Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:01, 10 July 2010

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

In addition to the usual guidelines for arbitration cases, the following procedures apply to this case:

The case will be opened within 24 hours after the posting of these guidelines.
The drafting arbitrators will be Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Risker. The arbitration clerk for the case will be Amorymeltzer, but all the active arbitration clerks are asked to assist with this case as needed.
The title of the case will be Climate change. Participants are asked to bear in mind that case titles are chosen for administrative convenience and do not reflect any prejudgment on the scope or outcome of the case.
Notice of the opening of the case will be given to all editors who were named as parties in the request for arbitration, all editors who commented on the request, and all editors who commented on either of the two pending related requests ("Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar"). If any other editor later becomes a potential subject of the case, such as by being mentioned extensively in evidence or named in a workshop proposal, a notice should also be given to that editor at that time.
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
Within five days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)), participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
- "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
- "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
- "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
- "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)). The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence. For example, an editor may present evidence in a form such as "event A occurred [diff 1] and then event B occurred [2], which led to event C [3], followed by a personal attack [4], and an uncivil comment [5], resulting in a block [6], an unblock [7], and an ANI discussion [8]." It sometimes happens that the editor is asked to shorten his or her evidence, and it is refactored to read something like "there was a dispute about a block [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]." This does not make life easier for the arbitrators who have to study all the evidence. Editors should take this into account before complaining that other editors' sections are too long.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (We hope that it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
This procedural notice shall be copied at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. Any questions about these procedures may be asked in a designated section of the workshop talkpage.
After this case is closed, editors will be asked to comment on whether any of the procedures listed above should be made standard practice for all future cases, or for future complex cases.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to add two users to the listed parties

1) Propose adding User:KimDabelsteinPetersen ([1]) and User:Guettarda ([2]) as listed parties. They are major editors in the field. Their inclusion was previously suggested to Ryan Postlethwaite by User:SlimVirgin and User:Lar here. Ryan, who has not edited Wikipedia this month, never responded to the request. --JN466 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would support replacing the list of "parties" or "involved editors" with a list of "editors to be notified". This would be maintained by the case clerk to help them in notifying editors that made statements, that ask to be added to be notified, that participate heavily in the workshop and evidence pages, and those mentioned in the proposed and final decision. I would suggest that anyone objecting to being listed or omitted from such a list talk to the case clerk (or other clerks if the case clerk is not around). The point of the list of "parties" is really for notification purposes, not to indicate who is "involved". Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The notes for the case are pretty clear. Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment isn't very clear, though... Are you supporting your addition or opposing it? ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I am puzzled by the request. If you trust the arbcomm, then it's simply specious. If you don't trust the arbcomm, then this whole exercise is meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, of course, option C: RTFM. Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support addition of these two editors. Although it has been pointed out that listed or not is not necessarily completely relevant to whether something gets applied to a particular editor. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by Brad, "Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required." However, if we involve more people, I think User:Tony Sidaway might have a useful perspective to offer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The above instruction as to the list of parties ("Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required") somehow did not register with me. I would have framed this request differently if I had seen or recalled it.

Even so, –

There is no useful purpose being served by having a list of "involved editors" on the case page that includes editors completely marginal to editing in this topic area, while omitting others who have been at the centre of it.
If we don't have a list of parties, then the top of the case page shouldn't state, "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case" and "Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop". It creates a wrong impression that there is (was) a defined list of parties, and that the list of involved editors is it.
I cannot find any reference on the case page explaining that this case differs from customary procedure in not having a list of parties.

I therefore request that the list of involved editors on the case page be deleted, be put right, or that it be pointed out that it is only a historical remnant without any bearing on this case.

The case page should also make clear that this case departs (departed) from customary procedure in operating without a list of parties. The bullet point at the top of this page and the evidence page is buried in a wall of text and not prominent enough, especially a few years down the line, when the case page will serve as an archive page. It should be apparent to people referring to the case page later on that the list of involved editors does (did) not adequately reflect who edited the topic area. --JN466 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request the same. Either we should have no list of parties, or we should have an accurate one. KimDabelsteinPetersen and Guettarda, along with William Connolley and Stephan Schulz, are the four key climate-change editors. If a list of parties is to exist, their names must be on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And the basis for your saying so is...? I can think of no objective measure that would place me among the "four key climate-change editors". Proportion of my edits? Nope. Proportion of edits to the topic? Nope. Longevity? Doubt it. Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am puzzled. I think SV should explain her metric William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious why you added this link. I don't think it says what you think it does. (Of my top 100 articles, three are in the area of climate change, including one, global warming, that I have not edited in several years). I'm not disputing your assertion that I am an involved editor here. But it does suggest that in addition to not bothering to read the instructions at the top of this page, you didn't bother to peruse the link. Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your top-ten article contribs include Climatic Research Unit email controversy; your top-ten talk-page contribs include Talk: Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Global warming, and The Hockey Stick Illusion; your top-ten user-talk contribs include William Connolley's talk page; and your ten-top project-space edits include Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. In addition, you regularly turn up elsewhere to support whichever position the other three strike up, and three long-term editors here who are otherwise not involved with each other (that I'm aware of) agree your name should be added. But if you're not disputing you're involved, then there's no substantive disagreement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If those participating in this case are incapable of editing without attempting to title others then it's a distraction. Both Guettarda and KimDabelsteinPetersen have been notified and have already been participating. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to set aside distracting issues

Nearly every dispute resolution forum touched by the climate change editors has been disfigured with distracting drama and disruption. I Motion that ArbCom now identify and set aside content and policy issues which should not proceed in this case, but perhaps maybe another. It's becoming obvious that ArbCom is being approached to make and determine a POV decision. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure what is being requested here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No, not "determine a POV decision", but rather, clarify issues related to our policy on sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin directed

2) SlimVirgin is directed to immediately forward the entire chain of emails referred to in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Statement_by_SlimVirgin to the Arbitration comittee, or the comittee will ignore her evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

People cannot just say that they got evil emails from a party without forwarding those emails to the comittee. SV was previously warned about chosing forums to magnify drama by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar#Choice_of_forum - this is another example. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The committee can well decide for itself how to weigh evidence, and such a motion from outside the committee is pretty well sans raison. Much less an attempt to instruct the committee how to run an arbitration <g>. Collect (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the comittee intends to accept her evidence without seeing the purported emails, it should say so. I'm happy for them to take the oppourtunity to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that this is self-evident and doesn't need to be flogged explicitly. The Committee has substantial experience in weighing private and off-wiki evidence, and I would assume that the current issue will be informed in part by the Committee's previous finding that SlimVirgin has, "when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues or association with other users regarded as problematic, rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion." MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

GoRight unblock

1) WITHDRAWN Fast tract request, GoRight (talk · contribs) be granted an injunction and probation to participate in this case. He was banned during the sanctions, for too many enforcement request, and his views on the sanctions are highly relevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) This relevant issue may distract from the core "disruption" issue in this, what is expected to be a long and complicated case with evidence diffs and principles worked out to resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This works both ways. If people want findings and remedies made about a banned editor, that editor would probably be unblocked to participate. If that editor requests to be unbanned and unblocked after the case and succeeds with that request, then they would have both avoided sanction and avoided presenting evidence. This applies to more than just the editor named here, but any editor who was banned before the case opened. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Er, he was not "banned for too many enforcement requests". He was initially blocked indefinitely by 2/0 for a variety of long-term behavioral issues. He was conditionally unblocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs), in the interest of a last chance. However, Trusilver became disheartened at GoRight's continued problematic behavior and brought the matter back to AN/I here. As you can see, the thread was closed in favor of a community ban; GoRight appealed to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and received this reply.

GoRight's participation in various dispute-resolution forums was broadly problematic, and in fact played a major role in his ban. Given that he's been a net negative in dispute resolution (particularly on climate change), I don't see what would be gained by inviting his participation here. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic, in that he found himself in a constant state of appeal after he would try to get folks to look at wikipeidia principles ~~als~~. Instead, they tossed out the foundation with the rules and banned him. Perhaps I may be expecting that folks will respect a principled argument in ArcCom. After all, there are scientists with Ph.Ds participating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to gently suggest that a principled argument would begin by correctly explaining the rationale for GoRight's ban, ideally with diffs and links. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Sub-issues to be addressed

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk)

Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

As requested, please list your concise, one-sentence, neutrally worded question(s) here

Issues by Hipocrite

1) When evaluating the prominence of a scientific argument, what is the appropriate weight given to various media types?

2) How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?

3) Are all editors appropriately following sourcing policies?

4) Are all adminstraotors appropraitely following involvement standards?

5) Are current involvement standards appropraite?

Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber

1) Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles be modified by having the Arbitration Committee appoint the administrators who would deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page?

2) If the Arbitration Committee decides to appoint administrators to deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page, should it ask the community in a year's time to suggest to ArbCom whether WP:GSCC is still needed in any form, and if so, whether that new, ArbCom-appointed set-up should be continued or revert back to the present set-up, and in either case, whether it should be modified in other ways?

3) Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for tendentious editing, ongoing incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks?

4) Should User:Kim Dabelstein Petersen be sanctioned for tendentious editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and WP:BLP violations on climate change articles?

5) Should User:Jehochman be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" (filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

6) Should User:Franamax be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

7} Has User:Polargeo been disruptive on various pages related to climate change articles, particularly WP:GSCCRE and its talk page?

8) Should User:Hipocrite be sanctioned for excessive and frequent incivility?

9) ~~Should User: Short Brigade Harvester Boris be sanctioned for tendentious editing, edit warring and disruption at Climatic Research Unit email controversy?~~Withdrawn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested issues to examine by Cla68

1) Has there been any extended abuse of BLP articles by a group of established editors, including one or more administrators?

2) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, employed incivility including personal attacks, bullying, baiting, sarcasm, and insults over an extended period of time on the talk pages of any of the climate change articles and, if so, did the behavior result in decreased cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in expanding or improving the content of those articles?

4) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, displayed contempt, derision, or indifference towards Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and/or article-improvement forums such as WP:Good Article or WP:Featured Article?

5) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?

6) Have any established editors who may have a conflict of interest, such as having a close personal or professional relationship with BLP subjects involved with climate change controversies, edited climate change articles in a way that could be interpreted as a violation of NPOV?

Suggested issues to examine by Lar

1) Should the Scientific point of view be used in the GW/CC area instead of NPOV?

2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was?

2b)Further, is Global Warming such a dire threat to mankind that Wikipedia should take a position on it or at least modify normal standards to ensure that the articles adhere to generally accepted scientific consensus at all times and in all ways?

3a) Should the definition of "uninvolved" as used in the CC/RE pages be modified to conform to the generally accepted definition elsewhere? (taking into account editing in the general area as well as editor interaction)

3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case?

4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later)

5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately?

5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied?

6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets?

Submitted for consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) ... and revised. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo

1) Should the fact that an admin has not edited a Climate Change article give them carte blanche to deal with an editor in this area no matter what the admin's past history with the editor may be? Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Issues to examine by ATren

Is it appropriate for editors with a strong POV to be editing the biographies of people with whom they disagree?
Is it appropriate for editors to add blog-sourced criticism to BLPs, and in particular, when the editors have prior association with those blogs?
Is the disruption caused by individual Scibaby socks so severe that we are willing to block on little or no evidence (i.e. less than 25 non-vandalism edits, no checkuser support)?
Has the zeal of a small group of long term editors, protecting against real or presumed socks, caused a de-facto banning of opposing views in this topic area?
Should editors be held to a basic standard of civility?
Does truth supercede verifiability?

ATren (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz

1) Is climate change a field in which "expertise is irrelevant", because Wikipedia only "reflects what reliable sources say" or is climate change a large, complex scientific topic in which a general understanding is necessary to achieve due weight?

2) How can the community deal with high-volume sophisticated socking without causing editor burn-out?

2a) Has the normal SPI process been an undue burden on non-socking editors?

3) Should participation in off-wiki discussions be taken into account when determining good faith and civility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is there a concerted off-wiki attempt to influence on-wiki content, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

5) Is there a off-wiki campaign targeting certain Wikipedia users, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

6) Per "everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler", is the requirement that each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question something that should be strictly enforced or would we rather not force our competent editors to use their immense grammatical skills and the English language's ability to connect several sentences with conjunctions to write one long and convoluted sentence where two or three short ones would have been simpler and clearer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (last updated 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5

1) Should William M. Connolley be topic banned for uncivil disruptions?

2) Should Stephan Schulz be admonished for enabling William M. Connolley's problematic behavior?

3) Was Lar's May 18, 2010 block for 1 hr to William M. Connolley for "Disruptive Editing" for valid and fair reasons?

4) Should GoRight Request for Arbitration, which was closed and lead to the Climate change probation, be reopened in this case?

5) Should Stephan Schultz or others be sanctioned when behavioral evidence is submitted in sock investigations and there is no sock puppet findings, and then they repeatedly continue to make false allegations on unknown editors?

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by William M. Connolley

1) Are wikipedia's science-of-climate-change articles (headed by global warming) generally held in high or low regard externally? 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Should editors be held to a basic standard of usefulness? 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Has the Cl Ch probation unnecessarily tagged large numbers of non-controversial pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by Count Iblis

1) Should the unofficial but de-facto WP:SPOV policy that editors stick to on almost all science related articles, including the global warming related articles, be made official (possibly after it is rewritten by the Arbitrators), for at least the global warming related pages, in order to reduce tensions?

2) Do we need new civility rules to prevent sniping at experts while allowing people to utter justified criticism at each other, so that the experts don't run away?

3) Is there a self-selection effect that contributes to and amplifies problems (i.e. does the Kindergarten like nature of many of the disputes attract editors who are most at ease in such a climate)?

4) Has enforcing civility rules without addressing the core problems made things worse?

5) Do we need periodic external peer review by climate science experts to see if the procedures the editors (and possibly Arbitrators) decide on, do indeed lead to high quality articles?

6) Do we need to study if the commonly used "reliable sources" in Wikipedia (newspapers as well as scientific journals) follow proper editorial policies in case of news reporting on climate change (e.g. when a news report has been debunked, the source retracts the report), to determine what sources can be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's climate change topics?

Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue suggested by Heyitspeter

Do the arbitrators believe that WP:SPOV should be followed as it is written currently?
Does WP:SPOV contradict WP:V?
Are scientists to be considered authorities on metascientific issues at the expense of other reliable sources, e.g., with respect to research ethics, controversies surrounding the politics of global warming, etc.?
How do WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply to articles related to global warming?
Does a supportive editing environment yield better article content?
Since the presence of certain editors has a negative effect on this topic area, would a topic ban for these editors improve the editing climate, or is some other response prudent?
With respect to WP:RS, how should we approach sources that stem from scientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
How should we approach sources that stem from nonscientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
When otherwise reliable sources like the BBC, the Wall Street Journal and the ICO contradict scientists in the field over the truth of some proposition (e.g.), should they be treated as unreliable or fringe sources with respect to that proposition?

Issues suggested by TheGoodLocust

What/who is the source of the problem?
How long has this problem been going on?
Have sanctions changed the behavior of the problem contributors?
Have the problem contributors driven away both experienced and new editors from wikipedia?
Has a culture been created in the topic area that promotes incivility and a battleground mentality?
Which side on the debate has benefited from that culture?
If the probation has not changed the culture in the area, then what can cure it?
How do we deal with obstructive practices by a tight group of editors who show up at esoteric articles to defend each other?
Is WP:MEAT being properly applied to long-term contributors in the area?
Should all long term SPAs (or nearly SPAs) be checkusered to weed out socking?
~~Is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of William Connolley - his at-work account?~~
~~Is Hipocrite creating "false flag" socks in order to demonize the opposition and block new editors?~~
Would sanctioning editors for wikilawyering help the situation?
Should editors be able to extensively source articles to their blogs, ex-blogs or the blogs of their friends?
Similarly, should editors be able to extensively source articles to the scientific papers of their friends, while excluding the viewpoints of other scientists?
At what point, in % of edits, do revisions, reverts, and removals of other's edits become intentionally obstructive?
Should editors with high %'s of such behavior describe themselves and each other as "high quality contributors?"
What dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve any conflicts on article content?
Would extending the probation to cover content fix obstructionism or codify it?
Are the sides accurately described as skeptics vs. non-skeptics?
Since the majority of people who oppose the long-term global warming group actually believe in global warming why do they oppose them?
And why does the global warming group insist on calling those editors "skeptics" or "scientifically illiterate" if they hold the same beliefs?
Does William Connolley have close relationships with certain controversial scientists?
Do such relationships motivate him to promote their work and protect their reputations?
Have his actions demonstrated such activity (e.g. using wikipedia to increase google page ranking of their websites)?
Finally, would topic banning the top editors in the area improve the situation?

Issues suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1) Are repeated declarations of a desire to "level the playing field" more favorably toward certain editors and less favorably toward others consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

2) Is the declaration of a specific content position while engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

3) Are repeated characterizations of editors as a "cabal," "cadre" and similar terms while engaged in enforcement with those editors consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

4) Are personal insults such as "socially inept" directed toward editors with whom an administrator is engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

5) On articles related to scientific topics, what weight should be given to views that have little or no credibility in the relevant scientific community but are widely promoted in blogs and the popular press?

6) How should Wikipedia respond to external criticism?

7) Should responses to external criticism vary according to the source; e.g., academic evaluations or straight news reporting versus partisan commentary?

8) How should op-eds and similar commentary be used as sources?

9) May editors deliberately insert or retain information that is attributable to an otherwise reliable source, but which is unambiguously known to be erroneous (e.g., misstatement of the author of a book) under Wikipedia's policy of "verifiability, not truth"?

10) Is global warming primarily a scientific topic that has sociopolitical and economic consequences, or is it primarily a political topic that is to some extent informed by science?

11) In the interest of fairness, should WP:WEIGHT be abandoned in favor of a perspective that treats all views presented in any reliable source as equally valid, regardless of their proportion those sources?

Issues suggested by KimDabelsteinPetersen

1) Where does BLP start and stop with regards to professional/scientific controversy?

2) Are comments (by another published expert) [critical or non-critical] on published papers by a scientist considered BLP material?

3) Is there a difference between material/content/text placed in a regular article, and a biography, with regards to the materials BLP or non-BLP status?

4) When considering content on different articles with differing amounts of published material both in time and distribution, should there be a set standard for how much neutral/praising/criticising material there is? (both in distribution and length?)

5) If a reference can be shown to be factually incorrect (by using more reliable sources), what consequences does this have for its state of reliability/weight?

6) Do books published by political commentators automatically count as reliable and weighty sources to science?

7) If a political advocate writes a book or makes a film about a topic, does the book/film count as opinion or as a general reliable source (to science or otherwise)?

8) When dealing with a top-level summary article on a very large topic, is it considered incivil to point out that discussion and possible inclusion of a "news/blog issue of the day" doesn't belong, but instead should go to a sub-article?

9) Is it incivil to point out that WP:TALK seems to disallows general discussion on a topic?

10) What, if any, measures can be taken so that article talkpages do not become soapboxes/forums for the "issue of the day" within a topic-area?

