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: Digwuren

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} at 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 12: Discretionary sanctions

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator, initiator)
The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mkativerata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)
TransporterMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

That the topic bans placed on The Last Angry Man and Igny here be modified to allow participation in the current Mediation Cabal case.

Statement by Steven Zhang

The administrator who placed the topic bans, Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), detailed that the topic bans of three and six months for TLAM and Igny respectively would also prohibit participation to the Mediation Cabal case. In my opinion this is not in the best interests in the mediation. For mediation to be successful in the long term, participation from all parties is required, and a short term topic ban which includes the mediation case may make any agreement from the remaining parties have less chance of being an agreement that will stick. If incivility or bad faith accusations are a problem, perhaps the committee could consider a penalty for further incivility or bad faith behaviour at MedCab, say, their topic ban length is reset. But I think it's wise to allow them to participate in the case, and request the Committee modify the topic bans to allow this. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata, I agree that the behaviour of the named editors has been substantially below par. We need to make it in the interests of the parties to not disrupt/be uncivil/bad faith the MedCab process, for example, a three strikes rule. All parties have been put on notice, but perhaps strike one, warning, strike 2 is one week topic ban, strike three is one year/indef topic ban. None of us are admins, no but this could be delegated to us to deal with incivility etc at MedCab. As for blocks , we have over 1000 admins to deal with blocks. From past experiences with MedCab cases that have topic banned editors excluded generally causes issues once their topic bans expire. The mediation has more chance of long term success if they are included in the discussion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to a few points that were raised,

On AE being the proper forum to take this, I didn't consider taking this to AE as my understanding is that appeals by the sanctioned users were to be made there, not amendments requested by outside parties. TLAM and Igny were topic banned under the discretionary sanctions from the Digwuren case, so to me this was the most appropriate place to raise the matter.
On MedCab being informal dispute resolution, I agree, in the past it has been an informal dispute resolution method. A recent reshuffle of the DR hierarchy has made MedCab more of an intermediate option between MedCom and lower forms of DR, such as Third Opinions and the dispute resolution noticeboard. In theory this could be kicked up to MedCom and someone there could take over, but in all honesty I think the three of us are competent mediators and see no real reason ArbCom can't make an exception to the rule in this case.
On appointing an administrator to deal with conduct issues within the MedCab, I hardly think this is necessary or required. I think I can be trusted enough and am experienced enough to keep an eye on behaviour, and request administrator assistance from one of the 1000 or so administrators we have if required. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom (especially Risker), in my opinion the key is a balance between giving too much slack and strangling them with a choke chain. If these users are put on such a short leash that one misstep gets them automatically topic banned for a year, we risk stifling the mediation as they fear anything they say could be used against them. That's why the Mediation Committee has privileged mediation, to facilitate open discussion between parties in order to achieve resolution. Another concern I have is that putting these two users only on such a short leash opens them up to potential baiting by the other parties. In theory, the other parties could be slightly uncivil etc, and they could do nothing about it, if they were to respond in kind, they'd be instantly topic banned. Some time after the Prem Rawat 2 closed, I requested the Arbitration Committee to extend this normal privelige that MedCom cases get to that MedCab case. Instead the case was kicked up to MedCom, where I partly helped assist resolve the dispute. Such action isn't really possible nowadays, as I am told MedCom has updated their policies etc.

I am somewhat conflicted as to whether to request this MedCab case be offered that privilege. On one hand I do think it will help facilitate open discussion, on the other hand there is the potential for it to be gamed. I realise that such a suggestion will also be met with opposition from various people commenting on this request. While I realise that what I have requested her is unusual, I have been doing content dispute resolution for quite some time and have had my part in a fair few tricky disputes. I wouldn't make such requests if I didn't think it would provide long term benefit to the dispute. I also note that all parties have agreed to the ground rules that I laid down at the start of the case. Perhaps something could be implemented where only proceedings on the MedCab case page are privileged, but with the caveat that any abuse of this to be uncivil, excessively rude etc could be reported to an administrator at our discretion.

With all due respect, I know how to mediate. I feel I am perfectly capable of dealing with uncivil behaviour and requesting administrator assistance if so required, and don't feel it necessary to have an admin appointed to watch over the case. If one is really required, I would prefer AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). These conditions would not apply outside of MedCab, and we are happy to keep a close eye on discussions that occur outside of MedCab to ensure that no one crosses the line on behaviour. In the end, it is your decision as a committee. In my opinion, doing nothing would be a mistake. While I'm no fortune teller, this dispute is not going to have a quick fix, it will potentially take months to resolve. As it stands, one topic ban expires in 3 mths, one in 6. If the mediation is still open at either point, we risk having to re-discuss or do a backflip on proceedings, and in my opinion this is not a positive thing if there is another way to make this work (like I have suggested). I can't tell you what to do, only what I think is right, but I hope you will consider my opinion when making a decision. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan, you've hit the nail right on the head there. I agree that this is a simple request and it should not be overly complicated. As for TLAM commenting here, he is free and able to do so. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are two general exceptions to topic bans. Perhaps you could post a reminder to him with the details on his talk page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I must say I am a little disappointed that this is still sitting here without further comment. Sure, I could go to AE, but in my opinion it's a bit of a waste of time, and process for the sake of process. Two things could happen, 1) The decision at AE is to allow the topic banned users to participate, which means we reach the same end result as we would have here but waste more time doing so or b) The decision at AE is to not allow the parties to participate, which means I would come back here and appeal that decision. Either way time is wasted. I'd urge the arbitrators to consider IAR for a minute and make a decision here and now. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I refer to this AE request where it has become apparent that AE will not produce a result as suggested by several arbitrators below. As Tznaki stated, "I think the end result here will to be to bounce back to ArbCom with AE deciding not to overturn". Therefore I bring it back here to request ArbCom to make a decision either way, as I think this thread being open for weeks or months will be unprofuctive. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, for what it's worth, I count NuclearWarfare, T.Canens, Cailil and yourself in favour of allowing the exception, with the banning admin and EdJohnson opposing. Seems like a consensus to me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, very well then. Not overly happy with the outcome but apparently my views don't matter as much as I thought. There's not a lot I can do about that. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

