Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley

I notice that, weirdly, ZP5 has ref'd Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley under "inciviltiy". All of those requets were wrong, and none had anything to do with incivility. This case is likely to have quite enough confusion in it, what is the point in bringing in obvious irrelevance? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed the links and cannot comment on the content, but it says they are offered as examples of editors commenting about your behaviour, which presumably they did whether the charge was proven or not. It seems though that if that is the case, specific diffs of useful comments would have been better. Charges without specific diffs have been referred to on various boards as "mud slinging" I think. Weakopedia (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Looks like ZP5 has seen sense [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, per WP:NPA, I don't see how comments like "weirdly" and "ZP5 has seen sense" address the topic at hand, which is your civility. As always, please stay focused on content and avoid discussing the users, which may help you avoid disruptive inappropriate comments WP:TALK. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

focused on content and avoid discussing the users - for someone who has jsut added 70 diffs *only* addressing user issues, that it deeply ironic William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic, that you as the subject here, who purports to care about the project and the length of this case, has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles. But, may chose defend to the end, taking the community time with them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait. WMC asked a valid question, Weakopedia clarified, and ZP5 removed. Let's leave it at that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Err no. I asked why ZP5 added some obvious irrelevance; Weakopedia said something wrong; then ZP5 removed the irrelevance. There is no clarification in Weakopedia's comment, just muddying of the waters. Meanwhile, has not voluntarily removed or corrected themselves in the climate change articles is incomprehensible William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether you found Weakopedia's comment to be helpful or not is a different matter, but the fact remains that nonconstructive back-and-forths have no place here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change RFE references

Would be easier (and more accurate) to simply link ALL of the filings with a summary of the case. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Easier who and for what purpose? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For the purpose of not trying to equate scientific knowledge, no matter how inconvenient some of it is, with just one person. --Nigelj (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how your statement is relevant? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ZP5's evidence

ZP5 has spammed so many diffs it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll begin at the beginning. The first two of his diffs are:

• [2]. Someone asks if the page is suitable for PR; I say no, since it fails stability, having just come off page prot. There is no incivility there (while we're on the PR request, the reviews incomprehension of what ZP5 is trying to say - see Wikipedia:Peer review/Scientific opinion on climate change/archive1 - is instructive).
• [3] No incivility there either.

In short, ZP5 appears to have submitted a meaningless list of harmless diffs, rpesumably as mudflinging William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm puzzled at exactly what one is supposed to read into this diff from the list submitted by ZuluPapa5. Maybe he could enlighten us as to how this demonstrates problematic editing? MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Each diff demonstrates WMC objections with his "no" or "not" language. In each example WMC has written "no" or "not". Together they show he's highly objectionable in this single article. Would you have a suggestion as to how I could improve the presentation of this point? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find a diff where WMC avoided "no" or "not" in his language, then I will remove it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) attempting to ban the word "no" from wiki is unlikely to be fruitful (b) MastCell has already provided you with such a diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait... so saying "no" or "not" is uncivil? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior, which is in contrast to Wikipedia guidance on WP:OWN and principles of WP:COPY. If you contribute, you must offer consent and compromise to other's reasonable changes without your OR. In addition, above all you must consent to civil means. I suggest providing evidence that shows collaboration to counter this claim. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no need to compromise with wrong position, and such a claim is outright nonsense. And that does not change if the same nonsense comes up once or thousands of times, and disagreeing with it is no more false or uncivil the thousands time than the first time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistently endorsing that WMC is the owner of the correct POV, is my cause for concern with Stephan Schulz. Such a view would produce climate change articles that have WMC's narrow POV. Generally, the false precendent here is that the owners of the correct POV are entitled to treating others badly to exclude their sourced POV, by some expert status, but for civility. This is the essence of authoritarianism. Thankfully, i have faith Wikipedia is better than that and holds a high value on civil behavior to achieve a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "consistently endorsing the fact that WMC is the owner of the correct POV" - that's nonsense. I'm sharing with him and all the major academies of science, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature, a certain broad view on climate change. I cannot parse your second sentence. But simply attaching a source to a statement does not make it verifiable. The source also needs to support the statement. And it needs to be a reliable, non-fringe source, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How does using the words "no" and "not" violate WP:COPY again? I'm becoming more, rather than less, confused. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious objecting (i.e. excessive no and not) indicates authoritative ownership behavior. WP:OWN stems from WP:COPY see WP:5 where is says editors do not own their content (to the point of tendentious). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ZP5, I'd like to make sure I understand your concerns. Is your main point that WMC has made too many comments that use the words "no" and "not"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Try ... my concern is WMC and WP:OWN in case you didn't hear that. The "no" and "not" is symptomatic of an editor who demands rights to control the content without compromise. "Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the 'owner of a particular article." Would you, or any one else, suggest any other way to demonstrate WMC's article ownership concerns? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of your evidence section says hostile, not alledged ownership. I got confused by your evidence as the examples were not hostile or abusive. You probably need to consider changing the title of your evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically this subsection title "Example of WMC hostile edits in a single article" confused me a little. Anyhow, looks like the talk page throughout this arbcom is going to be endless arguing. Sigh.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) I agree with Lg and others who have expressed concern. As far as I can tell there are a few problematic diffs there, but they get lost in the dozens you posted, and it's still not clear to me what exactly you mean by "no and not". Perhaps you should organize and formulate your evidence in your private userspace before posting here. There is going to be a ton of evidence in this case, and we have to be sure to keep it as clear and concise as possible. ATren (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, excessive negativity is hostile, a bad karma king of thing. Who but an owner would require such uncivil means in wikipedia to work with others by abruptly negating their contributions, with revert first, talk later. I agree, the presentation can be improved. Thanks for the feed back. Think of the child who says "no, no, no you can not play in my sandbox", then calls you names. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You ask who, and I would say, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. A modern, advanced and complex scientific discipline, like climate science, is not equivalent a child's plaything. We do not all have an equal ability (or right) to be able to join in such a process without any particular knowledge or expertise. That right is earned by long, hard study, application, dedication, reading, practising, discussion and so on. The climate science articles are not a sandbox. --Nigelj (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do WMC's rights to treat other editors uncivilly with personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and plain rudely biting newbies come from?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I suggest you put something like this as a proposed finding of fact/principle later... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely wikipedia should prize "good karma" over scientifically accurate articles? Doesn't that go without saying? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Again for IDHT, I have faith that Wikipedia prizes civility to produce a NPOV. Karma says ...where there is smoke, there is fire.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest this thread has long passed its use-by date? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

SHould we assume the arbs have read it? They maintain their usual cryptic silence so it is hard to know William M. Connolley (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Part II - the socks!

Re [4]. Apparently I'm now responsible for some unknown individual creating socks to impersonate me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. Strange days indeed William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate how uncivil behavior can breed further uncivil behavior (i.e. karma, with smile). Better responsibility with your POV, would benefit the articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're making excuses for sockpuppeteers? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I pray to make you aware of how your behavior affects others. The earth's future rests in civility before climate science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all parties that this page is for the discussion of evidence, not discussion of each other. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That SPI request is languishing. Do we have no CU's reading any of these pages who might perhaps help out? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since GoRight SPI questions have been brought up here, this is his response to the charges. ATren (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you seem awfully eager to push this Cu ... a little too eager of you ask me. WVBluefield (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is moot, since the checkuser has been completed and the case archived. The socks in question were generally using open proxies to camouflage any link to existing accounts, so not much else can be said definitively. Perhaps we can move on? MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd how you keep on pushing an incomplete version of the facts MastCell. The checkuser did in fact find a residential IP used by the socks - and it was apparently not close to GoRight's location. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Should User:GoRight be unblocked and allowed to participate here?

User:GoRight is i.m.o. a good example of how a sceptical editor can develop into a "problem editor" from the point of view of other editors. Having him participate here could give a better perspective on how and why this happens. The tendency is to say that such editors who have been blocked are "disruptive editors". But I think we should look beyond that see if having better rules can make it less likely that editors start to behave in problematic ways in the future. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he wanted a Climate Change Arbcom case, and was caught in a vindictive ban while seeking one. His ban should be injuncted. He didn't bring this case. He's been on good behavior, he has a very strong respect for Wikipedia principles. His POV is irrelevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GoRight has commented on this issue at his blog. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CI. GoRight perfectly demonstrates how good faith editors are hounded for years and eventually banned for responding badly to the baiting. Though I'm not sure I support unbanning for this case -- it would probably cause too much of a distraction from the main issues, and he probably wouldn't go for it anyway given his comments on his blog (he indicates he fully intends to serve out his ban). I think it would be best to deal with GoRight's mistreatment here in a completely separate case, since it's bound to be very large in terms of evidence. ATren (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's participation in dispute resolution was consistently unproductive and problematic - in fact, I think that was one of the major reasons for his ban. As such, I don't think unbanning him to participate in an ArbCom case is likely to help matters in any way. As best I can tell, his ban has been the subject of extensive review, up to and including the ArbCom ban-review panel, and so I'm not sure what stones are left to be productively turned over on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If GoRight would care to draft something, I would consider entering it in this case. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you not do so, since it would perfectly fit the definition of proxying for a banned user. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that if this user is banned and wants to contribute evidence that he should contact ArbCom and let them decide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

THat is the correct way to do things. ZuluPapa5, do not edit by proxy for banned or blocked editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the diff. I've had no contact with GoRight since he was banned. It's up to him, my motion is a place holder in good faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

HIP, I appreciation the corrections; however, technically best to talk here so others may not be tempted to invade my space. Clerks, I am ok with HIP edits. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Heyitspeter, it's better to discuss perceived errors in someone's contribution rather than edit it for them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this was discussed on my talkpage. tl;dr: I'm sorry about that. Selftrouted. (And one of my 'corrections' was incorrect!) --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz evidence

The evidence on Stephan Schulz is illuminating, could you provide a diff? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link about the SS. I hope this link makes it clear that that is not an appropriate way to refer to someone. But I suspect you are looking for the source of Cla68's evidence on the main page - not that your request makes this clear. Cla has provided a (mislabeled) link to the diff in the attribution of the quote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. In addition, I found your original diff Cla68. Stephan Schulz you may remove your misunderstanding. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which misunderstanding? And please, if you absolutely need to edit text someone has replied to, use strikeout or leave a clear comment. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Partiality

I notice that JWB has put in his evidence against PG:

User:Polargeo, an administrator, has been repeatedly disruptive... This complaint resulted in sanctions for disruption on the WP:GSCCRE page [5]

This seems curiously partial: somehow, the "sanction" that Lar received in the same RFE doesn't deserve a mention. Could it perhaps be the case that JWB is happy to excuse behaviour from "his side" that he considers sanctionable in others? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of adding evidence on Polargeo, and I don't consider the evidence to be final until the deadline for submitting evidence passes, so what's there now should be regarded as a draft. I may add to and subtract from it. Somehow, somehow, I feel there will be someone out there who will be alleging violations of some behavioral policy by Lar. Quite possibly you or Polargeo or both or someone else. Hasn't Polargeo already done so? I have limited time and a lot of concerns. And I have no obligation to bring up complaints against all editors, now do I? I'm sure that somehow ArbCom members will get wind that editors would like them to look into Lar's actions, and that is very likely to happen without my assistance. Since you seem to have a standard that complaining editors here need to complain about everyone, I eagerly await your complaints about Polargeo's behavior, and his complaints about yours. As it stands now, I don't know of any behavior on Lar's part that warrants an ArbCom sanction, and I'm not going to waste my time investigating Lar based on your recommendation. You're already wasting my time. Surely a scientifically knowledgeable person such as yourself has better things to do on Wikipedia than pester editors with contrived standards of fairness. Personally, I'm much happier dealing with content than making complaints about other editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're already wasting my time. Hmm, interesting comment. Obviously you don't regard that as incivil. It isn't clear to me why calling you out for clear partiallity is a waste of time. Surely a scientifically knowledgeable person such as yourself has better things to do on Wikipedia than pester editors with contrived standards of fairness - Thank you for the ack; however I'm not seeing the "contrived" aspect. I think your vehemence here is a tacit acknowledgement of a hit. Personally, I'm much happier dealing with content than making complaints about other editors - then I suggest you do so William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@WMC, I think the proper way to respond is to present the evidence you think is missing. This is where each side argues their own case; to expect a balanced treatment is unrealistic. @JWB, the "you're already wasting my time" comment is unhelpful, as is the sarcasm in the following sentence. How about if both of you pull in your horns and focus on presenting your own evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't sarcastic. I do believe there's a scientifically knowledgeable person behind that keyboard, just as I believe he's pestering about contrived standards of fairness, and who doesn't believe he's wasting my time? I'd be quite happy for him to edit some science article related to climate change. The bald facts are much more bizarre than any sarcasm I could scare up. Oh, look at the time. Got some diffs to gather. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy with JWBs diffs. They are a good cross section of some of the complaints I have had with Lar's actions as an enforcement admin. Yes they are clearly a smear to discredit my integrity but I genuinely believe Lar's actions in CC enforcement to have been motivated by misconceptions and an attempt to push forward his preferred version of CC articles through attempting to eliminate those who he personally regards as disruptive (ie the "science cabal") Lar then ends up with a rag tag bunch of supporters some of whom are exactly the sort of nutcases he then ends up having to deal with in sanctions. It is a terrible situation. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whom are you calling a "Nutcase"? mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not you Mark Polargeo (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• It seems this section was initiated to note that someone was presenting evidence about only a limited number of individuals. Please remember that editors are encouraged not to be repetitious or to duplicate each other's efforts; there is no obligation for any person providing evidence to try to analyse every aspect of the disputes that relate to this topic area and, if someone actually tried to present that amount of evidence, they'd be asked to refactor. Given the number of potential participants, we are fairly certain that just about every aspect will be covered by someone; if, near the end of the evidence phase, somebody feels there is a noticeable gap in the evidence relating to some aspect, they can probably fill in that gap in their own evidence section. Risker (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. The point I was trying to illuminate, and which you missed, was whether JWB was attempting an honest and impartial evaluation; or if he was a strongly partisan witness. If the answer is "oh of course it is obvious he is partial" then there is nothing to worry about. Perhaps you could help, by indicating whether you think JWB is partial? JWB could alos help, by answering the same William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be helpful: Everybody involved who is presenting evidence is assumed to be partial as a matter of course. The diffs and quotes kinda help with that ol' "Trust but verify" thing. You must never have been involved in an ArbCom case before, right? Because otherwise it would be obvious to you. And just to help build trust between us, William M. Connolley, I do want to assure you that I try to be fair, even if I'm in a partisan position. Rather than fret over it, why not just attend to the evidence, and if you have a defense, present it. I doubt that raising questions about my partiality will make a difference. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody involved who is presenting evidence is assumed to be partial as a matter of course - I disagree. As for trying to be fair - that was what this section was about; your response doesn't suggest you are trying, quite the reverse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I'm sure your example will be a fine model for me to follow. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The editing environment created by some users pushes NPOV editors out of the arena?