11) Would a welcoming committee consisting of bipartisan editors for a topic-area be useful for catching newbie editors, on their talkpage (pointing out problematic behaviour/editing) before making mistakes ending up in grief?

Question raised by BozMo

1) Should Social Inclusiveness have equal or greater or lower priority than content quality?

2) What should our approach be to the "attitude" which is not quite uncivil, but goes along the lines of "why should well qualified contributing editors reasonably have to spend a large proportion of their time civilly educating a rotating series of much less qualified virtually non-contributing editors about fairly basic errors/meanings", even assuming that we agree that the judgements therein are merited.

--BozMo talk 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by WavePart

1) Should Hipocrite be prohibited from filing further requests for users to be blocked as sock puppets?

2) Given the controversial nature of climate change articles, and the tendency for bad faith assumptions to run rampant from one side toward the "other" side, should all non-scibaby-checkusered sock puppet blocks be accompanied by specific evidence justifying the block as a sock puppet?

WavePart (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by ScottyBerg

1) Can administrators be considered "uninvolved" in a particular matter if they have a history of personal animosity toward the editors involved, even if they have not edited within that subject area?

2) Are existing enforcement mechanisms adequate in dealing with the set of circumstances presented by the global warming articles?

3) To what extent are administrators to be held accountable for statements, wherever made, reflecting on the integrity of editors and groups of editors?

ScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by dave souza

1) Should editors be required to accept there is a clear scientific consensus on the basic science of global warming, and that all articles making mention of the science should make that consensus view clear, as well as giving appropriate coverage to fringe and pseudoscientific views where notable in the context of the article?

2) When reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines and books published by respected publishing houses publish claims that the scientific consensus on global warming has been overturned or exposed as a hoax, should such statements always be presented as fringe views in the clear and immediate context of the scientific consensus view shown in specialist scientific publications?

3) Should the definition of an uninvolved administrator for purposes of community sanctions be revised to the informal definition being used by administrators currently implementing the sanctions?

4) In articles on social and political debate on global warming, should priority be given to third party analysis by reputable historians rather than views promoted by active participants in the debate?

dave souza, talk 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues suggested by A Quest for Knowledge

What's the best way to restore the editing atmosphere at the CC articles to being based on civility and cooperation?
Should a Scientology-type topic ban[3][4] be applied editors with repeated conduct issues including failure to assume good faith, incivility and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
Should User:ChrisO be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
Should User:GoRight be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith, promotion of a battleground atmosphere and sock puppetry?
Should User:Marknutley be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
Should User:Scjessey be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
Should User:Thegoodlocust be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:ScienceApologist

Proposed principles

When the science is settled

1) When the science is settled on a question, as in the case of the reality of anthropogenic global warming, Wikipedia articles make it clear that the science is settled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be using ArbCom to enforce article content. It should be editors working together who determine the content of articles. I'll expand on this on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving specific examples is a ruling on content. Keeping it general means it might have a chance of passing as a principle. For example, this might work: When the science is settled on a question, Wikipedia articles make it clear that the science is settled. I could support that. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ArbCom's role to "figure out whether the science is settled on global warming". In general, editorial disputes of that nature are resolved by reference to sources. My view is that if disruptive, single-purpose and overbearing influences are removed from the climate change topic, and it is made quite clear that no matter how worked up people get about this they need to stay calm when discussing it on Wikipedia, then reasonable editorial discussion will produce content that accurately reflects what the sources say (and this should in theory work for any contentious topic area on Wikipedia). In some ways it is tempting to get into discussions of the science, but the discussions should be about how to present the science in the articles, and how to present what the sources say, not discussing whether what the sources say is correct or not. When two sources contradict each other, the discussion should not be about which source is 'correct', but more the quality of the sources and which source to use (or whether to use both). In other words, what is needed is more people writing source-based articles rather than arguing over the science. If anything, one group should select the sources (those with expertise on the sources, and scientists don't always have expertise on non-science sources), and another group should write the articles using those sources (those who have the ability to read sources and write good summaries of the sources). Those wanting to discuss the science should find a forum or somewhere to argue about that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) It might be better to move this discussion to the talk page.[reply]

Comment by others:

Response to Carcharoth -- I don't see it that way at all. The point is that there are best editorial practices on Wikipedia and they can be identified. This principle doesn't say how Wikipedia makes something clear (that's content) only that it makes it clear. This is a guiding principle to help frame content decisions and relieve some of the pressure. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the response -- Is it your contention that the committee cannot figure out whether the science is settled on global warming, but that the committee can agree that there are instances where science is settled in general? If so, what is to prevent climate science denialists from declaring that, because the science of global warming is not settled, the arbitration ruling you propose doesn't directly apply to articles about climate science? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that focusing on behavioral problems will necessarily produce content that accurately reflects what the sources say? Is there evidence of this ever being the case? I can point to one instance where a committee of editors who eschewed what they considered "behavior problems" ended up creating an article they all thought was wonderful but turned out to be very problematic. How does the committee view the likelihood of such situations occurring in the future? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most heated controversy in global warming articles concerns the extent to which the considerable doubts about global warming expressed in popular media, public opinion polls, and by congressional representatives should be covered. I suggest that while such sentiments cannot be described as science per se, the fact that AGW has engendered significant political conflict as few scientific theories have is itself notable.

Comment removed [5]

Settled science is an important concept when considering WP:WEIGHT. The difference between a novel but speculative suggestion like string theory and a settled and vast consensus understanding such as "AGW" means that when discussing the scientific understanding of the idea it is important to keep in mind that vocal minorities buttressed by non-expert naysayers do not dominate the balance of the discussion. Tiny minority ideas are generally excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SA, but disagree that Some of the most heated controversy in global warming articles concerns the extent to which the considerable doubts... should be covered. is *currently* true. In fact the science-of-GW articles have been little troubled for some time now. Where is this dispute occurring? Perhaps I have missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if the pro-science groups were to be removed from global warming articles within no time the naysayers would move in and set-up shop. This has generally been the case in most Wikipedia science articles even though we have WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS to guard against such activity. Policies and guidelines need users to enforce them. WP:BATTLEGROUNDS do not disappear just because the article has achieved stability. See Talk:Big Bang for struggles with my most "controversial" theory that isn't controversial at all among the WP:EXPERTS. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false dichotomy. Your group does not represent "science," nor have the job of being the "defenders of science." They are not the only "pro-science" editors willing to work in that area, and are not in the position to judge who is "pro-science" or not. On the contrary, I argue that it is this kind of attitude that has fostered the battleground mentality on the page, reducing involvement by those who might otherwise assist with keeping it accurate. Secondly, this same argument was made in regards to Intelligent Design, and has not been borne out as the case when many of the problematic group in that area left or moved on to different topics. This slippery slope argument is just FUD. The reality is that a less toxic atmosphere attracts a variety of editors, some of whom will be fringe proponents, but more of whom will support an article in line with accepted science. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The groups don't determine what is and is not scientifically relevant, the sources do. To that end, I see a major distinction between groups who denigrate scientific sources or claim that they don't apply and those who use them in these articles. The claim that "many" of the "problematic group in [intelligent design] left or move on" is not true. Most of the editors who were acting as gatekeepers there (including myself) are still active there. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This outdenting is confusing as it looks like the comments below are responding to you, when in fact they are not. When outdenting, could you indent as well to keep subthreads separate? Better still, less of the long threaded discussions would help arbitrators and others follow what is being said on this page - this thread arguably went off-topic several times, but I've left it alone for now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do, but very little else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is obscure. You appear to be suggesting that, say, the global warming article contains little more than the assertion that the science is settled. That assertion is blatantly false, so you can't have meant that: what did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, for example the global warming article contains little more than the scientific communities consensus on how it works, how it came to be, how it (potentially) effects the planet and the life therein, and how these issues are being addressed; there is negligable coverage of the ongoing debate/campaign promoted by skeptics and denialists, even though it gets considerable general media coverage. This is in contrast, for example, to the article regarding abortion, where not only are the medical, historical, and legal aspects covered by reference to the professionally supported facts, but clearly notes those opinions and their rationales that are opposed to the practice - regardless of the fact that they are not grounded in sustainable scientific grounds. I give this as an example of an article upon a subject that is more than simply scientific explanation, but a balanced view of the issues also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion is a medical procedure, not a scientific fact. Better to compare this to evolution where the controversy is generally confined to creation-evolution controversy where it belongs. Global warming's cause by human actions is a scientific fact that should not be swept under the rug by media hype. ScienceApologist (talk) 1:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I agree that abortion is a poor analogy. A better one would be nuclear fission which does not trouble itself with the politics of nuclear power or nuclear bombs, but leaves those to political articles William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is that it is the issue surrounding the subject (AGW/abortion) that provides the discussion, not the uses made of the subject - such as fission as weapons. The creation/evolution debate is perhaps a more relevant counter, but only as much as the abortion argument, as that is more a matter of substituting science with religious belief where AGW is more argued on the basis of whether the science is being conducted properly and the results correctly interpreted. Oh, and abortion is as much (and historically was) a biological process as a medical procedure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming denialism is politically motivated: it's no more about "whether science is being conducted properly and the result correctly interpreted" than creationism. The same canards are trotted out by both groups, but their motivations are clear and neither are based in scientific inquiry. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this proposal relevant to a dispute? For example, how will we know when the science is settled on anthropogenic global warming seems beyond the scope for ArbCom action now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this principle. This goes to the heart of this issue, and ZuluPapa5 raises an interesting point: does Wikipedia as an institution need to recognize that the science on global warming is settled? Personally I believe as a layman that yes, the science is settled. That may explain why the scientific articles seem to be least controversial, while the ones on the fringes are the most contentious. The corollary is that skeptics represent a fringe point of view that are generally to be granted less weight and less deference in determination of article slant where scientific issues are paramount. The balancing act comes in articles where the science is not paramount. To what extent should this principle be reflected in articles on issues and people impacting on global warming? That seems to be the crux of the matter. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed answer .... Wikipedia will know when the science is settled when there are no longer NPOV disputes in the articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. As someone who is very active in these areas I can tell you that for every settled instance of science we can find quirky and wrong Wikipedia editors who promote "NPOV disputes" on the topic. Think perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics? There's a number of Wikipedians who don't. Think that the speed of light is constant? There are a number of Wikipedians who don't. No, Wikipedia's open-door policy suffers fools gladly and any crank with a computer can perpetuate a "NPOV dispute". The reliable sources external to Wikipedia are what dictate the foundational aspect of settled science. Naysayers can say "nay" all they want, but they should not get a chance to railroad Wikipedia into perpetual conflict or ambiguous hemming and hawing in the articles as you propose. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with what I take to be the intent of this proposal, but as it is currently worded it violates WP:V. Can you rephrase?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can verify the settled nature of the science by looking at the IPCC report. See the second point below. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I suppose I don't agree with the intent of your proposal then, insofar as it is revealed here. You're moving from x is correct to x is verifiable (i.e., only the science as summarized by the IPCC is settled --> only the science as summarized by the IPCC reports is verifiable). That is an inversion of WP:V. WP:V asks for verifiability and that's all. If there are two sources, the IPCC and some other RS in conflict with it, we don't choose the correct one, as you suggest here. Instead we represent both, as per WP:V. That is why your principal is insupportable as per WP:V. (Before commenting please read or reread the links I've provided.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are required to weight heavily against the erroneous and unreliable protestations of global warming denialists. We can verify that they believe things that are incorrect, but we can also verify that they are incorrect. Since we are able to do that, to pretend that there exists any sort of quid-pro-quo is disingenuous and contrary to the respectability of building Wikipedia as a mainstream reference work. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being advocated here that the ArbCom decides for Wikipedia if the science is settle on AGW? Wow, you better start cracking open the books Committee, you need to be absolutely sure before you decide on this one. Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a difficult fact to verify and it would serve as a useful tool for defending Wikipedia from the coordinated attacks of denialists. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough, but that's not the major problem here. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. I think that this is a major issue that causes more consternation than necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

2) Wikipedia follows the most reliable sources, and those sources dealing with the science of global warming agree with the IPCC assessment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, this is a content ruling you are asking for. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may rewrite the principle, what I would say is this: Wikipedia follows the most reliable sources. Sources dealing with the science of global warming vary from reliable to unreliable, and care should be taken to use the most reliable sources in this area. That still skirts the edge of making a content ruling, but at least avoids making decision for the editors. You can't come to ArbCom and ask us to make decisions on which sources are reliable or not, as that can change. Look at the previous ArbCom case on climate change from five years ago and consider the wording used there and compare it to the wording used in more recent ArbCom cases. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "enterprising climate science denialists", it is not possible to make ArbCom principles watertight against specific instances, as they should be general principles. Wikipedia requires editors that edit in good faith, and if you think someone is excessively pushing a point of view (rather than reasonably presenting it on a talk page with reference to previous discussions on the topic) then there are steps you can take to ask for such disruption to be dealt with. But pushing too much the other way is disruptive as well. It is a balance between aggressive defence and leaning too far backwards to accommodate other views. Ultimately, all such discussions should come back to the sources used and how to write the article well so that the reader understands what is being said and doesn't have to wade through tens of references for a single sentence (for example). Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Response to Carcharoth: Actually, the determination of what is or is not a reliable source is not really content but merely best-editing practices. In other words, naming a reliable source in no way dictates what the specific content of an article must be. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the response: Your proposed wording could be interpreted by enterprising climate science denialists to mean that we should only admit sources which dispute the mainstream consensus. Is that really what you intend? If no, do you have a way to fix it, or does the arbitration committee insist on tying its hands with respect to such unintended consequences? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bounds of what constitutes "pushing too much" need to be clarified. That's what we're trying to do here. Simply stating that such a state has the capacity to exist does not give us a good tool to use to figure out when it is actually happening. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources relating to the scientific consensus, yes. The reliable sources relating to the continuing debate not so much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed [6]