I am another mediator in the MedCab Holodomor case. I agree with Steven Zhang - I think the result of the mediation will stick better if Igny and The Last Angry Man are both allowed to take part. I also agree that maintaining civility in the mediation is of utmost importance, and that proceedings could be hampered by incivility or personal attacks. I am not sure if/how this should be enforced, however, and I will be happy to accept the arbitration committee's judgement on the matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some of the points made so far. First of all, sorry for the venue confusion - I wasn't aware of the fine distinctions in ArbCom pages when I first commented on Steven's proposal. Second, I would agree to have an uninvolved administrator monitor the mediation for civility violations. I don't agree with Steven here - I appreciate that we have the RfA process for a reason, and I wouldn't be comfortable with being delegated power to block users without having the community approval that passing an RfA entails. Third, Tammsalu makes the good point that Igny may not have participated very much in this mediation anyway. I think it would be a good idea to hear from Igny and The Last Angry Man themselves to hear what their attitudes to the mediation are. Their stances may have changed after the topic bans and after reading the comments here and in the AE thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the statement by TransporterMan, I have to concur with his stance on the strictness of the participation conditions. While of course, incivility and disruption by the topic-banned editors should not be tolerated, making the conditions too strict may well stop them from voicing their opinions, and could open them to baiting from other editors. Rather than very strict conditions and constant monitoring, I think the effectiveness of the mediation would be better supported by slightly more relaxed conditions and a highly structured mediation process. (Steven has outlined the process at the mediation page here, and you can see the draft proposals page here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkativerata (admin who applied the topic bans)

I explicitly included MEDCAB in the topic bans, as would ordinarily be assumed to be the case. The topic bans were for behaviour that included, among other things, TLAM referring to his opponents as a "pro communist cabal" ([1]), and Igny saying in the AE itself that "I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging." I judged that this was plainly not behaviour consistent with engaging constructively in dispute resolution. I believe I was correct to make that judgement, and that Arbcom should find no reason to interfere with it. I also note that none of the mediators appear to be admins. If I am correct in that, they would not have no power to block either user for disrupting the MEDCAB process, or for transgressing their topic bans, whether on a MEDCAB page or elsewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point. Yes we have 1000 or so administrators. But Arbcom will be well aware that only a very small fraction are willing to put their hand up for arbitration enforcement. Just look at the current AE page. We shouldn't overburden the admin corps more by allowing two users topic-banned for largely behavioural reasons to participate in non-binding dispute resolution under the supervision of a volunteer administrator. Our finite resources can be much better targeted than by an indulgence of that kind for two editors, who I should not have so far neither appealed their bans nor made any request to participate in MEDCAB despite them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: WP:DIGWUREN, which is the authority for the topic ban, says: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes. In any case, I would have included MEDCAB within this ban regardless of whether doing so is the norm. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by uninvolved Collect

Propose a "short leash" rule. On the first use of any inapt language on the mediation pages, or any pages relating thereto in any way (including user talk pages), the topic ban be fully reinstated and doubled - that is, if either makes posts or edit summaries which are uncivil or accusatory of others being in any "group", "team", "mailing list" or "cabal" without furnishing specific and compelling evidence thereof, that the offender's topic bans be doubled in length and that they be so informed upon entry to the mediation. I further suggest that this be dependent on MEDCAB obtaining approval from a fully uninvolved adminstrator willing to examine the posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I concur that altering another's posts on this page is a serious violation of etiquette no matter what the point the person is making. Cheers.Collect (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

This is not a matter to be decided by Arbcom. Of course they could remove completely all discretionary sanctions in Digwuren case, but that was not requested. Making a specific exemption for two editors would be inappropriate interference in AE business. If these two editors want their AE sanctions to be modified or lifted, they must submit an appeal to AE, as stipulated in previous Arbcom decisions. Biophys (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EdJohnston below. The mediation can proceed without these editors. Biophys (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be good to appoint an additional mediator (as Newyorkbrad suggested). However, this is not admin versus non-admin question. That should be someone familiar with the subject of the dispute, someone like Moreschi. Actually, this is the biggest problem in the entire AE area right now: admins rule on behavior of users, but the behavior can be misleading. Of course they also read content of discussions, but non-expert admins tend to make two common mistakes:

If a research publication was widely debated in press and by peers (praise and criticism as usual), they tend to assume that it was "controversial". Actually, such publications are either the best as the most highly cited (if written by experts on the subject, e.g. "Gulag Archipelago") or the worst if written by revisionist pseudoscientists like Dyukov. But one needs to know who is who.
If a user does not curse others, talks a lot, copy-paste numerous quotes from sources he likes at article talk pages, and denounce sources he does not like as "non-academic", admins tend to think that he is an expert. No. Real experts are too busy with their studies in real life and have no time for creating walls of text on wikipedia talk pages. Biophys (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

By going directly to Arbcom, this request seems to take a shortcut around AE. Unclear why there is any need for that. The first step would normally be to ask the admin who imposed the sanction (Mkativerata) to consider modifying the restriction. Since the sanction was for WP:BATTLE behavior, it is not obvious why adding these two parties to the mediation would be a win. Their absence might actually lead to a swifter conclusion of the mediation, if all the charges are correct. Finally, this request does not ask for any actual amendment to the DIGWUREN decision. Neither Igny nor The Last Angry Man was placed under any particular sanction by Arbcom in the DIGWUREN case. The topic bans we are discussing were placed by Mkativerata under discretionary sanctions. There is a whole different appeal process for that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Paul Siebert

From the very beginning, I proposed to exclude the MedCab case from the topic ban, and I do not find the initial Mkativerata's explanation (or the lack thereof) convincing. In my opinion, the most reasonable proposal has been made by Collect, and I would like to develop it a little bit further to address some Mkativerata's and Newyorkbrad's concerns. In my opinion, TLAM and Igny may be allowed to participate in the MedCab provided that they will strictly observe all possible decorum rules; any violation of these rules, if reported by the mediators (not by other participants), will automatically lead to one year topic ban. I see no technical problems with realisation of this proposal, and I do not understand how the mediation process may be impaired by that.
One more point. It is quite possible that the MedCab will last more than 3 months, which means that one of two topic banned users will join the discussion, and we will probably need to go back to address some of the arguments he was not able to put forward timely due to his ban. That will disturb the mediation process, and I do not think this is a result the admins want to achieve.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu

User:Igny mentioned he was pulling out of mediation in any case due to real life issues[2], so discussion of his possible participation is moot. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TransporterMan