If this is intended as evidence of that, then evidence of good quality editors leaving would be helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the diff posted in that section before commenting on it, as it is an example of an editor interested in maintaining a neutral point of view leaving as a direct result of the deleterious editing environment created by certain editors in the topic area. I present yours truly as another example of an editor that avoids the topic area because of the extremely hostile and unabashedly POV atmosphere that persists there, though I am sure you'll argue that I do not meet your "editor of good quality" condition.

You've seen plenty others leave yourself, and given that the average user won't try to step in only to get pushed out, but will rather never step in in the first place, I think it's safe to say that 'many editors interested in maintaining a neutral point of view are shunted from the topic area as a result of the editing environment created by some users'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall any good editors leaving (actually TS springs to mind, but he left because of the "skeptics" like you). Nor can I recall any useful edits by you to any of the science pages. TGE is a disaster area, but not of my making. You can blame MN for that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not a skeptic. I am a strong believer in the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and in fact believe that denying its reality borders on absurdity. However, I am interested in presenting a neutral point of view, and have found that this endeavor for neutrality places me against many editors that self-identify as 'proponents' of anthropogenic climate change, such as yourself. (I will not be responding further on this talk page.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blame me for what? mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that a more precise term than "NPOV editor" be used? Most of us strive to maintain a neutral point of view, but our interpretation of how to go about that differs. (Leaving aside the philosophical question of whether it's possible for any individual to be truly neutral.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

'NPOV editor' seems fine to me, taken intuitively to mean 'an editor who edits in deference to WP:NPOV'. I.e., users that consider themselves pro-AGW qua editors are not 'NPOV editors'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of anybody who considers themself a 'pro-AGW editor'. Some people are 'pro scientific facts' editors, and some are 'pro scientific consensus' editors, and some are 'pro scientific method' editors. I think that is only to be expected in the current century. --Nigelj (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What does "pro-AGW" mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But many of the issues have nothing to do with the science -- for example, the long-term insertion of blog sources in BLPs, by the group you call "pro-science". ATren (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, do you actually know what the scientific method is? Scientific method feel free to refresh your memory mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, especially Scientific method#Peer review evaluation. Also, I found WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Have a good day. --Nigelj (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Were in my question to you was anything "insulting or disparaging"? I thought this part Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. was most interesting, how about you? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was pushed out of editing the Global Warming article by WMC four years ago. I kept it under observation and returned six-months or so ago because I saw that the same behavior that pushed me away had continued and showed no signs of abating. Cla68 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here[6] is a link to the discussion where you say you were "pushed out." To me it looks like you were challenged for making arguments based on your personal opinion unsupported by sources (except for science fiction writer Michael Crichton). I don't question that you might have felt "pushed out" by being held accountable for your assertions; we each see events through our own lens. Readers can review that discussion and decide for themselves though I suspect opinions will fall along the usual partisan lines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That link seems to be to a whole page. Which section did you have in mind?

• The one where Count Iblis suggests "avoid the sentence "... is a theory not fact"." in rather an abrupt manner (an interesting interpretation of the scientific method, to be sure... AGW is a theory. Widely accepted with no significant countertheory given serious consideration, but a theory nonetheless)
• The one where WMC starts a comment to Cla with "Deeerrrr..." and ends his next comment with "You've made a pile of the conventional sort of errors; hopefully you'll be able to learn from them"
• The one where WMC declaims "Crichton is cr*p."

Or perhaps some other section? Fortunately in the span of 4 years Cla has learned to sign his name correctly, hopefully in a way that WMC will find satisfactory. Has WMC learned to be collegial yet? I think what matters more is what the non partisan editors see when they read that... a big heaping pile of nastiness. If I wanted to make the case that this is somehow Cla's fault, I'd try harder to find examples of WMC being reasonable, polite, and collegial, it will bolster the case. Assuming they exist, that is. Which assumes facts not (yet?) in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar's latest set of bad faith and hypocrisy has certainly induced me to leave. Hal peridol (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Query to clerks and arbitrators

How should Evidence be related to the questions that various people have raised on the Workshop page? Specifically, will the committee give any guidance as to which of those questions they will address and (more importantly) which are out of bounds? The instructions state that "having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals." From this I assumed that the committee would respond as to which questions they considered suitable for more detailed discussion in the evidence and workshop phases. This is one of the reasons that I've held off presenting evidence, because I don't want to clutter the page with material the committee has no interest in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Question for Arbitrators/Clerks

Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but that discussion does not address my query. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

I wanted to request that Guettarda, in his section titled Contrary to news presentations skeptics represent a tiny minority among climate scientists, give an example of a news presentation of skeptics as not representing just a tiny minority among climate scientists. It'd make the section complete and I'd be independently curious to read the requested article assuming it exists.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You did read the section above it, right? The one that explains why news reports are, for the most part, less than worthless on this topic? Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Less than worthless"? Nothing like that was written in the section above.

On a more related note, though, I don't see anything in those reports about the skeptic position being presented as more mainstream than it is. Those two sources claimed that skeptic positions are given proportionately more airtime in the media than they get in the scientific community, not that skeptic positions are presented as proportionately more common in the scientific community than they actually are.

Perhaps it would help to reread your post and get back to me. In any case, if you find an actual report in the media that makes the claims you say are made it'd be appreciated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't make head or tail of what you just wrote there. I don't recall saying any of those things. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I may have misinterpreted what you were arguing in the main page. Are you saying that the news media inaccurately claims that there are more skeptics among scientists than there really are, or simply that skeptical positions receive less attention among scientists than they do in the media?EDIT:--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence

In order for Collect's evidence to mean something, he needs to compare it to something else. Just providing a lot of numbers does not make something a study. This critique was raised to Collect before - he chose to ignore it. I present it for the record to ArbCom. I further note that based on the "interleving edits" demonstration presented, everyone is in cahoots with everyone. If you *don't interleve edits when reverting an abuser of open proxies, you are communicating via email or are a home account of someone at work. If you do interleave edits, you are obviously both responding to a clarion offsite call to action. There's no way to win. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks meaningless to me. I think I could easily find examples where I have interleaved with MN - would that prove I am in cahoots with him? Haven't we had these tedious "cabal" accusations before? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore Collect's evidence. It is not worth getting into the type of circular debates that have been had in the past about his selective analysis. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear it from the bench: [7]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I submit that in the span of a single hour you've all just done a bang up job of helping to demonstrate Collect's "statistical non-evidence." :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When people who are already participating in an ArbCom case respond to evidence presented therein, that's not exactly "coordinated editing". MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

lol, the edits and patterns are public and obvious, but I have to ask MastCell - how often do you send or receive email to or from William Connolley, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, Hipocrite or Short Brigade Harvester Boris? What do those emails entail? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My, what an intrusive question. I've had 1 email exchange (sent 1, received 1) with William, about a year ago, dealing with an AN3 report unrelated to climate change. That's all I'm seeing in my inbox, which goes back about 2 years. Hipocrite emailed me recently asking my opinion about a suspected sockpuppet, and I responded with my opinion. I correspond with Boris occasionally (not so much recently), because I like him and enjoy conversing with him, and because I find his perspective (as an actual recognized expert and scholar on climate change, as well as a seasoned Wikipedian and former admin) of interest. He has a standing offer of a beer or three if he ever visits my neck of the woods - just imagine the conspiracies and coordinated editing tactics that would be discussed!

Kim has emailed me once or twice, asking my opinion about various on-wiki matters, and I've responded by giving my opinion. I actually have very little email contact with anyone on Wikipedia, and what's out there wouldn't embarrass me if it were, say, illegally accessed and posted for the world to see. I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and frankly you're a bit overly obsessed with ferreting out Facebook friends and the like. I'm tempted to ask you to be similarly forthcoming about your private correspondence related to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure there's much point. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any sort of off-wiki conspiracy, or anything beyond the fact that a number of people (most of whom edit transparently using their real names) are interested in climate change. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And despite your "occasional correspondence" with Boris why don't you at least respect the perception that you have a COI/bias and not act as an admin at the climate change enforcement page? Are there no other admins capable of doing this or does everyone have these "occasional correspondences" with the climate change group? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a limited number of admins willing to work on the climate-change probation. I'm not active as an admin there, and when I have acted I have generally deferred all but the most clear-cut calls to other admins (e.g. [8]). If you have concerns about any of my administrative actions, have you discussed them with me (as a first step) or otherwise addressed them? MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> What is the point? I tried discussing that same issue with Bozmo, he deleted my very polite request for him to not participate there, and, if I recall correctly, used that attempt as further "proof" against me. Anyway, to be fair, I'm not aware of anything terribly biased that you have done, but your opinion is crystal clear, and I think that if Arbcom prevents some admins who should definitely be sanctioned (e.g. 2over0, Bozmo) from participating that you may feel the obligation to "step up" and fill their shoes.

Oh, and you are assuming those emails were "stolen" when security experts have stated that such things are usually due to leaks and since those "scientists" did everything they could not to release information as required by FOI laws, the file was named "FOIA" (If I recall properly), then it is far more likely that the emails were indeed leaked from someone compiling the emails under FOIA laws who was pissed off that they had once again managed to circumvent the law. And I actually email scientists in the field myself - most of whom are much more well known than Boris.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then. So you believe that admins whose opinions are "crystal clear" should not act on the enforcement page? MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only when they've been carrying on "occasional correspondences" with major players in the conflict for years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I would be the first to tell you that you're working too hard to invent conspiracies. I also don't think you're particularly consistent about applying your tests of bias, but that's your business. At least we've gone from "there is a long history of you and a couple other admins defending WMC et al." to "I'm not aware of anything terribly biased that you've done." MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my words were quite consistent, you spend a great deal of time defending WMC et all, as you are doing right now and as evidenced on many pages, including this one, but as far as I know (and this could just be due to ignorance on my part) you haven't done anything terribly biased as an admin. My concern is, as I've already stated, that due to your long friendships with some of the main players, and your very natural reaction of empathizing with some of those editors due to your own superficially similar editorial conflicts, that you will pick up the slack if some of your friends are topic banned or barred from using their administrative tools. Besides, it is pretty clear there is some major meatpuppetry going on here, and if it were anyone else they would've been topic banned ages ago for any one of a multitude of reasons. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Going through the top fifty active editors, (averaging circa 200K (over nine million edits) edits each) I found zero other cases of sucha large number of overlaps. Anyone care to deny the existence of that? And to have every single member of a group post on a user talk page - that is unusual. Typical number for any group of six is under 5 UT pages in common. This means I have now done comparisons on 50 editors taken six at a time (using WS makes it a shorter task), and 30 taken 6 at a time (same shortcut). An astronomical number were it not for assuming bubble sorting of the "least-connected editor" is valid here. It is amazing to see people who assert maths knowledge not seeing such a huge spike in overlaps as meaningful <g>. A lot sharper than the hockey stick ever was! Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that your evidence is understating their levels of cooperation since several of them have changed accounts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are arbitrators who are familiar with statistics and data analysis methods? If so, no comment on this "analysis" will be necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do your own analysis Boris - it should be an enlightening demonstration of "science." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the ghost of Darrell Huff must be enjoying this particular discussion. Incidentally, he defined the beauty of statistical chicanery thus: "It misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you." MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I request the imputation of "chicanery" be excised totally. The facts are facts - and the many runs on WS (whch, you might note, I was not the first to use) do not fit the definition of anything other than data. Pure and simple. Collect (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say MastCell, considering the subject matter, that this entire conversation has been unintentionally amusing with certain people selectively accusing others of cherry-picking, confirmation bias and "statistical chicanery" - I've always been a sucker for such irony. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It took Thegoodlocust 4 hours and 2 minutes to respond here, more than three hours after the supporters. Are there other instances where the response from people in this same faction have been so swift? One case may simply reflect the fact that a lot of people naturally are watching this page. If this has happened often, elsewhere, it indicates a degree of organizing that would be against WP:BATTLEGROUND. If anyone knows of similar instances involving the same editors, it should be considered.