The critiques are all marginal. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" but not all. Many reliable sources are critical of the IPCC and a few, at least one reliable source has presented a consensus view on the science, which would could threaten the IPCC's monopoly view. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views trumpeted by political organizations and promoted by a tiny group of itinerant scientists do not belong promoted at Wikipedia and have been duly impeached as being unreliable. Let the people who want to change the settled science fight it out externally, but do not let them have a soapbox in Wikipedia. WP:CBALL. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at least one reliable source has presented a consensus view on the science, which would could threaten the IPCC's monopoly view - a curious assertion. Could you tell us what this source is? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true for sources related to the science, but is not relevant to articles where scientific principles are not paramount. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every article on the subject of global warming touches on the scientific facts of global warming and at every turn anti-science proponents have attacked those facts as they've been presented. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the language was a little over-broad. Perhaps you could rephrase it? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Does the new change help? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It's a small change but it shades the meaning helpfully. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not recognize the concept of a "most reliable source," and it specifically states that we should not simply "follow" the statements of a single reliable source where there are other conflicting sources.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is very clear that we evaluate sources through corroboration, reputation, and scholarship. To that end, the IPCC source is impeccable and the "conflicting sources" are unreliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread degenerated into excessive detail from around this point onwards, so collapsing. I may have cut off some valid points here, but clearly the whole thread went far off-topic and this is as good a place to collapse as any. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument neither rebuts my statement nor supports your conclusion that "conflicting sources" are unreliable.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IPCC source is more heavily corroborated, has a far superior reputation, and is documented to rely on the best scholarship available in spite of the uncorroborated, disreptuable, and unscholarly protestations of its detractors, we use it as the most reliable source and the other "conflicting sources" are denigrated according to their lack of quality in this regard. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to appeal, The IPCC is highly notable and worthy of Wikipedia inclusion; however, they self-publish their synthesized political opinions with little or no objective editorial oversight from outside and independent third parties. This is offensive to Wikipedia:POORSRC. Errors have been found in the IPCC's reports. The IPCC claims authority where Wikipidia demands NPOV with other sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it has been guessed that some people may be making arguments such as that around now. A study published by the US NAS just today "use[s] an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."[7] In plain English, that is very damning to the position you are arguing.[8] --Nigelj (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of them have an opportunity to provide editorial oversight to the IPCC? Who, if anyone, provides editorial oversight to the IPCC? Best I can tell, the IPCC answers to no one but themselves, as far as promoting the opinions prescribed in their mission. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not completely true. They asked for, and received, input from people like me. While there may be legitimate arguments about the extent to which they incorporated outside critique, they asked for, received and did at least partially react to it.--SPhilbrick T 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of argumentation is extremely anti-science and essentially amounts to the canard "Since peer review is done by scientists, it isn't independent." This discussion is over, as far as I can tell. The anti-scientific POV that you continue to push is fairly obnoxious. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is political correctness. I trust the scientific establishment much further to be the ultimate oracle of truth, when the alleged crank science has no political implications. Academic political correctness is a well-known, or at least a widely perceived, problem. Art LaPella (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty subjective measure, Art. You trust the scientific establishment on the issue of the Big Bang because it has no political implications for you. Creationists think it has major political implications for them. See the issue? We cannot say that global warming is somehow objectively political while the Big Bang is not. There simply isn't that clean sort of bifurcation to be had. You are free to trust or not trust "the scientific establishment" for whatever reasons you personally have, but Wikipedia is not equipped to decide when those personal reasons are valid and when they are invalid so I submit that they are always invalid. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no clean bifurcation the other direction, either: even you distrust the scientific establishment in the case of Lysenkoism and maybe even the Sokal affair. I could imagine the Big Bang being favored because it fights creationism, and thus religion and ethics, if I didn't know that creationist thermodynamics (for instance) is flagrantly dishonest. That's irrelevant to the Big Bang vs. plasma cosmology. Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you are arguing that Lysenkoism or the Sokal affair is part of the "scientific establishment". This seems rather muddled as a concept. Global warming denialism has been shown to be "flagrantly dishonest". Did you just not know that? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lysenkoism was the Soviet scientific establishment. The Sokal affair was the social science establishment. No I don't "know that"; I have stronger opinions about who is believable than about global warming itself. Oh well, I can always get my political information from Google instead of Wikipedia ... Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. Lysenkoism was rejected by the scientific establishment of the Soviet Union as a political dogma used to persecute geneticists in the country all of whom dissented from its dogmatism. Likewise, the Sokal text was rejected as incoherent or incorrect by literally everyone who commented on it including, post hoc, the publisher. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. The scientific sources that bothered to comment on these issues were generally highly critical of both of these bits of throwaway (anti-)intellectualism. In any case, I'm not sure how Wikipedia is supposed to conform to your strong opinions about who is or is not believable. Do you propose a way to do so? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit unhelpful of a comment. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ZP5's comments are unhelpful. Do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue in the topic area is not with the science articles themselves. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. The science is relevant to all articles on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. But the science is not at issue. Not seriously. It's settled what the current scientific consensus is. The issue is the behavior of the editors in this area and what the cause for that behavior is. And the most problematic articles are ones that have less connection to the science. I gave examples elsewhere (Skeptic bios, popular culture items like Gore Effect, news coverage and what to call controversies such as Climategate, and the like). These have little or nothing to do with the science or the settled questions. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These issues you list have a lot to do with the science. Almost all these items are directly relevant to the fact that there exists IPCC consensus and a certain group of editors are working to obscure, denigrate, or hide that relevant fact. The denialists seem content to claim that because they deny this consensus is true, therefore it is appropriate to attack editors who write sourced text about this in articles connected to it. And, yes, the articles you outline are connected to that. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell you are saying that everyone agrees that everything in the IPCC reports is 100% accurate and couldn't possibly be otherwise, ever. That sounds like a very religious viewpoint for someone interested in science - more ideological than actually scientific. Anyone with any scientific objectivity would never say that there is such a thing as 100% settled science over such a wide subject area - and anyone interested in the scientific method could not ignore that there is criticism of the IPCC out there. This proposal aims to prioritise sources supportive of the IPCC 'principles' and ignore the rest - that is not the way wikipedia works. This matter is already dealt with in wikipedias principles of weight and verifiability - the real problem on GW articles are the kind of editors who approach this with the own religious fervour POV, and describe 'the other side' as obnoxious or whatever. That kind of editor is to be found on both sides of this debate, and a correct result is not 'we all agree that IPCC is god' but 'POV pushers need to be removed to make way for editors who don't have an ideological axe to grind'. Weakopedia (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is charged with being a reference, not a parser of the finer points of the philosophy of science. We have only reliable sources to go on in writing the encyclopedia. In this case, the most reliable source is the IPCC AR4. Editors who dispute this have essentially declared themselves to be fundamentally opposed to the principles of decent encyclopedia writing as defined by the consensus, policies, and guidelines of the Wikipedia community for climate change articles. Editors who claim that IPCC is not the most reliable source are the ones with the ideological axe since they have consistently failed to provide any source of similar quality to counter the report. Such a tendentious insistence on "balance" when the best source is staring us right in the face should be subject to sanction. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all the sound and fury here, I was pleasantly surprised to read the actual Global warming article. I consider it balanced. However, academia has a serious political correctness problem. I think there is agreement that the IPCC is the most "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia. Do you agree it's OK to also mention sources like the Wall Street Journal? Art LaPella (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the contest is the WSJ vs. IPCC, I believe that the IPCC wins. If the WSJ is saying something that is flatly contradicted by the IPCC, I believe that the appropriate thing to do is to WP:WEIGHT much more heavily to the IPCC to the detriment of the WSJ. I believe you were the one who clarified this the best at Big Bang. If it was WSJ vs. ApJ at that article, ApJ would win. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang doesn't have a political correctness problem. Here, you changed my "most reliable" to "much more heavily". But other than that, I think your answer is yes, it's OK to mention the WSJ. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, the Big Bang doesn't have a political correctness problem according to you. According to other Wikipedians, it does. That's why this type of judgment is really not okay. Mentioning the WSJ in the appropriate context may be okay, but as a source for what the state-of-the-art scientific conclusions are regarding climate change, IPCC should be used and if the WSJ contradicts them, you go with the IPCC AR4. Fair? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. (The Big Bang has no political correctness problem in the sense that people like Al Gore don't care about ambiplasma.) Art LaPella (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's because Al Gore is a polarizing politician? I guess if this were at the time of the Scopes trial, we'd be arguing about the "political correctness" problem associated with William Jennings Bryan's advocacy? I agree there is something different about what a politician who is not a scientist says and what a scientist says. Is that all you're driving at? If so, IPCC AR4 seems to be fairly free of this problem. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, politics influenced Bryan. It also influences scientists, especially social scientists, and also IPCC to some extent; isn't that just common sense? I don't have a good suggestion for what our reliable source guidelines should say; I'm just saying that if Wikipedia can't account for predictable biases, I'm likely to get my information elsewhere. Once again, the Global warming article seems balanced to me the way it is. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that politics can influence scientists, but since you don't seem to want to change our policies and guidelines to indicate how we should measure this in the sources, I'm afraid it's not something we can easily take into account. You seem to be insinuating that, for example, politics influenced the IPCC more than astronomers who have corroborated the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe. I've never seen any reliably sourced evidence that would convince me of that. If you have some that impeaches the IPCC as a reliable source, I'd be interested to see it and compare it to the sources that others have proposed impeach mainstream astrophysics' references that corroborate the Big Bang. This activity may not be entirely suitable to arbitration. As far as I'm concerned, we're in agreement that the IPCC represents the most reliable source for the science of climate change. Here ends the lesson? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a good place to end it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow the value of this discussion (despite failing to resist temptation and joining in). The proposed wording is clearly a statement about a particular source. There's not a chance that the arbitration committee is going to issue this opinion, or anything like it. So while it may be fun to debate, this isn't the forum.--SPhilbrick T 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which this source is attacked at Wikipedia seems to me to make such a determination ripe for arbitration. If arbitration will not resolve it, how does the dispute get resolved? Where is it appropriate to have this discussion and how is the determination made of what Wikipedia editorial policy will be? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee avoids content resolution, although, by definition, content disputes involve editor disputes, and the committee will address interpersonal disputes. Your request implies the committee might conclude that challenging the IPCC report is out of bounds. I can't imagine that they would put challenges to Principia Mathematica, the Qur'an, or Newton's laws of motion out of bounds, much less the IPCC report, if one could find a RS questioning the content. I grant it may be nigh impossible to find a RS challenging Principia Mathematica, but there's no need for ArbCom to insert itself in such a discussion, except to the extent normal DR procedures fail. I've seen legitimate challenges to the IPCC report, and I've seen bogus challenges. The bogus ones generally fail, and the valid ones generally stick. There are lots of issues in CC articles, but invalid attacks on the IPCC report isn't on my top ten list.--SPhilbrick T 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the bogus challenges are piled high and deep to the extent of making it difficult to make headway on more controversial articles (c.f. climategate). If decent editors have to continually take down bogus challenges to make any headway, headway is almost impossible to make. As far as I'm concerned, DR has failed in this area. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are largely on the same page if you feel DR procedures are overwhelmed - that's a nutshell summary of my evidence statement. I feel it is within the remit of ArbCom to propose changes to the DR process.--SPhilbrick T 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Editors with a political bias against the scientific facts relating to global warming

1) Editors with a political bias against the scientific facts relating to global warming have hounded scientists and neutral editors to the point of driving some away and causing the general quality of global warming articles to deteriorate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A link to relevant evidence related to the allegations of wiki-hounding would help here. I would drop the reference to scientists, unless the suggestion is that scientists hold a special position in relation to these articles? Scientists who edit Wikipedia need to be able to edit as Wikipedia editors, not as scientists, just as people with a political bias need to be able to leave those biases at the door when they edit Wikipedia. Failing that, such biases or expertise should be declared if they are relevant to article content, but if someone choses to not say who they are or what their background is, then that should be respected as well. The middle ground of claiming both expertise and anonymity doesn't really work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Response to Carcharoth -- There is considerable tension between what constitutes an expert or professional editorial stance and what constitutes a conflict-of-interest that you touch upon in your response. I intentionally wished to avoid this third-rail because there are people active on Wikipedia who claim "expertise" in a topic which is deprecated and expect to be treated similarly to, say, a professor of mathematics writing mathematics articles when they write, opine, or contribute to articles about their particular area of advocacy. Wikipedia's current culture protects anonymity far more than it protects vetted professionalism or expertise, so how do you propose we enforce a "respect" for true expertise without kow-towing to bogus expertise? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed [9]

How do you define an "editor with a political bias against the scientific facts"? The global warming issue is based on politicized "scientific consensus". ( Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.) Can you give an example where an editor's political motivation has violated the principles in wp:5 ... can you show how an editor has advanced an agenda that precludes other notable and objectivity established positions? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are global warming denialists routinely attack climate scientists in an effort to gain an upper hand in editing articles to conform to an anti-scientific POV. You have done this yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, how do you see my views as "anti-scientific"? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff speaks for itself. I offer a full deconstruction of it for anyone who wishes me to explain how anti-scientific it is off-line. The details of the specious, erroneous, and downright incorrect insinuations you make there are irrelevant to this particular line, but suffice-to-say, it is evidence of a concerted effort to promote an anti-scientific POV whether you realize it or not. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better version would read 'editors on both sides of this debate have, for political, ideological and religious reasons, hounded other editors away to the detriment of the articles and against wikipedias principles of discussion'. Like the proposal above this is just an incorrect POV. It takes two sides to make a battleground, and the people being sanctioned for bad behaviour are from both sides of this fence. In fact, this is a politically motivated unscientific proposal - it misrepresents the whole by concentrating on a provable part of the whole in order to advance a position favourable to a particular group. Dismiss. Weakopedia (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are two sides to this dispute, one side who relies on decent sourcing and one side who does not, means that it is justifiable to ban those who insist on relying on unreliable sourcing from editing climate change related articles. PseudoscienceApologists should not be tolerated on Wikipedia if they insist on poor editing practices. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sides to this debate. There are those who are out to prove AGW, those who are out to disprove AGW, and those who just want to present what reliable sources are saying in an editorially neutal POV. Everyone is supposed to be in the third category but few are. Everyone who falls under the first two categories should be indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia, IMHO. As best I can tell, this battle has been going on for years and it needs to stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any example for one who is "out to prove AGW"? And, to be heretical, why does it need to stop? Agreed, all things being equal, it would be nice to have a less hostile environment. But it does seem to produce reasonably good articles - out ultimate raison d'etre. If we can diffuse conflict while maintaining article quality, that's excellent. But I'd be unwilling to trade a decrease in quality for more harmony. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd say there are at least four "sides" here (though, honestly, I don't know if portraying any of it as "sides" is constructive): there are those who want to add a "denialist" spin to the articles, those who want to add an "alarmist" frame to the articles (who are the real dispossessed minority here), those who want to keep the articles consistent with mainstream science, and those who want to "level the playing field" and provide false balance between the denialist and mainstream scientific positions. While the denialist and alarmist perspectives need to be presented with appropriate weight, reliable sources suggest that "appropriate weight" is very light (somewhere in the 2-7% range for the denialist position, no more than 11% for the alarmist one; see my evidence). Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I hear five? One could probably make a case for n sides, for quite a few values of n. However, returning to the original point, I would assume that ArbCom would be properly concerned about a state of affairs that drives off good editors. However, I would be quite surprised if they characterized the offenders as editors who happen to hold a particular view about scientific facts. No such evidence has been presented.--SPhilbrick T 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is a General Purpose reference work

1) Wikipedia is an open editing project, designed to produce an encyclopedia that is accessible to all and to cover as wide a range and breadth of topics as possible. It does not confine itself to narrow definitions of article matter, and only concerns itself that articles are notable, referenced and accurate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

OK in principle. Links to a few policies would help, as principles should in theory flow from existing policies. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Trying for a standard wording that reflects the nature of a project that is open to all to edit, constrained only by basic principles in constructing the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to Carcharoth) I am suggesting a wording - if the Arbs feel there is merit to it, I am certain they can find the best links; mine might be poor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested links: ... open editing project ... encyclopedia ... accessible ... notable, referenced, and accurate. Wording might be tweaked to clarify that it does not clash with WP:IINFO. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, but the idea is pretty widespread. We also have pages discussing accessibility in terms of disability and source availability, but I am not aware of anything better for this context. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a General Purpose Encyclopedia is to educate the general public

2) Wikipedia's content is directed toward the layman seeking information upon various issues relating to a subject, and therefore needs to reflect all aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think I get what you are saying here, but this should be recast in terms of existing policies, as ArbCom should not write new policy. I actually think the purpose of Wikipedia is something too fundamental to be tackled in an arbitration case, but the key to getting information across to readers is good writing and good editorial judgment on where to put the information (i.e. in which articles). Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Further to the above, noting the requirement to focus subject matter upon the expectations of the readership rather than defining it by the majority expert viewpoint only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to Carcharoth) Same as before; just seeing if the basis might stick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me about this principle is that it can be misunderstood to justify excessive inclusion of fringe points of view that may tend to mislead the reader. In the article on the "Climategate" issue, for instance, we are currently debating how much detail we need in the lead, when those details are media reports that were repudiated by subsequent findings of investigators. We can actually mislead the reader by being too focused on being indiscriminate in the information that we provide. There seems to be a continual tension between those two aspects of Wikipedia: "fringe" and "inclusiveness." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This principle is in direct contradiction to the provisions of WP:V and WP:NPOV#WEIGHT. The arbitrators have generally resisted proposals for unilateral change to major site policies, but perhaps they will relent in this case. This leaves aside the very major point of how we will somehow divine all of the "aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is in contravention, since legitimate questions ("What is the effect of a raise in sea temperatures?") will be covered in topics under WP:DUE and frivolous ones ("Why do scientists have beards if the weather is getting warmer?") will not - and the answers to the serious concerns will be referenced. The issue I am attempting to address is the type of question exampled by "Why does Dr X think that the effects of rainforest depletion is overstated" having no answer because it is the scientific communities considered opinion that Dr (of dentistry) X's concerns are so ill founded they need not be addressed or indeed noted. A good encyclopedia should note Dr X's position neutrally, assuming that it has had enough exposure to indicate notability, while noting also that it is considered marginal by the scientific community (and having links to related articles where the scientific consensus is explained). Thus the reader is educated as to why Dr X makes that comment, and its relationship to the wider and contrary viewpoint held. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases it is impossible to note fact that Dr. X's opinion is "considered marginal by the scientific community." Experience has shown that such attempts will be rejected as WP:SYN unless a reliable source has stated that "Dr. X's opinion is considered marginal by the scientific community" in those exact words. The pattern is that individuals who are mentioned even once in a local newspaper get their opinion presented unchallenged, because they are not sufficiently prominent or credible to have drawn a formal rejection in a reliable source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is an issue, but the brevity of Dr X's article, and the source provided, should give a reader some indication of its value, expecially if they click the link to Rainforest and find Dr X's position is either solitary or not noted at all when viewed with the rest of the content regarding rainforest depletion. Neutrality in reporting, like democracy, might give an appearance of untoward recognition of extremely minority viewpoint but, like democracy, that ideal should not be sacrificed for reason that it is unrepresentative of a majority or significant minority. Also, by deciding what should be included even if it otherwise satisfies inclusion criteria does mean that WP is advocating certain viewpoints as being the only legitimate ones - the antithesis of neutrality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I as a layman would be concerned about including Dr. X's viewpoint, unless the article clearly indicates that he represents a fringe viewpoint. I am sure that most casual readers would not pursue the matter further by clicking on other articles. That presents a problem of misinforming or misleading a person with limited time coming to Wikipedia for some quick background on a subject. If the article is brief, then it may be preferable to omit his view entirely. I don't think we have an obligation to include all points of view, and that's not my reading of the relevant policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is broken. Some of wiki's pages are directed towards the general public, some are clearly not. Mandating that *all* pages should be written for the general public would be a very bad idea William M. Connolley (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does one determine "the expectations of the readership"? Should we engage a polling organization? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you guys on this. If the articles are not written for the general public, it would open the door to fringe opinions on the grounds that a particular article is for a more technical audience that can distinguish between the fringe and the non-fringe. Rest assured that laypeople like myself are in no position to do so. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB, to determine the expectations of the readership just look at how Wikipedia describes itself. From WP:NOT PAPER "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.". Weakopedia (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at apples and oranges here. Your reply deals with the level of presentation and I fully agree with it. Our articles often are harder to read than they need to be, not only because of technical detail but also because of the writing style. But LHvU's proposal has to do with content, i.e., "all aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concern on that, I see no problem if the policy concerning fringe positions is strictly adhered to. Laypeople have a special need to know which positions are fringe and which are not. Re "all aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership," I don't see a problem if it is clearly delineated which views reflect the scientific consensus and which are not. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles may be more than a definition of a subject

3) An article may be more than the sum of its technical description, its history, and its application(s) (if any). Attitudes and opinion toward a subject, favourable, unfavourable, neutral, historical and current, may be included where these meet the criteria of notability and reliable references and exposure in the wider world (and thus readership). Related content may be included where relevant and provides greater understanding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Integrating opinion pieces into an encyclopedia article is... problematic. You tend to have to wait until someone does an authoritative overview of a new area. In this case, much of the froth is new, some is old, and much is contradictory. It is not easy to write articles on topics where opinions in the media both change rapidly, and are polarised and contradictory. On the other hand, severely restricting the sources used can do the reader a dis-service in that you are deciding for them what they should be told. It is a conundrum, and one generally only solved by a close reading of the sources by groups of editors who are prepared to work together to come up with good wording and weighting of sources. When you have editors arguing incessantly, it gets difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clarifying that content is not dictated by narrow definitions, but should reflect per WP:DUE all aspects relating to the subject matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to Carcharoth) It doesn't just get difficult - it gets to be an ArbCom case... This is perhaps where Committee guidance for future dispute resolution is most needed, where NPOV serves the encyclopedia best (and how to get that agreed). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the editors of an article on a scientific topic may decide not to include views expressed outside the realm of peer reviewed science if they feel that this would provide for less understanding. This decision is an almost invisible rule on almost all science related articles. It is "invisible", because it almost never has to be applied explicitely on most science articles (because the popular media rarely writes about, say, special relativity), but see here for a rare case where it is applied. In case of an article on a scientific topic that is controversial politically, it is even more important to apply this rule if we want to report the scientific facts accurately. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is a distillation of all notable viewpoints, per WP:Due weight

4) Noting that while a majority viewpoint, or an expert consensus upon the subject, should have prominence, that all reliably sourced viewpoints, with regard to compliance with WP:Due weight, should be recorded for an article to be considered neutrally written.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think something similar to this is used in most cases, with some standardised wording. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Making the point that a majority or consensus viewpoint is not of itself necessarily the Neutral Point of View; that dissenting or variant pov's may be included in presenting a NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a null finding. No-one disagrees with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that to be the basis for principles (but the proposed findings are below, anyhoo). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not seriously disputed as far as I can tell. The problem is in deciding what constitutes "due weight" for each view. Specifically, for scientific topics is it the weight accorded in the relevant scientific literature, or the weight accorded in newspapers, blog postings and soundbite journalism (as you have argued elsewhere)? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, including WMC, have repeatedly removed dissenting POVs from articles in the CC topic area in tension with this principal. It certainly is disputed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. And note that "in tension" is fine - disagreements amongst editors of good faith frequently arise as to what is NPOV. "in contradiction" would not be fine, were you able to find examples William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As requested. At the following diffs you are shown, on three separate occasions, removing the entirety of a section impeccably cited by RSs because you think the statements made in it are variously 'wrong' and 'rubbish': [10][11][12]. So as stated, the proposed principal apparently is seriously disputed, and by you. (Oh, and Dave souza below, which I hadn't seen.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement as written is in conflict with WP:WEIGHT – that refers to significant viewpoints, not notable viewpoints, and makes it clear that the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Dissenting or variant significant views should be presented proportionately, and appropriate reference should be made to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant. No matter how reliably sourced, fringe views need not be shown unless they are significant to the topic of the article. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The determination of the primary genre of a topic is guided by general public perception

