Tol on Ward on Wiki

51MCnRFiuwL._SY496_BO1,204,203,200_ Richard Tol, not content with a quiet and peaceful life, is having fun on wiki. He’s trying to add a “criticism” section to the [[Bob Ward]] page, featuring the exciting adventures of… yes, you’ve guessed it, one R Tol:

In 2014, Ward was accused by Professor [[Richard Tol]] of conducting a smear campaign against him…

And so on. In a desperate attempt to stuff this in, he’s tried changing the section title from “criticism” to “communication style” but that obviously won’t fly. More popcorn on the talk page.

Tee hee

Update: its getting better; as ATTP predicted, Tol doesn’t know when to stop beating a dead horse; at Wikipedia:Third opinion:

#[[Talk:Bob Ward (communications director)]] : Subject of the page seems to have called on his mates to remove anything negative about him. [[User:Rtol|Richard Tol]] ([[User talk:Rtol|talk]]) 10:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So, for the LULZ. Tol gets the reply

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed (in effect, declined) because the issue stated at the request page has not been discussed here and thorough discussion is a prerequisite to receiving a 3O, but more importantly the request dealt with conduct, not contents, and 3O’s are not available for conduct issues. For conduct issues, speak to an administrator or file a report at ANI. Finally, 3O’s are only available for disputes involving exactly two editors and there are more than that involved here. If you wish dispute resolution, limited only to content issues, consider DRN but frankly there really needs to be more discussion here before seeking outside help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching)

There’s a couple of aspects here:

# Tol has been declined in part because he deliberately phrased the request in a snarky way, such that it becomes a conduct issue, and he’s being taken literally. Tol didn’t bother read the page guidelines. 3O is for neutrally-phrased content disputes; had Tol written “Should anything negative about him be included?” he might have had a chance; except…
# 3O is for getting a third opinion when two people can’t agree. Not when more than two people can’t agree.
# also, he’s being told that he’s impatient, and should try talking more.

Don’t miss the next exciting installment of Tol vs The World.

Update: help

Already, Tol’s campaign is attracting enthusiastic supporters.

Refs

* A review of “Greenhouse Effect and the Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere” by Ferenc Miskolczi (thanks to Eli): This manuscript is gibberish and should be rejected. There is no conceivable revision that could render it publishable. It repeats and builds on a foundation of gibberish that the author has previously managed to get published in fourth
tier journals such as E&E with no effective peer review, and builds on it with more gibberish… Despite having been frequently informed of what is wrong with his argument, Miskolczi continues to shop this work around, presumably in the hope of eventually finding reviewers gullible or lazy enough to let it through. I do not really know the author’s motivations, but this is certainly a shameless abuse of the peer review system
.
* 8 Out of 10 Cats Wrong, Says Professor Richard Tol
* Double Trouble: For Whom the Tol Bells: and What 2014 El Nino is that? (Sou) to Scientists Respond To Tol’s Misrepresentation Of Their Consensus Research (RealSkeptic).

30 thoughts on “Tol on Ward on Wiki”

  1. Isn’t the real question: Why is Ward relevant for Wikipedia?

    [The Ward page is very thin. Tol might have more luck AFD’ing it as NN; but that might just lead to it being filled, so would be risky -W]

    Like

  2. Do we know who all of the four Professors and bestselling science writer who’ve complained about Ward are? The names I can see on the talk page are Pielke Jr, Tol, Lindzen, and Ridley. Not sure if those really are the relevant names, and – if they are – who the fourth Professor is, but 3 of those 4 have a formal association with the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    Like

  3. You’re being a bit unfair to RTol, the opening stuff you quote was added back in January by the recently topic banned Tillman.

    Tol highlighted this problem by adding more Nasty Things contrarians had said about Ward.

    The strategy is all too evident on Wikipedia, find stuff like that and claim that someone, in this case Ward, has no credence because all these bigwigs have been rude about him. Then use that to discredit Ward’s useful writings about climate change denial. Tol didn’t start it, and others are more persistent. Probably.

    [I don’t think I am being unfair. Tol did add it; that he was only “re” adding some of it is irrelevant. Tol is clearly a hypocrite; plenty of people have said disparaging things about him, but I don’t see him rushing to add them to his page -W]

    Like

  4. Balance on Wikipedia seems to mean that for every negative quote there needs to be a positive one, but although many people have written negative things about Mr Ward, I can’t seem to find any positive ones.

    [You misunderstand wiki. I can explain, if you’re interested. But I notice you haven’t replied to my comment. If we postulate that you’re acting in a fair and unbiased manner, rather than a partisan one, it would be natural for you to add negative commentary to your own wiki page; why don’t you want to do that? -W]

    Like

  5. If we postulate that you’re acting in a fair and unbiased manner, rather than a partisan one, it would be natural for you to add negative commentary to your own wiki page; why don’t you want to do that?
    Yes, a very good question. I look forward to hearing the answer.

