Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Climate change

Initiated by William M. Connolley (talk) at 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Wikipedia:ARBCC#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned
Details of desired modification: Removal / Lifting

Statement by William M. Connolley

The restriction is no longer necessary.

Update: apparently I should consider providing further information, especially in regard to his perception of why the topic ban was applied, and why it's no longer necessary. OK: the second is easiest: at the time of ARBCC, there were multiple wars/fights/messes all over various climate pages. No-one could be bothered to work out exactly who was to blame; the solution was to ban lots of people. Those problems have largely gone (indeed, a look back at the edit histories will see that they had gone before the case closed, as I said at the time), which is a large part of why the remedies are no longer needed. As to the first: well, I read and thought about what was written in the case, in particular William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic. I think the extensive second para largely about my own talk page now reads pretty oddly, but we don't need to go over that. The general injunction to be more civil has been taken to heart; you can judge me on my behaviour over the past, say, 6 months: that being your timeframe. As to BLPs: I will be more cautious.

Re Collect's stuff: as Boris said, no-one is going to believe that C is uninvolved - as I think you can tell from his mud-flinging: my edits to Ian Morris (historian) were nothing to do with climate; and the word isn't even mentioned on the page. If anyone thinks that was a violation or a "nibbling" at my ban, they should raise it at enforcement. The same is true for Journal of Cosmology.

More substantively, C asserts that he is not arguing post hoc, ergo propter hoc but in fact that is the entire substance of his argument. So the question is, does having me editing CC pages inevitably cause conflict? The answer is clearly no: there have been long stretches of such editing with no problems (back in, oh, 2008 we had more than a year of peace; even in the early CC case my only sanction was later realised to be an error and repealed); the conflicts around CC leading up to ARBCC wasn't caused by my entering the area, but by an influx of "skeptical" editors occasioned by the CRU email excitement. C's entire argument is nothing but his involved opinion that there is a real chance that the serenity would be rather roiled by his return but he offers no evidence for this. His argument that the topic ban should remain in force could be used against all the banned editors, in perpetuity, with equal "logic". In which case, arbcomm would have made the bans permanent. That they didn't, instead effectively setting a 6 month cooling down period (now long past) suggests that they intended the bans to be reconsidered.

Update: 75.218.64.123 / Journal of Cosmology: all that stuff looks badly confused. In the interests of not adding pointless text, I'll ignore it. If any of the arbs is interested in a reply, please let me know and I'll be happy to.

Update: by their enemies ye shall know them: I adduce AH and ZP5's statements in my favour. Updated: I should clarify this, since some people have managed to misunderstand it. These people have declared that they regard me as an enemy; this is quite clear from their edits. I have not and do not declare them as my enemies.

Update: In fact, WMC continues to blame other editors for his conduct: "the conflicts around CC leading up to ARBCC wasn't caused by my entering the area, but by an influx of 'skeptical' editors occasioned by the CRU email excitement". AQFK misunderstands. My statement is a simple one of fact: I didn't enter the area; I was already there. The flare-up that occurred then cannot have been caused by my entry, because my entry didn't occur William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

It is clear that with WMC being absent there have been few conflicts in the CC arena. While I would not argue "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" the fact that the area is calm and apparently now in good order does not mean that WMC's return would keep that serenity intact. In fact, there is a real chance that the serenity would be rather roiled by his return. I suggest then that the original order remain in force. The "findings" in that case were clear, and I see no reason to suspect that they were made in error. The precise argument made here would apply identically to all those topic-banned, and I see no reason to suspend the topic ban for one and not for all if the only substantive reason given is that there is no problem now. I am unsure that this is a sufficient argument, indeed. During the topic ban, WMC has edited on Journal of Cosmology which [1] does publish articles directly on Climate Change. He has edited on Ian Morris (historian) adding material critical of a person whose book specifically mentions climate change 52 times [2] . In short, WMC has "nibbled at the edges" of his topic ban already. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SB - I was and am uninvolved in the Climate Change area. My "partisanship" I suppose is shown by my edits on Johann Hari and Chris Hulme I suppose -- in point of fact my only "partisanship" is my belief that BLPs must be maintained under WP:BLP and neither puffed nor demonized. My posts on ArbCom pages have been, to the best of my ability, scrupulous, as the diffs provided quite show. Lastly, I fail to see how attacking me affects the validity of my comments. Cheers, but next time try to stick to the topic at hand. Collect (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC I dislike the smear of "mud flinging." I would have hoped that civility would reign in this procedure, but an apparent lack of civility might induce arbitrators to look at your edits more closely than they might have otherwise. The arbitrators are well able to read the diffs and to determine whether the Journal of Cosmology has run articles on Climate Change and whether Ian Morris's book has 52 mentions of "Climate Change" as a specific term. I have no connection with the Climate Change arbitration other than as a person commenting on an interesting statistical relationship between editors who editted heavily in that area. I doubt that the statistical research I undertook makes me "involved" to any reasonable extent in the matter at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DS: I did not find anything in the Arbcom imposed restrictions saying "but pro-Climate Change articles do not count and are not covered." In fact, I pointed out that a strict interpretation of the restrictions clearly imposed and stated applies to even articles about people and publications which support AGW. Nor does the restriction make any exception for whether the edits support or are critical of a person or publication -- so that argument is also a massive fail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) @DS -- I would suggest that it is better to look at the facts presented than to make ad hominem remarks about other editors on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@CI (gosh a lot of folks seem to be quite conversational about my simple, succinct points) I said there was "nibbling" and did not say "a violation." I stand by my post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