5) The consensus what heading a topic may fall under is dictated by its regard in the outside world.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This feels more like something that should be thrashed out on a policy or guidelines talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) User:Sphilbrick makes good points in his 00:26, 2 July 2010 comment.[reply]

Comment by others:

The genesis of this proposed principle has been crystallised by the differing viewpoints expressed within this page, expressed around the assumption that AGW is primarily a science topic. Although seemingly in a minority here, I wonder if this assumption can be sustained outside of both WP (currently) and the AGW "scientific" - both pro consensus and skeptic/denialist - communities. If the general public, and therefore the likely major readership, tend toward the opinion that it is a scientific discussion then the WP:Due weight must largely reflect the scientific consensus. If the potential readership consider it a matter of political, economic and social import then since the debate is largely advocated by the skeptic or denialist pov then those views should be accorded the WP:Due weight within that arena (while not deprecating the scientific consensus pov). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be rather similar to all the above, and basically amounts to "LHVU wants to see more politics in the global warming article". Rather than have 5 seperate proposals, it would be easier to just have one. But this proposal is broken, as are the above. First of all we have no means to determine what the potential readership think. You could say that the popularity and high regard of the GW indicates that the readership like it as it is; but that would be a thin arguement. And your proposal fails discrimination: the general public are very likely to be aware that GW contains both science and policy aspects; and would probably like those two aspects to be considered separately for clarity William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"LHvU believes that the subject Global warming needs to more fully detail the political, economic and social aspects, so to conform to WP:NPOV" is closer to my understanding of policy. While I am not minded to attempt to determine what the potential readership want from such an article, I would put you to the same proof of evidence that they believe the premier article to be based almost exclusively around the science - which is why I am promoting the idea of the content reflecting the debate relating to AGW, as determined by the reportage found in the wider world, since this is where most WP readers will be coming from (I suggest). If, as you suggest, that the public will want separate articles covering the science in one instance and the social/political in the other, then it is possibly discriminatory to only entitle one Global Warming; each title should clearly indicate the aspect of the subject discussed, and GW would then be a disambig page. I would prefer to have GW to overview both and any other aspect, which could then be discussed in greater detail in separate articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to distinuish the subject (global warming) from the article (global warming). If, as you say, you want the subject to more fully detail the politics, then politics of global warming is open to you. What is rather less clear is why, if you believe this, you aren't prepared to help out by expanding that article and related ones. I think your assertion that you're not trying to determine what they want is wrong; as well as a clear contradiction of your initial comment and indeed the principle you're trying to promote: how can The consensus what heading a topic may fall under is dictated by its regard in the outside world be implemented *without* determine what the potential readership want? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously cannot help "make" the changes that I feel better represent WP policy within the article(s), because I then would not be an uninvolved party able to act as an admin in Probation enforcement requests. For the latter part, I am saying that neither I nor you are likely able to evidence what the potential readership wants so we need review how the general media are reporting it to provide us with the best guidance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) The proposed principle is sound but the challenge is to define the "outside world" in a useful way. We could begin by examining how other well-regarded reference works treat the subject. My understanding is that Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, gives considerably less attention to the political aspects of the topic than Wikipedia's global warming article. (2) Our current global warming is around 25-30% devoted to non-scientific aspects (based on a simple word count using Microsoft Word). One can quibble over the details of how to count each word, but to me that percentage doesn't mean that the article is "based almost exclusively around the science." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very odd. Public opinion is generally irrelevant, the primary genre of a topic should be guided by expert opinion published in reliable sources. For example, historians with expertise in the topic area would be appropriate third party sources for the non-scientific aspects such as political developments. There's a lot of work needed to overcome the present tendency for political arguments to be replicated rather than dispassionately analysed. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "Public opinion is generally irrelevant" you mean that the opinions held by the public about the state of climate science, I agree. However, that's not how I interpreted the proposed statement—I viewed it as suggesting that content in an encyclopedia for the general public ought to be partially guided by the interests of the public. I suggest that while many readers are interested in the differential reflectivity of greenhouse gasses to various wavelengths, and expect to find an explanation herein, they are also interested in the policy implications of a carbon tax or other proposed mitigation proposals, and expect to see a discussion here as well. Many of whom are aware that the former discussion is likely to be more reliable than the latter. While the latter aspect has scientific aspects, it also has socio-political implications, many of which are currently in flux, so fair coverage would include more than simply peer-reviewed references.--SPhilbrick T 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template

6)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Presentation of the scientific consensus regarding AGW within related articles is excellent

1) The scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently applied throughout Wikipedia, being well sourced and referenced ~~(Try again, below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)).~~ [reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~Needs rewording, but something like this could introduce the decision. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Retracting my initial comment here. On reflection, I agree more with what User:Sphilbrick says below: "I think such statements are much more valuable if uttered by outsiders.". It is certainly not ArbCom's place to be judging article content, even if it is only intended as background to the case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be better worded as "the presentation of the science of GW..."; I see no evidence that any aspect of the science is poorly reported or under-represented William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed finding of fact; you may wish to present one that better reflects your view in your own space. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err yes I've already done that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I view this as ill-advised. An outsider reading it (and some will) would view this as saying "My, aren't we smart!" I think such statements are much more valuable if uttered by outsiders.--SPhilbrick T 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed this a bit in my evidence section. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~1.a)The scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently sourced and referenced, in accordance to Wikipedia policy and practice.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Still seems a bit pointless. In general, the flow of arbitration cases is that principles point out the relevant aspects of current policy and guidelines, and findings either provide necessary background (usually of a simple factual indisputable nature such as defining the locus of the dispute, not findings stating opinions of a complex subjective nature as this finding would be) or highlight conduct that has crossed the line, and the remedies sanction people based on the findings about them (or lay doen conditions for article or topic area probation). What I would ask here is what remedy would result from this finding? A remedy saying "don't mess with the scientific consensus present in climate change articles" is not going to happen, as that would be a content ruling. I'll add more on this to my general thoughts on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Clarifying that content relating to the scientific consensus regarding AGW/CC is in accordance with WP policy and guidelines, and is not seriously contested as being inappropriate, misleading or inaccurate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Resp to Carcharoth) It is to contrast the following statement, that content that denies or opposes the scientific consensus is not afforded the coverage permitted by use of WP's policies, guidelines and practices. It thus focuses the the case to where the issues lies, rather than leaving open to question the state of this area while other issues are considered. It is similar to noting that the use of alternate accounts is permitted under certain circumstances, before considering the issues of abusive socking in a case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried that this whole exercise could end up deciding little more than which !side of the !dispute has "unbalanced" WP's coverage most politely. I think something needs to be decided about what kind of coverage is in target here. Options range from 'every blogger's personal opinion should be given equal weight everywhere', through 'every US political stance should be given equal weight everywhere', to something more nuanced like 'the 98% consensus scientific opinion should be given major weight, with major political, economic, religious and public opinions given WP:DUE weight where relevant to each individual article, depending on its title'. I don't know how Arbitration would word such a statement. --Nigelj (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Presentation of skeptic or denialist viewpoints regarding AGW within related articles is deficient~~
2) The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This is harder to determine and should be left to the editorial community to discuss. I happen to think that arguments using percentages (as in some of the comments below) tend to miss the point. Articles need to be well-rounded and well-written, not constructed based on percentage calculations. There is also a tendency (all over Wikipedia) to focus on writing and expanding the subarticles or obscure (i.e. currently interesting) areas of a topic, rather than step back and focus on the core articles before expanding to other areas. But that is more due to the volunteer editor model. Topic area plans on a WikiProject page may help identify where to best focus editorial resources. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I feel that the weight of evidence will draw the the conclusion that there is a bias toward not including content that is contrary to the scientific consensus within major subject articles, of marginalising skeptic or denialist viewpoints to articles specifically relating to those issues, permitting the inclusion of contrary viewpoints toward skeptic/denial content that is not reflected in relation to scientific consensus content, the more stringent examination and challenging of sources, and of greater scrutiny of the editing ethos of contributors of denialist/skeptic inclined content than there is of those editing to the scientific consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see even a trace of evidence for this. The main global warming article contains a section on solar variation, mentioning the hypothesis by Svensmark. And then we have an article dedicated to solar variation which contains a big section on global warming and a big paragraph on solar variation theory. Last but not least, there is a wiki article on global warming controversy, containing many statements by sceptics that are not propperly rebutted, because scientists are not going to rebut every flawed statement made by sceptics.
So, clearly the views of sceptics are overrepresented on Wikipedia. This is consistent with the contents of some other popular wikipedia science articles. E.g. the article on dark matter contains a rather large section on alternative theories, even though it is a rather small part of the literature. The only difference between climate change articles and the other science articles is that in the latter case the contrarian points of view are part of the regular scientific discourse. Count Iblis (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually incorrect. Global warming mentions alternative hypotheses such as solar variation and cosmic rays in much greater proportion than their appearance in reliable sources, as do various sub-articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per CI and Boris: this finding is factually incorrect (but may go some way to explaining LHVU's biases) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deficient in comparison to what? I suspect (and I may submit evidence to show) that Wikipedia actually extends far more coverage to minoritarian claims about climate change than other comparable general-purpose reference works. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite this simple. There are a few credible scientists who hold contrary opinions, but more than that, there are leaders in the political, social, and economic communities who hold contrary opinions for various reasons. Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sort of general answer; I think people a confusing WP:DUE with the number of alternative references presented in an article - and it is an issue with encyclopedia writing generally. If there is a statement that "Water is accepted to be wet" then we will likely use one or two cites, to very reliable sources (usually those accepted as being authorative), but there may be very many alternative sources that all, in different ways, argue with that statement. Just because there are many "dryist" references to the couple of moist references does not mean some dry commentary needs to be culled to give balance. Those cites that are reliable are used, to demonstrate the breadth of discussion surrounding the dampicity of water - but it should not take away the generally accepted notion that water (at common temperatures and pressures found on Earth) is wet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This answer is too vague. Can you point to *any* "skeptical" scientific viewpoint that is un- or under- reported? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two points; firstly, I am not limiting the notion to only the scientific debate (by which the consensus is massively in recognising the fact of AGW), and, secondly, the evidencing of my proposal is best left to those who are more orientated toward content building. I have, by inclination and the my understanding of the role of "uninvolved admin", not been involved in contributing to the article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the "skeptic" viewpoint is underrepresented in our articles about the politics of global warming or the global warming conspiracy or maybe the public opinion on climate change? Or are you talking about the economics of global warming? Surely you aren't talking about articles like The Great Global Warming Swindle or The Hockey Stick Illusion or The Real Global Warming Disaster? I don't doubt that this is your honest opinion, but if you haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion. And it's not just a matter of convincing people - if you would be specific, it might be possible to improve coverage. If you aren't willing to be specific, what's the point? Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to edit in order to read. What you appear to be admitting above is that you wnat this to be a "finding of fact" but are not prepared to offer *any* evidence in support of it. If you have no real evidence for this, could you at least offer some hints as to how you have come to this conclusion? Is it based on your experience at RFE, or before, or what? I notice that Cla, too, offers no evidence, and he doesn't have your excuse of not editing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(To G) The articles you mention would fall under my "marginalised" definition; that these viewpoints are largely kept out of the flagship articles and confined to the see also links.
(To WMC) I understand Cla68 is on a wikibreak, and may still have time to file some evidence - what with these "deadlines" being admitted as flexible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a complaint that fringe views are not shown in articles on main topics – in practice, the articles mentioned as examples give a platform for fringe views which have received very little mainstream scrutiny, and for example the hockey stick controversy article gives undue weight to fringe claims. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's Criticism of the IPCC AR4, Climate change in the United States, a long list of Climate change in XX articles that cover whatever views are prevalent in various regions, etc, etc. So of course we have all sides of the public, political, economic and other debates well covered. In the top-level articles, and even in these spinouts, there is a requirement, per WP:FRINGE, to ensure that all this stuff is reliably sourced (not blog or SPS sourced for example) and to place all these matters into a context that shows their relationship with the scientific and worldwide political mainstream. Doing this is hard work, and requires the input of those who not only are very familiar with WP policies and guidelines, but also with those relevant mainstream views, and where to put their finger on the exact (preferably peer-reviewed, governmental or MSM) references that best show the context in which to place new material. There seems to be no shortage of people who want to add such material. Dealing with it fairly and effectively is skilled work, that I tend to stay out of as there are others here who are much better at it than I am. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per my evidence, "skeptical" views only account for a trivial proportion of climate scientists, and a very small (~7%) proportion of the general public in the US, the country that has one of the highest proportions of "skeptics", but are severely over-represented in the popular press. If these sources (peer-reviewed publication, largely by social scientists) are taken into account, "skeptical" views should account for something on the order of 2-7% of our coverage, across the board. Taking actual facts into account, I see no basis for this "finding of fact". (And, in fact, no supporting evidence has been provided, AFAICT). Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~3) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by ZuluPapa5~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~The basic foundation for civil editors to create a free and open NPOV encyclopedia~~
1) Assume Good Faith
Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.
2) Civility/disruption/reasonableness
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.

Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. When disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.
3) Consensus
As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.
4) Edit wars
Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseam. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
5) Neutral point of view (and associated principles)
Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.

Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia..

Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.

The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible..

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".

All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)
6) Original research
No original research.

Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research.

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.)
7) Ownership of articles
(a) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
8) Personal attacks
Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Personal attacks which occur during the course of Arbitration either on the Arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration.

Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
9) Provocation
When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.
10) Staying cool when the editing gets hot
When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Too long, and it would be more helpful to indicate which principles apply to which aspects of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Generally, I am generally in agreement with the general points - but I am ballywhacked if I am going to detail where I agree more or less with a specific point under this layout... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As LHvU. Also, is this a cut and paste from some other case? (it reads like it) For one this long maybe just give the diff link and suggest endorsement. Because this stuff is motherhood and apple pie around here, or is supposed to be anyway. I reformatted the heading, please revert me if you disagree, ZP5, or remove this comment if you are OK with it ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~WMC is uncivilly abusive to editors collaborating to produce a NPOV~~
As seen in the case evidence objectively provide by and among multiple editors -- and in WMC's edits during this case -- there is very likely consensus that WMC is demonstrating the following behaviors which leads to the conclusion that he is detrimental to the project.
attempts to dominate, humiliate and intimidate others with self-denial then blame

displays a bad temper

resits others attempts to help

hurts / threatens newbies and BLPs

excessively reverts

denigrates editors good faith contributions

acts excessively possessive to climate change content

obsessively continues with abusive language despite multiple warnings

attempts to overly control where and how content is developed
Comment by Arbitrators:
Specific links (to evidence) and diffs would help here and allow WMC to respond if arbitrators agree that there is a case to be made here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Understood. I will attempt to add at one time. It may be a few days. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:William M. Connolley~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Avoiding article bloat~~
1) WP:NPOV and WP:RS does not mean that articles should bloat to include all information. Wikipedia is better served by discrimination: when articles become large, easily identifiable sub-blocks should be split off from the main article. In the case of global warming such sub-blocks include politics of global warming, global warming controversy, climate sensitivity, attribution of recent climate change, temperature record, urban heat island and many more, which correctly allow the main article to focus on an overview of the core science William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Agree with this, and it appears to be a re-statement of WP:SUMMARY. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Wonderful. I suggest joining and working nicely with others here at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force to effectively implement. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC) This Wikipedia:Article_size is a good guideline should any disputes ever make it up the dispute resolution path. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negating bloat is not reason to violate WP:NPOV in removing content which is adversarial to the standing consensus on a subject, but only where content is nonsustainable in any context or repeats other content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum; Why should Science of Anthropological Global Warming not be a sub-block of Global Warming, which would be the introductory article for all aspects of the subject? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "science of anthropogenic global warming" - there is a science of climate change though. The anthropogenic part is a conclusion, not a preclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, LHvU's Science of Anthropological Global Warming could be useful. An anthropological approach to the topic dealing with public perceptions, group behavior, etc. would be interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have confused issues by mistitling my suggested article; I am referring to an article which is based around the accepted scientific explanation of global warming, which is what the current article titled Global Warming is. I feel it should be retitled "Science of..." , and the current title used for an article which overviews both the science and the social/political/economic issues. Simply, I consider that denoting GW as a science subject which has some spin off articles dealing with the politics et al fails WP:NPOV, because it appears that WP is making the decision that AGW is primarily science and a political and social issue secondarily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment, below, shows that your assertions here are not factually correct. The social, political and economic issues already comprise 25-40% of the article (depending on how you classify the "effects" section). And it was there for over a day and a half before you posted your comment. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is good, for the science subject it is now - my point is that I do not think that NPOV is served by having it as a science article, but as an overview of the science and social/political aspects. Even then, a 60/40 ratio between science and nonscience would be fine as supported by reliable sources - but it would mean the article would be edited to a NPOV that is not based upon the scientific consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that LHvU had in mind can be found at Global_warming#External_forcings, which has the following sub-articles: greenhouse effect, radiative forcing, atmospheric CO2, solar variation and global dimming. People keep asserting that the global warming article (to pick an example) has too much of the science and not enough of the 'other' views. The problem is that most people don't bother to actually look at the article. The GW article is 3833 words long (according the the DYK-check tool). But the "Views on global warming" alone is 516 words long. Almost 15% of an article that is, after all, about a scientific topic, is dedicated to politics. Another 373 words are dedicated to "Responses to global warming" - policy, in other words. About a quarter of the article, in other words, is not about science. A further 522 words are dedicated to the effects of global warming, which is, of course, a distinct topic. So not even counting the lead, the "science of global warming", even in the broadest sense, only gets a little more than half the space in the article about global warming which remains primarily a scientific topic.