• 56 minutes after original post 16:43, 25 June 2010 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (43,086 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: Give them a chance...) (undo)
• 10 minutes after original post: 15:55, 25 June 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) (42,782 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: just ignore it) (undo)
• 9 minutes after original post: 15:54, 25 June 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (42,545 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: TINC) (undo)
• 15:47, 25 June 2010 Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (42,213 bytes) (→Note re: Collect's statistical non-evidence: new section) (undo)

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that edit by TGL was the first one after a 23 hour break, and it was followed by 5 more edits over the next two hours. Anecdotes are not evidence. In this case it seems to simply have to do with time zones and online times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look on the evidence page, you'll find that anecdotes are in fact evidence. They're usually lousy evidence in isolation, but when combined they become a pattern. If other editors can find a number of similar instances, it would look like off-site coordination of the type that WP:BATTLEGROUND mentions. Certainly there have been many times where editors have commented about how members of your faction show up at the same pages to support the same people and ideas, but I realize that can be innocent -- unless you're doing it suspiciously fast. Please tell us directly, Stephan, (1) were you in communication somehow with the other editors about Hipocrite's subject above? (2) have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Wikipedia page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Sorry for the long sentence, and sorry if this sounds prosecutorial, but, well, here we are. It looks suspicious to me, but I'm not assuming anything and I hope no one is offended that I ask. I think William M. Connolley and Hipocrite and Polargeo should answer this, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer only after you, marknutley, TheGoodLocust, Collect and Heyitspeter answer the same question. Have you communicated off-wiki with more than one editor about issues or situations shortly before showing up on a Wikipedia page to support each other concerning that issue or situation (I mean more than a few times, which could be random, but I also mean over the past couple of years)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(PS - you'd best answer yes, Noroton.) Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) My best answer is the truth: NO. Not ever. Not even infrequently. Not in all my time on Wikipedia. If you have any hint of me doing so, please bring it up. Are you referring to Wikipedia Review? I engaged in discussions there in public forums that anybody can see regarding topics here, but never for purposes of coordinating a response, just to exchange ideas. This sometimes resulted in me supporting here what others said in the WR discussions and sometimes opposing them. For instance, I opposed Cla68 and Lar at Talk:Martin Luther after reading one such discussion at WR. In another instance, someone discussed his opposition to a candidate for administrator. I voted for that administrator. I'm sure any ArbCom members who read WR have been very aware of my participation there. (2) Specifically regarding this case, the following is also a definite "NO". It's not even close, but if we leave out the "more than a few times" part, it's the closest I've come: I did contact three editors and said that if they were going to post evidence here in certain areas, I would prefer not to have overlapping evidence because that would waste time and effort, but the content of the evidence was not coordinated (as it turned out, nothing ever got coordinated). We didn't even attempt to coordinate support or opposition for anything at all (although I did ask one editor to reconsider a content question on a particular page -- I received no response about that). This is not the coordination of a faction: It's coordination any editors would participate in with a clear conscience in order to avoid duplicating effort. None of it remotely violated WP:BATTLEFIELD. This is the extent of my conspiracies. -- By the way, you had better explain your 17:03 comment, because if you don't have something to back it up now, it's another personal attack. -- Now your turn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Any blogs you'd like to mention? Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop the cryptic hints. Say what you have to say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that this whole line of inquiry be dropped, if for no other reason than the self-interest of those making the accusations? It's reflecting poorly on both "sides." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What Boris said. These are not appropriate questions - if answered, any way, they create a climate in which reasonable privacy becomes inherently suspicious. That said, I'll answer them if I get appropriate counter-value. I always wanted to see Jerusalem in peace... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking a relevant question. I consider WP:BATTLEFIELD an important issue in this case. Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My answer: Never have I ever communicated with anyone in an effort to CANVASS support for any position on any topic whatsoever. Period. Nor have I ever used an alternate account to seek WP:False consensus at any point whatsoever with any editor on WP whatsoever. Is this a sufficiently clear disclaimer? Now how about everyone here listing every other name that they have edited under (incidental IP edits due to not being logged in do not count). My list is the null set. Does that get rid of the clearly inapt and improper accusation implicit in the question? Collect (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a pretty unfortunate direction for things to take. I'll take responsibility for enabling it, because I answered Thegoodlocust's prying with specifics when it would have been more appropriate not to answer at all. That was not the right precedent to set, and the escalating demands for people to disclose off-wiki correspondence are inappropriate. Off-wiki correspondence is presumably off-wiki for a reason - and there are many entirely valid reasons.

  If there is evidence of inappropriate coordination, then it should be presented. I'll say right now that the level of interaction between William, Stephan, and others is - to me - entirely within normal bounds for users who edit frequently and have a similar set of articles on their watchlists. I don't see any need to invoke off-wiki coordination to explain it. I am not aware of any previous case where this level of interaction was considered de facto evidence of impropriety, although perhaps I'm missing something. Whether their editing has contributed to misuse of Wikipedia as a battlefield is a separate question, and one which does not require these increasingly ridiculous demands. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not demands. See the discussion in my workshop section for relevance. It's a good question for editors to think about, and a good one to answer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is in everyone's best interest to quit this section. If you have room left in your personal evidence section post evidence there, but not on the talk page here. This case is moving out of evidence soon, so if you have room left in your section make use of it. Nobody is in the position of being able to force editors to answer such questions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think editors should consider whether or not they've violated WP:BATTLEGROUND. The questions are civil and directly related to this case. If you're forbidding this discussion, I object, but if so, hat it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reading guide" for TheGoodLocust's evidence

Basically, I was trying to show a bit of the pattern that is difficult for outsiders to see which is essentially one of control - drive editors away through incivility and baiting (their admin friends always step up), and preventing contrary views through wikilawyering (either driving others away or eventually baiting them into saying something "uncivil").

Of the evidence, since the main defense seems to be "science," I think it is important to note the IPCC case in my obstructionism section since it shows not only how a group of them will get together to flagrantly violate core wikipedia policy (WP:Verify), but also how they ended up being proven so very wrong - a pattern that repeats itself. Basically, they have a conclusion, and any evidence that doesn't fit that conclusion is wrong and any policy that supports inclusion of that evidence is wrong - and their "endurance" and excuses in the face of such facts is incredible to behold.

I think it is also important to notice how "devoted" (?) they are to their cause - posting people's telephone numbers/addresses and other incredible BLP violations. All of course, without any admin sanction because the other admins have been attacked for sanctioning them and the rest who watch the area are quite clearly friendly if not friends with them.

Finally, I did not however try to show their extensive pattern of edit warring/collaboration - this should be obvious to anyone looking at the records and I expect others have or will introduce such evidence. Also, there are several other editors I did not include evidence on due to my own limitations and the ease of the low hanging fruit - sanctions should apply to more than those mentioned (some seem to be trying to keep a uncharacteristically low profiles). Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd put this on your talk but since you posted here... Your evidence is enormous, and is over 3x the normally allowed limit. We're being lenient in this case, but that is just too much. Cut it in half, at least. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to cull it a bit, I wrote it by getting enough diffs in each subsection to show the pattern and I honestly tried to keep the length down by not adding specific evidence about some editors - the problem is that there is so much evidence and such extensive long term abuse and if I avoid too many of the core players then the problem won't be solved. I'll work on reducing it in size tomorrow.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it really your intention to claim that Jennavecia, Rootology, and Ottava Rima (!?!?) were driven off Wikipedia by "climate-change editors"? MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good place for me to start cutting and I suspect this was unintentionally left in due to the rough draft nature of my evidence. I'm not entirely familiar with all of the circumstances that those editors left under and I suppose I could ask them why they left to clarify, but it really isn't all that important, especially since Horologium has demonstrated a similar point - your friends make the environment so toxic that most people stay away. Cheers. 06:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodlocust (talk • contribs)

Deadline problems?

I can't post on the evidence page. Is anyone else having this problem? I'll try a little later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope? I'm not sure when the deadline is exactly, but I seem to be editing it fine. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The deadline would only matter if I or someone else fully protected the page at the deadline, which has not and will not happen. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was my computer. I had no trouble later. So ... never mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines, I do intend to submit some evidence, but probably won't be ready to do so before tomorrow evening (which will be past the deadline). Will that be acceptable? MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My evidence won't be submitted till later this week. Real life intrudes. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't be stopping you, but a deadline is a deadline and I will be asking editors not to add to their evidence. I'll notify/update parties this evening, hopefully. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a deadline is a deadline - that was what Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Meaningless deadlines hoped to establish. In that case, we established that a deadline wasn't a deadline. Why is this one different? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mayhaps it is possible that this case is slightly an eensy-weensy bit more potentially complex than others in the past? Might it be possible that a complex case requires more time than a simple case? Recall further that this case is an amalgam of cases as well. Collect (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point. The question is why is *this* deadline hard, whereas earlier deadlines weren't - not why is this *case* different William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the intent is that those who have already provided evidence should complete their edits by the deadline, while others who have not yet provided evidence certainly are allowed to state their evidence - thus not a "hard" deadline." I am sure Amorymeltzer will correct me if I misapprehend how he intends this to work. Collect (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that "more potentially complex" shouldn't be a reason to put unreasonable time limits on editors. I find it really strange that the committee would throw up such short deadlines at a time like this. I mean - who opens a case during the World Cup anyway? I think it's incredibly unreasonable. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, many people have taken time off for the World-cup, which means that at least during half-time they can post evidence here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And many people are trying to fit enough work around to World Cup to keep their jobs. It's not like Christmas, which is (a) a smaller demand on your time, and (b) something you tend to get time off for. And the committee doesn't tell people they need to get their evidence in by Dec 24. Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

World-cup? Is that wrestling or boxing? There certainly is nothing on my TV! Of course, since 2005 I lived in a flat with no cable or satellite, and terrestrial analogue broadcasts stopped years ago around here --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

World-cup? Is that [...] Drinking, I believe. Really, who would want boozed-up editors to post sensitive allegations while drunk, or even with a hangover? Perhaps editors should consult among themselves and pick a designated alleger. And Stephan, your commitment to shrinking your carbon footprint is commendable, simply commendable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not because of the Carbon footprint. It's because when I moved here I was to busy to get cable, and eventually I noticed how much more time I have for other stuff, and how easy it it to get a sufficient dose (or is that doze?) of TV via DSL (for non-fiction) and Amazon (for fiction). And I don't have a car because I need the exercise from cycling, and I can afford cabs, rental cars, and first-class train travel for long distances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

how can an editor have a preferred version of an article they have never edited?

MN inquires, how can an editor have a preferred version of an article they have never edited? This is not a hard question to answer: it is in fact very easy to have preferred versions. LHVU has clearly demonstrated in his evidence here that he has preferred directions for GW even though he has never edited it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff for that please mark nutley (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was over on the workshop: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:LessHeard_vanU. I've struck a minor portion of the above to avoid misleading anyone else William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

All i see there is him saying the articles should be written to reflect all aspects, which would be sensible and more npov really. But how is that having a preferred version for a particular article like you have said? mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." This is a statment that the current articles are not written to his preferred version - a content position that an uninvolved admin should not be taking. Imagine, conversely, if 2over0 wrote "The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is excessive, redundant, overemphasized, frequently pigenholed, glamorized, and in some cases left without rebuttal, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." How quickly would you be calling for his head? Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

2over0 HAS written far worse like that under his former username - his pretense of being "neutral" is shattered by his actions, words and my evidence section on him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oooh don't be a tease: gissa diff William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, gottagettadiff. Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here 2over0 makes his opinion about "global warming denialism" clear - an intentionally offensive term that I know you have no problem with considering the labels you use (e.g. septics) - not only does he use that term but he makes it quite clear that such viewpoints are "illegitimate." Of course, such labels are inaccurate since most skeptics, like myself, believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it's effects are logarithmic and the only way the IPCC models work is by inventing implausible Luke Skywalker Death Star chain reaction "positive feedback" effects - in other words, they only work via divine intervention. This is one of the reasons why your ridiculous surveys prove very little - asking someone like Richard Lindzen or me if we believes CO2 is causing warming will get an affirmative response - we dispute your failed guesswork computer models that spit out the answers that you want and which are far too high (there would be no funding without an "emergency"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in that diff. It isn't even really a presentation of 2/0's opinion on climate change, but rather a plea to follow Wikipedia's content policies and to use the best available sources when summarizing arguments about clean coal. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not - you nominated him for adminship and your friendliness/defensiveness of this group is evidenced here or by going to their various talk pages. I don't think admins in this area should use offensive terms like that nor should they state such views are "illegitimate" and then pretend to be neutral - his admin actions have shown what his "neutrality" consists of. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." No that is a statement of fact, it is not saying he has a preferred version at all. This looks like mudslinging, especially as the same accusations were made before he wrote that, in the rfcu about him and on the rfe page. So lets have a diff were he says he has a preferred version of the article in question. And btw i have defended 2/0 over his handeling of the probation pages mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Err no it isn't a statement of fact. Per the evidence page, it is a statement of opinion and is incorrect. My original point remains William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, all this is rather irrelevant, since LHVU *has* edited the page [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Schulz should be debitted and topic banned for his "evidence"

He states:

"Wikipedia Watch, run by User: GoRight and with contributions by User:Thegoodlocust, contains explicit instructions for effective meatpuppery at [10]." [11]

This is flatly untrue and a charge of this magnitude, whether intentionally or unintentionally false, demonstrates his inability to make good faith contributions in this area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• "I agree, to a certain extent, but these people are organized. There are a LOT of articles related to global warming and every time they can’t handle something they just send off an email and get instant support. Dissent needs to be focused – otherwise we divide ourselves and are conquered."[12]
• "Correct, he finally got booted off his own article and now relegates cleaning duty to two of his biggest lackeys – Stephan Schulz and Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Sorry, but having your friends on facebook constantly editting your article is just as bad but more subtle." ibid
• "If Connolley uses others to do his dirty work because he can’t, what’s the difference?" ibid

Any questions where my good faith went? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Masterful distraction Schulz, it is a sight to behold, but your "good faith" or lack of it, has nothing to do with your flagrant misrepresentation of the facts. However, your choice to defend such a misrepresentation confirms my initial statement - you should be debitted and topic banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence by Tony Sidaway

More of an observation, really. The climate change articles are among our best coverage of science, according to science experts consulted by third parties. The science has immense political implications but then so do many other scientific questions including, perhaps surprisingly, evolution. The basics may be considered uncontroversial within the science but in some circles the science is treated like some evil voodoo. Sounds familiar?

