Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-30/Scientific misconduct

Where's the dispute?
Scientific_misconduct

What's the dispute?
There is a section in this article entitled "Cases of alleged scientific misconduct and related incidents". A number of editors have expressed concerns that several of the names listed in this section contain no documentation - they are simply listed without explanation.

I stated also that it was in my opinion inappropriate to list scientists who had simply been accused of misconduct, regardless of the legitimacy of the accusation. (There is a disclaimer in the body of the section, but I do not think this is sufficient.) I felt that this was clearly indefensible, possibly defamatory, and could act as a cover to allow editors to pursue malicious accusations against academic rivals without justification.

For that reason, I stated that I intended to remove any name listed that was not properly substantiated. I also stated that a link to a document that merely stated an accusation, without explaining that the accused had been exonerated, was unacceptable.

I was particulary concerned about the listing of climate researcher Wei-Chyung Wang, who was accused of fraud by one Douglas Keenan. Keenan who has been very public about the matter, placing all the details of his case on his web site. There is a link against Wang's name to a PDF on Keenan's site containing the accusation that he submitted to Wang's university. However, it does not make it clear that Wang was cleared of any fraud by a properly-constituted committee, a fact of which Keenan is aware. Under the circumstances, I felt his listing in this article was highly inappropriate.

Without mentioning this issue specifically, I decided to remove all unsubstantiated listings. However, they were reverted a day later by an anonymous user, with no explanation. I called on the user to properly register and justify their actions in the talk page. I re-iterated my reasons for removing the names, and removed them again. They were again reverted by an anonymous user with a similar IP address.

Subsequently, a user with the handle Irbteam appeared. The user again reverted my changes, and claimed that it was up to me to justify each and every name I had removed.

I responded by pointing out that this was a preposterous claim, and that it was up to the editor to justify their inclusion, not the other way around. Irbteam claimed that the cases are "documented", but, as I pointed out, does not say where or how. The user also accused me of vandalism.

This user then seems to have engaged in some half-baked sockpuppetry, by attempting to place an anonymous comment backing up "Irbteam", without realising that the post would be automatically signed.

I do not believe this user is acting in good faith, and because of this behaviour, I began to suspect that the listings were placed maliciously, and that Wang might even have been the real target. However, I do not want to pursue this accusation - it should enough to enforce the judgement that unsubstantiated accusations should not be allowed to stand in the article.Ezzthetic (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the above
It is clear from the discussion page that it is not in dispute that cases which are not well documented or admitted should not be listed.

What IS in dispute is that Ezzthetic removed a raft of cases that are extremely well documented, and where appropriate citations were provided. It is open to Ezzthetic to discuss each entry on a case by case basis. It is not appropriate to remove whole paragraphs of perfectly satisfactory text simply because there may be an unspecified (and very justifiable) objection to one part of that text. The objection to the edits made by Ezzthetic is not that they are all inappropriate, but that the majority of them are inappropriate. Mediation is inappropriate when simple answering and point-by-point explanation of each removal would do.

If there is concern that "listing of climate researcher Wei-Chyung Wang, who was accused of fraud by one David Keenan" is not appropriate, then by all means provide a different reference for that case, or provide a reference to the supposed exoneration, or provide a counter citation (xxxxx disagreed that these documented behaviours constituted misconduct.....- ref). Random removal of unassociated text without explanation is simply used as an excuse to cloud a specific issue that seems to be of concern to Ezzthetic -- that is why his edits have not been successful over several weeks, and if he is trying to provide balance to the Wei-Chyung Wang entry (or to allow its removal) then he is going about it the wrong way.

Ezzthetic's definition of unsubstantiated seems to be that the case mentioned does not have its own Wikipedia page - that apparently is the sole criteria he had for removal of random paragraphs (including the particular case he is targeting for removal).

Comment on the above
I thank the commentor, who is one of the anonymous users who has been reverting the attempts to remove unsubstantiated accusations, for giving a superb example of the perverted logic and nonsense that has been going on on the talk page. I could not have given a better one myself.