The problem isn't that science is given too much space. The problem is that certain editors want to insert a paragraph into the article each time a new "skeptical" Op-Ed comes out in the Wall Street Journal or their favourite blog. And spinning off the science into its own article won't solve the problem, since the "skeptics" claim that their works are also science and deserve to be treated as if they were mainstream science. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Scope~~
2) Wikipedia is an entire reference encyclopaedia and is not aimed exclusively at the general public. Where the core of a subject is too complex for the general public this should be handled by creating an introductory article rather than dumbing down a complex subjects William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Not sure where this is heading. Category:Introductions does exist (as does this), but I'm not sure that is what you meant here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The general public is the primary audience, by far. I'm not sure that there are other audiences, actually. Or if there are, that they would not be far better served by peer reviewed publications rather than one open to all and sundry to edit. That said, the use of introductory and overview articles with backing articles in greater depth or of greater complexity is a core organizing principle here regardless of the validity of the first sentence. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a primary reference and an educational tool Wikipedia cannot inform experts in their subject, but only condense what is reported as written by experts in a manner which non experts may understand. Experts may use the sources referenced to test their knowledge, if required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As MastCell said: Maybe you could argue personal viewpoints on climate change elsewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, the global warming article dumbs down or obfuscates key portions of the AGW theory (because they don't make sense) and downright lies or promotes myths in the lead (e.g. that storms with increase in frequency AND strength [13] [14], increased desertification (the opposite in fact)). It is written to be as alarmist as possible and you know it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global warming does not claim "that storms with increase in frequency AND strength", either in the lede nor elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did, I said it promoted the myth of it through implication. The lead says, "Other likely effects include changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events..." The implication of that sentence, in the lead, is clear due to the myth Al Gore promoted about Katrina being due to global warming. I notice you don't mention anything about the lead saying desertification will occur when increased CO2 will probably cause forests to reclaim some desert area. These are just a few examples - the articles are full of errors, omissions, and obfuscations that lay people wouldn't notice - it is easy to promote myths, but much harder to dispel them. This is especially true due to how often some of these myths have been repeated by an alarmist media. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you wrote "and downright lies or promotes myths in the lead" - so is your "downright lie" just hyperbole, or does it apply to one of your examples? As for the desertification, I'll take one misrepresentation at a time. You have presented one 7 year old non-peer reviewed source that says that CO2 fertilisation may explain expansion of forrest in the Negev. You take that to refute a much more recent peer reviewed paper that says that GW effects "probably include expansion of subtropical deserts". That's really a classical case of cherry-picking denialism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize english isn't your first language Stephan and so I direct you to the "OR" part of that sentence you just quoted. Obviously implying storms will increase in frequency/strength is a myth that is being promoted. Anyway, there are other papers that back up my version of events and I'm sure you are aware of them and can look them up yourself instead of wasting more of my time (the point I suppose), but I'm sure if you thought about it for two seconds, and assuming that the models are correct (haven't been yet) and that we do get an extra degree of warming, most of which would be in the arctic/antarctic (odd how the global warming lead doesn't mention the antarctic eh? I guess that must be what you call "cherrypicking"), then you'd realize that the increase in CO2 would be far more important factor than such a piddling temp increase. The fact is that the lead of the global warming article is nothing but cherry picking and I'm honestly surprised you guys haven't included ridiculous claims that say global warming has increased prostitution (from your favorite source - the UN)- baby steps I guess - and this wikipedia article is just a primer for such alarmism. I suppose the most amusing part of the article is that it promotes things that have been going on for thousands of years as "proof" of global warming (e.g. sea level rise/melting glaciers.) TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to be going anywhere constructive. Maybe you could argue personal viewpoints on climate change elsewhere? MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this is a great example of why it's important to understand what you're talking about. TGL writes: the lead saying desertification will occur when increased CO2 will probably cause forests to reclaim some desert area, as if these were two contrasting ideas. And to the average person, they probably look like contrasting ideas. But they aren't. Increased CO2 concentration leads to increased water use efficiency in plants. Increased WUE, increased woody biomass. And while I suspect that the authors of press release get it wrong about the change in soil moisture, this whole thing is entirely unrelated to "desertification". Desertification is primarily driven by land use, not plant growth. Increasing woody biomass in some deserts may affect desertification, but only inasmuch as it alters human behaviour. And since woody biomass competes with herbaceous biomass, it's also possible that increased woody biomass can put more pressure on grazing lands, thus speeding desertification.

This is a classic bit of original synthesis that appears to be "common sense" as long as you don't understand what's going on. This is especially common in these articles. It's difficult enough to explain this to the average person. But when you have editors who arrive here spoiling for a fight, ready to right a great wrong, it becomes impossible to deal with. Sure, all we need to do is follow policy, since it forbids SYNTH. But that doesn't do much good when you have editors who aren't willing accept that "increased woody biomass" ≠ "reduced desertification". Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers about desertification and CO2/climate change. Anyway, the excellent point is the one you inadvertently made - human behavior causes a lot of the problems associated with climate change. Glacier's melting? Land use changes and black carbon deposits are reasons some of them shrinking (e.g. the oft-cited Kilimanjaro). Coral reefs dying? Farm runoff. But back to the global warming lead - why doesn't it talk about climate forcings there instead of sounding like a namedropping Greenpeace pamphlet? After all, the models are all based on these theoretical mechanisms that have never been demonstrated in reality, and, in fact, I'd say are pretty much disproven. But hey, we can continue to ignore how the IPCC's models compare with that whole "reality" thing - it isn't like "real science" should be falsifiable or anything right?

So again, why doesn't the lead talk about climate forcings? Without which the models completely and utterly fail? Why does the lead graph come from surface temperature measurements instead of satellites? Why does that graph stop at 1990? Isn't that cherrypicking? Why the misleading trend lines in the second graph? Why do so many of the graphs mix data from different sources? Why aren't the error bars shown (which would take up nearly the entire graph)?

Thank you, but I'll continue to go with Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT, even though he isn't as good at self-promotion and media manipulation. In fact, he recently said, "As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition." Hopefully the articles on wikipedia will reflect that sentiment more instead of sounding like they were written by Green Party politicians who care more about idealogy than the cold hard reality of their actions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the kind of thing you have to deal with in articles. My point was that increased biomass ≠ reduced desertification, not that desertification was unrelated to climate change. In a complex system, if A is related to B, and B is related to C, you cannot simply assume that A is related to C. That can be counterintuitive to many people.

BozMo suggested that we should feel obliged to explain these things to new editors. I can accept that, up to a point. That point stops somewhere short of an editor who needs to be right, even though they don't understand the underlying science. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the article can imply, in the lead, that there will be increased desertification, even though there are many factors for it, CO2 will increase the "biomass" of the desert and it is an observed fact that CO2 helps plants that are subject to water stress (not that global warming would even cause water stress)? What exactly is the justification for saying there will be more desertification? Let me guess the failed "models" predict it?

Again though, I must thank you for inadvertently making my excellent point about relationships, and I can only wonder why some people attempt to link global warming to a whole host of ridiculous things (great resource for you guys to expand the global warming articles I imagine), but ignore the proven reasons for them (as I demonstrated earlier). Of course, I keep on hearing that the "science is settled" and then I come across interesting Climategate emails where they say they can't explain the lack of warming, or that they "wish the science was proven true regardless of the consequences" and recently I came across this one where he seems to imply some interesting things about Michael Mann (odd how wikipedia promotes Mann's work so much - it is almost like someone editing the articles in his personal friend) and nicely summarizes their knowledge of the paleoclimatology field with "(we) honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)."

Finally, I'll leave you with a nice quote from Richard Lindzen (perhaps you can add it to the global warming article), "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." Odd how his work doesn't seem to make much of an impact on the global warming articles, but we instead constantly cite the Climategate scientists even though the Institute of Physics has said, "The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change."