I'm one of the MedCab mediators on this case and apologize for being late to the party; real world issues have interfered over the last week. In some ways, the decision on this request goes to the positive and negative reasons for why DR exists and why it is here: to benefit Wikipedia by settling disputes, hopefully positively through consensus, but sometimes negatively by just getting them settled to stop the disruption. If we have editors who feel so strongly about this that they're just going to wait out their topic bans and start changing the article again, then the mediation is a waste of time without them. Getting them in and allowing them to help craft the solution at least potentially avoids that result. I therefore support the idea of allowing an exception to the topic ban for The Last Angry Man (noting that Igny has chosen not to participate). It seems that the solutions to this request are becoming too complicated with a montoring sysop and double or nothing sanctions. The sanctions in question are a "voluntary" topic ban, in the sense that he has not been blocked and is capable of editing anywhere he pleases to do so. No one is officially or semi-officially monitoring TLAM on that ban at the present time. Various eyes could be watching, of course, but should he violate the ban it would far more likely that someone would just happen to have to come along, just happen to notice the violation, and choose to report it to AE. All we are requesting here is that the topic ban be relaxed for MedCab and that Steven (or perhaps any two of the three mediators if you do not want to just let one do it) be given the right to reinstitute the full breadth of the ban should TLAM's behavior deteriorate in any of those venues to the point the mediators feel that it is interfering with the mediation process, with the only needed action being:

To relax: A note on TLAM's talk page by Mkativerata or an ArbCom member or clerk setting the parameters of the relaxation and the mediator(s) right to reinstitue it, along with a corresponding note at Digwuren's Log of blocks and bans, and
To reinstiute: The mediator(s) leaving a note reinstituting it on TLAM's talk page and at the Diguren log.

A strict "one bad word and he's gone" standard, especially (but not only) one which either is being continuously scrutinized or second-guessed by parties outside the mediation or which results in a longer ban is inimical to the mediation process. Indeed, my feeling is that the only consequence of behaving badly in the mediation ought to be the risk that he will be excluded from it, not that he will suffer blocks or bans because of it. (The flip side of this, however, should be that any decision of the mediator(s) to reinstate the full breadth of the topic ban should not be appealable: the relaxation should be considered to be an act of grace entirely for the benefit of the mediation and thus the encyclopedia, and not to the slightest degree for TLAM's personal right or interest, which can be revoked without cause or explanation at any time it appears that the encyclopedia is not receiving the desired benefit.)

Finally, before much more time is spent on this it would be well to find out if TLAM wants to participate further in the mediation, but of course he cannot comment on that question unless he is given permission. Would Mkativerata consider relaxing the ban to at least allow that question to be asked and answered here on this page? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Russavia: Per this it would appear that the sockpuppetry issue has been settled unless you have new evidence. If you do, are you going to take it to SPI? If so, it might influence how I feel about this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Russavia: Thank you for the link to the clarification request, that helps clarify the present situation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Russavia: I've not examined the evidence and do not know or, at this point, have an opinion about whether or not TLAM is or is not a sock of Mark Nutley, but I'd like to presume for the sake of this question (only) that he is, indeed, a Nutley sock. I can certainly understand why that ought to cause TLAM to be blocked altogether and indefinitely but unless that is going to happen then I would ask you why that fact ought to otherwise bear on this request. To say it in another way: He's either (a) a sock and ought to be gone altogether, which would solve the question of his participation in the mediation, or (b) he's not a sock and would be valuable to the mediation process for the reasons stated by the mediators here, or (c) he's a sock (or strongly suspected but unproven sock) that the community has chosen to tolerate. The question is this: If the community isn't going to do (a), why should there be a difference between (b) and (c) for purposes of this request? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: I wish I had noticed this much earlier, but Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans expressly allows a topic-banned editor to participate in good faith in dispute resolution:

Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.

The "unless stated otherwise" clearly applies in this case, as you expressly mentioned "No exception for MEDCAB" in your AE ruling. But I must wonder whether you would have included that restriction had it not been for Paul Siebert expressly (but, in light of policy, unnecessarily) requesting an exception from MedCab. Would you have? And if you would not have included, would you have gone back and expanded the topic ban to include it if you had learned that he was participating in MedCab under the authority of the banning policy exception? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qwyrxian

I volunteer to be the monitoring admin. I'm the admin who fully protected the article, and who opened the mediation request. I am not a party to the dispute. I have, as far as I am aware, never been a party to any dispute relating to WP:DIGWUREN]. Assuming that the arbitrators find that this is the appropriate venue, that it is a positive solution to have one or both of these parties involved in the mediation, then I am willing to monitor the mediation for any improper behavior. I am also willing to discuss any possible problems with the mediators themselves. I won't be reading any of the actual sources, nor do I have any interest in actually forming an opinion on the article contents themselves--I would strictly be monitoring from improper behavior on the part of these two editors. I would prefer that the consequences for violating these conditions be made quite clear though--specifically, does a violation in mediation actually count as a "normal" violation, thus extending the current 3 months topic? Regarding whether or not allowing a specific exception? My opinion is that it is a good idea, as pointed out above. There's no sense in working really hard for several months to get a consensus, just to have LATM come back in 3 months and say "But none of you accounted for X, Y, and Z, so I cannot accept the results of this mediation. Revert." This exception would essentially be given with the understanding that if LATM violates the conditions, they're essentially forfeiting their "right" to object later (if a stable consensus is achieved). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this presumes that TransporterMan's statement above is accurate and the user in question is not a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked/topic-banned editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tristessa de St Ange

As a member of the Mediation Committee who used to be coordinator of the MedCab. I would be happy to endorse on AE/AN that an exception should be permitted for the purposes of the MedCab case and take responsibility for supervision. This case could alternatively be referred to us at the MedCom, but I would prefer to see the existing mediation case allowed to continue as it stands before a request for formal mediation being made. I am also willing to be the uninvolved administrator/mediator mentioned by Newyorkbrad if necessary. --Tristessa (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by TLAM

In response to the question posted on my talk page the response is yes, I believe mediation will help improve the article in question and also give myself an insight into how mediation works. I should like to thank the mediators for their requests in relaxing the topic ban to allow myself to continue with the dispute resolution process. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