"What IS in dispute is that Ezzthetic removed a raft of cases that are extremely well documented ..."

As I wearily repeat, it is not sufficient to state that cases are "well-documented", extremely or otherwise. You have to reference the documentation, either via links or in footnotes that can be verified.

"... and where appropriate citations were provided"

"Appropriate citations" were not provided - that is the whole problem. The commentator is using the trick of just making a bald-faced statement that is entirely untrue.

I do not have to "justify" removing an unsubstantiated accusation - the user has to justify including it. This is so obvious it is ridiculous to even have to state it.

By the way, there is certainly documentation proving Wang's exoneration, it is right there on Keenan's site. He displays it to demonstrate how corrupt and evil the committee that investigated his complaint is. If the user is so keen on linking to the document stating the accusation, why not link to the document from the committee? (Of course, I'm not suggesting actually doing this.)

There is also no "dispute". What there is is persistent tampering, sock-puppetry, and preposterous justifications of unconscionable editing practices. All of which appear to be emanating from the same ISP in London. And, I suspect, the same individual. The intention seems to be to smuggle Wang's name onto a list that has very little justification for being there in the first place.

I should also point out, I am not accusing Keenan of being the one behind this. On the contrary, as his accusation spread all over the right-wing blogosphere, it really could be anyone. In the comments section on one blog that prominently promoted Keenan's accusation, some posters were eagerly announcing their intention of joining in a campaign of harassment against Wang.

I think the best outcome would be to have the list in question either entirely removed, or severely truncated to a handful of famous and established cases. I also think that due to the sensitive nature of the issue of scientific misconduct, the page should be restricted to prevent anonymous editing.

By the way, I got Keenan's first name wrong in my entry - Sorry about that. I have fixed it (and signed my original post).Ezzthetic (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation is to be tried when editors are unable to reach a consensus. Yet you are not even attempting to work with other editors.  I gave my reason for adding Wang to the list.  You did not even respond.  That was two dayws ago, and you have since left two other comments.  As for linking to the "document from the committee", there is only one such document, and it says "there is no data" and so it supports Keenan's allegation.  Oh, you mean the document from the second committee?  I did not find that on Keenan's site.  Instead there's a FOIA application to the university, to get a copy of the document.  So Keenan does not have it, and the university has apparently not released it to him.  Why would they do that??  Maybe the article should have a section about how universities are "reluctant to prosecute star professors".  Keenan's comment about the Eastell case could be part of that section too.  But we should not be having this discussion on the mediation page.  We should be having it on the article's Talk page.  And if we cannot work things out there, then apply for mediation.  You seem to want mediation just because you cannot get everything your way immediately.  And you give the impression of doing this because you are a Wang supporter.  You should withdraw your mediation request, for now anyway.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this is a serious request for mediation, then can we suspend argument on this page and wait for a mediator, please? We can continue to try to reach consensus on the article talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the entry, it violates WP:BLP. If this is further disputed, we should go to the BLP noticeboard rather than wait for a mediator to turn up. Fences and windows (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree - sorry, I should not have responded to the commentor.Ezzthetic (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the above
I came across this recently and the list of names with little context and no citations is a bit troubling, some of the names may have more information regarding their alleged wrongdoing in their articles, but at the very least there should be an inline citation for the charge. Unomi (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, i'm here from the Mediation Cabal. I have accepted this case. This seems to be a complex issue. What I would like to see now is for all parties who are involved in the mediation to sign their name below. Firestorm Talk 06:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think that's sufficient as far as the number of parties. Could each party include a Level 4 heading below with the format ====Position of X==== ? A brief statement is preferable to a lengthy one. In addition, it would be helpful if parties did not yet reply to each other, but rather just state their own positions. We can get into the correctness of various statements once we know all sides of the matter. Firestorm Talk 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is involved?