While I harbor no illusions regarding the outcome of this appeal, Collect's claim of "uninvolved" status cannot go unchallenged. Even a cursory examination of his edit history shows extensive and partisan involvement. For a more or less random and far from complete sample of diffs of his participation in the original case, see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (note this one is an argument with WMC), [15]. Also [16] [17] here he argues with WMC on WMC's talk page, and here he speaks in favor of WMC's topic ban. His statement that the topic area has been "calm and in good order" since WMC's ejection from it is similarly imaginative, but that is another issue for another day. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Count Iblis

The problems in the CC area have gone away, mainly due to the articles being put under the General Sanctions Regime and TS, NuclearWarfare, and a few others aggressively patrolling this area without that generating any bickering. But just like a broken leg is only fully cured when you can walk on it again and not when you have put bandage on it, one now needs to allow editors who are able to contribute productively like William editing again. The General Sanctions will still be there, so there is no risk of problems escalating.

What can happen is that William's return may make some hidden problems visible so that these can be dealt with effectively using the General Sanctions system. For the CC area to become fully healthy, this is therefore a necessary step. Then without the old problems, most of the extra energy one gets in this area by allowing William back in will go into productive article work instead of fueling disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William of all people acknowledging the accuracy of the findings when even Alex writes here that: "He is right that ArbCom banned lots of people because that was easier than trying to figure out what was going on..."?? :) . Just imagine that William were to make such a statement in the future. Then surely, William's account would be indefinitely blocked as that would strongly suggest that his account has been hacked :) .

So, let's simply look toward the future and consider if the William we know, with some changes in behavior that he pledges to make, can contribute productively in the CC area which is now under a General Sanctions regime. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I think that this issue was clarified by ArbCom. As I understand it, topic banned editors are allowed to edit a BLP that has some relation to climate change, provided they stay well clear of making CC related edits. Otherwise, you could not even edit any article related to the Republican primaries, because most of the candidates have made statements about climate change.

In this respect the topic ban is more restrictive to William than it is for, say, Cla68, because William is not allowed to edit anything related to atmospheric physics, even if it is completely unrelated to climate change. This is because most Admins lack the scientific background to see that an edit there is indeed unrelated to climate change, while in case of an BLP edit, anyone can check that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stephan Schulz

I think the relative calm at the climate change articles is only very partially the result of the last ArbCom intervention - we have seen such cycles of increased and decreased activity before, usually driven by external events (a new IPCC report, US elections, Hacked emails...). While the area currently is somewhat quiet, there has, in my opinion, been a slow erosion of article quality, not due to POV editing, but simply due to a lack of experts like WMC (and SBHB, who has essentially left the field after the ArbCom decision). Thus, I would very much urge the committee to relax the constraints on William. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Collects's addition: I'd say this is exactly the kind of behaviour that WP:NLT is supposed to counteract with respect to real courts. And, of course, if we stretch climate change to Ian Morris (historian), we might as well stretch it to Mick Jagger - after all, he experiences the effects of changing climate, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that User: GoRight has been mentioned, it might be interesting to note that he is canvassing off-wiki to join this discussion: If you are so inclined I encourage anyone with an opinion on this matter to express it there. The grammar seems to be a bit shaky, but the intention is clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

Just to be objective, one should ask the following questions:

Has William demonstrated their ability to contribute constructively to the other areas of the project during their topic ban? I think the answer is :"Yes".
Has William violated his topic ban ever since they were banned? There are several blocks dated November-December 2010 (not sure if this is related to his topic ban), but he has been compliant ever since.
Is William promising to behave in the future? Yes, he said: "The general injunction to be more civil has been taken to heart... As to BLPs: I will be more cautious."