Whatever Wikipedia decides now it must represent the facts as discovered by the best scientific methods available and fairly represent the vast degree to which those scientific methods support the conclusion as presented by the competent experts.

I think arguing over who should administrate and who should edit is beside the point. The way in which we should approach well founded science that faces wide political opposition has probably already been visited. We need to say we meant it. Facts matter. The rest belongs on your blog. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. The above section was intended for the evidence page but because of a bug in the browser on my telephone it ended up here. It doesn't really matter because I'm not really sure my words constitute evidence, so much as a comment. There are references to facts that I consider relevant but obviously I assume that the Committee is aware of the history of science coverage on Wikipedia and the resolution of conflicts arising. On all relevant facts I trust that the Committee is more than aware. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

External coverage of our climate-change articles (from reputable sources) has been favorable, if not outright sympathetic to the struggle to maintain quality content in a politically charged field:

• Nature 2005, PMID 16355169: "In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking."
• New Yorker 2006 ([13]) detailed "a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect" as an example of the ways in which Wikipedia fails as a reference work.
• Denver Post 2007 ([14]): An expert "called the Wikipedia entry [on global warming] 'a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen.'" The expert also praised the topic structure (which has been much maligned in these proceedings) and the level of coverage of minoritarian views, noting that while the main articles appropriately stick to the science of climate change, "students who want to study up on the controversy... find plenty of links if they want them."
• Lindsey 2010 ([15]): In a journal article which was generally critical of Wikipedia's featured-content processes, the global warming article was reviewed positively. An expert in the field "scored the article on global warming at an eight [of 10] and wrote that it was 'very concise and clear', but remarked that he could tell 'it was not written by professional climate scientists' and noted an error in the way the article explained how clouds are included in climate models." Incidentally, the cloud error was addressed with the help of Cla68 and by leveraging the expertise of several other contributors (see discussion).

That's not to say that behavioral issues should be ignored - they shouldn't. But I agree with Tony that we should be clear that the content of these articles is excellent - it has been praised repeatedly by reputable sources - and that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't want a free-fire zone, regardless of the quality of articles produced, but neither do we want to completely ignore article quality (this is, after all, an encyclopedia) in the pursuit of a Utopian model of social interaction. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Proposed_findings_of_fact_2. The question has not been whether Wikipedia presents anthropogenic global warming fully and accurately. Most agree that it does. The question is rather (1) whether it has wrongly shunted reports from some reliable sources - including those presenting views that differ from what some believe is the 'scientific consensus' - from the article space and (2) whether and how the editing environment is itself problematic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If most participants here indeed agree that we present global warming "fully and accurately", then I'm happy to drop the subject. I don't get that impression, which is why I felt compelled to list sources (and, I assume, why Tony felt compelled to make his comment). Some sources (for example, the Denver Post article) actually do address the question of whether political aspects are adequately covered. If it's not too late for evidence, I may submit some to the effect that we cover alternate viewpoints in excessive detail when compared to other respectable general-purpose reference works. I agree that the editing environment itself is problematic, and explicitly indicated that the material I presented does not directly address that issue. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to re-argue content

1) The same vaunted "Nature" that rocketed Jan Hendrik Schön to fame? And 5 years ago at that? He only got caught because he committed fraud with an incredible amount of stupidity. He "lost" his raw data too - just like WMC's friends. 2) An editorial from an obviously biased journalist who appears to have written that part of an article solely based on an interview with WMC? Oh ploease.... 3) And here is what that expert is saying today - he has a lot to learn from skeptics and more of his colleagues should listen to us. 4) Oh this one is my favorite, the "expert" here is one of WMC's friends at Real Climate (only 8-9 contributors there). I'll leave you with this, which pits one of my favorite climate scientists (Lindzen) vs. your 2nd favorite climate "modeler" Gavin Schmidt from Real Climate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't know enough about climate modeling to have "favorite" modelers. I don't think we should categorically disregard the journal Nature because it once published results that were later shown to be fraudulent. Moreover, if you choose to respond, I would prefer that you respond with actual sources - preferably on a level with those I've presented - rather than repeating your personal beliefs, which are already sufficiently documented on these pages. MastCell Talk 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC) That was a response to Tony's sources, but the offset doesn't look right due to the use of bulleting. Anyway, a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that "peer-review" actually involves replication (not possible when people don't release their data or methods...) or evaluation of data integrity. Additionally, as the climategate emails show, WMC's friends blacklisted journals that published skeptical papers and prevented others from getting published - among other things. The Institute of Physics' statement on their actions is pretty clear and damning. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Thegoodlocust, for your clear demonstration of in-universe fringe thinking, "it's all a conspiracy", the premier journals Nature is to be disregarded in favour of fringe advocates because it once published a hoax, and the notorious Institute of Physics' statement concocted by a subcommittee with skeptic oil industry connections is to be believed rather than the several official investigations, including the one the statement was submitted to, which essentially exonerated the scientists concerned and reaffirmed the scientific consensus. Thegoodlocust's persistent fringe pov pushing typifies the problem, which is exaggerated rather than resolved by the behaviour sanctions effectively enabling WP:Civil POV pushing. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Interesting turn of phrase there Dave, essentially exonerated but not totally exonerated. And do you have a link to were the subcommittee from the IOP has oil industry connections? mark nutley (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Main criticisms refuted, minor issues more open but not damning and should not be given the undue weight which the so-called "skeptics" and yourself seem so keen to promote. Link as requested, and as discussed on the article talk page previously. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Yes Dave, you people always try to make everyone who opposes you looking like conspiracy theorists because marginalizing others, along with misrepresenting facts, seems to be the main defense being put forth by your group. The point I was making is that "peer-review" means very little when it comes to science (which is why we tend to do double blind trials for medicine) - of course, I suppose I made the implicit error of assuming we were talking about science, when real science is actually falsifiable rather than the constantly changing and often contradictory anecdotal "proofs" of global warming. As for me pushing "fringe" theories you are welcome to find examples of me inserting fringe material into articles. Perhaps i have but I certainly don't recall it, and my evidence actually shows several examples of the content I inserted. Amusingly enough, WMC's evidence actually proves my various points quite nicely as well if people take the time to look at what I was editing and why. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I think you're confusing several concepts. Double blinding is used to address the placebo effect (on the part of patients) and expectation bias (on the part of researchers who are evaluating a patient's response to treatment). Any reputable journal subjects study results - including double-blind trials - to peer review before they're published. Peer review and reproducibility are distinct concepts (having nothing to do with double blinding) and serve distinct roles in the scientific process. As an aside, evidence supporting a human role for global warming is both peer-reviewed (as a precondition of its publication) and replicated (multiple datasets and analyses support the same conclusions). MastCell Talk 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) No, there is no confusion, the point I was making is that peer-review is incredibly insufficient for something like drug approval which requires actual results-based evidence and testing and that additional testing, such as double blind tests, are required. In fact, I'd say the Wegman report was pretty clear on the global warming datasets and analyses - they've been contaminated by groupthink, expectation bias and, in the case of Mann's methods, a "hockey stick" would've been produced even if random data was used. In fact, the surface data records cannot be accurately described as "multiple data sets" since most are essentially derived from the same data set, which are massively contaminated with urban heat island effects, and, in more recent decades, thousands of stations, usually from cooler areas, were dropped from the record, which coincided with a strong "warming" effect (see graph). Example alt text # of weather stations vs average world temperature Of course, the meat of the issue is the "models" which have consistently been proven wrong and which are constantly been adjusted downwards as reality manages to trump electronic ouja boards. The fact of the matter is that CO2 has been going steadily up for many years, and yet the temperature has been flat for over a decade. I go by the satellite record, since it is less subject to human biases/urban heat bias, and I find that the temperatures are quite flat, and only jump up when the various oceanic cycles kick into their warm phases (1977 for the PDO and the late 90's jump coinciding with the AMO's warm phase. The pattern is clear as day. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) You are aware, I hope, that the t axis is not any useful estimate of global temperature (much less of temperature anomaly), nor has anything to do with published global estimates, but rather is McKitrick-t, something quite different? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As we don't know which workshop proposals the Arbs are even considering, which of the initial framing questions they intend to deal with, nor which proposals they intend to put forward themselves, it may be a tad premature to discourage further addition of evidence when we don't know what will be relevant to the case that they ultimately decide to vote on. I think that it should be borne in mind – by the Arbitrators and by the clerks who act at their direction – that this is a rather unusual case, in that it didn't start out with a clear direction or scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The instructions say that after Evidence was closed "the drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter." I took "arbitrator workshop proposals" to mean only proposals by the arbs, so I was surprised to see the Workshop left open for community input. If anything it would seem more logical to close the Workshop to input before closing the Evidence, or close them both at the same time. But then I'm not in charge. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from two weeks of sand and surf and very little contact with the Internet to find that the case is apparently moving forward. Does this mean I can't present any more evidence? I do have some to present. Cla68 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have some more, I have noticed WMC added some late evidence, does this mean we all can? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly all try. It's up to the Arbs to read it (and up to the clerks to remove it or not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hide Polargeo's failled attempt at humour

What I think we need are more long lists of one sided diffs showing rudeness. If we can show that multiple editors are tag teaming in being rude to an individual culminating in something like "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" that should prove they are coordinated once and for all. Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) That last was particularly unhelpful, Polargeo. Would request that you strike it. All of us understand that you strenuously disagree with the relevance of some of the evidence being provided, but there's no need to inject snideness into a thread which had previously been free of acrimony. Horologium (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I was trying humour to lighten the situation, oh well. Polargeo (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest removing Marks late evidence

I think it may be worth mark withdrawing his late evidence just because it is either extremely out of date or does not show what he claims it does in any way [16]. My comment on the MN diffs

1. 3 years ago
2. WMC simply removes rs tags but the reference is doubled up anyway so this is of little importance.
3. 2 years ago
4. PDF link of journal article and not WMC`s use his blog as a source as MN claims
5. 4 years ago
6. 3 years ago Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he reverts these sources back into articles and removes rs tags make these current, not old mark nutley (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the two recent diffs you present show WMC reverting a source back into an article though Mark. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? What`s with this then? (Undid revision 370956578 by Marknutley (talk) Nope; I'm as reliable as Pielke) Reverting out rs tags when a discussion is under way in talk is not much different now is it mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He removed your rs tag he did not revert the source back in. The source was doubled up with another anyway. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