Should there not be some expectation of decorum here? I did not join WP to read fulminations on canine genitalia. And is there a reason some editors continue to advocate for outright bans of others whom they disapprove of? That is not seeking resolution of conflict, rather, that is escalating conflict. I've already commented elsewhere on the alleged sockpuppetry. Whatever is decided here should be consistent with the past and be on solid enough ground to be a basis to set a precedent going forward. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

Under no circumstances should TLAM be allowed to participate in anything on WP. Refer to WP:SOCK and User:Marknutley. It is disappointing that Arbs are suggesting that an obvious sockpuppet should be allowed to participate in anything on WP; particularly given the clarification request. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, there is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors in relation to this. The committee has yet to comment directly on this case at that request, and it should be making comment directly in relation to it. I have provided a few admins confidential evidence, some of which has already been given to the committee, but the other half has not yet been provided to the Arbcom. When almost every uninvolved admin has stated their belief that this is a sockpuppet, I am not yet going to file any SPI, only because to do so would be to be required to divulge evidence which gives Marknutley/TLAM insight into his editing traits that have given him away. I have already provided a few of these traits. Any editor is welcome to do their own comparison of MK/TLAM and his other socks, to see that the behavioural evidence is there. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick additional comment, I am not going to supply the Committee with the additional evidence, because to do so will to allow them to ignore clear behavioural traits, and totally convincing traits at that, as they have already done. Once they fob off yet more evidence, and refuse to even so much as remotely answer direct and straightforward questions in relation to this case, that evidence will become off-limits and unusable. Hence why any evidence has thus far been limited to trusted admins, whilst other editors are welcome to do their own investigation and comparison of edits; it took me all of an hour or so to compile a convincing list; and only a few minutes to find traits that stuck out like dog's balls. Perhaps once Arbs attend to the clarification request with direct answers, instead of beating around the bush and refusing to comment on the case directly, I may then provide them with evidence, but not whilst they are engaging in murkification instead of clarification. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

Given the nature of AE, we have tended to be, and last I checked still are, rather deferential to the enforcing administrator. Going above our heads, such as it is, is probably more efficient, especially when seeking to directly overrule a ban provision. I personally do not see a problem with letting any sort of mediation, formal or informal, go forward, so long as we trust the person managing the mediation. If a MEDCAB'er is volunteering their time, let them. Spill over effects should be minimal at best, and bans are easy to reapply.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out to me by Transporter man on my talk page, Mkativerata's statment that "It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes." is in conflict with the written banning policy. I changed the policy text but not the substance on 29 September. The relevant provision was

The following exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:
[...]

Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason.

I replaced that with:

Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.

A restricted editor may always ask for clarification about their restrictions, appeal the restriction in the appropriate forum, and may always respond to threads on administrative noticeboards that directly complain about, or seek to sanction the restricted editor.

I'm not sure if this issue is on point or not, and I believe my revised text is faithful to the policy as it actually exists. I again reiterate, that both personally and as a matter of Wikipedia norms, we should pursue resolving disputes when possible, rather than managing disputes by topic bans. Hope is not a strategy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that AE is not a court of appeals, and what is actually happening so far is nothing. as I've stated here we are, and should be, very deferential to decision the "man on the spot" as it were. I disagree with Mkativerata's decision and his reasoning thus far, and hope he changes his mind, but I do not believe it is my place to overturn it, barring establishing a consensus of some sort. That does not mean that the Arbitration Committee should be as deferential. Indeed, it shouldn't, because there is no effective review of discretionary sanctions other than the committee. The arbitration enforcement structure essentially leaves us answerable to only one authority. If ArbCom isn't at least willing in the abstract to review sanctions, it should set up some sort of fairly muscular and agile (read: small) review process. The alternative is an incentive structure where AE admins will rush to get their decision in "first" and then go about in an imperial manner, with their decisions essentially untouchable.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE to Steve's point on headcount, no, you should count my !vote as a provisional oppose. My gut instinct is that Mkativerata's reasons for making his decision are much better than they have been described already. As I said, I would have made a different decision, but there is nothing thus far that gives sufficient reason to override someone else's decision. To do that, I would have to be convinced that the original decision was extremely defective.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Biophys is partly correct. ArbCom should not be the first stop on appeal AE sanctions, but if the resulting discussion is unclear on the consensus, then bringing it to us would be the next logical step. Normally, we allow exceptions to sanctions for the purposes of "formal dispute resolution" (such as Mediation Committee and/or Arbitration Committee) cases. However, the Mediation Cabal is INformal dispute resolution. (per its mandate). Therefore my suggestion is that the proper venue for this request is an AE Appeal (either at AE, or one of the AN noticeboards), and coming back here if unclear. SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial inclination would be to allow these two users to participate in a MedCab mediation if an experienced mediator opines that this would be useful, as appears to be the case here. If they or anyone else become disruptive of the mediation pages, they can and should swiftly be disinvited. ¶ I note Mkativerata's last point, that the mediator is not an administrator and therefore might need help keeping order on the mediation pages, and I think it would be useful if an uninvolved, experienced administrator were to volunteer to assist with this mediation. ¶ Regarding the proper forum for this request, those opining that it should be presented as a discretionary-sanctions appeal on AE are correct as a formal matter; however, I am increasingly concerned that (not due to anyone's fault but simply the accretion of safeguards and procedures over time), the different types of requests and forms of appeal are becoming an impenetrable bureaucratic thicket to the vast majority of editors who are fortunate enough not to live their wikilives on the arbitration pages. At some point, something must be done about this, but I am not sure what. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like Collect's "double-or-nothing" rule. I think that's something that AE could explore, but again, not sure if ArbCom needs to be the body ruling on it. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of my colleagues about the proper venue; the option is an "either/or" one, and this is as appropriate a venue as is Arbitration Enforcement. While I would be willing to consider lifting the sanction strictly for the purpose of participating in mediation, it would need to be on the proviso that *any* violation would reinstate a full topic ban, that an uninvolved administrator agree to monitor the situation and respond to concerns expressed by the mediators, that the mediators undertake to notify this administrator of any potential violation, and that removal of one or more of the parties from the scope of the mediation due to sanctions in the mediation process or any other process will not immediately invalidate the mediation. I would not want to see a potential resolution of the dispute go down the tubes because one or more of the parties is unable to proceed partway through. Risker (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues above that this is best brought to AE. I'm certain that the considered opinions of the mediators is going to be taken into account when the discussion takes place there. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the comments at AE at the time the topic ban was imposed, especially in light of the re-emergence of the sockpuppeting allegations which question arbcoms unban decision, and the comments above, I dont think that there is a good reason to overrule the AE admin. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think ArbCom should only overrule a decision made by an admin if the decision was seriously flawed, or if new information has come to light. In this case, the decision made by the admin was an entirely reasonable judgment call, and in this context, I don't think we should overrule the decision. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Update: DWF's without seeing any confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases seems to me misconceived. There are only two previous editing cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 (there were two admin-related cases, but I find it hard to see their relevance). There are no outstanding complaints from those cases: wrt to me, the second overturned the first. So I think your statement re "cases" represents a misunderstanding of the situation, as does Jc's William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since there is clearly a desire for repentance, I'm happy to state that I acknowledge the validity of the general thrust of the "uncivil and antagonistic" findings against me (although para 2, about talk page refactoring, is still a pretty weird finding: there was no incivility there, and the action was eventually deemed acceptable, after vast dramah). As to the BLP finding, I don't think has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles is true; but since BLP isn't going to fly for the moment that seems irrelevant. The desysopped stuff is irrelevant, of course. Was there anything else? DWF wants me to "accept responsibility for your actions" [3]; I do and always have done William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 13 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 [4] 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 [5] . 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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (note this one is an argument with WMC), [18]. Also [19] [20] 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]