So, I do not see any reason why the topic ban for William can not be lifted, especially since you lifted it even for an editor like YMB29 who did not contribute to the project during the entire period of his ban (and edit war since then [18]). I would support William as a highly knowledgeable and long-term contributor, even though we had a dispute about nuclear winter [19]. Biophys (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I would advise WMC to respond to the comment/concerns by Jclemens. Think about this as a problem for analysis and self-reflection, rather than a public admission of guilt. What exactly went wrong the previous time? What exactly will be done to avoid such problems in future? That's important.Biophys (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

I agree with NYBrad's proposal to continue the restriction on WMC for editing climate change-related BLPs. Some of the scientists involved in the debate on climate change who have been subjected to some severe criticims or attacks by the media or by other scientists are friends and colleagues of WMC. Otherwise, if WMC is promising not to edit war or treat other editors rudely on article talk pages, then I think it should be fine for him to return to editing the CC articles. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Volunteer Marek: I can understand why you might feel that other editors are asking WMC to grovel. I don't think, however, that that's what they are asking for here. If I understand right, what they're really asking is that WMC admit that he was wrong, apologize, and promise never to do it again. In many cultures, including the one I was born in and the one I currently live in, doing so allows the offfender and the offended parties (in this case, the Wikipedia community) to move on because the offender is staking his name on the promise to forever amend his behavior for the better. It's not an unequal transaction, because once the offender apologizes, the offended parties are expected to accept it and never mention it again unless the behavior is repeated. Everyone has to make an effort to reestablish trust and harmony. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with a couple of editors on this page that it was dismaying to see WMC refer to a couple of his detractors as "enemies" and implying that their opposition served as some sort of validation. No topic in Wikipedia deserves someone who views what should be a collegial editing environment in those kinds of terms. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In WMC's comment about his "enemies", was he obliquely referring to this quote?: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting, Jonathan Swift Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 75.218.64.123

Sockpuppet of Bookworm44

My recent interaction with Mr. Connolley at Journal of Cosmology seems pertinent to this proceeding. It was through that interaction that I had occasion to review Mr. Connolley's recent contributions and subsequently this proceeding and the original arbitration case upon which it is based.

My concern with Mr. Connolley is with regards to remedies [20] and [21] with which Mr. Connolley can now be assumed to be familiar.

[22] shows Mr. Connolley reinserting a purported BLP violation before engaging in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Once he did engage in the discussion he argued that blogs are perfectly fine sources supporting the statement he reinserted which included calling living people cranks. When this was pointed out to him as being a BLP violation, he reinserted the offending text with the deceptive edit summary "so how about dropping the 'cranks' bit, which isn't important, but retaining the substance?" suggesting that he had, in fact, removed the "cranks" bit when he hadn't. Stricken as incorrect. I somehow managed to review the wording from the previous edit and the error was mine. 75.218.64.123 (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the current content on the article's talk page reveals that this material has been controversial for quite some time. Given this one can only assume that Mr. Connolley's judgement with respect to the spirit and intent of the remedies referenced above is severely defective. He continues to support the use of personal blogs which are subject to no editorial controls as a means of disparaging the work and character of other living and identifiable people.

In a similar vein he is also calling the peer review process of the journal into question. In this case there isn't even a dispute as to whether such a process exists because the journal's detractors are themselves critiquing the relative merits of that process. Mr. Connolley asked for a WP:RS which refers to JOC as peer reviewed. I provided one. He then chose to ignore it and move the goal posts in furtherance of wanting to edit his WP:OR personal opinion into the content of the article based on no sources at all.

Again, one can only assume that his judgement with respect to the remedies referenced above is severely defective. Based solely on his ban in the aforementioned arbitration I can only assume that climate change is his personal passion. If he is unable to exercise good judgment and proper restraint on topics which presumably are of little interest to him such as we see here how will he be able to do so for something he cares about deeply.