 * Mediator Firestorm  Talk 06:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ezzthetic (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences and windows (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (I'll join. I don't have a strong opinion tho.)
 * Unomi (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know if it is appropriate for me to join, I have not previously been involved in this article.
 * itbteam (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Position of irbteam

 * 1) In my view the subject of this mediation is largely a red herring
 * 2) I have no idea of the background of the mediator and I will therefore provide some basic information in Noddy language
 * 3) Science operates according to various rules
 * 4) These rules function to safeguard the integrity of the process
 * 5) Example of such a rules are that:
 * 6) Scientific authors provide correct and full details of methodology, and do not omit parts of methodology that would cause their findings to be misinterpreted
 * 7) That scientific authors have actually seen and properly examined data, and that they couch for the reported findings
 * 8) That data are not invented
 * 9) That statistical methods are correctly described
 * 10) .... and so on.....
 * 11) Flagrant breaches of such rules constitute scientific misconduct (fraud). This is irrespective of whether such actions led to erroneous findings appearing in the literature, but it is obviously more serious if that is the case.
 * 12) There are many other ways in which the scientific literature can be distorted. For example bullying (or bribing) an academic not to publish a finding.
 * 13) The essence of science is transparency, and transparency should also be the cornerstone of the way in which science should deal with various aspects of misconduct.
 * 14) There are many flagrant examples of attempts to conceal scientific fraud or to collude with fraud (by Universities, Journals and regulatory bodies). Most plausible scientists would regard such activities as being a form of scientific fraud in and of themselves.
 * 15) This is a page about scientific fraud
 * 16) It is extremely distressing and stressful to be accused of perpetrating (or of covering up) scientific fraud. However, in most instances this can be resolved very easily (if fraud did not take place) by following the rules of science itself - through transparent disclosure and discussion.
 * 17) This mediation was brought by an individual who seemingly wishes to protect one particular scientist named on this page (Wang). In order to do this he/she removed several cases from this page, many of which are appalling instances of scientific misconduct where the perpetrators have eventually admitted their guilt. The basis for such deletion (as has been mentioned) was not on the merits or principles involved, but simply on the (random) basis of the absence of a separate Wikipedia page relating to that person.
 * 18) There is no argument that cases listed here should be well documented. Cases listed should also illustrate various principles, and it should be stated (in a sentence or two) what that principle is.
 * 19) Someone suggested that no cases should be mentioned on this page. That in my view is not a sensible suggestion. Proper discussion of the whole issue of scientific fraud (like proper discussion of a legal principle) can only ever be understood through discussion of various and varied examples.
 * 20) This could be resolved very easily by allowing the usual process of wikipedia to operate, through point by point discussion of each case. Removal of whole chunks of text is in the same spirit as simply replacing the entire article by a blank space in order to remove one sentence (or to avoid having to reference it).
 * 21) There is some merit in having an additional Wikipedia page devoted to "scientific academic scandals".

Position of Fences and windows
Information about a living person needs to be well-supported by reliable sources, especially controversial information. The addition of Wang simply doesn't fit this; it is an accusation only, which has not been widely reported in reliable sources; indeed it seems that his institution cleared him. The main citation used to support inclusion is in a journal which is seen by mainstream scientists as having partisan editors and peer review. To call a spade a spade, there is a campaign by climate change skeptics against Wang and other climate change researchers. I make no comment on the motives of anyone adding Wang's case here. Douglas Keenan, who is involved in a legal case involving Wang, has edited the talk page as User:Douglas J. Keenan (his only Wikipedia edit). More details on my view on this particular case are under Talk:Scientific_misconduct.

Generally, uncited controversial material about living people must be removed from Wikipedia immediately. We are told to "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". So removing all uncited mentions would be consistent with this, though admittedly annoying to some editors. Note for example the proposal to delete all the thousands of unsourced BLPs after 3 months:Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. We should make an effort quickly to source and summarise each scientific misconduct case, and to remove those that don't have sufficient reliable sources. I think we should also fork it to a new page, to not swamp the page.