None of us will be interpreting this evidence for the Committee

It shows him removing {{rs}}. No source is added, no source is removed. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Your just splitting hairs here and you know it, removing the tags is him saying that using his blog as a source is acceptable, when it obviously is not mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Splitting hairs? I don't think the difference between accurate and misleading is a "hair". You claimed he reverted a source back into an article. But the source wasn't removed. You questioned its reliability - but somehow, neglected to question the other blog-sourced content. Selectively applying sourcing arguments only to the sources you disagree with is totally unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I think the fact that people like MN are so desperate they have to try dredging up edits from 4 years ago is well worth noting, and I'm happy for the arbs to see this desperation. As PG has noted, MN has made numerous mistakes in the evidence we're discussing. This all seems of a piece with his ban on introducing new sources, which was imposed because MN had clearly demonstrated an inability to evaluate sources. So I think a partial solution would be for a FOF along those lines, and a proscription on MN on adding, removing or tagging sources (with no BLP exemption permitted, because he has demonstrably failed to understand that, too). What is very striking is that even when his errors are pointed out MN is unable to see them William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I`m not digging anything up WMC, i was looking at the refs and found ones which should not have been used, the fact that it was you who inserted your own blog into BLP`s and other articles and then argued over their reliability speaks volumes about your ability to analyse sources. And my block on introducing new sources was for one single error was`nt it, i used a blog in a blp. As you have used your own blog in a blp should you not also fall under the same restriction? mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Feel free to suggest it. Oh, no you can't. I wonder why not: yet another sanction as I recall. And no, it wasn't for a single edit, as you're well aware. And you still don't know what is a blog and what isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Wrong, time has been served WMC mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Excellent. Than you have no excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) If MN's stuff doesn't go, some of this discussion should go into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Weighing evidence is up to the committee, not up to editors telling the committee not to weigh evidence. Collect (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In April this year WMC added this link http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pd to an article he is named as one of the authors and hosted on his own blog here on the Global cooling article. This is as he well knew in violation of more than one editorial guideline. COI or self promotional etc. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Right. I will explain this very simply. The article referenced does not need a link, it is a published article. It had a link to a pdf which WMC noted was broken. As he has shown in his edit summary he then provided a temporary link to the pdf. I see your assertions as unhelpful and not representative of the facts. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (ec)"This link" is a peer-reviewed article published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and an impeccable source. It's neither a violation of COI nor unduly self-promotional. On the other hand, it does clearly demonstrate that at least some editors contribute expert level knowledge to the project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Wake up and smell the roses. It is clearly adding promotional links to his own POV and his own material and his own website. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Please take your own advice. Have a coffee and think this one through. Polargeo (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Can't he spoeak for himself, why do you all support him? Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC) See my suggested principle on the workshop page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) If you were not opposing him on such weak grounds I would not be supporting him. The source in question was not added by WMC (added march 7 2008 by smptq), so how WMC's adding of a working link to the pdf can be construed as anything other than helpful, and is in fact actually used in evidence against him, is rather beyond me. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC) WMC added the link to his paper on his website and there is no excuse for him doing that at all. It is also something that he has done similar additions before, if he would be allowed to talk for himself I would like to know why he thought it was ok to link to his own paper on his own website? I know full well that if Andrew Montford was editing here and adding links to his own work on his own website you would be asking for a perma-ban. Also quoting himself and citing to his own webspace, although that was a couple of years ago, how is that a good idea? Off2riorob (talk) You are actually wrong about that. If Andrew Montford has a paper published in a scientific journal and he repaired a link to a pdf copy in a ref someone else had added to wikipedia I would have no issue at all with it. I don't see any issue with the action of WMC. I suppose we could have just left the broken link to the pdf but then wikipedia would be all the poorer. I will also say this, it is standard practice for scientists to host copies of their published papers on their own websites. When WMC saw the publishers link had gone down he made a temporary link to his copy of the published paper. This is very very different to what you are accusing him of. The link isn't needed anyway it's just nice to have it. Polargeo (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) As for stuff 2 years ago why bring it up? If it is not an issue now it is little more than mud slinging. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) No its not at all, it is demonstration of long term insertion of his own material and linking to his own webspace. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC) No it is not because the recent diffs do not support it. Therefore it is an attempt to make vey old diffs stick like mud by using exceptionally weak recent diffs which actually don't back up the accusations at all. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 1. Self-promotion and COI guidelines apply to inappropriate self-promotion. If other editors think the material is appropriate, then the actions weren't inappropriate, just helpful. 2. Standards have changed. MN raised the issue of adding a link to a blog (RealClimate) to a BLP in 2006. RealClimate has long been accepted by the community as a reliable source, and certainly was in 2006. The BLP policy did not exist in 2006. So using RealClimate as a source on a BLP was not a problem in 2006. 3. The whole issue about the Cooling paper is mendacious. That's all there is to it. Contrary to your and MN's claims, WMC did not insert the reference. He merely provided a link to copy of the article. The only people who are actually allowed to host copies of an article (other than the publisher) are (sometimes) the authors. He couldn't host it in anyone else's webspace. Guettarda (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) @ Stephan, if it is peer reviewed and in that journal why not link to it? mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Because the link was down and WMC put a temp link in. It is back up again now. [17] Polargeo (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) @Polargeo It's evidence that the dispute resolution process has failed and perhaps needs to be revamped. The problems here have been allowed to fester for years. There's no reason why this battle ground atmosphere should have lasted 5+ years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC) It is not evidence because the recent diffs do not support it. Therefore you could say it is evidence that things are resolved that MN couldn't find anything better in the last 2 years. Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) @Polargeo, I'm just speaking in general. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) There is an excellent reason why disputes over climate change articles continue: because a constant stream of "skeptics" come in unable to accept the weight of scientific evidence and determined to add unscience. These editors, one by one, blow up and leave or are ejected when their POV pushing fails. Just look at MN's, or TGL's, initial contributions. Just look at O2RR's inability to understaand what a scientific paper is William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I have removed all of your links except the one that you could not have provided before. That is it. From this point on you are all free to slightly tweak the wording of your evidence for clarity, but if I feel that anyone has substantially altered the content or meaning of their evidence they will be reverted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by drafting arbitrators

The arbitrators thank the editors who have posted issues for consideration, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case. We are carefully reviewing everything that has been submitted.

It will not be possible for us to determine which of the issues identified by various editors can be addressed in the final decision, until we have reviewed the evidence submitted. Therefore, editors should continue to address those issues within the scope of this case that they feel should be discussed in the committee's findings and remedies. Also note, some key issues brought up in the three RFARs that resulted in this case have had little on no evidence thus far presented.

Arbitrators will be preparing a draft decision in the near future. However, some of the arbitrators will have little or no availability for the next few days because of the holiday weekend in the United States. Because of this, and because at least one editor appears to have held off on posting evidence in the expectation that we would be selecting the issues to address in advance of the evidence (and our instructions may not have been clear in this regard), the time for editors to post additional evidence or workshop proposals is extended through 1159 on Wednesday, July 7. No further extensions should be expected.

This is being posted on the evidence and workshop talk pages.

Proceed accordingly.

For the committee's drafting arbitrators, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to talk to the clerk [18] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted my late stuff back in based on this post, if i was wrong fell free to revert me mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent a copy of this to clerk-l and arb=-l yesterday right after posting. Also just put a note on AM's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It has been duly noted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the evidence template back for you, since you neglected to restore it after removing it... would have been nice not to have to root through the history to find it when I needed it but no matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WMCab?

Before using section titles like that Cla should have the decency to demonstrate the existence of such a Cabal. Which will be tricky, since it doesn't exist. OR Cla could instead have the decency to refraim from such deliberately misleading "words". Remember the last big "Cabal"-er, and we don't want Cla to go that way do we? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cla68 frequently makes such false implications against others. He did it to me on many occasions. It is not below Cla68 to assert an outright blatant lie to the arbitration committee. That is exactly what he did previously. I never stated anywhere what Cla68 falsely claims here. Bill Huffman (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another PA in the guise of discussing evidence? The committee is capable, I trust, of weighing evidence without such asides. Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it an aside. The point is that when weighing evidence, the reliability of the source is important. If a source has tried to mislead an authority in the past then they may try to do the same thing again in the future. Here's my response to Cla68's false accusation which contains strong evidence as to the lack of veracity in Cla68's statement. Cla68 had plenty of opportunity to explain, which he never did. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the term "WMCab" supposed to mean? I've edited Wikipedia for five years but have never encountered the term before today. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a variation on the term "GWCab" that Cla68 uses on WR. Since one of Cla68's main concerns is the fact that WMC reverted him four years ago, he tends to see WMC as the ringleader and the rest of the "cabal" as his minions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you point to some refs on WR where Cla uses the terms? Also, why is he importing them here? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He uses GWCab over there but not WMCab as as far as I know. So technically he's not "importing" the term from WR. Despite the honor of having a cabal named after you, don't get a big head. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest changing it to "WC Taxi's", denoting fellow riders? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct term being fellow traveler, not imperialist automobile operator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was attempting to infer the freedom riders's... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cla68, in my opinion it would be better, on balance, if you found another term to use. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

False accusation

Cla68 states "Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who I understand has an alternate administrator account the he/she no longer uses.)" I do not have an administrator account under this or any other name. I once had administrative privileges under my previous user name, but voluntarily resigned my adminship two years ago because it stopped being enjoyable. It's quite simple to check these things, so I am mystified as to what point Cla68 is trying to make with this innuendo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I vouch for both these things. Especially the latter one about adminship not being enjoyable. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cardamon

Cardamon is citing evidence from the CC RfE page - which AFAIK is the appropriate place to discuss issues such as an editor's lack of civility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. Cardamon, I must apologize if I offend you. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

James Delingpole

The James Delingpole BLP is mentioned on the evidence page; Delingpole has just published another article on it in his blog on the Telegraph website: [19] --JN466 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this even relevent? Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole is an outspoken critic of AGW and Wikipedia takes WP:BLP violations very seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I get that. How is it relevent to this case, given that none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it - unless, of course, you think I'm Sparticus, I mean, SpaceMonkey. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the problem is bigger than the editors named here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

H has now put in an analysis-of-evidence section, which makes for rather interesting reading William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it". A very interesting observation. None of them have edited to repair the issues either. Yet they are all quite quick to criticise all and sundry for not immediately dealing with Scibaby nonsense. Which is more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation? Cow farts or character assasination of living folk? But since this is a skeptic, who cares? ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• None of them even knew the biography existed untill today. But look - one of them did just repair it. I agree, howerver, that Marknutletys failure to alert editors he knows are responsible dealers with BLP problems (like, for instance, me) about problematic articles that he is aware of is seriously damaging to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Lar, what a nonsensical position. Why would anyone even notice an edit to Delingpole's article? It's certainly not on my watchlist. And why don't you, personally, fix all the problems in all BLP's on Wikipedia, right about now? If you can spare EUR 300,- hour, I'll do BLP patrol on your choice of articles. Until then, I edit some of the articles I have an actual interest in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, we even have a template for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys consistently miss the salient points in your enthusiastic point scoring against your adversaries. One might think it was convenience rather than oversight. There are two points here.

• First... this BLP was a disaster, made WP look bad, and puts paid to the notion that all is rosy in article space. It's not. The science may be fine but everything else is a mess. So your stewardship (which you have asked for credit for as an excuse for your behavior) isn't cutting it.
• Second... you guys tend to raise Scibaby as a spectre and find fault with everyone for not jumping up to clean up his cowfarts. Well, the shoe's on the other foot. Scibaby isn't the real problem here. If you want to clean up cowfarts, go for it, and have fun... it's how things work here, we all work on what we want to... but stop claiming you're performing some great service when actually there are far worse problems in the space.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What fascinates me here is that, had WMC edited the article, certain editors would have screamed COI!!! But if he doesn't edit it, we get this nonsense. It's simple -- if you care about an article, edit it. If you don't care, delete it. Community norms haven't stopped you in the past. But blaming others for your inaction isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That IS a fascinating theory all right. If WMC had edited it to clean up that allegation and someone accused him of COI, that might be a valid point to raise and if I were aware of it, I would have spoken in his defense. But that's not typically how WMC actually edits BLPs of skeptics, is it? He's long term banned from one already. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Along the lines of "point-scoring", I don't think it's worth continuing to flog this. I've never heard of editors being assigned collective responsibility for failing to "correct" a substandard article that they weren't even aware of and/or had never worked on. Lar, if you seriously intend to pursue that argument, then we have a number of extremely far-reaching implications to deal with across the project. Editors have always been responsible for the edits they actually make, but I'm not aware of any precedent for holding them responsible for edits that they failed to make, particularly on articles where they've never even set foot. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Missed the points made, MastCell. (you're strawdogging me on a point I am actively not trying to make, besides). I'll repeat, and then I'm done. 1) The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point 2) Editors saying "look at us and how wonderful our edits are", it excuses acting like a prat... ought not to do that, because of #1. They also ought not to play the "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby" unless that goes both ways. It doesn't, so they ought to stop waxing eloquent about the cowfart threat. This particular BLP violation is small beer (to everyone except the person violated) unfortunately, because we have thousands more just like it and not in just this topic area. But it's a useful and instructive example. Unless one is not willing to learn from it. Done. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I think you misunderstand the Scibaby issue. It's not "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby?" it's "Stop being difficult, I'm dealing with Scibaby." Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point - The "topic area" for this article is journalism, maybe right-wing politics. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point Lar. The more good editors are hounded, the less likely they are to watch new, controversial articles. You still have done nothing to improve the article, but you're going on about other editors not editing the article. If you can't be bothered to fix it, you most certainly have no standing to lecture other editors about failing to fix the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I don't edit in this topic area. (CC/GW, which this article assuredly is, although it may be other topic areas as well) You do. And further, I lecture no one. I merely say "don't claim the area's spiffy" when it is not spiffy, and say "don't use your editing prowess as a free pass". Much evidence backed by those two falsehoods needs to be discounted. And will be. Done again. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you're demanding a unique and unreasonable standard of perfection. If you take any general topic area where our coverage has been recognized as excellent - say, the Second World War, or medicine - and then drill down to BLPs of low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole, you might find problems. That is a real problem, but it is not an indictment of all editors who work in the general topic area, nor is it evidence that the topic area's coverage is not generally high-quality. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of which "low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole" does the WW II area have BLPs? No, the Delingpole bio, in my view, is symptomatic of a greater rot. Others have introduced evidence of how one side tends to slant bios of those they favor and those they denigrate. This isn't one of those sort, but it nevertheless puts paid to certain notions. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I find an obscure, poor-quality WWII-related BLP, will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame for any damage it may have caused? I would hope the answer is "no". If your point is that those you label a "gang" or "cadre" have violated BLP, then why not evidence that, rather than trying to shoehorn this incident - which clearly had nothing to do with the "gang" - into the narrative you favor? Again, I don't see how this low-quality, obscure BLP invalidates the work that's been done on climate-change articles, but that seems to be the case you're making. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame"? No, because they don't all claim that their awesome l33t editing gives them a free pass to be snarky. If you introduce a "the articles in this area are teh AWESUM!!!11!!11!" behavioral defense, you deserve to get called on it if the articles aren't actually uniformly AWESUM... That's what this evidence is. Not invalidation of the good work, invalidation of the defense. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one is making this argument (well, no-one does on this pages), I fail to see the value of this contribution. But I admire your knowledge of L33t. Of course, I don't think anybody but you has used that, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought several folk have been introducing evidence of how excellent the CC/GW article space is? Am I confused about that evidence? If not, and folk are actually introducing it, then, given what you say, what's the relevance of it? So what if the articles are excellent? Help me understand where you're going. I'm willing to stipulate that the lead articles are good, even great. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. It's about the main science articles, not about an obscure conservative journalist. Climate change ≠ journalism. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You tried that one on for size already. Didn't fit. Articles can and do slot into more than one topic area, after all. StS linked to this article in previous statements so apparently he thinks the article has some relevance. So, again, what's the point of introducing evidence about how good the topic area is? That's the actual question. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read my "previous statement" (are there "-ments where I mention the article?), you can see that I only link to that article to provide context for my evidence about the off-wiki campaign. I made no comment about the article at all, and, at that time, I only skimmed it to verify it's the right Delingpole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I introduced evidence about the quality of climate-change content to address a mistaken but tenaciously held belief that these articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Numerous people assert that the climate-change articles reflect shamefully on the project; when pressed for specific examples, they usually produce a few blog posts from partisan talking heads or answer vaguely (e.g. "I do recall having read stuff like this, just not where.") But in true Wikipedia fashion, the misconception persists despite a lack of factual basis.