Zealotry in support of a personal point of view is not something that the project needs more of. Relax his restrictions with extreme caution. If you do choose to relax his restrictions I recommend that he be required to propose edits to the climate change topics through an appropriate mentor who may be able to help him to better understand the nature and causes of his current sanctions. 75.218.64.123 (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (Note that I currently edit via a dynamic IP)[reply]

Update:

Reviewing Mr. Connolley's recent edits, one does not have too go very far back to find examples of deceptive edit summaries which required rework by other editors and the continued ruffling the feathers of other editors. I assume that these are some of the things which got him in trouble to begin with. If these are the results we see in uncontroversial areas what can we expect in a controversial one like climate change? 75.218.64.123 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

Mr. Connolley, from this one can only assume that you are unfamiliar with WP:BATTLEGROUND. We do not strive here to be enemies, but rather colleagues. This is something you would do well to reflect upon. --174.252.213.159 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Proposal:

After reading the comments of the other editors here a few points are clear. First the final decision of the climate change arbitration case was considered to be a blanket approach of handing out topic bans to both sides equally. Second, the arguments both for and against lifting restrictions from Mr. Connolley are argued to be applicable to all who received these topic bans. So why not resolve both issues by issuing a blanket amnesty for all of the topic banned editors rather than just one individual? This would provide an equal remedy to all just as the topic bans provided equal sanctions to all. --174.252.197.225 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

TenOfAllTrades makes an excellent argument that Mr. Connolley is a lightening rod in the area ofclimate change. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alex Harvey

I disclaim that I agree with William Connolley's statement that ArbCom's remedy was arbitrary and lazy. He is right that ArbCom banned lots of people because that was easier than trying to figure out what was going on. That said, there was never any doubt that William Connolley's own behaviour was a significant causal factor in the general disruption. He may have been no worse than some of the other most disruptive editors, but due to his unique status as a professional climate scientist without anonymity, his behaviour doubtlessly caused younger and impressionable editors to copy him.

My problem with William Connolley's statement above is the lack of remorse displayed. There is no evidence that he accepts any responsibility for anything. Thus, I am in favour of the remedy remaining in place until this changes. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I also note WMC has dismissed my comments as those of an "enemy". Anyone can look at my unedited talk page to examine how much abuse & harrassment I took from WMC. I am not, however, WMC's "enemy" and it truly saddens me that he would not cooperate or collaborate with me but sought only to drive me from the project because he thinks I am a "skeptic" (actually he thinks I am a "septic" but that's another matter). I was not involved in any of the ArbCom cases that led to WMC's sanctioning. It is obvious that if WMC's ban was lifted now he would immediately revert to the same behaviour that led to his ban in the first place. He is already engaging in that behaviour - as has been pointed out by AQFK below. What I would like is to see WMC actually genuinely want to contribute to the climate change pages. I believe he simply wants to go back to fighting with skeptics. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved ZuluPapa5

Agree with Alex Harvey above (he's quicker here than me.) Without remorse, regret and arbcom validation, WMC offers little for reform now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear

William M. Connolley is one of our very best expert editors. To keep him from editing articles related to his field of expertise deprives Wikipedia of excellent contributions. I examined the arbitration case in question, and could not avoid getting the feeling that this may in fact (like Dr Connolley suggests) have been yet another dispute "solved" by the ArbCom by banning a roughly equal number of editors from both "sides". That has certainly been ArbCom's favourite tactic in the past. Whatever the true reasons for it, it is not far-fetched to assume that 1) lack of time for perform a thorough investigation to determine who is to blame and 2) laziness - going for a seemingly "neutral" option of least resistance - could be among them. It is well possible that Dr Connolley was a victim of such "numbers game" and that his violations of policy were not as serious as the fact that he was topic banned would indicate. I examined his latest 500 edits, and could not find any obvious problems or cases of incivility. The topic ban has now been in force for almost a year, which is a long time by any measure. Based on these arguments, I believe it would be in Wikipedia's best interests to let him resume editing in this topic area. Nanobear (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

I'm uninvolved in this particular controversy, though I've run across several of the editors commenting above before. On some things I've agreed with some of them (I tend to agree with Collect and Biophys on some issues) and with others, like ZuluPapa, or even on past occasions WMC himself, I have disagreed. I think with Cla68 it's been a wash.

The appeal has merit.