Ouch! Almost as bad what the Wegman Report said about Mann et all isn't it (again, funny how often wikipedia promotes his website and "science")? Odd, how most of the "criticisms" (again some of which are misleading/wrong) of the Wegman Report are sourced to Real Climate, where Mann is one of 8-9 contributors and a founder, but that section doesn't say where the "criticism" came from - nor does it stop the wikipedia article from stating those criticisms as if they were fact. That'd be like George Bush being criticized for Katrina while "some people" criticize that criticism as being inaccurate - without mentioning that those "people" are Bush and Cheney themselves. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong doubts about this principle. I agree that Wikipedia has many thousands of articles that are of no interest to the general public. I've stumbled upon numerous articles on obscure plant subspecies, obviously written by experts and of little interest outside of academia. However, I don't know of any global warming articles that are so super-specialized that they can't be made understandable to the general public. The articles do not have to be "dumbed down" to a third-grad reading level, but they need to be made clear to an intelligent lay reader. I believe that keeping articles understandable is content- and POV-neutral, and does not have to compromise the scientific validity of articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia uses sources - it wouldn't count as a source a free website that anyone can edit, because such a thing would be prone to inaccuracy and POV pushers. So anyone other than the general public is unlikely to use wikipedia as a source either - which is why wikipedia is aimed at the general public and not people who generally pay for quality information rather than hope the free information they just read is accurate. Weakopedia (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@C Not sure where this is heading - mostly as a counter to LHVU's The purpose of a General Purpose Encyclopedia is to educate the general public which I believe, if passed, would be used as a lever to dilute the scientific content of articles like GW. So the contrary needs stating: that not all articles have to be immeadiately accessible. Category:Introductions does exist (as does this). Agreed; it is a matter of balance. For example, the article that links to, Introduction to special relativity, contains nothing about the controversies over the theory, nor makes any reference to the politics of nuclear weapons, which a LHVU-like interpretation would ask for. Incidentally, it would be easy to argue that the Intro to SR is too technical for the general public; I would argue that the current GW article is written at about the same, or perhaps an easier, level William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Purpose~~
~~3) The purpose of wikipedia is building an encyclopaedia, not a social club.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
I think the problem is more people treating Wikipedia like a forum for discussions about climate change, rather than as a social club, so if it is recast that way, then yes, I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Standard William M. Connolley (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, and we should worry about myspace-ish behavior when we see it. However a collegial work environment with an atmosphere of mutual respect is almost always much more productive than an incivil and adversarial one. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard; as is the necessity of not being insistently unsociable when engaged in building the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, it is also true that socializing is sometimes a natural and reasonable byproduct of volunteers working together on a project. However, I would modify LHVU's statement, in that being unsociable, as in not inclined to socialize, is perfectly fine, but being anti-social, as in hostile or rude, is not. Those who overdo socializing may harm the project through diluting our goals, as well as wasting time and space, but the anti-social actively drive away those who would contribute, making them potentially more harmful to WP in the end. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal could be useful in reducing some of the on-wiki gaming that occurs over GW articles, and the myspaceyness in general, but it is not an excuse for bad manners, but in it's current state is too vague to consider. A useful proposal would have defined what it meant. Weakopedia (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Article content influence~~
4) Editors with a strong opinion about an article or area are expected to make good-faith attempts to change the articles via editing and talk page discussion, not administrative action or arbcomm proceedings.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I would add that regular rotation of admins in contentious areas can guard against this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Mostly aimed at LHVU who (it has become clear) has a very strong opinion as to the content of global warming and related articles and who has pretended to act as "neutral" admin at the climate change probation whilst actually trying to enforce his viewpoint William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refute that my admin actions were other than consideration of the terms of the probation in relation to allegations of violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course correct as a general principle. But I don't see any evidence (nor am I aware of any evidence) that LHvU has violated it. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree with MastCell - this is a good principle, but I do not think that LHvU has even come all that close to the line. I believe that they think that there should be better depth of coverage and prominence for the political controversy and the skeptical views (and, presumably, the minoritarian scientific views, though those seem to get lost in these discussions). In following the RfE board, I have not noted any instance where a weakness or inconsistency of argument could be best explained by assuming that the mop'n'bucket were being used as a quarterstaff and shield. The Bishop Hill (blog) incident, particularly, I think was completely above-board on LHvU's part. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be clear to WMC, but then LHVU hasn't been sanctioned for his behaviour on GW pages. Bad faith proposal, dismiss. Weakopedia (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the proposal is flawed, just the editorializing. It is not uncommon for newish editors to get into a snit over something, and run to ANI or even ArbCom before making a good faith attempt to work within the system. To our credit, in most cases those premature attempts are headed off at the pass.--SPhilbrick T 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy. Strong opinions are not bars to taking administrative action or to participating in arbcom proceedings. There is a third way that WMC omits, which is to not let one's opinions about content influence administrative action. WMC seems to be using this proposal to bludgeon LHVU (and maybe me) but has not introduced evidence of any influence whatever on content, or of any bias whatever in admin action, by any of the admins who participated in the probation. I am not aware of any admin participating who had no views whatever, and I would characterize BozMo and 2/0 as having as strong or stronger views about content than LHVU. Or myself. This is a feelgood proposal, easy to agree with, but ultimately irrelevant. ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Timeliness~~
~~5) Arbcomm cases are to resolve current issues, not rake over old ashes.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
I'll find the diffs in a bit, but thare are a lot awfully old diffs being thrown around by some of the "skeptic" side. A certain amount of context is reasonable; presenting 3 year old diffs as evidence of present-day problems is not William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if all we are talking about are old diffs. However sometimes older material, as well as newer, is needed to show a long standing or recurring pattern of behavior. Such as in this case. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Presentation of the science regarding AGW within related articles is excellent~~
~~1) The science in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently reported throughout Wikipedia, being well sourced and referenced.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Seems a bit pointless. This sort of accolade should be attained through Wikipedia's review processes, not through ArbCom. It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not - ArbCom is concerned with the conduct of the editors and admins taking actions on these articles. As an aside, though, it might be useful to see which of the main articles in the topic area have been through any sort of internal or external review process (plus any other stats people have on the topic area, such as date of article creation, number of articles in the topic area, most-viewed articles, and so on). I presume there is a WikiProject that deals with climate change articles, or is there not one? Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I said "It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not", I meant that it doesn't matter in terms of sorting out editorial conduct. Of course, editorial conduct that affects article content (either way) is relevant, but the current overall state of the articles is not something that ArbCom needs to state in a principle. More useful is the "locus" type of statement, which I think someone else just posted elsewhere down below. And thanks for the links to the external review and the attempt at a WikiProject taskforce. I've also struck what I said earlier (in reply to LHvU's point) to make my responses on this page more consistent. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Obvious. This one is a modification of one of LHVU's, but makes it clear that all sides of the science are well presented, not just the "consensus" position (though I would agree that many of the "skeptical" posistions are slightly over-represented; this is inevitable) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second least worst, currently (The least worse, of course, being my variant...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus" position comes from a questionable source which aims to put political authority before the facts. Ignoring nature is highly over-represented in the whole issue. Man's ignorance leads to uncivil behavior, which then acts to blame other men. When we set aside the content and the context, we will see where primal and natural principles have been upset to bring in this arbitration. If only the "consensus" folks could be open to such a dispute resolution. Would the IPCC ever issue a headline "AGW bullies banned from IPCC"? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVU: you've struck the variant you previously considered better than mine. I take it that means you now think mine is the best William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that I have offered a variation, upon reviewing Carcharoth's comments, which has now assumed the position of least worst. IMNVHO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true it should be said, and this wording sounds fine to me. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Carcharoth: With regard to external reviews, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Quality_of_climate-change_content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth - Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force was created back at the start of the year, but it has not really seen much traffic. Talk:Global warming does sometimes host discussions on topic organization, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@C: your attitude (It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not) is both depressing and predictable and wrong. The purpose of wiki is to write articles, not to be a social club. The purpose of arbcomm is as arbiter. If we have an arbiter who cares nothing for the actual purpose of the encyclopaedia, we have a problem. You need to recognise that if we have editors who are capable of producing excellent articles, that says something good about those editors William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@C: also, you've missed the point. This is essentially LHVU's #1, but extended to state that the coverage is fine over a wider area. Would you like me to explain further? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your assertion that all articles in this space are in tip-top shape? Or just the scientific ones? Or something else? ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@C (second comment "To clarify, when I said "It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not", I meant that it doesn't matter in terms of sorting out editorial conduct."): no, still won't do. It *does* matter whether articles are in a good state, because if they are, that tells you something rather useful about the editorial process: it tells you that it is working William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do the ends justify the means, in your view? And what if, in fact, the articles aren't all "in a good state"? ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~New editors in Climate Change are treated well and WP:AGF applied~~
~~2) New editors coming into the climate change area are treated well by "the regulars" and good faith is assumed - see evidence and rebuttal of attempted counter-evidence.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by Others:~~
As demonstrated, MN and TGL were treated well, even when they were abusive, but patience is not inexhaustible nor should it be William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you parse that last clause for us? Are you saying that once patience is exhausted it's OK to be less than perfectly civil rather than pursuing proper dispute resolution mechanisms? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what William wants to say, but yes, I'd sign that. It's always acceptable to be less than "perfectly civil" in a less than perfect world. It's not acceptable, on the other hand, to be grossly incivil and call people "frauds" or "lackeys", however. Wikipedia dispute resolution, admirable as it is, is also slow and overburdened. It's neither reasonable not desirable to open an RfC or an ArbCom case for every minor incident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a yes, then? ... be snarky, condescending and dismissive, pile on with multiple pummeling comments from the cohort members, be mean, disparage and belittle, avoid answering valid questions, etc, (as long as you stay within the bounds of civility at the individual comment level, regardless of corrosiveness overall) instead of turning the other cheek for a while till there are enough minor incidents to justify DR, (WQA has a low threshold... an RfC is overkill) or until the person discontinues the behavior? Just want to be clear. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you get from my version to your version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It turns on the meaning of "less than perfectly civil". All those behaviors have been demonstrated by folk claiming they are civil (enough to pass muster when called to task). ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be coupled with encouragement to follow WP:Dispute resolution when you think another editor has reached the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT threshold or you find your ability to assume good faith is strained. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might i ask if AGF was in force the nwhy was i accused of being a sockpuppet after my first edit? mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proud of your first edit? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the point? I would have reverted that first edit, but it strikes me as something a brand-new editor, not familiar with WP rules, might do. --SPhilbrick T 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~TINC~~
~~3) ~~WP:TINC~~ (withdrawn as too broad. Replaced with 4) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
Seems to be needed as an antidote to paranoia: [15], [16] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: The best way to avoid accusations of cabalism is to... not act like a cabal. Reflexively defending one another and reflexively attacking everyone else may not be the best way to achieve that. Calling those who call you on things "paranoid" doesn't help much either. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to make accusations of cabalism is to provide actual evidence. So far, that step seems to be lacking. Admittedly, it can be difficult to "prove" cabalism, as smoking-gun emails and such are rare (although not unheard of). But I don't get the sense anyone has even tried very hard in this case. Accusations of "cabalism" don't create reality, any more than accusations of involvement or bias automatically create those. Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's no fire - just a lot of people blowing smoke. The best way to prove it's not paranoia would probably be to point to specific evidence. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence would satisfy you? There's no mailing list, I'd be willing to bet. No secret meeting place on IRC. Just people aware of each other via watchlists who come in and support each other reflexively. Evidence of that has been presented. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question is this: even if assuming what you say is true, and I think it isn't, what useful purpose is employed by use of the "cabal" label? Does that kind of labeling add to or detract from the tensions in the climate change articles? Or does labeling people that way suggest that they edit articles in bad faith to promote an agenda, functioning as automatons and not as independent actors? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand your question... you're asking whether there is utility in knowing that consensus is being falsified or not, for example? ArbCom has already established (in EEML) that concerted, or effectively concerted actions, are not acceptable, so the answer seems obvious to me. Did you want to try asking your question another way? ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a claim that "consensus is being falsified" or that "concerted actions are being taken." That's a specific, understandable and serious charge. What I don't like is the facile use of labels, which tend to be vague and sensational. I think that they actually undermine your case. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoia is the antidote to paranoia. Folks are trying to help you WMC. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoia is generally considered a delusional disorder ([17]), so I'm not sure we should encourage it. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that always Assuming Good Faith is delusional too? ... better to have faith than fear and best to have discriminating wisdom with compassion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If a cabal existed, there wouldn't be a blank space here. I think it's important for the committee to take a strong stance against this kind of labeling. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we tried that one on for size. Didn't fit, because that view was too laughably off the mark to garner even one endorsement. The blank space you're looking for are the endorsements here... Except, oops, it's not blank. Secret email lists and other cloak and dagger stuff are not necessary to show that something funny's going on. Something funny IS going on. Spend a little time reviewing who turns up, and in what order, for which discussions, and what they say. The circumstantial evidence is strong. Whether ArbCom will endorse such a finding is another matter. But they would be wise NOT to endorse this one, if they don't want a lot of snickering. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too laughably off the mark to garner even one endorsement. Then obviously there is no "cabal" that "support[s] each other unconditionally." A cabal of people who "support each other unconditionally" or "reflexively" (as you put it) would not be concerned about an RFC initial statement that was "off the mark," even "laughably." Much was made of the lack of endorsements. You can't have it both ways. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked this one before... Reflexive but not totally stupid. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, there was agreement about the same general point made in the RFC statement, but editors chose to endorse the more nuanced statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. That received the largest number of endorsements, as you know. Were all 28 editors endorsing that statement members of the "cabal"? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them, no. Asked and answered already. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered in the talk page of the RfC, not here. The subject has reared its head again and must be explored again, discomfiting as it surely is. Above you say that "cabal" implies "consensus being falsified" or that "concerted actions are being taken." You say some of the 28 signatories are guilty of those offenses, as they are members of the "cabal." Can you please name the editors engaged in that conduct, and provide evidence that they have participated in "falsification of consensus" and "engaging in concerted action"? If you can't, you should withdraw the comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Name the editors? Cla's evidence, lead paragraph names names. (permlink) That list seems about right to me. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 presents no evidence of "falsified consensus" or concerted action. If that's your accusation, you need to name the editors you feel are guilty of such conduct, and substantiate it. That gets to the heart of my concern about "cabal." It's thrown around casually, and that's fine. Go ahead and use that term casually. But don't hold yourself out as an "uninvolved" administrator. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either people get it, or they don't. Not really helpful as a proposal. (This is not the cabal you are looking for.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochman; there's effectively zero chance that ArbCom will endorse a finding stating "There is no cabal", so this is mostly an exercise in abstract argumentation. On the other hand, the Committee has previously called out editors who continually allege the existence of a "cabal" without bothering to substantiate their accusations (cf. Abd). MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we can't positively state that there is a cabal. And yet some editors do seem to act rather ... uniformly, editing the same thing in the same way at the same time in the same place, supporting the same ideas and, when one is in trouble, supporting that editor. And this goes on and on. It's really one heckuva coincidence. Personally, I just prefer to say "faction", which I think provably fits the bill. To be fair, I think no editors are in perfect lockstep. Whether or not ArbCom might find either "cabal" or "faction" useful, I don't know. But there are situations in life where the behavior you see seems to demand the conclusion that some kind of coordination is likely, whether or not it's the case here, how could we ever prove it definitively? The "GOOSESTEP" test? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some participants in this case have been alleging the existence of a global-warming "cabal" for more than 4 years ([18]). That seems like ample time to develop ideas about how to substantiate the existence of a cabal. In previous cases, compelling circumstantial evidence has been put forth for inappropriately coordinated editing (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV). There has been no apparent effort to present such evidence in this case. While I agree that it can be difficult to evidence such an allegation, that difficulty is not an excuse for continually throwing around accusations without even a token effort to substantiate them. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~TINC (narrowed)~~
4) WP:TINC: in the evidence of Cla and Lar and the "skeptics", the meaning of "cabal" is not the usual one - a group of editors secretly or semi-secretly co-ordinating their activities - but an entirely new one: a group of editors who happen to share a common viewpoint, in this case the scientific consensus on global warming. There is another loosely allied group - those editors who oppose this scientific viewpoint and wish it to be diluted by politics - which is the likes of Cla, MN, etc etc. Neither of these loosely allied groups meets the definition of "cabal" and using the word is an abuse of language designed expressly to skew debate.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Recognising that TINC, above, is too broad, instead I've narrowed it down to apply to this case William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
So, when Hipocrite told Tim Lambert he was "needed" at wikipedia, and Lambert did indeed provide support with Hipocrite, helping both you and Hipocrite to keep your "consensus" [19][20], you don't find that to be a case of cabalism? From what I understand there was sockpuppetry going on there, but that certainly doesn't excuse, by your definition, cabalistic activities now does it? Are you going to deny this just like you've denied calling people "septics?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2005? That's the best you've got? And you co-run blog with a banned user, who is now sockpuppetering with proxies that has explicit "how to make a new account that won't arouse suspicion you are a sock" instructions? Right, it's all clear. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propagating Stephan's lies eh? And no, I don't even run the blog, nor did I even write that section, and several people were invited to contribute. I find it quite interesting how you and your friends have "participated" with each other over the years, and across topic areas. You know in criminology there are basically two theories as to why criminals aren't arrested/imprisoned with the same frequency they were during their youth; one side says that criminals "mellow" as they get older, and perhaps that is true, but I personally subscribe to the theory that criminals simply gain experience as criminals, learning how the play the system and not get caught. I wonder if the same holds true for sockpuppeteers and cabals - what do you say Hipocrite? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Locus of dispute~~
5) This dispute revolves around Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favourably by both internal and external mechanisms, importation from off-wiki of a range of intractable disputes has lead to a contentious editing environment and to the Committee's attention.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Restatement of MastCell's FoF, but gets the dispute-contention causality the right way round. If you doubt the "importation from off wiki" the then upsurge in problems after the CRU stuff ought to convince you William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict words it as: [m]any of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project. I also prefer the link to global warming instead of climate change; while articles not related to 20th century warming, such as Temperature record of the past 1000 years, have been areas of contention, I think that those conflicts are rooted in the current debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:MastCell~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Role of the Arbitration Committee~~
~~1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Standard (though I've always wanted good examples of bad-faith content disputes). Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. There seem to be a lot of requests for ArbCom to rule on whether climate change is a "scientific" or a "political" topic. That's a content issue for editors to hash out amongst themselves, not one to be decided by fiat. If good-faith discussion of the issue has broken down, then it's ArbCom's role to see what can be done to restore it. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell's comment is perfect. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral point of view and sourcing~~
2) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Absolutely. I must admit to being surprised myself at how much blogs and opinion pieces have featured in the arguments, and how fiercely people defend the sources that say what they want an article to say. It is a classic sign of POV pushing. I will add the caveat I usually do that a "plurality of opposing viewpoints" can be a step along the road to a good article, but I think things have been stuck on this particular step for a bit too long now. I agree entirely with MastCell's comment below: "It doesn't really matter how those arguments are resolved - they are misguided from the start". This doesn't mean that there isn't room for asides, footnotes, subarticles, but what is generally needed is a source that gives an overview of the controversy, rather than trying to construct an overview from disparate sources. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. A large part of the problem is the reliance on polarized sources. In fact, the argument seems to me to boil down to the idea that not enough polarized sources from one side are being presented. The point is that we will never be able to create a serious, respectable article by accreting an ever-increasing volume of polarized sources.
There is no lack of high-quality, reliable sources. There does seem to be a lack of will to base articles on them. Instead, there seems to be a lot of argument around the use of blogs and partisan opinion pieces. It doesn't really matter how those arguments are resolved - they are misguided from the start. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. My points were essentially addressed further down at "Encyclopedic coverage of science" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Too simple a description, I think. There is enormous value in noting in a science-related article the unreliable but widespread views on the subject and to give some information on what the response of the best/most reputable sources have on those alternative ideas. Most of this is and should be done in "child" articles to the "parent" articles. Popular views, no matter how disreputable or wrong they may be, deserve some attention. There's an inevitable, irreducable tension (reflected in disagreements among editors) over how much attention should be given to a view that is widely held but not widely held among the most reputable sources. The best we can do is just discuss the issue clearly and civilly (that's also the least we can do). Also, for the climate-change-related articles that are essentially about non-science topics (some books, BLPs, controversies) the sourcing itself is largely polarized, and it doesn't hurt to reflect that in a Wikipedia article. Where there are few of the very best kinds of sources, and where the community has decided to keep the article (The Gore Effect is one recent example among many), citing the best available sources often means polarized sources. Polarized sources should not be ignored in any controversy article either, since there wouldn't be a controversy without the polarity (example: Climatic Research Unit email controversy). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I now notice that MastCell's "Encyclopedic coverage of science", a little way below, addresses much of this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea behind polarized sources might have to do with that articles should have criticisms intertwined with out a criticisms section having a list of criticisms. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undue weight~~
3) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Agreed, with the caveat that to explain some things you do need a minimum number of words, so care is needed not to focus too much on assigning weights and percentages, and lose sight of the need for an article as a whole to read well and be comprehensible to the reader. Explication (sometimes needed instead of just linking to a subarticle) should be excluded when weighing up the relative amount of coverage in an article (i.e. word count is sometimes a poor measure of WP:WEIGHT). Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC) As an aside, Zulu Papa 5, as I said to ScienceApologist earlier on this page, ArbCom are not going to rule in favour of the IPCC, and neither are we going to rule against it, so any further IPCC comments won't really be helpful.[reply]
Comment by others:
Copied from the cold fusion case. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but this seems like a reasonable starting point to address issues of neutrality and weight. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic IPCC discussion collapsed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start; however, when a single org (e.g. IPCC) usurps authority on a POV, fair and prudent governance requires that minorities be protected and fairly presented multiple POVs in the scales of justice. There are countless folks who have not granted consent to the IPCC's weighted authority. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that the IPCC has "usurped authority" (from whom?) shouldn't really have a bearing on our encyclopedic coverage of climate change. Moreover, the IPCC is hardly unique or solitary in their assessment. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCC's claim to own "scientific consensus" is being usurped from those with scientific facts who don't consent to their opinions. Fortunately, there are adequate reliable sources, with bearing, to present a NPOV on the topic in Wikipedia, without their political agents disrupting the process. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Encyclopedic coverage of science~~
~~4) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
I largely agree with Lar that this oversimplifies matters, and is no more or less than a starting point. I also find myself agreeing with JohnWBarber's comments of 22 June 2010, particularly: Editors with more knowledge about science usually should be deferred to in content questions about science, particularly WP:WEIGHT because that requires knowledge of a number of sources in order to really get right. But if the scientifically knowledgable editors are rude and seem to be pushing a POV agenda rather than trying to fairly present the full range of opinion among the most reliable sources with their proper weight, other editors are not going to trust them on any discussion about WP:WEIGHT. This is where eroding civility and, especially, collegiality, harms the encyclopedia". Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Copied from the cold fusion case, although similar principles have repeatedly been promulgated by ArbCom. Insofar as climate change is presented as a scientific topic, it is incumbent upon us to provide an overview in line with current mainstream scientific thought (which is easily demonstrable on this topic). Insofar as climate change is treated as a political topic, it should be clear that we are addressing its politics rather than its science. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however I think that much of the dispute stems from the fact that many editors are viewed as playing up or in some cases imagining a scientific consensus more unanimous than actually exists. Because it isn't clear which views are 'mainstream', or that there is a mainstream view in the first place, it makes sense to broaden coverage to include 'dissenting' viewpoints.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See US NAS study, (study, 3rd party review) discussed above under #Reliable sources --Nigelj (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good principle. However it is not particularly helpful. This principle does not address much of the problem area. For example, what is the "current mainstream scientific thought" (CMST :) ) about whether the email hacking incident article ought to be titled Climategate or something else? Or the CMST about the appropriate slant to the Fred Singer biography? Or the CMST about whether the Gore Effect is a popular culture phenomenon that is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the project? (note carefully, it is clear that CMST holds that Gore Effect is not actually a real thing, Gore's presence at events or meetings doesn't actually cause weather anomalies... that is not my point). So while this is a helpful principle it's not all that relevant to the problem area or to the behavior of problematic editors. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this one principle hardly addresses the entire dispute, although I also think it's an important starting point and an important baseline principle. There are multiple problematic behaviors at play; one of them is a tendency to drive our scientific coverage away from mainstream scientific thought. I'm not getting into the thorny question of whether this problem is "worse" than other behavioral issues like incivility, but we need to be clear that it is in fact a problem. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be a bit more blunt. This isn't a principle that gets to the root of any serious current problem. I'm not sure there is a "tendency to drive our coverage" that is such a problem that collegial but firm editing, by a large contingent of welcoming and unbiased editors instead of the small, overly defensive cadre there now, can't address it. I think introducing this principle is a smoke screen. I think trying to make this case about the science, or about "skeptic vs scientist" is a smoke screen as well. I think you need to address my counterexamples that show problematic articles and problematic editing that have nothing to do with this principle. The vast bulk of the problem is with those. Not the science. I suppose if I want to feel better I could introduce "The sun rises in the east" as one of my principles... slightly less relevant. Slightly. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't address your counterexamples because I agree with you that the problem is bigger than just science coverage. Perhaps we can agree to disagree about the relevance of this principle. I'm a little disappointed that you think I introduced it as a "smoke screen", rather than as an honest representation of my perspective on the dispute, but I'll live. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, is AGW primarily a science topic where the political debate promoted by skeptic and denialist fringe advocates is largely disregarded or a social political topic where the arguments over the scientific consensus require reporting? In good faith, how is this question answered when a group editing to the scientific consensus will not engage in discussions whether it is a primarily science topic or not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rather depends on the article. Politics of global warming is about politics. Global warming is largely about science. Just like Nuclear fission it has many dimensions; but just like NF, that doesn't mean science articles should be stuffed with politics William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is, where is it decided that AGW is primarily a science subject? The scientific consensus is vitally important in framing the subject, but is it more of a political and social issue in the greater world (because what we decide to do about it, aided by the understanding of the science, is of greater import than correctly interpreting the detail of the data)? The various (non)agreements on curbing greenhouse gases, etc., are informed by the science, but are driven by political, economic and social criteria. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. If the science was all there was to the decision to fight AGW, we'd (as a society) already be addressing the problem in a much more concerted and serious manner. IMHO anyway. That we are not... proves that this is not primarily a science topic. But I think whether it's science or social is a side issue, a content question to be addressed by the editors involved. Or should be. LHvU seems to be saying that the process to do so has broken down. As evidence of THAT, I point to WMC two posts above arguing the point here instead of on the appropriate talk. Here is not the place. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think since Global warming is, at root, a science topic, and the core of it is a science topic, that we should assume it's primarily a science topic and science should take up the largest part of it. That article is an introduction to the topic with various "daughter" or "subtopic" articles naturally stemming from it, and as long as those related topics have prominent links, it seems to me that the central issues revolving around science should be given a lot more weight. Editors with more knowledge about science usually should be deferred to in content questions about science, particularly WP:WEIGHT because that requires knowledge of a number of sources in order to really get right. But if the scientifically knowledgable editors are rude and seem to be pushing a POV agenda rather than trying to fairly present the full range of opinion among the most reliable sources with their proper weight, other editors are not going to trust them on any discussion about WP:WEIGHT. This is where eroding civility and, especially, collegiality, harms the encyclopedia -- if you want your scientific expertise to be respected, you'll have to suffer unscientific fools gladly. This isn't a faculty lounge or a science club or an academic journal's editorial board. The door is always open to the public at Wikipedia, and anybody gets to walk in. There should be deference to expertise, and I'm willing to give it when the experts will let me. Bad behavior by editors with various POVs in discussing and editing non-science topics that we can all understand has badly eroded trust. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an old lawyer joke that most people have heard: If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither is on your side, argue louder. The editors with scientific expertise should be demanding strict compliance with WP:TALK and especially WP:CONSENSUS on talk pages when it comes to science topics, because with their expertise they should be able to undermine the points of those with less expertise. They should demand that discussion and consensus control contested content and edit warring should be opposed to the hilt. If you've got better arguments, it's in your best interest (and the encyclopedia's) to make sure that cool discussion rules and edit warring (and distracting incivility) are given the bum's rush. On non-scientific topics, the experts' advantage will be almost entirely lost, as it should be, but since there's a scientific background to just about all these topics, a bit of an advantage remains with the experts, and it's much easier to reject edit warring and incivility everywhere rather than only on some topics. I know it's infuriating to deal with rude fools, and there certainly have been some on the skeptic side, but it's hard for them to win in some areas if editors with expertise have patience and embrace good practices. More editors should read Vanity Fair. A little humility greases a lot of skids. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to Lar) I am not sure that there has been that discussion, or even attempted. I am aware that 3 admins (you, me and TheWordsmith) have separately suggested, after coming to the Probation request page and hearing the arguments for the scientific consensus viewpoint to the defining arbiter of what might be allowed on the page, that there might be a specific "science of AGW" page where such balance might be considered the npov - and I don't think any of us got a convincing reason. I am also somewhat constrained in that I have only been involved in these issues since being an uninvolved admin, and I - to attempt evenhandedness - decided not to immerse myself in the history. Is there anyone who can say that they tried to bring these issues up previously? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The power of example~~
5) Administrators who intervene in complex disputes should model the sort of behavior they hope to see from others. If an administrator finds him/herself repeatedly descending into bickering, snarkiness, or petty exchanges with editors in a dispute, then they should consider either making an effort to set a positive example, or withdrawing from the area until they are able to do so.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Agreed. Administrators commenting here should look at their own behaviour and see if they were role models or not when taking actions in this area. Hopefully one or other of the proposals to rotate administrators should take some of the sting out of such adversarial confrontations where editors bait admins and admins may lose the trust of editors. Crucial to determining what happened here, though, will be evidence and giving administrators the chance to respond to any cases made against them. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
If I were to pick one reason why the probation regime failed, it would be this. The people commenting below the "uninvolved admins" header need to set an example for those commenting above it. This didn't happen, on multiple levels. Some are in evidence already, and some I may present evidence on myself. This is not intended as a prelude to sanctioning any specific admin, but it needs to be said as a reminder to otherwise sensible people who have fallen down on this score in the current instance. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to pick one reason why the probation regime hasn't been as successful as it might have been, it would not be this one. This is a minor symptom of the toxicity of the overall GW environment, not a root cause of anything. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The more I look into this the more I think that it is a serious problem. Some of the behavior I've seen borders on paranoia. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit is this year, it appears. You may not have been around long enough to see the patterns, unless you've done considerable research into past contributions and past situations. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)d[reply]
I know that there has been long-term hostility between editors in this area. There is considerable antagonism and even hate. I don't believe that a history of hostility in the past is an excuse for current hostility, or somehow makes it less objectionable. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I'm not sure I see the connection to your suggestion that there is behavior bordering on paranoia. Or to my previous comment. Mere hostility isn't what I am referring to when I speak of patterns. The pattern that concerns me can be executed in a most civil manner (on the surface, anyway). ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that concept of "patterns" materially changes the need for a strong principle requiring that administrators not become involved in administrator actions affecting editors with whom they have had conflict. If you agree to that, then we may be quibbling about side issues. Do you? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that a strong principle is required to address this matter. It's just not a root cause of the problem here. I think you need to clarify your paranoia comment. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people "descend" when pushed. I think it's much easier to make this kind of case when it obviously isn't a matter of someone being pushed or goaded. There are cases of admins unambiguously violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and it is unquestionable that there was no goading or personal pressure applied to them to tempt them into it. Within days I will be submitting detailed, dead-to-rights evidence to that effect. Anyone who wants a preview of that can follow my references in my list of subissues. I think arb-appointed admins would be less likely to engage in this behavior, whether or not the admins are later pushed or goaded. (I should add that, angry as I still am over this, I think it's much more important for ArbCom to state that this kind of behavior is wrong, to be able to point to evidence of it, and to change the sanctions set-up so that it's much less likely to happen again, rather than for any admins to be pilloried for it.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a given that admins acting on a heavily disputed topic will be "pushed". None of the admins I have in mind is so naive as to be unaware of that reality. If an admin wants successfully intervene in a complex, heated dispute, then they have to be capable of recognizing provocation, and capable of handling it without sinking into the mud. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from an editor's perspective, which I think is not too far from an admin's position in this particular situation, I find it's very much harder to keep your cool over time. Months of pushing and goading eventually wear you down, and anger sneaks up while you're telling yourself that you're still in control of yourself. Retreating from the particular pages of the dispute has its own cost because nobody wants to think that pushing and goading succeeded in running them out of the neighborhood. I can't say how whatever dynamics are involved on a panel of admins would affect an admin's thinking about leaving -- in the abstract, it should make it easier to leave, knowing there are other admins around to take up the slack; in reality that's not necessarily the case. Having said all this, I should point out that you're essentially right on the underlying point. It would be interesting to get input on this from admins who came and went from GSCCRE or who were involved at length in other longstanding disputes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there's a difference between an administrator making heated comments in the "heat of battle" and an administrator who, having cooled down and counted to ten and such, makes a conscious decision to become an adversary of an editor or group of editors. When an editor attacks the integrity of an editor or group of editors, I don't think that it's a valid excuse to say that this person is a victim of some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder and needs to be excused for his conduct. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think anything that I brought up amounts to an excuse, but I do think there are ameliorating circumstances, which can sometimes loom large. The specific circumstances will show how large. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd actually rather not split hairs or try to divine intent. If an admin wants to intervene in a heated dispute, then they should be capable of setting an example - ideally a good one, but at least not a harmful one. I agree with most of what JohnWBarber has to say about the way people get drawn in, and I agree that people are sometimes loathe to take a break because it feels like "giving in" to bullying. All of that is eminently reasonable, but still shouldn't absolve admins from setting an example. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the way to sort the problem is at the root. Get rid of the bullying behavior (if necessary by getting rid of the bullies) and things will improve. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that there's been bullying, MastCell. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that where there is bullying, we should address it. However, I don't think that excuses an admin (or anyone else, but especially an admin) who descends to tit-for-tat responses to perceived bullying. In general, a big part of the behavioral issue here is the tendency to externalize everything: "I was being goaded, I was being baited, I was being bullied..." I'm not denying that those provocative behaviors exist, but I think we can legitimately expect admins (in particular) to set an example of how to respond to them, while still acknowledging that those behaviors are problems themselves. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics indeed