Hmmmm, there seems to be more than one ArbCom here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 11 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 [21]). I would support William as a highly knowledgeable and long-term contributor, even though we had a dispute about nuclear winter [22]. 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]

@JohnWBarber. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, including Arbcom. They may decide that user X still has a "battleground mentality" or that he needs six more months, and so on. This is all subjective and may be based on a few recent statements by the user or his failure to properly respond. This all starts right here and not something specifically reserved for Arbcom. Any individual administrator can apply his own subjective judgement in an area of discretionary sanctions. Yes, I do not like it too, but that's how wikipedia justice system works. But I am sure that WMC knows it much better than me. Biophys (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tell:"Otherwise, Arbcom members will be doing whatever they want.". No, they are doing what they were authorized to do by the community, including their personal judgement. Biophys (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is impossible to separate people and science in areas of ongoing dispute (like Climate change) or in history of science. Biophys (talk) 22:56, 18 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 [23] and [24] with which Mr. Connolley can now be assumed to be familiar.

[25] 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) Update:[reply]

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

Update:

This is a credible enforcement request which should be duly considered here. --174.252.192.143 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

David Fuchs' observation that "'It wasn't caused by me since I was there already' is a poor excuse." is correct. But I think it may be worse than just that. It is indicative of a WP:OWN or a "king of the mountain" attitude. Sure while no one with a contrary opinion is around (having been thrown off the mountain) things are quiet. When someone that doesn't agree with his perspective shows up then it's back to the "throw them off the mountain" all over again. Mr. Connolley intends that excuse to exonerate him but I fear that it does precisely the opposite. What evidence is there that he acknowledges this problem and agrees to avoid this attitude if his ban is removed? --174.252.217.46 (talk) 15:43, 9 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]

TOAT seems to validate [26] a point that WMC has been involved with a significant wikipedia community group, who have some how gone bad in the interactions with WMC's supported expertise. Wikipedia experts must be especially experienced in civility. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMC ... (you/me/we) are our own enemy. When this is realized with our behavior ownership, then the disruptive battleground affecting others with blame and persecution will stop. TOAT is now an unfortunate besmirchment suspect on my right to vanish from these activities. And, my right to push for civility. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical example [27] of the editorial attention I get from WMC and others for my involvement. There are examples where this attention has escalated into disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wish that Wikipedia would enact Watch List and User Contribution feature removal as a sanction to minimize disputes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#William_M._Connolley_has_been_uncivil_and_antagonistic is important to this issue requiring special care, since WMC is a special case to begin. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, WMC's "work constructively with other editors" requirement means Arbcom and us in this discussion. It should be aimed at means for him to get along with others by accepting civility, including remorse, which a reasonable editor should display in these circumstances. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:22, 15 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]

After thinking about it the last few days, I don't think that WMC should have to express remorse and I've struck through that part of my original comment. The point that I was trying to get at is that sanctions should be preventative, not punitive. When I said "admit any wrong doing", I did not mean wrong doing in any sort of grand, philosophical sense. I meant wrong doing in terms of Wikipedia policies and how the community (and ArbCom) interprets these policies ("in universe" if you will). Does WMC realize that he violated what the community expected? And if so, how? If he doesn't understand what he did wrong or how, then it's difficult for him to prove that the problematic behavior has been corrected and that sanctions are no longer necessary. But if WMC can articulate what went wrong and how he plans to avoid this happening again, that's a different story and I'd be willing to support a relaxing of his restrictions with a provision to re-examine the issue after some time period (say, 3-6 months).
WMC clearly is passionate about this topic and AFIAK, this is the first time he's ever been topic-banned from editing it. Maybe the reality of never being allowed to edit in CC articles again has settled in and is enough to motivate change? I don't know. But I don't think that it's wholely unreasonable to provide a way back in. Perhaps limiting him to articles that strictly deal with the science of CC might be a good idea (as opposed to BLPs and articles dealing with the public perception and/or controversy over CC). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 13 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 [28]", 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: [29]. 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]

Er, what? ZuluPapa5 appears to miss the point of my comments entirely, if he believes they support a conclusion that WMC was somehow part of a "group" that's "gone bad". (If anything, WMC's most serious difficulties arose from his tendency to 'go it alone' too often, failing to avail himself of Wikipedia's (admittedly flawed and inadequate) mechanisms to seek assistance in complex and contentious areas.) ZuluPapa5's confusing attempt to further link my comments to a discussion of civility does highlight an important point—Wikipedia generally does a very poor job of handling the so-called "civil POV-pusher". The superficial appearance of civility is often given undue weight in dispute resolution proceedings, at the expense of thoughtful evaluation of an editor's role – or lack thereof – in building the encyclopedia. The ArbCom's handling of (and inability to handle) editors like Abd and GoRight exemplifies this problem. In general, it takes an absurd amount of disruption by a civil POV-pusher before the community (or even more rarely, the ArbCom) can be moved to issue sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should the ArbCom evaluate here?