This is a topic where WMC has extensive expertise and from what I understand what happened before is that the very fact that he does know something about the topic area led him to ... "not suffer fools gladly" or more like "not suffer disagreement at all, whether coming from fools or genuinely neutral minded editors". His statement above however convinces me that he now understands that sometimes "less is better".

To address some of the issues raised above:

The fact that a contentious area such as Climate Change has gone quiet says nothing about whether the sanction in place was responsible for it. As Count Ibilis says above that's probably more due to the fact that after an ArbCom case *everyone* (except the stupid people who always end up getting banned one way or another) involved in a controversial area does their best to keep their head down and not cause too much trouble. So I very much disagree with Alex's and ZuluPapa's contention that the credit to the relative quiet goes to the sanction. It's an unrelated side effect, not a related phenomenon. As such I don't think much would change if the sanction on WMC was lifted.
In some ways (and this may be self serving) I think this is similar to the EEML case topic bans (for the record, there, WMC said something obnoxious about myself and others). You got an editor who's essentially bought into the Whole Wikipedia Thing ($2WWT) - in terms of NPOV, quality writing, quality sources, academic standards, etc, they believe it - but who just got frustrated with the nitty-gritty of how Wikipedia works and at some point decided to cut some corners. In the EEML case it was people talking too much to each other privately. In WMC's case it was being what is considered "uncivil" and a bit of a bully in the past - more or less letting his temper fuse out. In the EEML case a bunch of topic bans were handed out, people on the list realized they fucked up, they behaved themselves for awhile, they contributed in other areas (as WMC has done while under sanction - per Biophys) , they appealed their topic bans successfully, and... it essentially worked. No Eastern European ArbCom case or major drama (minor drama, yes - but you will always have that, just like with Climate Change) for two years. And these people resumed their regular quality contributions to the topic area. I think same thing can work here.
In these kinds of cases there's always going to be some opposition from some quarters to the removal of the sanction. You hang around Wikipedia long enough you gonna make some WikiFriends as well as some dedicated WikiEnemies. Out of the group who's "on the other side of the barricade" the good-faithed bought into the Whole Wikipedia Thing ($2WWT) editors usually recognize the long-term counterproductive nature of sanctions on potentially constructive editors and they generally end up supporting these kinds of appeals with a "yes, but just keep an eye on them for awhile" (this is how I interpret Cla68's comment above). It's a reasonable position. The bad faithed ones on the other hand will try to drag up any kind of dirt they can just to torpedo it. A fairly common bad faithed complaint (and I've read through most of the AC cases to have seen it used over and over) is that a particular user who is appealing a sanction "does not show enough contrition". This is the essence of the above comments by Alex Harvey, 75.218.64.123 and ZuluPapa. I don't know if these are people who just enjoy humiliating their ideological opponents over and over (by asking them for repeated apologies), folks who like to stare at Auto-da-fés or just plain ol' "we got rid of him, let's keep it that way" mindset. But these kinds of sentiments should not play a role in this kind of a decision.
At the end of the day, it's not that hard to reapply sanctions once they had been in place. So if the appeal is granted and it turns out bad, it's not gonna take much to put end to any kind of trouble if it flares up again. Some admin or other will just come around and say "WMC has a *record", I'm banning him" and that will be that (well, it sort of depends, but essentially...). On the other hand, I do think the commentators above are right in that the topic area has lost a major knowledgeable contributor here and - it would benefit from his return.

So do what you should do: grant the appeal, say that any backsliding will not be tolerated and keep an eye on it for awhile. WMC has certainly been around long enough and has contributed enough to the encyclopedia to merit at least that kind of consideration. Volunteer Marek 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Frankie Cootchies, the comment below by AQFK exemplifies exactly the "Apologize! Apologize! Apologize again! Kneel! Prostrate thyself! Let me stomp you on the head a couple of times and you better ask for more!!!" kind of mentality that I alluded to, but probably not elaborated enough upon above (so I'm doing so now). Let me indulge in a bit of not suffering fools gladly myself (hey, it's less obnoxious than this kind of a chicken pecking party attitude and honestly I really *hate* seeing this) and express a deeply felt though that some Wikipedia editors just need to crawl back into the Stanford prison experiment that they crawled out of. Fucking A this place can be depressing. Volunteer Marek 03:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

So, it would seem that even in this request, WMC still can't refrain from his battleground conduct, already accusing one editor of 'mud-flinging' and calling two other editors his 'enemies'. I have not seen WMC express any remorse or admit any wrong doing. In fact, WMC continues to blame other editors for his conduct: "the conflicts around CC leading up to ARBCC wasn't caused by my entering the area, but by an influx of 'skeptical' editors occasioned by the CRU email excitement". WMC is right about one thing though. ArbCom banned lots of editors without figuring out who was to blame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC: So you didn't do anything wrong? Also, how are you supposed to work collaboratively with others when you consider them your enemies? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by dave souza

The basic issue is that during the restriction WMC has demonstrated on other topics ability to contribute constructively in a reasonable and restrained manner. WMC has the knowledge and technical ability to improve climate change articles in a way that accurately portrays the science involved, and such expertise is sorely needed in these articles.