    Like

  6. Do I really need to tell people that it is against Wikipedia rules to write much about yourself?

    [I’m sure no-one would mind if you added criticism. But if you’re aware of the COI rules, why are you adding what you said to Ward’s page? You are writing about yourself – that you’re doing it on a different page makes no difference -W]

    I was almost banned for life for having the temerity to correct the place I grew up in.

    [No you weren’t. Why are you lying? You know I’ll check -W]

    @Marco
    Ward found that we had typed 4.9 instead of 4.8, and that warrants an acknowledgement.

    Like

  7. Response,
    Ward found that we had typed 4.9 instead of 4.8, and that warrants an acknowledgement.
    There are reasons to think that Ward may have done more than simply that, but your response does seem rather ironic given that you felt the need to post this.

    Like

  8. I don’t know why I wrote Response, rather than Richard above. I imagine it could have been a much worse slip than that 🙂

    Like

  9. Ken:
    Think what you like. Maybe Ward discovered other issues by himself, maybe he claimed credit for other people’s work. Fact is, 4.8 v 4.9 was the only one that was news to me.

    Like

  10. Richard,
    That was rather secondary. Did you miss the link that highlighted your recent need to point out who the “anonymous reader” was in another person’s correction. Strange that you don’t see the need to name the person in your correction, but do on someone else’s. Are you the arbitrer of when it’s right and when it’s not? (that question was rhetorical, in case that wasn’t obvious)

    Oh, and since you’re commenting here. Am I right in thinking that if I delete any of your comments on my blog, you’ll go and whine to my university, like you did last time?

    Like

  11. All rather strange. In October 2013, Bob Ward pointed out that Richard had got Chris Hope’s estimate wrong (using +0.9, instead of – 0.9). Then in April 2014 Bob Ward talks aboute errors in the estimates of the aggregate economic impacts of climate change. Andrew Gelman seems to credit Bob Ward with providing a convenient list of errors and data sources. Seems as though Bob Ward highlighted more than simply one trivial error, but – hey – what do I know. It’s the dismal science 🙂

    Like

  12. The BLP guidelines are pretty clear on being very careful about including negative statements on somebody’s wikipedia entry. Seems pretty clear Tol hasn’t read them since he seems to think what he needs to do is find “positive” statements to balance the negative ones, rather than only including very strongly sourced statements of that sort.

    [The idea that you achieve a balanced article by adding “balancing” +ve and -ve seems quite common;but its wrong -W]

    Like

  13. [The idea that you achieve a balanced article by adding “balancing” +ve and -ve seems quite common;but its wrong -W]

    Imagine the great trivia this would create. The world would finally here of Stalin winning the 6th grade spelling bee, and that Nelson Mandela was rubbish at darts.

    Like

  14. Blast, I’ve realised that I misread Richard’s response to Marco. I thought it was phrased as a question, rather than a statement. So, Richard choosing to name the “anonymous reader” on someone else’s correction isn’t as inconsistent as I suggested. There are, however, other words to describe it, but I’ll refrain from saying what they are 🙂

    Like

  15. We’ve all read those lurid novels with an arrogant professor. Sure he is the smartest thing in the world, rude, firmly ensconced in the ivory tower. Makes stupid mistakes, never willing to acknowledge fault, endangers the team, destined to be eaten by the dinosaur.

    I used to think that this was a stupid, lazy meme. Now I just realize the authors knew Richard Tol.

    Like

  16. Same IP as added Doctor before ‘who’ on the positives. Maybe this person feels they have to have appropriate balance in their vandalism 😛

    [As a way of not taking it seriously, an incidentally pointing out that no-one else is paying attention, its good -W]

    Like

  17. “[As a way of not taking it seriously, an incidentally pointing out that no-one else is paying attention, its good -W]”

    Do Not Feed the Tol?

    [Tut tut. You can now no longer pretend not to have seen it 🙂 -W]

    Like

  18. Perhaps I can provide some background that sheds light on Richard Tol’s obsession with my entry. I recently spotted a number of errors in his contribution to Springer’s Handbook on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. I sent an email to Prof Tol to alert him to this, but he would not acknowledge it, but did send an email to the Ditector of LSE complaining about me. So I was forced to alert the editors of the Handbook. They are currently reviewing Prof Tol’s chapter, ‘Who Benefits and Who Loses From Climate Change’. Prof Tol is well known to throw his toys out of his cot whenever someone points out errors in his work. His campaign against Frank Ackerman is well documented but I now seem to be the new subject of his obsession, which includes circulating a picture on Twitter of me with the mocked up hair if one of the Jedward twins: https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardTol/status/441334038159044608/photo/1

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s