As JohnWBarber says, WMC has abided by the terms imposed by ArbCom for just shy of a year. He was involved in one arbitration enforcement less than two weeks after the case closed (he had made three edits to his own talk page, noting vandalism and serious BLP issues in a few articles related to climate change). He served a two-week block for those edits, which were his first and only violation of the case's restrictions). Since to the expiry of that block, he has apparently stayed well clear of the climate change area and adhered to both the letter and the spirit of the ArbCom's ruling. Over the last year, he has made more than five thousand edits to Wikipedia across a broad assortment of topics ranging from rowing to quantum physics. Those edits appear, by their volume and quality – and frankly, by their failure to attract any further sanctions, restrictions, or other penalties despite the close supervision of other, sometimes-hostile editors – to represent prima facie evidence that WMC remains committed to Wikipedia's goals, and is able to work constructively with other editors.

Five-thousand-plus edits over eleven months should constitute ample basis on which to form a fair and reasonable opinion of any editor's grasp of Wikipedia's purpose and policies. This request has been open for more than a week now, and it doesn't appear that anyone has made any serious, credible, evidence-driven argument that WMC cannot work with others or is not committed to Wikipedia's goals. (There is evidence that there are some editors who will not work with him, and it is apparent from this request that there is some mutual dislike between WMC and some others, but a lack of universal love is not grounds for sanction.) It would seem that WMC has more than met the standards the ArbCom set out for lifting a topic ban.

WMC has made this application in good faith, he has taken the Arbitration Committee at its word. WMC has trusted that if he held up his end of the bargain, the ArbCom would do the same. Instead, there appears to be a movement to shift the goalposts — sure, he's been a good, reliable, solid, consistent, productive, dedicated contributor; sure, he's done what the ArbCom and community have asked of him; but he hasn't been thoroughly enough humiliated, and we need to see him crawl. He's to be treated like a naughty schoolboy instead of a grown man, and assigned an essay explaining why he is so wrong, and how very sorry he is, and how the ArbCom is truly awesome in its absolute rightness, and we don't care that he's been quietly and peacefully contributing to the project since. What does the ArbCom value more as the measure of a man—a willingness to be humiliated and to offer praise to the Committee, or five thousand good edits directly benefitting the project? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 9 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]

Comment by JohnWBarber

3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors.

"Demonstrating" does not mean "groveling," and Arbcom members' requests to William M. Connolley for his opinions on his past actions look suspiciously like requests for him to grovel. He's entitled to his own opinions, and Arbcom isn't. Now, either he has demonstrated his commitment to the goals of Wikipedia through his behavior in the past year or so since the decision, or he hasn't. I see no other fair basis on which Arbcom can make a decision. A statement of his opinion is not a demonstration of anything. Nobody "demonstrates" anything by making a pledge for better behavior -- only by their actions. It seems to me that Arbcom set up certain criteria for him to get back to editing CC articles, and not only William M. Connolloy is obligated to act according to them if he is to get permission: Arbcom, as well, is obligated not to go beyond what was originally requested, unless some reason pops up -- and in that case, Arbcom should make it clear just what that new reason is. Otherwise, moving the goalposts is arbitrary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Biophys -- My point was that ArbCom is not entitled to William M. Connolley's opinion. He isn't a church leader being subjected to a test of his beliefs or attitudes. You're citing a page of advice to people blocked and wanting a block lifted. I cited what ArbCom specifically said about this situation. Arbcom needs to be held to what it said, and acting simply subjectively is an abuse of power. Otherwise, Arbcom members will be doing whatever they want. I think that if it can be shown either that he has not demonstrated an ability to get along with other editors or, worse, that he's demonstrated that he still doesn't get it, then that should be cited by ArbCom members when they say they're rejecting his application. They said he could apply to get the sanctions lifted after 6 months in which he demonstrated being able to get along with others. Has he edited too little in that time? If Arbcom wanted him to wait 18 or 24 months or for a longer period, ArbCom should've said that and not set him up to waste his time and effort and expectation. William M. Connolley, I and everyone else subject to sanctions should be able to expect fair conduct from ArbCom and the appearance of fair conduct. (I'm not actually saying that ArbCom should grant his request -- I have no idea and no time to look into the matter.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Biophys: I'm responding on your talk page, here [30] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Anyone still under sanction: It seems to me that the most direct route to getting the sanctions lifted is providing diffs and brief descriptions of situations over the past year in which you interacted productively with other editors, especially those you were in disagreement with, in some topic area (possibly one akin to climate change but definitely outside it). ArbCom, you said you were sanctioning me because of A, and I've demonstrated anti-A behavior in situations #1, #2, and #3, as I show in these diffs. Please lift the sanctions. That's what I always understood was expected of any of us under sanction. It doesn't involve groveling. It's not up to ArbCom members, as busy as they are, to search through our editing history -- that's our job, it seems to me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Yopienso

My observations align with Franamax's: WMC has been editing productively without expressing the degree of "scorn and contempt for other editors" he had in the past.

I have some questions for WMC with regard to this statement: 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.

Could the conflicts have been caused or exacerbated by your presence?

When the 'skeptical' editors showed up, did you welcome them or bite them?

Dr. Connolley's expertise would be an asset in the climate articles so long as he maintains respectful communications to and about his fellow editors and edits according to guidelines and consensus. Yopienso (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your questions here, if I may, because my answers are essentially non-answers. Point 2 was discussed in my evidence to ARBCC [31] and I won't re-hash it now. The first part of point 1 I've already answered, twice; the second is to vague too be answerable; one may speculate endlessly William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, though I must agree with you that those are pretty much non-answers. My interpretation is that no, your presence (You seem to have missed that I did not say "entry" since you were already there.) did not cause or exacerbate the conflicts, and that KimDabelsteinPetersen wrote a polite note to Mark Nutley despite MN's triple breach of etiquette.

I will completely rephrase my question to echo Biophys, who put it so well. "What exactly went wrong the previous time? What exactly will be done to avoid such problems in future?"

And I'll add this: Was your ban fair and/or necessary and/or useful?