On Collect's specific allegation that "He has edited on Ian Morris (historian) adding material critical of a person whose book specifically mentions climate change 52 times [23]", the link to a google page doesn't show me any support that assertion, which seems to based only on googling without any examination of the results. The book does discuss climate change, giving clear support for the majority scientific view that WMC supports. Morris states "Even if we stopped pumping out greenhouse gases tomorrow, there is already so much carbon in the air that warming will carry on. We have changed the atmosphere's chemistry. Whatever we do now, the North Pole will melt." He describes the IPCC estimates as "conservative", and discusses his own "wake-up call". His views on climate appear to be conventional enough, though only a tiny part of this writings.
While WMC might consider the description excessively alarming, there is no reason for him to criticise Morris, nor any evidence that he did. The one edit he made to the article restored a well sourced criticism that Morris's book includes Islam in "the West", cited to a review published by The Institute of Historical Research. The criticism had previously been removed with the edit summary "Critic lacks notability", but the reviewer (Ricardo Duchesne, University of New Brunswick) would seem to be well qualified to review the book This doesn't fit with Collect's allegation. . dave souza, talk 13:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's "massive fail" seems to be in trying to see motives in an edit which is clearly unrelated to climate change. Looking a bit further, WMC was undoing an edit by someone who has spent much of his editing trying to remove all mention of Ricardo Duchesne. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I've looked at the facts presented, and found they don't support Collect's case: an edit in a completely different topic area involves a general history book which also briefly mentions climate change. It's very diligent of Collect to have used Google to find that tenuous connection, but suggesting that the single edit involved somehow "nibbles at the edges" of the sanctions is misleading. . . . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ScottyBerg

I don't see a problem with reinstating WMC to the subject area, as long as his editing is non-tendentious. If there are any problems, especially with BLPs, that can be brought to the attention of arbcom and the topic ban can be reimposed. An editor of his expertise should not be removed from the subject area if at all possible. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some editors have raised issues with BLPs. I think that this is a problem only if WMC has had some kind of RL issue with them. If so, I can see allowing the ban to continue concerning those BLPs and also to not allow him to edit concerning living people with whom he has interacted who are mentioned in CC articles. I don't think a blanket BLP ban is necessary unless there is a COI element.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Off2riorob

WMC historically has problems editing in this sector from a NPOV position. He is clearly strongly opinionated in regard to the issue. Wikipedia articles of living people that he is a real life opponent of were attacked repeatedly and he was a ringleader of a group that did this over a extended period. IMO, under no circumstances should he ever be allowed to edit the articles, or the talkpages, of living people in the climate change sector. Perhaps if anything, the kind of restriction similar to some recently formed arbitration restrictions, like ... he may edit the topic area, paying attention to NPOV and avoiding any edit warring, but may not add any content about living people or edit any BLP articles in that topic area may allow him to constructively edit some articles in the area. I suppose in this way I agree with NYB's comments and in regard to this specific request I agree with Jclemens's comments - WMC still doesn't appear to accept or understand that he did anything wrong. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TenOfAllTrades

I was moved to comment by the tenor and content of Off2riorob's input above. The assertion that WMC was "ringleader of a group" is an unsupported smear. It implies a level of leadership over, and responsibility for, the actions of other editors which is not related to reality. There has never been any evidence (or even credible suggestion) raised to suggest that WMC ever openly or covertly engaged in any sort of coordination of editors, nor any reason to believe that he attempted to guide, train, coerce, or cajole other editors to act in counterproductive ways on his behalf. At best, perhaps Off2riorob means that WMC was among the most visible editors involved in the case (being perhaps the only editor in the case with any professional experience related to climate science, and being the most popular target for on- or off-wiki discussion and attacks by right-wing bloggers). The notion that we should punish WMC more severely for the purpose of making a conspicuous example of him seems misguided, especially if we're doing it to satisfy a perceived demand by Wikipedia Review and yellow journalists.