Position of Ezzthetic
There are several issues to be considered here.

1. The appropriateness of having a section that lists scientists who have merely been accused of scientific fraud or misconduct.


 * There are two considerations:


 * The fact that someone was simply "accused" of wrong-doing is of no public interest, and is not a fitting subject for inclusion in an article about the nature of scientific fraud in general.


 * Allowing this section provides an open door to abuse - any person, whether private or academic, can list the name of someone against whom they have a personal or professional grudge, with the "out" that it is only a list of persons who have been accused. (I never said they were guilty, wink wink.)

2. Possible issues of libel or defamation. The list contained a number of listings with no substantiation whatsoever, or a link to a document that just contained the original accusation. The Wang case was egregious, because it failed to mention that he had been exonerated of any wrong-doing. Allowing this listing to stand therefore appears libellous or defamatory.

3. Scholarly issues. The list is over-long and arbitrary, and cannot be maintained. It is also does not support the article, which is supposed to be about the concept of scientific misconduct in general. It is not appropriate to attempt to give an exhaustive list of everyone who has ever been accused of misconduct. (As I mentioned in the talk page, this is not supposed to be "Fraud Accusation Central".) A handful of significant and proven cases would do.

4. The behaviour of certain editors. I clearly stated that the unsubstantiated listings were a violation of Wikipedia policy, and announced my intention to remove them. Any editor acting in good faith could have responded, and mounted a defence. Instead, the listings were continually reverted by anonymous editors with no explanation.


 * While a number of anonymous editors performed the reversions, all were using the same ISP. Although it cannot be proven, it seems probable that they are the same editor. It is not a sign of good faith to make anonymous reversions, especially regarding a topic as sensitive as this one.


 * When the origin of the edits was pointed out, several editors suddenly appeared on the talk page to defend the edits. These users seemed to have no track record prior to this, and might have merely registered to avoid having their ISP identified again. (For example, there was a subsequent comment by an anonymous editor that inadvertantly seemed to acknowledge having made the edits made by one of the registered editors.)


 * One of the registered editors appeared to be engaging in sock-puppetry, unaware that their posting would get automatically signed if they were logged in.


 * The arguments used by these by these editors, anonymous or otherwise, are obviously preposterous. We are continually told that there is massive substantiation of the accusations, but never told where it is, and that it is unfair to expect the editor to provide it. It is also claimed that the editor does not have to justify an inclusion - I have to justify removing it. (Their posts all seemed to have strangely similar tones.)

It therefore appears to me that, in addition to the inappropriateness of the content, this page is being abused by one or more users with malicious motives.Ezzthetic (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Position of FlagrantUsername
I added Wang to the list. The case seemed to be well-documented. On the Talk page, I listed three supporting sources. One of those sources was a column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Now I see WP:RS. RS says op-ed columns should be "considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact". That excludes the PPG column.

Another source was an article in NZZ. Fences and windows was against this, because it does not say there was fraud. If some article said "he chopped her head off with an ax", would you complain because it did not say "he killed her"? The NZZ article says "documentation did not even exist". It is good.

The third source was an article in Energy and Environment. I think that is good too. Fences and windows criticized the editor (""I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?"), saying the editor is wrong. Many editors are like that editor.  Look at Journal of the American Medical Association.  In an extreme case, the editor was fired.  Many other editors still objected.  The editor of Science is often biased.  See here for a recent global-warming example.  And the editor for the issue containing Keenan's article was not the Energy and Environment editor quoted anyway.

There was also a | floor speech in the U.S. Senate. That should count.

Keenan's web page also cites a book by Christopher C. Horner. That seems to count, but I am not certain.

I'm ignoring the comments of Ezzthetic. The comments should be reformulated.

WP:BLP states Wikipedia requires multiple reliable sources. The above sources seem to fit that requirement.

FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Time
Okay, we now have statements by four out of the five parties listed, and i'm assuming the fifth is no longer interested, so we'll continue without him. I recognize the following statements as valid according to my interpretation of policy:


 * 1) According to WP:BLP, controversial information about living persons needs to be well-sourced to WP:RS, or else it can be removed summarily.
 * 2) Scientific misconduct is a serious offense that falls under the heading of "controversial information."
 * 3) Wang was accused of misconduct (which we have sources for), but later completely exonerated.
 * 4) The list is for persons who were accused of scientific misconduct, but not necessarily confirmed.

So, the way I see it, we have several choices here. We can:


 * 1) include Wang as he was before this case was brought
 * 2) remove him from the list
 * 3) include Wang with a note saying he was exonerated, with reliable sources for both statements
 * 4) change the list to include only those who were confirmed to have committed fraud, and not those who were merely accused or exonerated.

Judging by the positions i've read here, two of you would be against the first solution, and two against the second. What about the third and fourth? Are there any serious objections to either my assumptions about the case or to the latter two proposed solutions? If not, we can go to the article Talk page and conduct a nonbinding straw poll. By the way, from this point on you may reply to each other as well as to me. Please remain civil, though. Firestorm Talk 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A question: do we have RS for Wang's exoneration?  The only evidence I found is a letter.  The only copy of the letter I can find on Keenan's private web site.  Does that count?  Should we ask the university to upload the letter to Wikipedia?  FlagrantUsername (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is part of the reason why I am against including Wang in particular - that no reliable sources at all refer to the investigation by his institution and his exoneration. The news sources give little detail on the investigation and only parrot Keenan, most of them not mentioning Wang by name, nor fraud, nor an investigation. The only allegedly reliable source that gives the full details is Keenan's article in Energy & Environment, but this is a fringe source run by climate skeptics, and it should not be used to assert facts about the world or about individuals, only to illustrate the position of climate skeptics. Keenan's website is self-published, and as such must not be used to make assertions about other people. We should accept that this case is not reliably sourced, and not include it. WP:BLP is quite clear that poorly sourced contentious statements must be removed, and warns us to "Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons". I'm not saying that the intent of the editors who added Wang is to be malicious, but the content is. So I support no. 2.
 * Generally, the list of scientific misconduct cases urgently needs to be much better sourced. If reliable sources exist then I can see the argument for including those who were cleared, but I am neutral on the matter, and think this needs to be discussed by more editors than just those involved in this mediation. Fences and windows (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it seems we're down to just two parties to this mediation. No matter, we'll just decide what to do and if the rest want to pop in, they're welcome to. What do both of you think would be the best solution out of the ones I proposed? Firestorm Talk 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there aren't enough reliable sources to include Wang. As for generally, I might support the inclusion of cases in which the individual was exonerated, but it is no good only writing their name with no explanation or sources. I think we need a wider discussion, possibly on the BLP noticeboard. Fences and windows (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit slow to respond.

Mediation requires that the parties involved are acting in good faith, and that there is a genuine difference of opinion which cannot be resolved through discussion. Unfortunately, I do believe this is the case here.

Irteam has a nice line in (unwarranted) condescension, but does not address any of the issues forming the basis for the call for mediation.

FlagrantUserName at least does us a favour and states that he is not addressing any of the issues. As I am the one who moved for mediation, what is the point of saying that you are ignoring my points? If you ignore them, then you are not participating in the mediation. It would be better to stop wasting everyone's time, especially if you have "no strong feelings" about the matter.

If this process is to continue, both Irteam and FlagrantUserName should be required to address my post point-for-point. Otherwise, they are simply co-opting this process for their own purposes and attempting to deflect the issues.

Additionally, these users should be required to address the accusations of vandalism and malicious behaviour, and the accusations of sock puppetry on the Talk page. An anonymous editor obviously had a watch on the page, with the intention of monitoring the section in dispute. Whoever was doing this was not acting in good faith, and clearly has some motive in trying to maintain certain names on the list, presumably with the intention of pursuing various vendettas.