I've gotten a little tired of continually going to the record every time someone brings this up, so I wanted to centralize and catalog what sources have said on the matter. The point is to address a persistent and pernicious misconception so that this proceeding is grounded in reality. I have not asserted, nor do I plan to assert, that the quality of climate-change articles excuses inappropriate behavior or BLP violations, although that opinion seems to have been imputed to me. I do think that we can't have a nuanced discussion about the interplay of content quality and editorial environment if we can't be bothered to check our basic assumptions. Again, speaking only for myself, that was my point in introducing the evidence. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Lar's talking rot, and failing to recognise the sort of pushing of undue weight to dubious BLP material indulged in by editors such as Cla and CoM. I've added some links to discussion of a bio which, fortunately, was under closer scrutiny. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We're offtopic again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How so? This is analysis of evidence is it not? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider your evidence more carefully, Lar. You've shown that even editors sympathetic to Dellingpole's "skeptic" agenda didn't respond to this undue weight being given to a single, albeit reliable, source. As I've noted, even an excellent editor innocently proposed a very dubious hit piece by Dellingpole, apparently unaware that it was a blog and had serious BLP problems. These things happen, and we don't all watch every new article in the broad topic area. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Analyzing evidence is one thing, analyzing each other is another. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• The above discussion is relatively restrained, but can everyone discussing this and presenting evidence please keep WP:BLP in mind, as that still applies to arbitration cases where people with articles are mentioned, as well as elsewhere. If someone could point to the discussions on how blogs like this are handled, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"The wacko diff"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This diff has been cited multiple times (in the RFC, by Polargeo on my talk page, by WMC, 2/0, and Polargeo in their evidence sections) as an example of incivility on Lar's part. Lar provided a context to his comments (one which I had pointed out to Polargeo in May) which severely undercuts the assertions that the difference is uncivil. Polargeo (and anyone else who followed the discussion on my talk page) knew about the context in May, and anyone who read Lar's statement from Saturday should also be aware of the context, yet it is still being brought up. Why? It demonstrates nothing except that Lar has a slightly skewed sense of humor. Horologium (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide this context here? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but point out that whenever one of his perceived adversaries shows "a slightly skewed sense of humor"[20] Lar accuses them of snarkiness.[21] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite--The context is that earlier in the thread to which Lar commented, WMC commented that he received the "lowest vote percentage of all of the non-wacko [Arbcom] candidates". Lar's joke simply changed the verbiage to "highest vote total of all of the wacko candidates". Lar clearly provides the missing context in the very first section of his evidence. Horologium (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Context is indeed all. The relationship between Lar and me is not one in which he can use "wacko" at me as "humour". That should be fairly obvious. I look forward to you making comments on other perceived insults with a similarly lenient eye - or do you only hold a brief for Lar? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious now. It wasn't obvious then, as my reservoir of good faith about your reasonableness and collegiality wasn't yet completely exhausted. I think it's significant how much focus this one incident gets and how little focus your many uses of derogatory terms about others get. Gnats and camels. Fortunately for you, we've had limits imposed on our evidence or the list would be well nigh endless. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't "hold a brief" for anyone. I have never directly interacted with Lar or with you, although I am aware of areas in which I am supportive of both of you (Lar's checkuser work, your admin actions in the truther arena), and areas in which I disagree with both of you (Lar's role in the SV/FM/JzG arbcom, your arguably CoI editing in reference to BLPs of AGW opponents here). Thank you for the lack of assumption of good faith, something which is quite endemic to this topic, and one of the reasons it's so toxic. Horologium (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is odd that you pick this one issue to comment on. There are so many others which you appear to lack any interest in - for example, Lar's bizarre stuff over Delingpole. Why do you pick this one issue to commment on? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Because it has appeared over and over again, in the RFC, on my talk page, and in no fewer than four different evidence sections in the arbitration. I want to know why an obvious joke has been imparted with so much significance. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it deflects attention from other more serious matters. Standard defense tactic, shoot the messenger, latch onto something minor and blow it out of proportion, or if at all possible, provoke them and then use the provocation. Cla introduced plenty of examples of that in the RfC this lot started and tried to use to take me out of the game. They'd like nothing more than to see LHVU and myself ruled out as refs, I bet. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it hurt a lot more than anyone let on at the time. I saw it there and was pretty shocked, and I didn't lose an election in what might be considered a slightly humiliating fashion. I remember trying to cheer another failed candidate up, with "don't blame me, I voted for Jehochamn." I sensed he was feeling kinda down also. A bit of empathy was called for, and when people fail that empathy spectaularly, grudges result. I strongly suspect that happened here. What do you think? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe Lar and WMC had the kind of relationship where Lar can call WMC a wacko, even if earlier WMC was making self-deprecating jokes? Have you considered that WMC may have been hurting from a bitter electoral defeat, and further rubbing it in by someone who was certainly not friendly with WMC might have been questionable behavior? Do you agree with me that Lar's action might not have been the best idea at the time, and with 20/20 hindsight (that Lar would become WMCs major prosecutor) was a significant lapse in judgement? Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My sympathy for WMC far exceeds his sympathy for me. Let's review. He lost an election fair and square. I'm sorry for him, but he couldn't really have thought he had a chance with his record... does anyone else really think that candidacy was more than a WP:POINT exercise?. I "lost" a stewardship I'd been executing with good feedback for two years... for arbitrary and capricious reasons having little or nothing to do with the task, and everything to do with grudge letting (there was no consensus not to reconfirm, a good majority of folk and a good majority of stewards were very satisfied) in a way that was decided by folks carrying things out in a secret star chamber. No sympathy was offered, rather there was a bit of grave dancing by you lot. Oh well. WP and the WMF projects aren't fair, they're projects. But I think that you're on the wrong track here, Hipocrite, because you sound, well... hypocritical.

Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice. That bit of background has been conveniently overlooked as well. WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists. I don't think any has been introduced yet. If there were shedfuls of it, you'd think with a day left to go there'd be plenty. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Further, I didn't vote in your stewardship, wasn't aware the stewards were up for reconfirmation, and even if I was, I wouldn't have voted either way, because, unlike many others, I don't see random flags as relevent at all. You bring it up, I guess, because the people who believe Wikipedia should be a vehicle for harassments campaign to have you destewarded is relevent to these proceedings, somehow - or, perhaps, because you are well aware that losing an election hurts. Of course, you now accuse "you lot," which I guess includes me as "grave dancing." I don't think I've ever commented on your stewarship or lack-thereof. I'd really like a diff of my grave dancing, but, failing that, grave dancing from any of mylot. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(after another ec) I have trouble believing that WMC's ego is so brittle that he was smarting from his loss (his electoral history IRL tends to support that view), and I don't think that it is "rubbing it in". As for Lar's role in this arbitration, I don't think that anyone involved expected this eight months out. Horologium (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(I've moved comments to make the timeline clear) Which is why I say "with 20/20 hindsight." I'm glad you assume that WMC is so stable that Stewards can show up on his talk page, which they had only previously edited to notify WMC that they were wheelwarring to have a page WMC wanted kept instead deleted, call them a whacko and he could be expected not to take it personally. As a note, most people are not that stable, so if any stewards are reading, unless you have an ongoing relationship with a user that would cause them to expect you to be showing up on their talk page making insulting jokes, just don't. That pretty much holds true for everyone - not just stewards. Of course, civility is more a "for thee, but not for me" requirement here, so feel free to not listen to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice - yes please, you do need to do this.

WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists - yes indeed I will, that is a good point. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. [22] ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands - you apologized to WMC for your unkind remark on your talk page in a section WMC had never edited. But, I guess you'll just say I'm spinning by pointing this out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, that's your spin, not mine. I said I acknowledged it wasn't a good remark. YOU are the one who jumped to conclusions about who I acknowledged it to and asked for diffs that don't exist. As an aside, it's rather late to apologise to WMC now, unfortunately.... if I thought it would do any good I would, though. But none of that is actually relevant. The actual spin here (from your side) is that I flubbed up, and that somehow excuses WMC's much more egregious flubs. Right. You guys keep pounding me with this... because it's way easier to do than try to defend WMC... I admit fault and then it can be used. He doesn't or if he does, it's not all that often. Carry on. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Lar, the spin from me is that you flubbed up, and an admin flubbing up in their adminly duties is serious, and needs to be dealt with seriously. It's only you who believes that you and WMC can't both flub up - that it's either one or the other that needs to be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no perfect admins. There are no perfect people, for that matter. Sorry to break it to you. What matters here is not perfection, but how far from the mark one is, and whether one has the introspection to acknowledge where one could improve. This case is primarily, or should be, about the topic area and what a hash it is, and about the editors who edit in the area, and what a hash they've made of things. Not primarily about me. You're engaging in diversionary tactics, and you should focus on what's important. This messenger shooting isn't it. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, Horologium - my entire reason for even mentioning that overdiscussed situation is that that diff is really not very useful for making the point it is cited to support. I think that the point itself may be valid, though (emphasis on my uncertainty - it is worth investigating in this context, but not something I am going to bother myself about). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't parse for me, I am afraid. Do you think this incident is significant in the larger context? Do you think those making much of it are doing so appropriately? Do you think there are more important things to focus on in this case? Do you think that this incident proves my supposed bias? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that on the face of it that is innocuous jocu-Lar comment, of the sort that is good for community-building when everybody is on the same wavelength. I do not think that it shows what it is being described as showing; if you made that comment *now* I might worry, but to the best of my knowledge you had no way of predicting later acrimony. I think that there is a reasonable case to be made without using questionable diffs that you may have some degree of bias related to the content or editors in this area. Having worked with you extensively at WP:GSCCRE, it is my considered opinion that you consistently strive for fairness, and your biases have developed based on your experiences adminning the area rather than being preconceived. I am humble enough, though, to acknowledge that what I see as bias might be entirely rational conclusions, or conversely that my own lack of preconceptions may have coloured my perceptions of yours.

