From Lar’s talkapage:
The solution isn’t to pick the faction you think is disadvantaged and try to give it a boost, nor (as I think you’re doing in this case) to pick the faction which you think is unfairly advantaged and try to take it down a peg. The solution is to create a viable middle ground, and to incentivize editors to occupy that middle ground. The best defense against factionalism is a strong middle ground of reasonable editors who will resist being pulled too far in either direction. But the conditions need to be created and maintained so that such a middle ground can exist, because the natural pull on a controversial issue is always going to be towards the extremes.
A fine sounding position, if only you walked the walk. Please, tell us what you have ever done of any substance to foster such an environment? I would welcome such a place as I think most of those trying to edit from the skeptical position would as well.
No I fear, MastCell, that while you may believe this because it sounds nice I just don’t see how you have taken any action to make it be so. When you have taken action it has been against those seeking to bring balance to these articles. You thwart the efforts of those who are attempting to build the middle ground of which you speak.
I recognize that you view me, personally, as being a pure partisan. A battleground promoter who refuses to compromise. And indeed this is how I have acted, but out of necessity not out of desire. I can certainly find common ground and agree to compromise when I am dealing with reasonable people. The current faction who controls the climate change articles, however, are not visibly acting as reasonable people.
They refuse to compromise. They dig in on every issue no matter how small. They constantly maintain a blockade against change … change that is required to find that middle ground. Or are you of the opinion that the current articles already represent that middle ground nirvana to which you allude? If so then you are more a part of the problem than you realize. I don’t believe that you or any of the others are acting in bad faith, but I do believe that you (collectively) are incapable of recognizing your own biases.
I am curious, MastCell, where is this middle ground that you speak of? What is your vision for what that should be? Reasonable people want to know. What do you intend to do to be that change that you feel needs to be made (assuming you at least agree that change is required)?
Rather than talking the talk, MastCell, show us how you can walk the walk here. Thus far the only actions I can recall from you were to back the actions of the faction that currently controls the climate change articles. Have you taken actions which could be construed as ever supporting the positions of those who disagree with that faction? Supporting the actions of one faction and failing to ever support (and at times acting to thwart) the actions of the opposing faction(s) does not appear to be in line with creating and fostering a middle ground. On the contrary, it would seem to suggest that your words are merely empty rhetoric showing you talking the talk but never actually walking the walk.
Please show me where I am wrong here. Show me where you feel you have made substantial efforts to foster a compromise between these factions. Where have you tried to identify and carve out that middle ground? I invite you to reply here on the blog since, as you know, I am unable to engage you on-wiki in any reasonable fashion.
I would ever so appreciate it if someone would convey a pointer to this to MastCell either on his talk page or via his Wikipedia email. Thanks.