately, the people dedicated to pushing the Climate Crisis Narrative are organized and dedicated to the point that they not only alter thousands of articles, they police just about anything related. It's pretty much a hopeless battle on Wikipedia. The Climate faithful actually chased Jimmy Wales out of one of the discussions! Just be aware that you are not alone and the unpleasant behavior of most of these actors is not you. It's definitely them. Mercifully, this going on forty year saga will come to a close in the next few years as advanced AI comes online. There is a rogues gallery of fallacious arguments (you could teach a course!) on the Climate Crisis side and current LLM models are trained on the weird justifications and take the most represented conclusions in as facts in training data. However, they are improving in this regard.
Here is an example of the gruesome extent to which Wikipedia has been manipulated in service of the Climate Crisis Narrative:
Original 'Scientific Consensus' article -- "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled" https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Scientific_consensus&oldid=2113861
Current 'Scientific Consensus' article -- Wow. Turns out 'consensus' is almost a sort of 'gold standard' proof that it's a done deal beyond argument++ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Scientific_consensus
++An example of a 'consensus' invoking scientific theory is given in the updated article as 'evolution'. As someone with a background in Biology it's something I notice and occasionally weigh in on (say vs Creationism). People like me explain it. We don't just wave it away with 'consensus' because that's a nonsense argument ... you can explain and evidence something well evidenced, sensible, and coherent. With the climate crisis narrative you're kind of left with fallacious arguments and hand waving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 07:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. There are many challenges. One way to improve things is with dependable sources, acting in good faith and with sound judgment.
- It's evident that WP gets to redefine all kinds of things. This includes naming events and other things as they happen: disaster vs incident, controversy vs conspiracy, hypothetical, pseudo-, fringe, etc.
- There's also other concepts like consensus reality, consensus theory of truth, orthodoxy, common sense, that could as well have been used "for the purposes of WP".
- One sees in news articles, op-eds, and in other places: for background on the subject see the WP article or even "it's defined by Wikipedia as such..."
- People may assume there are checks and balances that mostly work and that we know what we're doing
- WP's influence continues to grow and it's perceived for good reasons that the stakes are higher. One could say WP is a "force multiplier" for all kinds of political stuff.
- There's currently no serious competitor to WP. other language wikis often copy and translate from English articles.
- Within Wikipedia itself, a dictionary may not be of much use, as they say, "it doesn't mean what you think it means"
- Essentially the only way to overturn "local consensus" is when it's at odds with global consensus and the wider community weighs in. Everything takes time, effort, patience, understanding of policy, and of course reputable sources. And even then...
- There's "neutrality without neutrality", the old definition entirely superseded by Undue, Fringe, etc. I haven't seen any argument based on neutrality/NPOV actually succeed, it's almost always futile. Many policies are at odds with one another.
- Being neutral in form may only work for good articles with many eyes on them
- Things are mostly fine on subjects that are not at all political or controversial. Many articles and topics stay neglected for a long time
- Article writing and improvement involves the exercise of editorial judgment: choosing what to include, in how much detail, how to frame it, and what not to mention at all (even to criticize)
- This allows people to go beyond what the sources used actually say: selection of sentence fragments, parts of quotations without the entire context and even individual words to support whatever editors already expect it to say. What to attribute and what to state as a fact.
- Not so sure about LLM models, these can easily be dismissed as unreliable. There is motivation to have the bigger ones adjusted to fight perceived misinformation or exclude certain topics entirely
- Yes one challenge with controversial subjects is keeping the reader in mind and actually explaining things in a way that is honest and good.
- Something like that. The good news is that there are many innovative solutions that provide new opportunities for growth and sustainable development through international collaboration on a wide range of issues. Sorry for the late reply. 👁👁 Skullers (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)