Mostly, as a confessed pedant, it just bothered me to bad evidence being used where good evidence may exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think. :) And you, a pedant? I had no idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Hipocrite, if you have evidence of you apologizing to any of the people you've made gratuitous digs against, that too would be nice for arbitrators to see. To get an idea of who you'd be apologizing to, see my section of the evidence page. Single instances should tend to be of little importance to ArbCom, patterns of bad behavior should be of a lot of interest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• As JohnWBarber says, what arbs are looking for is long-term patterns or egregious problems, not single or isolated instances of poor judgment. The amount of talk above over a single diff in evidence and its context is illuminating but long overdone. I would recommend that more time be spent on developing and discussing other evidence. There is quite enough now related to this set of evidence for arbs to review. Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been pretty foreboding sifting through the 30-some-odd pages of archives to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, and some of the 'sections' I've written take this into account by stating something to the effect that "here is the easiest example to find, there are others." If it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling me if you want me to find those other examples or if those included are 'enough'? It will be a frustrating couple hours, but I'm willing to do it if that's what it will take to get something done about the issues I've raised. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage.. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, one example per person or article is not enough. Three to five would at least begin to establish a pattern in my mind (though other arbs may have different thresholds for that) and I also look for the timescale as well, as scattered diffs over years can indicate a low-level problem that can be excused, or a long-running one that can't be excused (it depends), and several diffs over a few months can also indicate a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair, though frustrating. I won't be able to add anything before the 'deadline' (I'm taking a break from a party to write this). But I get the impression you'll ask for further evidence at a later date. If your next step includes a "please give me evidence you say you have of x" it'd be well received.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. - done. I look forward to Lar's retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I would have put this inline, right below where I asserted it, but someone hatted the discussion I think. Whoever hatted can move it up there if they want So yes... I acknowledge you've provided not just one, but four different links to where you used the word "apologize" (well, actually, "apologise", since this is a UK/US variant spelling). One from 2006(!) and one to BozMo about something trivial while arguing with him about the rest of the matter at hand. Those two aren't too impressive. The one to Hipocrite, though... that's actually a pretty significant one. As is the one to Hans Adler. You could have skipped the first two I mentioned, as in that one you're admitting you erred about something substantial. Bravo. I was wrong. You are willing to apologise. I am sorry I misjudged you. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I hatted the discussion because it was veering into farce. Far too much attention is being paid to a single incident, ending up with people challenging each other to find diffs of where they apologised to other people. As I said above, there is other evidence that would benefit more from discussion. Also, some of the above comments come across (intentionally or not) as sarcastic, so people might want to bear that in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The wacko comment is just one of many diffs that shows Lar had a hostility to WMC before CC probation began. At the time of the wacko comment Lar had already tried to delete one of WMC's user pages. Let us not debate over one single edit but over whether Lar's previous non-admin interactions with WMC really allow Lar's "uninvolved admin" calls for WMC to be banned. I strongly believe they do not allow this and that Lar has not applied the necessary restrictions on his behaviour necessitating that others apply these restrictions. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadlines?

I thought we had a deadline for posting evidence? Is it as meaningless as all the other deadlines? Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be. I followed the deadline, fool that I am. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was intended to be end of day today but I could be mistaken. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Statement_by_drafting_arbitrators I see it says "11:59" which on quick read meant end of day to me at the time... but on a more careful read, noting the lack of an AM/PM indication (and thus meaning a 24 hour clock and thus one minute before noon) or a timezone indication (thus meaning UTC by default, I think) yes. It's expired. By the way: I don't think the tone you guys take is very helpful/collegial. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's my mistake, being an American and not used to a 24-hour clock. Make it 2359. Or even 23:59:59 if you like. In any time zone of the posting party's choosing.

The point of deadlines is not to have deadlines for the sake of having deadlines. It's to facilitate a resolution of the case. In the past, the arbitrators have been criticized, sometimes fairly, for taking much too long to resolve disputes, so we want to aim for this one to be addressed in a sensible time-span. I'm back from my trip today and will be rolling up my sleeves tonight and getting into the evidence, and I know the other drafters are as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In a case as complex as this one I sometimes wonder if it is realistic to expect the arbs to read all the evidence in detail and click on every diff. In this regard note Cla68 is using a tactic he has employed in other settings, which is to put his best diffs first and then bulk up the list with a large number of marginally relevant or irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whew! Had me scared there for a minute. I'd read it as a minute before "midnight", though I should know better. I plan to cut down my verbiage later, just trying to squeeze in the diffs now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got one more section to add before the 24-hour clock rolls over. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming the deadline is 23:59 UTC today (July 7)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The official statement by Brad is "In any time zone of the posting party's choosing." - that gives you (or me) another 12 hours or so (it's to late to consider the effect of DST here). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to Samoa time just so you don't miss the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. We can always use samoa evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Such trivialities have no place here. Puns may be enjoyable for young people, but most of us have groan out of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a Boris unlikely to like 'em. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was midnight Greenwich time. I'll add some more evidence. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, have to admit I'm stumped -- I don't see the pun there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• The point is not to forbid further submission of evidence or require rushed submissions to meet a deadline, but to allow a breathing space for arbitrators to consider the evidence submitted so far, and to respect that by asking the drafting arbitrators (I'm not one of them) if you want to submit further evidence or modify the evidence submitted so far. There is nothing more annoying than reviewing a set of evidence to then find it has been changed or added to. If there are substantial chunks of evidence that anyone feels they need to submit after this deadline, again, ask the drafting arbitrators and wait for a reply. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you all like to see more evidence of abuse of and POV editing in BLPs [23] [24] of warming contrarians? It is so pervasive and has gone on for so long that it would take more time to present it all. Cla68 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I could add something about inappropriate BLP editing by focusing on the Fred Singer article, but I don't want to if it's not needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 specifically cited BLPs of "contrarians." Does that mean individuals adhering to the consensus view have no right to BLP protection? Consider for example AQFN's characterization of CRU scientists as "criminals" in the absence of any conviction (or even trial). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Contrarians" evidently means, according to what I've seen while compiling evidence, anyone who WMC or RealClimate appears to disagree with. That doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a human-caused-global-warming skeptic. It could be, for example, someone who supports the human-caused theory to some degree, but may find fault with the hockey team's research. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're dodging the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See my evidence, second source. That should explain the meaning of "contrarian". Peer-reviewed social science article. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence limits

Does anyone (arbs, clerks) care about evidence limits at all? By my count, Cla is up to 3k, JWB at 2.3k. Boris User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration reckons the arbs barely read the evidence anyway so it may be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a large case, and there is a tension. When people hew to the limits it leads to "but that was an isolated incident" sorts of characterizations. When they don't, then there are complaints about length. I suppose someone could find some other people to take on parts of Cla's evidence under their names, thus hewing to the letter of the restriction, if not the spirit. That seems a bad idea, though. Personally, the more evidence from Cla, the better, as his evidence is high quality, and damning. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you like damning evidence. How unbiased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly better than irrelevant evidence, isn't it? Exonerating evidence is always nice too, though. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the excess text in those sections are explaining or quoting the diffs provided. That's explicitly what the drafters requested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear: 3k of evidence when the limit is 1k is just fine by you and arbcomm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Long answer: it is more important that evidence is comprehensible, rather than a particular length. It can take longer to read a barrage of diffs with little attached commentary, than it can to read a few diffs clearly explained. If I had had more time, I would have tried to point out which bits of evidence I found easier to read, and encouraged those presenting evidence to adopt the clearest possible style. It shouldn't be too much of a problem in this case, as three arbs are drafting, but I would hope that any arbitrator that struggles to understand someone's evidence would leave a note asking for clarification. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More time for analysis of evidence?

I think that, if anything, more time is needed for editors to evaluate the "evidence" (scare quotes intentional) that has already been given. Allegation is not proof, and much of the so-called evidence consists of unsubstantiated accusations, prettied up by diffs that, I've found, don't even come close to supporting the underlying accusations. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The rolling "deadlines" have been a fiasco. May as well cut it off right now as any time. Agreed on the proof by repeated assertion and bulking-up with irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any deadline for analysis-of-evidence? I'd assumed that after the evidence deadline (if there ever is one) there would be, say, a week for analysis. Having the analysis deadline the same as the evidence one would be really weird William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Given the volume of diffs thrown out there, many at the last moment, it's not fair for the deadlines to be the same. Some of the diffs reach back years. To find the version of Climate change referenced in a discussion back in 2006 that Cla68 cited, I had to go back through pages upon pages of article history, which took a fair amount of time even at 500 per page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis should be ongoing, as it may take some time for arbs to go through the evidence presented so far (see also what Brad said below at 21:54, 8 July 2010). There are short cuts that can be used to get to a particular date or period in the page history. Use the year and month options in the page history to find a particular month. Use the date parameters in the URLs to find a particular day or time (you can narrow this down to each second if needed). So if you have the timestamp of the discussion, it should be relatively eassy to see what the page looked like at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to discard any evidence sections (or polemic masquerading as such) which are not explicitly referred to by any workshop findings. I know that SlimVirgin's statement would fall into that category; there may be quite a bit more. One of the (many) problems in the Abd-WMC arbitration was massive 'evidence' submissions that never actually made it into any proposed findings. While we haven't approached that case's epic level of chaff here, pruning of unused or irrelevant material could still be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that would be premature. I have been taking a look at SV's contribution, and if she does not suggest some findings and proposed remedies of her own, I might take a crack at it. Her section does not contain an exhaustive list of diffs, but looks at some of the underlying dispute, which is a great deal deeper than most of the "he's been mean/he's been stupid/he's too involved/my way or the highway" whinging which permeates a lot of the diffs here. (added after Lar's comment) I'm not referring to the e-mail incident, I am referring to the whole sourcing issue which the bulk of her evidence discusses. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SV's evidence, I believe, requires some institutional knowledge of past arbitration regarding a group which was sometimes referred to as the "Intelligent Design Cabal." Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No deadline was given for analysis but I've assumed that it would be welcome for some time to come, it's a give and take process... certainly until just before the arbs start drafting the proposed decision, if not later. Just my guess, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Holologium, I hadn't thought of suggesting specific remedies, because there's so much for the Arbs to read, I kind of assumed they wouldn't want any. But if I were going to suggest anything it would be that they reaffirm the spirit of the NPOV policy, and perhaps also that they ask the community to examine whether the policy's current wording lends itself to misuse. That was why I posted the statement, to pull some of the focus onto what I see as the essence of the problem. I probably won't be back online until tomorrow (my time), but I'll try to come up with some wording then for a finding or remedy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the proposal page (I will admit that I have not been following it all that closely), I see that some of the topics I wanted to address have already have been suggested by others, with the sort of unhelpful language that makes me throw up my hands in disgust. The science may have a preponderance of support for one theory over another, but the politics have not been settled, and the politics are a huge part of the issue. Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus, regardless of the credentials of the person arguing against the consensus. I will be going back to ignoring this topic, because it is irretrievably broken, like any political topic on Wikipedia. We have people who have a severe conflict of interest guarding the henhouse, and the culture of Wikipedia cannot effectively deal with this issue without tearing the project apart. Horologium (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if everyone who feels as you do walks away in disgust, there won't be anyone left to present that perspective. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus. You're wrong, as shown by the evidence page. But if you have any evidence that says otherwise it would be a good idea to present it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought several points of my evidence demonstrated how much obstructionism occurs when any biting criticism is added to the articles. As I've said before, even on the articles/sections that deal with AGW skepticism there is a tendency to cull the most damning criticisms and instead set up straw men that you can knock down easily - rarely, if ever, presenting the counterarguments to your straw men. It must be nice being able to set up your opponents arguments and then "thrash" them with your brilliance - I've never been one to play chess games with myself since I rather like improving my game. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not obviously. I've just had another look and I can't see any relevant section headers. Could you point out you "best diff" or two that shows up this problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, obvious to outside eyes, I admit some of the evidence is a bit thick and it is hard to wade through such a mire to see patterns, but I suppose I could just show the pre-Arbcom article edits of Kim [25] (seems to be trying to avoid sanction by staying so quiet right now), Schulz [26] and yourself [27] and let the pattern speak for itself, noting slightly there are many more "reversions" that aren't labeled as such in the edit summaries. The fact of the matter is that the majority of your groups contributions consist of removing other people's content - which is indeed obstructionism. I'm sure you have a good excuse for it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for something more specific. But I took the first diff in the first list [28] and it seems perfectly acceptable: as it says in the edit summary: it removes non-scientific opinion from an article about scientific opinion. Continuing, the first from Stephan [29] adds, rather than removes, information, so I don't think you have done your homework properly. Even you can't claim that is censoring stuff, can you? And my first [30] takes out some really dodgy stuff sourced to Sciencedaily. In any case it has nothing to do with "controversy". Do you really have nothing better? I think your mistake is trying to scatter-shot stuff: you need to pick out some actual diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh this gave me a good chuckle. I show you a pattern and you cherrypick some specifics, I show specifics in my evidence page and you all cry out that you are all are generally "fantastic content contributors." Nevertheless, my evidence page speaks for itself, but clearly not everyone is capable of listening - otherwise we wouldn't be here. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am reading through the case pages in detail and so are the other drafters. The deadlines are guidelines for when evidence and other submissions needed to be submitted to make sure we read everything. If someone adds additional evidence or proposals now, the problem is not that they are "past the deadline"; it is that if I've already read that section or that page, I'm likely to miss it. We'll probably read the analysis of evidence section last, and additional cogent analysis will probably be helpful to everyone, although reiteration for the umpteenth time of points alrady made will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. If you can provide some kind of cut-off point for analysis it would be helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Archive" the present evidence?