I think both users should state clearly that they were not the ones responsible for this conduct, and if they were, what their motives were and what they were hoping to achieve.

The only acceptable outcome for me is the 4th option - limiting the list to confirmed cases of fraud.Ezzthetic (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sources for listing Wang are okay. If someone disputes that and wants to bring this to the BLP notice board, okay.

Wang was not found guilty tho. So I do not think listing him, per se, is important.

There might be another reason for listing Wang tho. That's the actions of his university. Are there RS for that? If not, can we get them?

Ezzthetic's comments again defame editors. For me to consider them would condone such action. Ezzthetic should reformulate her/his comments to focus on the potential edits, instead of editors. FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is going nowhere, your replies are disingenuous. You know that "someone" disputes that the sources are OK: I do, I've quite clearly stated this. If you do try to add Wang back in, I will obviously go to the BLP noticeboard, and I'll raise it at AN/I too. Your opinions that there was a problem with the actions of his university in exonerating him and that E&E is a reliable source are clear indications that you have an agenda. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You know there are insufficient reliable sources about this case, but you persist in trying to include it. BLP rules and sourcing requirements trump 'truth'. This mediation process is over as far as I'm concerned. Fences and windows (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)



Firestorm, I really appreciate your being here. And I understand that you are volunteering. The other editors, though, violated WP:DISPUTE. That policy states "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors". Had you stepped in when they violated that, perphaps things would have turned out better. In the end, they just ignored the points I raised and attacked me. That is not going to lead to a dispute resolution.

FaW, I interpret your last comment as implying that you want me to take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. I will do so. Before that, tho, there should be a summary. I have added a new section to the article Talk page. If you, or any other edtior, makes any edits to that section that violate WP:DISPUTE in any way, I will delete your entire edit. If you persist, I will report you. Once you have recorded your objections to the sources, I will post about this on the Noticeboard.

FlagrantUsername (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, we are supposed to focus exclusively on content, and anything else is an assumption of bad faith. I believe everyone here is trying to improve the article, but they can sometimes get carried away. If this is going to work, everybody needs to deal exclusively with the inclusion of people who have not been convicted, and whether it violates WP:BLP and WP:V. My ideal solution to this is to turn the entire list into people who were confirmed to have breached scientific ethics, not just those who were accused or later exonerated. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet said why that's not a viable solution that would make all this go away. Anybody? Firestorm  Talk 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore any of FlagrantUsername's points. Threatening to delete comments is unacceptable, see CIVIL. Threatening to report me is hardly going to help either, and for what exactly? Being blunt? I've already made my position clear: for Wang, the case violates BLP, and too few of the details are verifiable using reliable sources. "My ideal solution to this is to turn the entire list into people who were confirmed to have breached scientific ethics, not just those who were accused or later exonerated. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet said why that's not a viable solution that would make all this go away." I've said I agree with this, but I also think it should be discussed by more than just a handful of editors. Fences and windows (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I appreciate Firestorm taking on this mediation, but mediation only works if one or both parties is willing to shift on the content dispute. That clearly isn't happening. Fences and windows (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with including only confirmed cases in the list is that some universities refuse to prosecute their own professors. An example was given on the Talk page about Eastell.  Eastell supposedly admitted fraud.  Yet his university does nothing.  With Wang, the university's own inquiry concluded that "there was no data" .  Yet Wang's university seems to have exonerated him.  A recent case reported in the NY Times is Timothy Kuklo .  The editor of the research journal even retracted the paper.  The university is doing nothing.  I would like to see the article discuss this problem with universities.  Wang would be cited in that disucssion (if we all agree).  Then having the list be confirmed-only is fine by me.  FlagrantUsername (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FaW, I'm glad you replied to my points on the Talk page. I'll reply here.
 * 1. Your reply wholely ignores my reason for why I think the NZZ article mentions fraud.  I continue to believe the article does support fraud.  But, I am guilty here too.  I did not realize that the article also does not mention Wang (even tho you said so before).  I now agree.  The article does not mention Wang, and for that reason it shouldn't count.
 * 2. The Australian opinon piece is raving with unsupported or just wrong statements.  E.g. "Precision measurements have been made daily since 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a mountain-top site with a clear airflow unaffected by local pollution. The data is in excellent agreement with ice cores from several sites in Antarctica and Greenland."  No.  It takes decades for the ice to form from snow.  The signal is smeared.  Etc.  And if E&E published a paper claiming "CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942", he should give the reference.  Criticism from someone like that is an endorsement.  As for NZH, I agree with what is quoted.  I gave an example above with Science magazine.  Your third quote is from Stephen Schneider.  Read his WP bio.  He says that it is good to lie about global warming, in order to scare people into acting.  So he dislikes E&E because it won't lie.  Again, this is an endorsement.  And then you think Deltoid is a good source???  And Paul Thacker??????  Why don't you cite Taliban clergy on religion?
 * 3. Your criticism here needs substantiation.  You give none.  But, after I read the text on Google books (see link), I found out that all the author does is quote Keenan.  So this is not an independent source.  It shouldn't count.
 * 4. Again, this doesn't mention Wang.  So I now agree that it shouldn't count.