A Quest For Knowledge, meanwhile, attempts to paint WMC as a veteran who somehow fails to realize that his war is over, accusing him of an irredeemable battleground mentality based on WMC's frank statement. (Whatever flaws WMC may have, a failure to be forthright is certainly not among them.) If we examine the statements AQFK cites in his indictment of WMC's attitude, we find not paranoia, but strong elements of truth.

Consider WMC's suggestion that the CRU email controversy occasioned an influx of disruptive editors into the climate change area of Wikipedia. The CRU emails were initially released around 20 November 2009, and rattled around the blogosphere for some time after. Looking at the parties sanctioned in the CC Arbitration (which won't include throwaway accounts, drop-ins, and individuals who left Wikipedia before the Arbitration came up) I note that Marknutley joined the project in December 2009 and immediately dove into climate change articles; he had his first block for edit warring just four days later. (Marknutley is currently community-banned for creating sockpuppets to evade his topic ban.) ZuluPapa5, another editor topic-banned by the CC Arbitration, began editing Wikipedia in 2007. As far as I can tell, he made not a single edit to a climate-related topic until 27 November 2009, when climate change suddenly became his principal focus. I strongly suspect that a more thorough examination of the history and activity at Wikipedia's climate-change articles would reveal many similar instances of new editors appearing, and old editors showing sudden new interests.

AQFK mocks WMC's mention of 'enemies'. While I strongly suspect that WMC's comment was intended in a tongue-in-cheek manner, it's not difficult to observe that certain individuals have by their own actions set themselves up as his enemies. Perhaps not in the cackling comic-book arch-supervillain kind of way, but rather in the sense of implacable and irresistable hounding of – pardon me, interest in – WMC and his on-wiki biographical article over the years.

ZuluPapa5 is certainly one such example; of the six edits he's made to the project in the last month, three have been to add his comments to this request. The issue is so important to him that he went back to wikilink the word "remorse", just in case the ArbCom didn't get his point. We had editors like Abd and GoRight who were so persistent in their unconstructive harrassment of WMC that the community imposed interaction bans prior to their full banning from the project. We saw a group of editors (which consistently included ZuluPapa5, ATren, Abd, GoRight, and Marknutley, off the top of my head) who could be relied on to pile on quickly and unanimously any time anyone raised any question about WMC, and to mutually encourage and support any complaint no matter how frivolous. After the Arbitration case, TheGoodLocust identified himself as being "on the same side as [Atren], Cla, AQFK, and several others", presumably in opposition to WMC and other editors. It would be woefully naive of the ArbCom to pretend that there weren't individuals who take an unwholesome delight in discussing and denigrating WMC at Wikipedia Review and on their personal blogs; I can't help but wonder exactly what level of ill will an individual has to demonstrate before one can be objectively described as an 'enemy'.

In passing, I also note that AQFK argued just a few months ago that since it is difficult to prevent GoRight from socking, we should be trying to find a way for him to return to the project: [24]. Absent from AQFK's comments there was the sort of unconstructive demand for abasement he (and some others, including Jclemens) seem to wish from WMC.

As to the disposition of this request, I strongly support it. Actions will always speak louder than words, and I'd much rather see the evaluation of WMC's editing on the basis of his actual editing, rather than by scoring some sort of pro forma, hat-in-hand, semi-sincere, mumbled apology. Humiliation should not be the goal or the effect of any Arbitration process. Owing to the legitimate concerns raised about BLPs, a graduated return to unrestricted editing seems a fair and sensible approach. WMC should be allowed to resume editing non-BLP articles related to climate and climate change, with the option of requesting a review and lifting of the remaining sanctions in three to six months. (Care should be taken in how the modified restriction handles non-biographical articles which contain BLP elements, and consideration given to enforcement mechanisms; while I am sure that WMC anticipates that his edits will be subject to unusual scrutiny, we don't want to be in a situation where his detractors are dragging him to AE on a daily basis.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Headbomb

I pretty much agree with the arguments and rationale of WMC and TenOfAllTrades. The ban served its purpose, and we've waited long enough. Let's re-allow ourselves to benefit from WMC's expertise. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by previously involved LessHeard vanU