Thanks for your attention. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IanOfNorwich

I believe that it is very hard for experts to work by consensus with non-experts. Experts 'know' they are right, but non experts don't know that the experts are right. They have to be patiently convinced/persuaded/shown if consensus is to work. And if the non-experts are not to become disillusioned and destructive it must be done in such a way as to not make them feel bad about themselves. I hope that WMC can accept that CC articles will be better if, in the future, he interacts more gently with non-experts users who don't share his understanding than he did in the (now distant) past. I hope this because the CC articles need expertise such as WMC's and SBHB's to develop rather than degrade.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Jmh649(Doc James)

We need experts involved. As the articles will remain under general sanctions and WMC seems to have learned from past behavioral issues, his return to editing this topic area should be encouraged. I have more egregiousness examples of people we have let return to editing than the one displayed here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

You (the Committee) have to decide what criteria you want to apply in deciding whether to lift the climate-change topic bans. And then apply them. I suspect that WMC's request will be followed by others, so it's probably worth thinking systematically. Also, if WMC's restriction is eased, I would recommend a heads-up to the WP:AE admins, who will be deluged with vexatious enforcement requests. After all, there's zero cost associated with frivolous filings and a non-zero chance that one will stick. But that's an issue for another time.

I agree with 2/0 and others that a formal admission of the Committee's correctness shouldn't be a requirement. Forced expressions of contrition mean less than nothing, and I've always wondered why Wikipedians are so obsessed with them. Either WMC's behavior is encouraging enough that you're willing to take a chance on easing the restriction, or it's not. Words are cheap, and predicating the decision on an expression of contrition only encourages duplicity and insincerity.

If WMC thought you'd gotten it totally right, he would have already said so. I don't understand why you're trying to get him to say something he clearly doesn't believe. He may, however, be willing to amend his behavior to address the findings in the earlier case. I guess you have to decide whether that's enough. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BozMo

Endorse Mathsci's comments. Suggest go for CC but not BLP and see. WMC has been a lightening conductor attracting hostility from various parties whose net contribution to the project is clearly negative, and bites back far too much. Whether the nuisance generated by this phenomenon is more significant than WMC's expert contribution is an open question but in general on WP we have let people back quicker after far worse and there has to be seen to be some fairness. There may be less fireworks on CC pages but my general feelings is to agree with Stephan S that the quality is slipping. --BozMo talk 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Merlinme

I have interacted with William on various climate change pages, and in general have found him to be a positive force in (for example) making sure that material is properly sourced. We've not always agreed 100% but I've always found him amenable to reasoned argument. His problem as far as I can see in the climate change "wars" was a determination to single-handedly stop all the bad edits himself, with the result that his interactions with editors he disagreed with could be terse to the point of brusqueness. I think it's without question that his content edits in the climate change area improve the encylopedia. However there is a reasonable question whether allowing him to edit climate change articles would increase conflict. If this is the worry, then it seems to me that the simplest solution is a phased removal of the ban. As has otherwise been suggested he could be banned from climate change related BLPs; his behaviour could be reviewed in six months. Other sanctions could be imposed, e.g. zero reversions on CC articles except in cases of clear vandalism.
If after six months he can demonstrate the ability to bite his tongue and work to resolve rather than inflame disputes, more restrictions could be lifted. If he breaks the restrictions within that six months, then I am sure the ban will be reimposed in short order. I can see very little that the encyclopedia has to lose by at least giving him a chance to prove he can work in a more consensus based way on climate change articles, and a great deal to gain. --Merlinme (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Prioryman

A few requests for clarification:

1) The demands being made of WMC to "acknowledge the validity of findings against him, accept responsibility for them, and outline how further problems will be avoided" seem novel to me; I don't recall seeing them being requested of other editors. Have similar demands been made of others? Is this a new requirement for ban amendments? If WMC is being treated differently, why?

2) What practical effect is "acknowledging the validity of findings" intended to have? If a topic-banned editor has an honest belief that all or some of the findings were wrong, will that be held against him/her, regardless of that editor's current conduct? How is "acknowledging the validity of findings" related to future conduct, as opposed to seeking political validation for the Committee's previous decisions?

3) The case decision set out the standard criteria for lifting bans - "demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors". How is "acknowledging the validity of findings" related to either of these criteria?

There seem to be some significant uncertainties about the demands being made here so some clarification would be useful, given their relevance to other cases. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Have mörser, will travel

I think WMC has some trouble following the neutral point of view in articles, even in those not remotely connected to global warming. For instance, he added back [32] a book review to the BLP of Stanford historian Ian Morris, a review written by the much less notable Ricardo Duchesne (whose own Wikipedia article was deleted as failing WP:PROF), but WMC did not check to see if the review published by the site Reviews in History had received a reply, which it had. Let me quote from this reply:

“

[...] Professor Duchesne begins his review not with a summary of my arguments but with complaints about what other people think about my book, why he consistently concludes that my words mean the opposite of what they say, and why he descends so often to ad hominem attacks. I am, he says, ‘defeatist’, ‘ethno-masochistic’, ‘dismissive, even contemptuous, of ordinary people’, and ‘a Party intellectual who knows in which direction the evidence must be altered to fit with the multicultural line’. [footnote omitted] I am also a megalomaniac: the ultimate message I am trying to convey, Professor Duchesne concludes, is that ‘only Morris can prevent humanity from destroying itself’. ¶ If an undergraduate handed me an essay containing statements like these, I would strike them out and return the paper with a little lecture about professionalism. I have to confess to some disappointment that the editors of Reviews in History did not apply similar standards. A serious issue does distinguish Professor Duchesne’s thinking about the West from mine, but it is not defeatism, masochism, or megalomania; it is whether material or cultural explanations fit better with the facts. If the editors had encouraged Professor Duchesne to write a 9,000-word review focusing on this serious question, it would have been well worth reading. [...]