 * We agree on 3 of the 4. WP needs multiple RS for BLP. So Wang should not be mentioned by name.
 * I would still like to have a section that discusses universities reluctance to prosecute. Maybe this could mention Wang's university.
 * FlagrantUsername (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we not have both of you agreeing that Wang should not be listed in the article. Nobody objects, either, to turning the list onto confirmed cases only (in this case, a confession is just as good as a conviction, for BLP concerns). As far as having more people look at it, that's fine if you want that, but as far as mediation is concerned only the two of you seem interested. For a section that discusses reluctance to prosecute, I think it might be a good idea, but also outside the scope of this mediation. So, since we're all in agreement about what the solution should be, can we consider this matter closed? Firestorm Talk 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can agree that only confirmed cases should be included. The problem is - how do we enforce this decision? Several of us made this point already in the Talk page, and gave sufficient time for anyone to object. However, attempting to make this change just resulted in a knee-jerk reversion from an anomymous editor.
 * FlagrantUsername's suggestion that we include a section on Universitys' supposed reluctance to prosecute (and possibly mentioning Wang's institution ...) is irrelevant to the terms of this mediation, and just sounds like an attempt to smuggle the Wang case in through the back door.Ezzthetic (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing that's been agreed is that there aren't multiple independent reliable sources for Wang. Attempting more would be beyond the scope of this mediation.  Even if more had been agreed, tho, that can't be enforced.  You'd have to find a way to persuade other editors to also agree.   FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, thanks for rejoining us. I thought you had left the mediation. As far as enforcing it, it might be true that it is beyond the scope of this mediation. However, if we come to consensus here, we can open up an RfC on the matter, which would be enforceable. Are you saying you disagree with limiting it to confirmed cases? Firestorm  Talk 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Earlier I gave examples, such as Kuklo, that are not confirmed but that I'd like to see discussed. Maybe that discussion  could be in a new section.  But so far, that section doesn't exist.  Unless it exists, I would disagree with limiting to confirmed cases.  If someone wants to add the section, I would like to see it before agreeing.  (This goes beyond current mediation tho.) FlagrantUsername (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Firestorm, Ezzthetic initiated this mediation. So s/he would have to say if it is closed.  I believe that it should be tho.  Thank you for this!  FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, Ezzthetic initiated. However, he hadn't commented in quite a while, so I was under the impression that he had left it. Though, the beauty of informal mediation is that there's no strict procedure, and if we accomplish what we need to, we can close it at any time. Firestorm  Talk 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems interested in this anymore. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep it open, i'll close this medcab case in 5 days. Firestorm Talk 02:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)