The question arising in my mind is whether William M. Connolley needs to edit CC related articles. The short answer is no; the articles will get written, and WMC may (or may not) edit other articles. If it is understood that this is the case, then I see no reason why WMC should not be allowed to return to the topic area - under whatever safeguards is considered necessary, if any. Once it is determined that no amount of expertise negates uncollegiate behaviour or commentary, and standards are applied evenly regardless of length of tenure or indeed block log, then there is a chance that some good will come of allowing a return. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tznkai

Whatever ya'll decide, please do it in such away that the poor plebes who will try to enforce any remaining restriction, or just maintain the peace at the articles in question have guidance and support from the Committee. If the walls of text above are any indication, it is going to (continue to?) get very tiresome, very quickly. To exaggerate only slightly, some of these people despise each other (or at least do not have respect one another) and no Wikipedia norm, policy, or mechanism will dissuade them of it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Franamax

My watchlist, though perhaps small, is rather biased toward technical and scientific articles. I see WMC's userid pop up once or twice a month, and given the history, usually have a look in. Since the ARBCC decision (and a month or two to get over it) my own observation is that WMC has maintained editing and avoided his past areas of problematic behaviour. I haven't seen the expressions of scorn and contempt for other editors which I feel were the underlying cause of WMC's various sanctions. Given that the editor has been actively contributing, and has not been problematic, in other areas, I see no problem with relaxing the general CC topic ban. The CC+BLP special restriction should probably be adopted for now, and can be revisited on further good behaviour.

I'd also like to register my objection to JClemens' conditions, which appear to push ArbCom toward a real-life parole board status. We do not need to adopt societal requirements for admission of guilt or appropriate display of remorse. Nor should any "judicial" body demand that anyone subject to its findings must acknowledge the "court"'s own supreme correctness. All we have to do here is evaluate the probability that the editor will do good from now on. If we let them edit more and it goes wrong, then block 'em again. Franamax (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

I agree that William M. Connolley should be allowed to return to editing CC articles, but not BLPs of figures involved in the debate. Experts on science, and in particular aspects of climatology, are not two a penny on wikipedia; current editing conditions might even discourage their participation. If WMC is allowed to return to editing CC articles, other expert editors such as Short Brigade Harvester Boris might also return. Several users have tried to paint WMC's recent editing in a poor light, but their analysis seems only to misrepresent him and his edits. I agree with Franamax about the phrasing and tone of Jclemens' comments; perhaps Jclemens should read WP:Bradspeak :) Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 2over0

(found via GoRight's blog). WMC has been instrumental in cleaning up the Jagged85 mess (someone please insert a link to the RFC here - my phone sucks for copy/pasting). To my mind, this qualifies as the kind of significant contribution in an unrelated area that we like to see in these appeals, much like GA/FA. I refrain from advising either way on lifting this ban, as I am not volunteering to step in with any block should it become necessary.

JClemens, I would like to strongly urge you to rephrase your comment below in a way that still makes your perfectly valid point that there is no such thing as "time served" if an editor just intends to get banned again but does not give the appearance of forcing personal integrity to be incompatibe with editing controversial topics. One of the most frustrating aspects of working A/E is seeing rational adults advise each other to engage in a little admin-groveling. Encouraging an environment of mealy-mouthed two-faced hypocrisy is incredibly damaging to the community. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting comments from interested parties. However, my advice to William M. Connolley is to consider providing further information, especially in regard to his perception of why the topic ban was applied, and why it's no longer necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo Phil's request for further explanation; a blanket statement that "the restriction is no longer necessary" is simply not adequate in this regard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Kirill and Phil. Risker (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements. At this stage, my tentative view is to allow some loosening of the restriction, either outright or for some period of time to be followed by a reevaluation. My vote last year to support this topic-ban was a reluctant one given William M. Connolley's expertise on this topic and long-time participation in the project, and I think that some time away from these articles may have helped to restore his sense of perspective regarding the unfortunate tone he took in discussions concerning them. However, I am inclined to leave in place the restriction against William M. Connolley's editing BLPs in this area, which is where the most serious problems arose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to support this, I would need to see a statement that 1) specifically acknowledges the accuracy and validity findings of the most recent arbitration case, 2) expresses contrition for the behavior that led to that case, and 3) Explains in convincing detail how and why this multiply-sacntioned editor should be given an N+1th chance. The statement so far does not satisfy any of these three criteria, but I think it premature to write off the appeal without giving WMC the opportunity to address them. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]