@MastCell: I think that if you are evaluating how people behave, you have to divine intent. If an administrator gets drawn into a tit-for-tat squabble with somebody who is attacking him, if it's a one-time occurrence, then I think that it's understandable and of no consequence. But if an administrator has a chip on his shoulder about a particular editor or real/perceived group of editors, and drops in with gratuitous comments long after the provocation has vanished, that is the kind of thing that just should not be tolerated. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're doing no good here by not bringing up specifics. I think we've plumbed the depths of how much we can say in general. I'm a bit uncomfortable making comments here before my evidence is in, because it's a lot easier to talk about specifics. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to introduce evidence of an actual chip on an actual shoulder? Otherwise that seems like a gratuitous comment. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it gratuitous? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two ways, first "chip on his shoulder" is not a dispassionate term, and second, if you don't intend to introduce evidence, it's polemic. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we're quibbling about semantics. "Chip on shoulder" is a synonym for "personal antagonism." Let's refocus on the central issue, which is this: Should administrators who have a record of personal antagonism concerning certain editors become involved in administrative actions concerning those editors? Do you agree with this? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much sure it's semantics. Rather, it's connotation, your second word choice is much less judgemental. But I agree with you. In fact I may choose to introduce evidence that shows there are several such administrators that have carried out such actions, although I doubt I will unless it really becomes necessary, as I'm not sure it's the most fruitful line of inquiry though. It's far more important to get at the root cause of why administrative action is needed in the first place, and why the GW area is such a non-level and unpleasant environment, than to quibble about who likes whom the most. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not talking about the commentary between the uninvolved admins in their section of the enforcement page when I suggest I might introduce evidence of problematic admin behavior. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary between the uninvolved admins in that section of the Enforcement page was exemplary, I would suggest. The polite interchange which lead to the consensus' - and in many cases, a realisation there was to be no consensus - found there was in stark contrast to much of the other interactions on that page. Perhaps there were instances where a "uninvolved" admin commented outside of that section (and I certainly did so when my opinions were not meant to be part of the inter admin discussion) and they were not as careful in their use of tone as they might have been, but I cannot recall instances. There were also instances where uninvolved admins noted their intent to uphold WP policy regardless of whether potential miscreants were editing to the accepted consensus or not - and this was certainly loudly decried as troll enabling, partisanship, and bias by some. If someone believes that a declaration that any troublemaker is liable to sanction as partisanship, then it needs to be considered if that is not a confession that they had been troublemaking on behalf of the angels... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LHvU. By and large, the core 4-6 admins worked very well together to build consensus in the uninvolved section of requests. This includes those with whom I frequently disagreed (BozMo, 2/0). There were a few passersby admins who were somewhat more antagonistic, but they didn't stick around long. ATren (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in many cases admins were able to work together collegially in handling enforcement requests. And, for that matter, some of them set excellent examples of how to handle attacks and provocation (including LHvU, who handled unpleasantness directed at him quite well). Maybe I should withdraw this, since I'm not sure it's a good use of time here to present evidence and in any case I don't think any administrative behavior has risen to the sanctionable level. A word to the wise that admins need to set a good example would be the most I think evidence would support, so maybe it's a better use of time to focus elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but the impression I've gotten from one of the arbitrators (see comment by Newyorkbrad referring to my belated questions, two out of three of which dealt with this subject area), is that the general issue of administrator behavior is going to be dealt with by ArbCom in this case. My hunch is that the topic will be addressed one way or the other. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but I have submitted evidence along these lines (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Setting an example. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Administrator judgment on issue selection~~
6) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Agree that this is likely central to the administrator aspects of this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed; verbatim from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Administrator judgment on issue selection. Evidence supporting the relevance of such a principle is here. This is probably complementary (at best) or redundant with the immediately prior principle, as they both get at the same concern. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is an outstanding summary of the administrator issues involved. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Appropriate use of talk pages~~
7) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates. Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Agreed, with the caveat that over-aggressive policing of talk pages, especially by those participting in the debates, can backfire. It is sometimes better to try and steer a discussion back on topic, than to cut it off. Sometimes a temporary pause until someone else (uninvolved) can review whether the discussion is appropriate, might work. Ideally, things would improve over time to the point where the editors participating on the talk pages were able to police and control themselves, without needing to be supervised. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed; slightly shortened from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Talk pages. I did not submit evidence to this effect (largely because of space limitations), but I think it can be easily seen that talk-page usage on climate-change topics tends to wander away from the ideal. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Yes, I agree entirely. It won't work to empower a small handful of editors to "police" the talk page. I'd like to see recognition of appropriate talk page usage across the board, so that it becomes self-policing. MastCell ^Talk 06:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dealing with sockpuppetry~~
8) Abusive sockpuppetry is a fact of life on climate-change articles. Editors are not required to help deal with abusive sockpuppetry, but neither should reasonable efforts to address sockpuppetry be leveraged against editors who do take up this burden.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I don't think this gets the balance right, as what is needed is those who can get the balance right between excluding abusive socking and welcoming new editors and either giving them space to improve or steering them somewhere else to learn the ropes. Both approaches can be abused (with those who have descended into a defensive mindset aggressively calling for all new editors to be banned as 'obvious' socks, and those who want to enable socks calling for all 'new' editors to be treated with kid gloves even when they are actually socks). I think the key is to have a policy in place for new editors who start on such articles to be required to edit elsewhere for a while before returning to contentious articles. If they are socks, then it will soon become clear. If they are new editors genuinely interested in editing other areas of the encyclopedia, then that will soon become clear as well. Incidentally, some of the long-term editors on the climate change articles should have this metric applied to them as well - they would get more perspective on Wikipedia as a whole if they edited outside of the climate change articles (my view is that experts can also be single-purpose accounts, and that this is not always a good thing). Topic experts are good, but experts who are willing to edit other areas of Wikipedia, and not just the areas they are expert in, are even better. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed, per this evidence. I'm concerned that people who deal with the rampant sockpuppetry on this topic are in a double bind. Others are content to sit back and leave this responsibility to a small handful of editors. Then this small group of editors are vilified for their efforts (see, for example, Collect's evidence). I would welcome attempts to brainstorm more effective ways of dealing with this issue. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I agree with you. When I say "efforts to deal with sockpuppetry", I don't just mean reverting and blocking. Making constructive suggestions about how to be both welcoming to genuine newbies and effective against abusive sockpuppetry would be a huge help. I don't see a lot of that - I see one small group of editors trying to keep up with the tide of socks, and another group ready to pounce on them when they slip up. I'm saying that the second group has a chance to be part of the solution, or at least to not be part of the problem. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Locus of dispute~~
1) This dispute revolves around Wikipedia's coverage of climate change. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favorably by both internal and external mechanisms, the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes requiring the Committee's attention.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Excellent statement of the locus and background. I would give a bit more details (such as the previous arbitration case) and some of the RfCs and pick out which articles have been most contentious and when, and give a nod towards external media stories that raised the profile of the topic area, while noting that climate change has always attracted controversy on Wikipedia (a timeline of this would be good) and elsewhere (an external timeline would be good as well). Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed as background. The evidence for internal/external reviews is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Quality of climate-change content. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally flawed and wrong. Note that you have provided no evidence at all for the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes - I think you have it backwards. The intractable disputes come first, and have led to the contention on the talk page (evidence for this is found in the incivility of, say, MN or TGL, which they showed immeadiately on arrival (per evidence); or indeed in the previous arbcomm cases). These people were importing pre-existing disputes. Failure to understand that it is the pre-existing disputes causing the contention will prevent any meaningful solution.

Also, fails to distinguish between the science-based articles (which remain relatively uncontentious) and the more political, which are fractious. Ironically, climate change itself is very peaceful William M. Connolley (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@William: I think it's important to have some sort of statement about the scope of the case. I'm not that familiar with the atmosphere at individual articles, so I'm open to alternate scoping if you have suggestions.