”

This incident troubled me. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at WMC's overall contributions, I support this request. He appears to be an expert in climatology-related topics, particularly computer models, so it would probably be better for Wikipedia if he directed his efforts in that area, rather than toward disputes between historians. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:43, 22 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]
- Following further comments from William M. Connolley, and other editors giving their opinion, I would support a relaxation of the editing restriction, while keeping the BLP restriction in place. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 13 October 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]

I'll make my position clear. I don't want WMC to grovel; I want to see that he has some understanding of the behaviours that led to the sanctions, and I'm not seeing that in WMC's statements. I do believe the concerns are specific to this particular topic area (even at the time, he edited largely without issues in other topic areas), so while continued positive interactions and contributions in other aspects of the project are a mitigating factor, they aren't sufficient to illustrate that the project will see something different from WMC should the restrictions be lifted. I would consider a partial lifting of the topic ban to cover non-BLP content. Risker (talk) 04:34, 10 October 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]
- Having reviewed the input on this request as well as some of William M. Connolley's editing in the past few months, I still think that some loosening of the editing restriction would be in order at this stage. His statements above are not perfect, nor has his editing been perfect, but I see ample grounds for believing that allowing him to return to the Climate change topic area would not return us to the problems that existed there previously; and if that turns out to be wrong, it would be as straightforward to reinstate the restrictions as it is now to lift or modify them. In particular, I perceive sufficient intention by William M. Connolley to behave differently from how he behaved before, and I do not believe any particular form of words or expression of "contrition" is or should be required. Thus, my proposal would probably be to lift the restriction for now except as relates to BLP articles and edits where it would remain, and then reevaluate in 3 or 6 months. Having said that, it won't do anyone any good for me to offer such a motion if it will clearly be voted down, so I will await further input from my colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am proposing a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 17 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]
To echo Jon, without seeing any confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases, any sort of loosened restrictions are just asking for trouble. I don't see any evidence thus far that there are willful attempts being made to avoid the issues that started this in the first place. "It wasn't caused by me since I was there already" is a poor excuse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify further: WMC must acknowledge the validity of findings against him, accept responsibility for them, and outline how further problems will be avoided. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been a marked improvement in WMC's editing over the past six months, and for that reason I'm echoing NYB's comments. I'd support the relaxing of restrictions for WMC - but the loosening must be done slowly, carefully - and with both hands on the rope at all times. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think WMC should be allowed to edit B-level (and below) non-BLP articles for six months. If WMC can then show improvements to CC articles during that time, and a productive atmosphere was maintained during the six months, I support removing the restriction entirely. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be very reluctant to incorporate article-state ratings into a topic-ban imposed in an arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be supportive of a deliberate relaxation of the restrictions to allow for editing non-BLP articles in the CC area (and I see no need for an allocution; either WMC gets it and won't return to problematic behavior, or he doesn't and he will quickly find the restrictions return). — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so.

There are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

Support:

Proposed, per discussion above. Suggestions for copyedits are welcome, and other arbitrators may wish to offer alternative proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Risker (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I would view any attempt at wikilawyering around the BLP restriction very poorly indeed and grounds for restoring the sanction. Everyone involved is quite intelligent enough to know what "relating to any living person" entails.
WMC, if I may offer a bit of advice: concentrate on the science, not the people. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much per Coren and in the expectation that WMC will remain as good as his word. Roger Davies ^talk 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope WMC will use this opportunity to develop content and engage in productive discussions, and not get involved in the firefights. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see any compelling reason to relax anything here. While I appreciate that assurances have been offered to comply with specific requests, for such, I don't happen to find them compelling. It seems like this request has been seen by all parties as an opportunity to re-hear or re-fight a past decision. Compliance with sanctions (after a block) is not cause for removal of sanctions, it's a basic requirement for continuing editing privileges. Rather than seeing a benefit in the return of a knowledgeable editor to the topic area, I'm seeing an attempt by a group of people to erase an outcome with which they disagreed. It's a shame that this can't be anything other than a public tug-of-war, but given that it is such a de facto tug of war, I find that lifting the sanctions on this particular user would send a particularly bad message. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jon puts it well that sanction compliance is the expected minimum, not some sort of bonus. In the discussions above I see similar problems that led to previous issues cropping up again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

recused. SirFozzie (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

To prevent problems with the BLP restriction, one should think about changing the BLP ban so that the strict ban applies to BLP pages (those pages that carry the BLP banner on the talk page), and a 1RR restriction for BLP related edits on non-BLP, CC pages. This may be necessary, because if you write about science, you can end up (indirectly) writing about scientists. William is being watched by detractors, if a BLP related edit is a violation, then the phrase "interpreted broadly but reasonably" may not be good enough to prevent problems.

If instead there is a 1RR restriction on BLP related edits on non-BLP pages, then the mere fact that William has written something that can be construed to be a BLP related edit isn't an AE issue anyway, so detractors won't then bother to start such arguments. But if there is a real BLP issue on a non-BLP CC page, then there will be some debate about this on the talk page and then it will become clear that it is seen as a BLP related edit by serious editors. But AE doesn't kick in at that point, that will only happen if William were to ignore the BLP issue raised on the talk page and violate 1RR.

A detractor can't exploit this easily, he could revert William on a CC page claiming a BLP issue, trying to bait William to revert more than once, but that leaves a lot of room for others to intervene before AE could even theoretically be invoked. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, particularly since the wording here will inevitably be wikilawyered to death at WP:AE. What constitutes "editing related to a living person"? For example:

"A 2009 study published in Nature contradicted the claims of Smith and Jones..."
"In a New York Times article, Smith described Jones' paper as erroneous and misguided..."

These are both fundamentally about science rather than people, but are arguably "broadly related" to living people. I don't think there's any way to make the wording here entirely wikilawyer-proof, but it might be worth having Arbs chip in some advice to the AE admins who will have to adjudicate these sorts of claims. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simplest way of dealing with this would simply be to lift the restriction, BLPs and all, otherwise it will be subjected to the sort of wikilawyering that you are anticipating. Forgive me if I've missed something but looking back at the discussion above, I see various editors saying the restrictions should be lifted in part while leaving the BLP restriction in place, but nobody explaining why the BLP restriction must remain. What is the reason? Has WMC violated BLP since his topic ban? If he is trusted sufficiently to re-enter the CC topic area, why not extend that to BLPs? Based on WMC's editing over the last year, is there any reason to believe that there will be further problems with BLPs? Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP violations were seen as especially serious, which yes, does connote that if WMC had avoided them would maybe have been able to go on with general nastiness indefinitely, flying just outside the protected airspace. But if this passes, that's what we'll find out here, whether they've gotten the message on better ways to interact with other editors, and neutral phrasing in article-space. Yes there will be spurious challenges, and these will have to be "interpreted broadly but reasonably" - so is the changed text commenting on the BLP person or on the science/viewpoint/whatever the person espouses? (And there also may be a swell of other editors asking to have their topic bans symmetrically lifted, and some of them may have the only aim of getting back in there to fight with WMC) As both editors and arbitrators have indicated reservations on the specific BLP issue, it seems reasonable to keep that restriction in place for now. It can be relaxed quickly enough if things go well, and if things go badly it will be retracted just the same. Franamax (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]