Why not create a subpage for all the presented evidence to a date/time of approx. now, and once that is done continue adding evidence on this page? Any archived evidence being worked upon can be transferred to the live page. Arbs can then read the subpage, then declare a moratorium on presentation of fresh evidence effective in 24 hours and then read the newer evidence page. That way Arbs can review without potential disruption, and evidence can continue to be gathered until a definitive deadline is announced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Better to just enforce the evidence deadline instead and avoid the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a better idea: strikethrough all mentions of deadlines on the Evidence and Workshop pages, as they are only creating confusion. Then all the effort being spent trying to figure out what the deadlines mean could be devoted to something substantive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving would mess up links from the Workshop. If a page for "new" evidence is to be set it, that should be done on a subpage. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It sure would. A page for new evidence makes a bit more sense. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but probably best for now to stick to analysing the current evidence and letting arbitrators review the evidence presented so far. As I said before, if you think more evidence is needed, that can be discussed, but it is important to have this pause to allow everyone participating to absorb/digest/understand the evidence presented so far. That will help to focus the case and avoid wasted effort. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My invitation to present more evidence of BLP abuses is still open. I pointed out one avenue in my evidence section for the Committee members to find much of it for themselves, but if you all would rather someone collate more of it for you, please let me/us know. Cla68 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction to my evidence section

I just realized that I erred in my evidence section and have corrected it. I forgot that it was 2/0 who asked for assistance from the BLPN forum about the Lawrence Solomon article, not me. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I had just protected the article to interrupt an edit war that included an invocation of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. The Wrong Version in this case was the version that included the questionably sourced material. I did not think that the seriousness of the issue merited the potential chilling effects of invoking the BLP-hammer, but I requested that the good volunteers at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Lawrence Solomon take a look as a check on my judgment. Also, thanks for the correction, Cla68, I had forgotten that issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One other note, I was just made aware of this article, started by SBHB on June 15 two days after this case opened. Guettarda has also helped out with it. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

This isn't discussion of evidence, these are proposed findings of fact or remedies; You are welcome to submit Workshop proposals if you would like.

I have not edited any of the articles or talk pages. Ive never participated in sny of the disciplinary discussions, and any interaction I've had with any involved editor has been incidental and unrelated. I have basically no interest in the subject of global warming and no opinion on the science. I discovered this corner of Wikipedia quite by accident. ^^ The fact that I found it necessary to make such a disclaimer before making a substantive comment should be revealing to anyone considering the outcome of this process. The environment is beyond hostile. The social dynamics is more akin to that portrayed in "Lord of the Flies." This is a Wikipedia embarrassment of gigantic proportion. Having said that, here are the observations from an outsider (and I'm certain I will be eviscerated for stating it so bluntly): 1. There's a cabal on both sides and it's quite easy for outsiders to find the bright line that separates each side. The AGW cabal is more cohesive and coordinated because they have a very clear figurehead in William M. Connolley. I doubt Connolley has to canvass at all or rally the troups -- at this juncture, the cheerleading is automatic and reflexive. The AGW cabal is generally much nastier and tenacious. That fact is borne out by a quick perusal of the subject articles which remain disproportionately biased in tone and content in favor of the AGW POV. 2. "Scientific consensus" is a misnomer used to describe the majority view. There are enough notable experts who are skeptical of the AGW science that it is intellectually dishonest to say there's a consensus. As such, it is equally dishonest to refer to the growing minority view as a "fringe view." The phrase "scientific consensus" is being used as a weapon to silence notable alternative views and that needs to stop. The two camps should be referred to as "majority view" and "alternate view" or something equally benign. 3. BLP treatment, especially by AGW POV-ers, is absolutely abhorrent. It is difficult to believe that this has been tolerated for so long. Part of the problem is that CC issues are insulated from the larger Wikipedia community and disciplinary discussions and enforcement actions are self-contained. Any request for sanctions, BLP discussions, probation enforcenents etc should be exposed to the whole community as prominently as AN/I so that the commuity may enforce its collective will. Having kept this area isolated, it has developed its own code of conduct and its own set of content and behavioral rules that absolutely would not be tolerated in the wider Wikipedia community. 4. William M. Conolley appears to be one of the most disruptive forces Wikipedia has ever seen. This subject area has become his playground in derogation of all that Wikipedia stands for. The amount of human hours devoted to dealing with his behavior and the natural consequences of his behavior is staggering! His contributions are not so valuable that he should be allowed to continue. Sanctions against him are ignored. He is a bully and I would imagine even other admins are afraid to cross him. In my opinion, if Connolley is removed, most of the existing problems will be resolved without the need for special probations and arbitrations because without his influence other editors will settle down into more reasonable behavior. 5. Although sockpuppetry has been a plague, it is a predictable and natural result of being unfairly silenced and bullied. Remove the oppression in the environment here and the sockpuppet problem will likewise resolve itself. Minor4th • talk 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Very little of that makes sense. Most obviously self-contradictory is I have basically no interest in the subject of global warming and no opinion on the science... There are enough notable experts who are skeptical of the AGW science that it is intellectually dishonest to say there's a consensus. which makes it clear that actually you *do* hold a strong position on the state of the science. As for all the rest... you'd be far better off producing diffs rather than a long screed. Also, you've somehow omitted to note our previous interaction, where you failed to read TND's block log correctly [31] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Doctor Connolley is a former admin (and apparently does not give or receive small US monetary coinage consequently...) Other than that, and especially the call for the legitimisation of sockpuppetry in these matters, your comments are singularly unhelpful and it is hoped that the clerk will exorcise them when they become aware of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Minor4th's view seems fairly accurate to me. I disagree, however, that topic-banning a single editor will be enough to end the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC) You mispelled "excoriated." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC) @LessHeard vanU This is not a call for legitimisation of sockpuppetry at all. Socks should be banned when discovered, and by no means should the practice be encouraged or tolerated. I was offering an opinion as to why there has been a prolific use of sockpuppets in this area. If you find my comments unhelpful, please disregard them. I'm not accustomed to a request for comments on a talk page to be exorcised when someone finds them "unhelpful", but if that is the way things are done in the CC corner of Wikipedia, by all means ..... @William M. Conolley - I do not hold a strong opinion of the science and couldn't even tell you what the majority view says or what the alternate view criticisms are. I just know there is a large body of criticism and it's not just from a handful of fringe wackos. I commented on an SPI block that looked questionable to me. I don't know any of the people involved and thank you for pointing it out if it's relevant to this discussion. I'm sorry you had trouble understanding my comment, but it's been deemed unhelpful in any event so no need to trouble yourself over it. Minor4th • talk 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but "I do not hold a strong opinion of the science" and "there is a large body of criticism and it's not just from a handful of fringe wackos" are not compatible. Please take a look at scientific opinion on climate change and think about why all major academies of science, from the US NAS to the Chinese Academy and the Royal Society, support the consensus position. If anything, our articles overrepresent alternative opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC) No, thank you. :) My comments are not incompatible. There are competing blogs debating the issue, various op-ed pieces in notable publications debating the issue, books are written by notable people who have authored other books, meta-wiki pages tracking the edits here -- whether it's right or wrong, there is plenty of criticism out there, and one can acknowledge the existence of the criticism without knowing anything about the science or forming an opinion about it. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the outside view. To be honest, I don't see WMC as the main issue. Most of his edits are so obviously disruptive that they're reverted with little or no fuss. It's editors like ChrisO (e.g., User_talk:ChrisO#Assuming_good_faith, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit#.22some_sceptics_allege.22_vs._.22it_has_been_alleged.22), Tony Sidaway (e.g. "we should paraphrase reports by WSJ and Reason of 'x' as 'there was selective and lurid presentation of x' and then remove WSJ and Reason from the article", [32] [33] [34]), Guettarda, Dave Souza (e.g., Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Heyitspeter), and co. that make the editing environment so awful.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. I'm going to read your links. Minor4th • talk 02:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Editors not welcome?

Watts up with that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Galatians 4:16? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Galatians 4:17 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Galatians 4:18 TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine: I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to. The point remains that just because you may agree with the IP doesn't make his/her actions okay. It was insulting and the very definition of a throw-away post, and your attempt to legitimize what for many editors is a blockable offense serves no purpose. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you are perfectly welcome to collapse and delete things to your heart's content. That isn't what I'd do, but it doesn't really matter. Personally I find Stephan's claim that the blog I contribute at is telling people to be meat/sockpuppets to be an outrageous lie, but I don't think his claims should be deleted - I want people to measure his honesty themselves. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Climatic Research Unit documents controversy to your watchlist?

I was thinking. Is it too much to ask that arbitrators (or at least >/=1 arbitrator) follow events at Climatic Research Unit documents controversy and its associated talkpage? Since it's arguably the most contentious article I think that would be fruitful, and would probably give them a better idea of "what's going on" than would the painstakingly gathered sections of diffs you see on the evidence section. There's still plenty enough ongoing drama for this to be worthwhile, it seems to me. No worries if the answer to the second question of this sentence is "no." Just thought I'd ask.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear arbitrators

There were a lot of requests that evidence show not just an isolated incident but a longterm pattern of disruptive editing. I've been lazy about sifting through the 30 or so archive pages, but since I was roughly doing so for another editor anyway, and since I was looking for more of the same kind of editing I brought to your attention here, and over the exact same section, but much older, I figured I'd post it. It was deleted by Amory here, and reasonably I think. He suggested that I ask the arbitrators about it before adding it so it doesn't confuse or frustrate any of you. That's kind of what I'm doing here. No worries if you'd rather I abstain, and no worries if you want me to bring further examples to your attention. I can do either.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This section of your evidence complements mine nicely - core wikipedia policy like WP:Verify is routinely ignored in order to POV push. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering evidence

I have really tried to avoid adding new evidence past the deadline in this case. But a recent dispute is such a good example of the wikilawyering that goes on around this topic area I thought I should bring it up here.

I, and several other editors, have tried to use a book, which appears to meet our criteria as a reliable source, in an article, without success. We did not add new text to the article, just a citation, but the source was removed anyway [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. I filed an enforcement request over what I felt was a clear violation of our policies and guidelines, but the responding admins classified it as a content dispute and declined to intervene. A debate took place on the talk page for the article [41] [42] [43] and at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) [44]. The opposing editors then edit warred to remove favorable information from the article on the book itself [45] [46] [47]. The removal of this content is not supported by policy, IMO, as discussed on the talk page.

I believe that this is a clear example of tendentious and POV editing by WMC's group. The book is published by an independent publisher who does not appear to have a bad repuation on fact checking, the book does not promote a "fringe" theory (the hockey stick is very controversial, including two papers disputing the graph published in peer reviewed scientific journals by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, hearings before the US Congress in which geoscientist Gerald North and statistician Edward Wegman presented reports criticizing the research (note this and [48] removal of RS, this is probably an acceptable edit) and other criticisms which aren't included presently in the hockey stick controversy article. The book has been informally recommended by climatologist Judith Curry [49] and used as a source in two academic papers [50], one of which was signed by climate change scientist Mike Hulme. The opinions of uninvolved editors at the RSN differed, but generally appeared to endorse at least limited use of the book [51] [52] [53] although other opinions differed to varying degrees, both pro and con [54] [55] [56].

What concerns me is the intractability of the editors in question to even discuss using the book as a source for uncontroversial information. They have made it clear that they will continue to do so in the future with books which haven't even been released yet. In response to a post of mine at the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article [57] in which I said that I was looking forward to more books coming out on the subject in the future, Tony Sideaway and ChrisO responded by clearly stating that they would not allow books to be used that gave views that they don't agree with [58] [59] [60]. In other words, they're making it clear in advance that they plan on barring any book, yet sight unseen, which presents a view that they consider "fringe" or "psuedoscience." Their definition of what constitutes "fringe" as related to climate change appears to me, based on what I've observed, to mean an opinion which differs with theirs, no matter how well the published opinion complies with our RS guidelines. As my example above illustrates with the Illusion book, even if it is shown that the book has been used as a source in one or more academic papers, they still will fight it. I don't think this is a very reasonable attitude and is not appropriate for Wikipedia's culture of editing which requires a willingness and ability to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A general problem I see with this kind of argument is that many of the conclusions asserted require a climate change expert to really evaluate the WP:DUE accurately. In other words, is this a case of wikilawyering or a case of pushing something in violation of wp:DUE? I'm not a climate change expert. So all I can give are hypothetical examples of more specific examples. For example, being referenced as a source in two academic papers requires expertise to evaluate the real relevance of that point. Two doesn't sound like very many references to me and I don't know what the references were for, perhaps it was referenced as an example of how a really bad idea can lead to ridiculous theories? Like I said, I'm not such an expert, therefore the example should be considered hypothetical only. I think in these kind of content disputes, we require expert opinions. My uninvolved view is that one side is not able to assume good faith in the experts that Wikipedia is lucky enough to have in this area. I'm not trying to decipher cause-and-effect blame here. I'm just trying to explain what appears to be one of the root cause issues in the case. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, while you are technically accurate, that it does qualify as reliable under wikipedia's rules, I generally don't think you should use it. That being said, your specific use of it was quite innocuous and it was rather silly to remove it - several scientists, even social scientists, trumped up by the other side like Naomi Oreskes have published their own books which are clearly more tilted towards advocacy/money-making. In short, considering the topic area I think it is a bad precedent to set.

That being said, I suspect, assuming it properly cites sources, that the book may be a fine resource for you by leading you to specific sections in other sources (e.g. the Wegman report). Of course, the crux of the matter isn't really the source, that's just an example of obstructionism meant to frustrate people, the real problem is that anything critical of the Real Climate crowd/conclusions, no matter how well sourced, will be edit warred and wikilawyered to death. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)