@Carcharoth: Yes, that would be helpful - but it sounds like a lot of work. :O MastCell ^Talk 06:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can just invert it: a range of intractable disputes has given rise to the contentious editing environment leading to the Committee's attention. I don't think this is a matter of individual articles: this is a common pattern across the area. What made you think it was the other way round? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it seems like arguing about the chicken and the egg to me - not that it isn't an important question, but I don't think it can be definitively resolved which came first. It's more of a vicious circle. I agree that there is an unfortunately high incidence of new accounts arriving already fired up by external agitation and ready to do battle, and I may submit evidence to that effect. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I could support the statement that the articles have been "reviewed favorably by internal mechanisms." As far as I know, only one of the AGW articles is featured (Global Warming), and only one (DeSmogBlog) is a Good Article. If the articles were written more comprehensively and neutrally, welcoming input from all sides and with the regular editors doing a better job of seeking compromise, then that wouldn't be the case. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another Good Article in the topic- Urban heat island, but notice that it was done by someone outside of WMC's group [21]. Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Community probation~~
2) Climate-change articles have been subject to community-imposed probation since 1 January 2010. The probation has been effective in some cases, but overall has failed to prevent the escalation of related disputes.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This looks to be a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I believe that the factors I evidenced here played a significant role in this failure, but I'm wrestling with how (and whether) to address them in FoFs. I don't want to imply that all administrators, or all administrative interventions, were counterproductive - that would be unfair to those admins who rolled up their sleeves and did their best on the probation, receiving mostly abuse in return. So I've shied away from a general pronouncement. On the other hand, I don't think it's entirely fair to single out individual admins, since I don't think the conduct in question rose to a really sanctionable level... MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning why the probation arose? It was a product of the CRU email issue; while the imposition of sanctions (especially the 1RR on the article) helped contain the issue there, that article largely resolved itself as factual reports replaced blog speculation, and the tempest in a tea pot settled down. It is worth asking, though, whether the probation helped quell that article, or whether it shunted people elsewhere, especially the people directly to Wikipedia by a variety of blogs. Guettarda (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; that seemed to be the consensus of the RfC too. To MastCell, yes, an implication about all admins would not be suitable, but I don't agree with your assessment that no conduct is sanctionable (that's precisely one of the reasons the case was to be accepted) - I would think it's unfair to formally, or otherwise, overlook the individuals (and their specific conduct) that clearly played a role. There's no point trying to play it down anymore; things are likely to continue to spiral if left to fester further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm one of the minority who don't believe that this is necessarily the case. I believe the threat of sanction on the enforcement board has helped greatly lower the amount of incivility and edit-warring on the pages in question. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sources under dispute~~
~~3) Many of the disputes under consideration have arisen over the use or coverage of blogs, partisan opinion pieces, polemics, and other such sources.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
It is obvious, but a few examples in evidence would help. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I'm not sure I've got the space to evidence this, but I'm foolish enough to believe that it will be obvious to all. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: If you need evidence that people have lost their motherloving minds, then this thread is as good a starting point as any. Note that it culminated with the real-life subject becoming alarmed that people were impersonating her online in an effort to "prove" or "disprove"... something. All so that a few blog comments can be shoehorned into our climate-change coverage, which is already overfilled with such things. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, AQFK ~~tells Jimbo~~ says (to MastCell) that editors are fighting tooth and nail over every little sentence,[22] and so it would seem when it comes to showing the majority view in an article about a partisan fringe book. An interesting twist on evading weight, something worth raising here. . dave souza, talk 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Correction to self, per [23] this edit. . . dave souza, talk 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That thread that MastCell linked to is typical of discussions with these editors. I don't know how many times I've seen similar discussions with AQFK, Tillman and MN. (Here's a similar exchange between AQFK and Vsmith[24]). It's been going on for months. It's not just what is being debates, it's the style of debate. It's also important to note that when you see alleged "incivility", it is often in just that sort of context. Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing indeed has been a problem. Some editors are using blogs and opinion pieces for statements of fact while other editors are rejecting third-party reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking for no apparent reason. For example, WMC says that BBC News and The Guardian aren't reliable sources[25][26] even though both organizations are high-quality mainstream publications with professional journalists and editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a. Mass media isn't terribly reliable in its reporting of climate science; see my evidence for links to peer-reviewed research on the topic. b. You're misrepresenting your diffs - WMC says "no RS for inclusion", not "No RSs in section". In fact, the rationale for removing the section lay in the Guardian article, which documented that the Newsnight reporting had been misleading. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, WP:V is the applicable policy, not SPOV. Also, when reliable sources disagree, we document the disagreement, which IIRC that section did correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your evidence makes no sense. If reliable sources give a certain weight to a particular POV, then by definition, it is due weight. We are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're posting in the right section? I think you meant to post this elsewhere on this page (no great surprise, given the number of sections). Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to AQFK, so move this comment along with his if it's misplaced) That remark deserves further scrutiny. I fully agree that we ought to give the most weight to points of view presented in the most reliable sources; much of the advice from WP:MEDRS regarding the quality and reliability of peer-reviewed research and publications by scientific organizations versus the popular press applies equally well here. While the Guardian or the New York Times are generally superb at reporting who said what, they tend to do a much poorer job of accurately assessing scientific consensus. (Others have already linked to suitable studies supporting this point.) News organizations have an inherent interest in either sensationalizing stories (Cure for cancer discovered!) or in manufacturing controversy (Debate rages over evolution!). What might constitute 'due weight' for a newspaper article or talk show (where 'neutral' coverage usually just means one quote or one talking head from each 'side') isn't necessarily due weight for coverage in an encyclopedia article. This is a different medium, with different aims, scope, style, content, depth, and purposes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ten: I believe that you may have confused me with some other editor. I've never argued against the scientific consensus. Quite the contrary, I've repeatedly argued that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind. Also, this specific issue isn't even about the scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, it's about the quality of source code. AFAIK, there are no peer-reviewed publications about the source code, so these are the most reliable publications on this specific issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to correct your mischaracterisation of WMC's edit? Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that I have mischaracterized WMC's edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that say that no reliable sources support inclusion of a certain set of material is the same as saying that BBC News and The Guardian aren't reliable sources? In fact, the Guardian source is the basis for removing the section, since it makes it clear that the Newsnight reporting is misleading. Which makes the whole section meaningless. Which is neither here nor there - you're putting words in WMCs mouth that he didn't say. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's policies are fairly clear on what is a reliable source. The problem arises when editors, and it's usually the same ones, refuse to allow the source even when it is a RS. Admins should be more willing to enforce this policy than they currently seem to be. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is one of the core issues here - a group of editors who behave as if WP:UNDUE doesn't exist, and who claim that every "notable" blog needs to be included. Here's a typical example - MN arguing that since the blog "Watts Up With That" can be a reliable source for Anthony Watts' opinion, it's appropriate to use is as a source in other articles, as long as the information is labelled as "Watts' opinion". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Watts_up_with_that and Talk:Hide_the_Decline#Watts_up_with_that. Our sourcing policy sets minimum thresholds for inclusion. Not everything that meets such a threshold is appropriate for inclusion. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Addressing sockpuppetry~~
4) Rampant sockpuppetry on climate-change articles has contributed to this dispute. Previous approaches to this problem, such as aggressive rangeblocks, have caused an unacceptable degree of collateral damage. Novel strategies to deal with this problem are needed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Evidence would be needed of this, especially if wording such as "rampant" is to be used. Is the socking by one person or many? Over one issue or several? If it is one person socking on one issue, that should be separated out from the other discussions and those discussions allowed to continue as normal without solutions being imposed that affect the entire set of discussions. I am sympathetic to the view that aggressive approaches to these sort of problems make them worse, creating a counter-reaction and a monster or 'bogeyman', where before there was only a minor problem. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. @C: I'm not clear what sort of evidence is needed to support this. It seems to hit all the bases: viz, yes there is shedfuls of sock puppetry, yes, there has been collateral damage (range blocks being one kind, misidentification being another kind, overuse of WP:DUCK being yet another, and so on)... I think evidence has already been introduced of all this by others. Plus, any proposal with "rampant" in it is worthy of some support. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant socks? - 2/0 (cont.) 06:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thegoodlocust~~
5) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing across a range of articles. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, use of Wikipedia as a soapbox and battleground, edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, and refractory abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings, blocks, and sanctions, has occurred across several topics, and is not counterbalanced by a record of positive contributions to the project.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Reserving comment until I have reviewed this evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Thegoodlocust, which is the tip of the iceberg. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall interpret this as an endorsement of my evidence. Of course, if we step back and look at the big picture then the things you say about me apply to a much greater extent to your friends. Mentally I replaced my username with several of your cohorts and had several mental belly laughs at the accuracy of your statement. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: This is a preliminary set of proposed remedies, and is not intended to cover the entire dispute as of yet. This notice will be removed once I've finished proposing remedies.~~
~~Administrators reminded and instructed~~
1) Administrators are reminded of the need to set a positive example when refereeing disputes. If an admin is unable to maintain a reasonable degree of decorum, or descends into bickering with involved parties, then the admin is instructed to step back until and unless they are able to once again model proper decorum.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side to disallowing admin abuse to self-select the reviewing parties. (check my section in a day or two for more on this unless someone has already said it better than I could) - 2/0 (cont.) 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thegoodlocust banned~~
~~2) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for 1 year.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. I'm a little leery of starting to propose sanctions aimed at specific editors, because it inevitably leads to "...but he did something even worse!" I think this particular situation is beyond question, though, as detailed in evidence. The negative aspects of this editor's contributions outweigh the positive by a substantial margin, and the problem is ongoing and remarkably consistent after more than a year. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by Stephan Schulz~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID are integral parts of WP:NPOV~~
1) NPOV requires that we "represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". For a field like climate change, which has been a topic of intense research for a generation, and the topic of intense public reporting for 20 years, nearly every opinion, valid or refuted, has been reported in some usually reliable popular press outlet. Thus, mere mentioning of a position in a reliable source is insufficient to justify inclusion in a high-level article like global warming. Rather, the weight of sources, and, for a scientific topic, in particular the weight of scientific sources, must be taken into consideration when deciding what to include into an article.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Surprisingly timely external comment: [27]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First point, does the consensus scientific view form the npov, inform the npov, or form part of the npov? Second, do we construct article length to the readers attention span or do we cover all important aspects of an issue and allow the reader to digest as much as they can in as many readings as required? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 1: No, yes, yes. 2: I don't think "the reader" has a well-defined attention span. But we do have guidelines on article length. Just the IPCC WG1 AR4 report has about 1000 pages - after much summarising and condensing. Google Scholar finds 283,000 papers for the search term "global warming" published in the last 10 years. I'm certain their authors all think them important. Clearly we cannot include all of this material - and we have not even started discussing grey literature, the popular press, or think tank propaganda. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far too often we see "this is mentioned by RS, *therefore* it belongs". So a reminder of UNDUE is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where high-class scientific sources are available and/or disagree with press sources, academic sources should be given privileged standing in Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we should primarily reflect knowledge rather than opinion, and the collection of knowledge through research is the domain of academia, not the press. We all know that we cannot trust the popular press when it comes to medicine, and we have a corresponding content guideline in place (Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular_press). There is no reason to believe that the record of the popular press in other fields of academic research is any better than it is in medicine, and I think we are doing our readers a disservice if we treat these other fields of academic research differently from the way we treat medicine. --JN466 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is often abuse as to what constitutes a minority view when applying these. Too often the minority view is determined by what editors show up and not necessarily then established quality of the sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Defend each other~~
2) From MeatballWiki : "Allow other community members defend you; if they don't, shame on them. In particular, no matter what differences of opinion exist, no editor should accept, condone, or repeat false and malicious claims about fellow editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I agree with this principle. I think is particularly correct in dealing with claims about fellow editors made by administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been remiss in not supporting this earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say that defending others makes one part of a cabal, or a cadre, or a clique, or a confederation, or some other Bad Thing beginning with the letter C. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the notion that defense is more effective when others do it (while recognizing that SBHB has a point). I hope two thoughts are implicit: that while defense by others is best, it cannot become a cudgel to reject defense of oneself, and two, stating that "no editor should allow" is not an extension of "silence implies consent" to every squabble. --SPhilbrick T 11:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cite DefendEachOther a lot. (so much that I know the shortcut way to ref it) But in my experience, it's most relevant and useful when otherwise uninvolved and otherwise unassociated editors step in and defend one against personal attack. It's not a blanket sanction for cabalish behavior such as manufacturing false consensus, reflexively sticking up for ~~your~~ one's friends and allies, bullying those ~~you don't~~ one doesn't like or are in opposition to, and the like. It's behavior like that which makes ~~you~~ one part of a dangerous clique. And which DefendEachOther is actually intended to help defend against. Not condone. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, citing is cheap. But what a nice attempt to sneak in unsupported allegations, not to say violating WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading, it read like I was (here) saying you were part of a clique so I've struck and replaced the "you"s with more generic pronouns. Hope that helps clarify matters. However my point stands. Your citation of this principle is a misuse of it, in my view, in that you're trying to sneak in a denial of allegations. Respond to those allegations in the appropriate place, once they are made and evidenced. It's true. Folk should not repeat false allegations. Something for you to keep in mind as well as everyone else. There are a lot of false allegations flying around. And a fair number of true ones. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the clarification. But now you've moved from an unsupported but concrete attack to a unspecific statement not connected to this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Spades and civility~~
3) Pointing out where someone is wrong is not uncivil and not in conflict with WP:CIV. While such a thing may be avoided in polite conversation, it is unavoidable in a real content discussion. WP:SPADE applies.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. Wikipedia is not an afternoon tea party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a reference to a specific incident, but seems essentially in line with WP:CIV: This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's lost in this fetish for "calling a spade a spade" isn't that editors should avoid saying what may be uncomfortable when we must but that we don't avoid saying what may be uncomfortable when it isn't necessary at all and when we do it not to help build the encyclopedia but for our own purposes, which can often run against the betterment of the encyclopedia. The spirit of WP:CIV is shown clearly, at the top of the page: This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and considerate way. THAT is the standard. THAT is what's missing. And editors seem to think they don't have to strive for that goal, which is a bigger problem than failing to reach it on occasion or when reacting to difficult situations. The editor who begins to be uncivil in an otherwise civil situation and the editor who lowers the civility significantly should be held most to blame, because others then react uncivilly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point at the end! I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#No-one_knows you are a dog until you start barking where I provide evidence that TGL and MN were both treated civilly, even after they both were rude. I await your condemnation of them William M. Connolley (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that arbs are going to be more interested in the attitude displayed in your comments on these CC case pages than any condemnations that you're requesting of me. Don't hijack this thread for useless sniping. I'll be content if the same standards I want ArbCom to apply to you are applied to everybody. I'll comment or not based on how much time I have and where I think it will do the most good. Your comment and my response should be moved to the talk page. This section is about principles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civilly pointing out "wrongness", requires an objective statement to a reliable source or policy guideline. Subjective accusations based on an editor's presumed authority are inappropriate. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I point out this example. Mark is simply, objectively wrong, in that he makes a wrong statement about a source. This is obvious to anybody reading the source. But there is not and never will be a reliable source commenting on this mistake, nor is it reasonable to expect one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think that some variation on this principle is necessary. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Expertise does not create a conflict of interest~~
3) Wikipedia values expert input. An interest in a factual representation of a domain of knowledge cannot conflict with other Wikipedia principles, but is implied by them. As an example, peer-reviewed academic sources do not lose their value because Wikipedia editors authored them.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. Should be obvious, but I've seen some confusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editing to defend an opinionated point of view does. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Template~~
~~3) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Collect's Wikistalk "results" lack significance~~
1) The results presented here do not have any valid statistical basis. They are, at best, an example of confirmation bias in action. In particular, they do not support existence of a cabal (nor a Cabal or even a "Cabal"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Trying to go through this page in order, but am jumping down here because I can see this is an issue that could quickly get rather heated. I've asked other arbitrators to take a look at this and (hopefully) opine, to avoid things getting too argumentative. I do find it interesting though that Collect ran his analysis on ArbCom members as a group, as we do tend to follow the same issues and pages related to ArbCom matters (was it just user talk pages or all pages?). Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully expect to see similar results amongst groups of editors who work within a specific topic area; that they edit and watchlist the same group of articles, and communicate on talk pages (the approved Wikipedia way of discussing) was already known and acknowledged. I've seen similar patterns in other areas of the project where vandalism, sockpuppetry, and good-faith but unencyclopedic editing occurs with regularity. Risker (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be an analysis on your part, to refute them, not a baldly stated assertion, and thus does not belong in findings. Note also that your use of quotes around "results" isn't really good form. I find the evidence rather compelling, myself. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you don't know maths. Please do not make any maths-based arguments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charmed, as always, by your collegiality. Would you like to deny that the folk (that Collect ran the tool on) edit similar articles and have similar areas of interest? ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with "editing similar articles" or "having similar areas of interest" with other users. Collect specifically used these "data" (and yes, they deserve the scare quotes, as outlined below) to imply inappropriate coordinated editing. Having looked at Collect's evidence and formed your own view of it, do you agree with that implication? MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that's what this evidence, in and of itself, is claimed to imply by Collect. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both have enough experience with Collect to know better, but let's agree to disagree. In that case, do you think that Collect's evidence demonstrates anything inappropriate? MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Below, Collect refers to his evidence as demonstrating "coordinated reverts". Coordinated reverting is clearly inappropriate editing behavior. So with that out of the way, do you agree with his assertions about his evidence? MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Re Lar, above). You're welcome. I'd say "overlapping", not similar. I don't think WMC has ever edited articles on ships (like I have), Tony seems to edit enough to share interest with everybody on the planet, and I don't even know most of what what KC (what's he doing on that list, anyways? Where is Boris, our evil mastermind?) and Guettarda edit. Of course we all have some interest in climate change - otherwise we would not be here. So that's a bit of a none-statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's poor-quality evidence. The first set of "coordinated" diffs reveals a group of editors reverting an abusive sockpuppet/open-proxy user - in other words, it's an example of editors working together to combat abusive editing. Presenting this as if it's evidence of inappropriate "coordinated editing" is sloppy at best and intentionally deceptive at worst.
The second set of "coordinated" edits is, again, several editors reverting the repeated reinsertion of inappropriately sourced material. That's what it looks like when a new editor repeatedly inserts inappropriate material and several editors who have watchlisted the article remove it. This phenomenon is a standard aspect of editing and maintaining the encyclopedia and occurs across a wide range of articles. From a best-practices standpoint, it would have been desirable if an effort had been made to educate the new user on why his edits were inappropriate, rather than just reverting them - but that's outside the question of "coordinated editing".
In the third set of "coordinated edits" presented by Collect, most of the "coordinated" editing consists of reverting Scibaby sockpuppets. It is frankly appalling that reverting a highly abusive sockpuppeteer is presented as evidence of inappropriate "coordinated editing". In fact, it's a basic aspect of maintaining the encyclopedia, and twisting it to imply inappropriate coordination is poor form on Collect's part. In general, I would like to hear some explanation from Collect on whether he actually looked at these diffs himself (as opposed to presenting unverified output of an automated tool). If he reviewed these diffs, I would be interested to hear his explanation of why he believed they constituted any sort of inappropriate coordination. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can furnish several dozen more examples of co-ordinated reverts - I decided just to stick to less than a week. That a user is labelled a sock does not make him one unless and until actual concrete evidence is provided, by the way. As to the statistics of overlaps on user talk pages, I have had sufficient math courses to find the numbers compelling indeed. Meanwhile, I found this disparagement of me quite by accident. Collect (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are aware of the content of the diffs (that is, those you actually provided, not some hypothetical diffs that you could have provided but chose not to). And you continue to believe that these diffs - in particular, those which show multiple editors reverting the contributions of abusive sockpuppets - are evidence of inappropriate editing? I'd like to be clear. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been demonstrated that some of the Scibabys - aren't. Are you suggesting that labelling someone a Scibaby sock automatically makes them one? Certainly as interesting as anyone insisting that there is a "correct" SPOV (especially since in Physics, no one makes such claims - even the equality of amounts of matter and anti-matter is questioned!) Collect (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, labeling someone a Scibaby sock does not make them one. Although that's a bit immaterial here, since the socks in the diffs you presented were identified correctly. Now, would you be willing to answer my question? MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, more than 20% of those accused of being Scibaby, weren't (looking at this year;s reports). Many of those gassumed guilty were assumed guilty without any checkuser, but on the basis of "they made critical edits, therefore they fit 'the usual'" as the sole evidence. This is not valid procedure by any stretch of the imagination, and those who did not respond did not do so for a simple reason - they were never informed about the accusation <g>. And BLPWatchdog - not Scibaby was a subject of blocking in the first example -- and guess who did the blocking? Second case was Lennoxman - who is not blocked as a sock. I grant the third person was blocked as "suspected sock of Scibaby". Now on to the Scibaby results: Missionamp was unrelated, BLP was not Scibaby, Weakopedia is not Scibaby, ClimateOracle is not Scibaby, Wavepart is not Scibaby. Alexh555 was not Scibaby. Ocaasi was not Scibaby. And on and on and on. It is clear that anyone and everyone making unliked edits gets labelled as a "sock" with "the usual" reason given. And that many never return to WP. And since Scibaby has a broad range of "possible IP addresses", it is real easy to find evidence, to be sure! Next time one disputes evidence, it would help if they actually examined the evidence. Collect (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question was not about Scibaby specifically, but about the fact that your diffs focused largely on reverting abusive socks (like BLPwatchdog). And I still can't tell that you've answered it. Do you continue to believe that the edits you presented - particularly those that involve reverting abusive sockpuppets - are evidence of inappropriate coordinated editing? MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still curious about this question, if Collect is willing to answer. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Collect finds time to do so, and chooses to introduce more evidence of coordinated editing activities, especially if such activities are not merely reverting alleged sockpuppets. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true, I'm not sure breaking one rule to keep someone else from breaking another rule is such a good idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What rule is being broken here? In the examples in question, I see a bunch of editors who have clearly watchlisted a page reverting abusive sockpuppets. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of the results as being "far beyond random chance" was an unfortunate choice of words, as that is not remotely the standard in this case. No one pretends that the typical editor logs in, clicks on "random article", makes an edit, declines to watchlist or ever return, and moves on. Of course there is substantial overlap. Editors tend to watchlist articles they edit, editors tend to edit article in which they have an interest, so editors with similar interests are highly likely to have substantially overlapping watchlists. I'm not rejecting the notion that there may be coordination, I'm simply pointing out that these results are not statistical proof.--SPhilbrick T 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be true if one were looking at articles in which editors have a common interest. That is not, however, where the overlap occues. It is a group of editors who all somehow seem to find the precise same group of user talk pages which is of interest, and it is clear that such is not based on similar interests in "articles" at that point <g>. Most editors, indeed, do not watchlist scores of user talk pages in common with other editors, do they? Collect (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a rhetorical question? It's actually amenable to quantitative examination, using tools that query the database. I can tell you that user talk pages of high-profile editors are often intensely watched; I suspect both Lar's and William's talk pages have several hundred watchers apiece. That suggests that editors do, indeed, watchlist scores of user talk pages in common with other editors. Again, I think watchlisting is an entirely adequate explanation and there is no reason to invoke off-wiki coordination, but you are welcome to do some digging with available tools to substantiate such claims if you wish to pursue them. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. WMC is 12, I'm 27... [28] at least as of this writing. I think speculation about how it is editors find out about things misses the point. The point, really, is that they do (so far fine) and they participate in conversations that are of interest to them (still usually fine). It is when they mostly uncritically support each other (not fine) or do things that give a false impression of local consensus (not fine), or attack other editors in concert (not fine) that there's a problem. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot more analysis - and found that the only group which remotely approached the UT overlap is ... the Arbitration Committee, which is definitely a "co-ordinated group" to be sure! And the overlaps in question were generally not sock user talk pages at all, which makes that argument supra a bit off, like old fruit. In short, the evidence is strong that only co-ordinated groups remotely approach that level of overlap on user talk pages of editors not in the group. This does not mean that any single person is "in charge" but likely more akin to a political "town committee" type affair. Nor, it should be noted, have I used any potentially defamatory words to describe any group (especailly not ArbCom!) Collect (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that at least one Arbitor is taking Collects "analysis" seriously. In order to verify what Collect has and has not done, as opposed to taking his word for it, please ask him to describe, in a step by step fashion, what his methodology was. The last time he explained his methodology, it was trivial to find holes in it (specifically, that he compared active editors with editors in general.) He did not include any explanatory notes about what holes may exist in his data or methods - specifically, he failed experimental design, in that no one could replicate what he did. I'd like to duplicate whatever he did using proper experimental design, but I can't do so, because Collect's conclusions are presented without data or method. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. "Wikistalk" was mentioned by another editor on the RFC/U for Lar, and I decided to see if the results held any significance at all. I examined editors 8 at a time, using, first, 20 editors with over 30K edits, and then, later, the top fifty editors also taken 8 at a time, and averaging somewhere about 200K edits per editor. In each case, I removed the "least connected" editor in order to see out the highest overlap, then added the next one on the list. This was done to keep the time under 100 hours for the exercise, which I regarded as showing way too much time on my hands <g>. The "user talk" overlap was considered as it was rightly pointed out that some areas have much larger numbers of articles than others have, while the number of user talk pages is pretty well the same for all editors. In the hundreds of runs, I found absolutely none for sequential editors which showed anywhere near the amount of overlap that a constructed group would have - as verification, I then ran the committee through the same sieve, and got similar results to what I found on CC -- and I postulate that the committee is a well-defined "group." At no time and in no way have I opined as to nature of any group, nor made any comments about edits made by such a group, made any denigratory comments about any such group, but only noted that, statistically, the group exists. Further, se Carcharoth's UT page. Or as the saying goes, the Earth still moves. Collect (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using that methodology, how many more trials would you have had to run in order to get to the hand-picked group of editors that you present? How many trials did you run? I still do not see a step-by-step methodology that would allow anyone to independently confirm your results. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further evaluating your limited disclosure, it is clear where the error lies - you evaluated prolific automated-editors to see if they had user-talk overlap. Then you compared those prolific automated-editors to two groups of hand-picked prolific user-talk editors - in effect, you proved that editors that edit user-talk have more overlaps in user-talk than editors who don't edit user-talk. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - that seems not to matter -- recall the first tests which were definitely of "non-automated" editos. IIRC, one of the comments made on the initial runs was that I did not look at the most frequent editors - now it is said that I should not have looked at them? I will be glad to tell you how many UT page edits each has made if you wish. Meanwhile, the Earth still moves. Collect (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd prefer you present a repeatable statement of exactly what you did, or just answer the question I presented - "How many more trials would you have had to run in order to get to the hand-picked group of editors that you present? How many trials did you run?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoy now has over 135K user talk page edits. Others are in the same league, meaning I checked users with somewhere on the order of a million user talk page edits. So scartch that argument off as a non-starter! And again - SEE CARCHAROTH'S USER TALK PAGE. I do not know how to make this easier to read. The Earth still moves. I ran this for nigh a hundred hours, with hundreds of runs. Collect (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did ArbCom test the behavior of "the group" here? :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
What is the methodology here? There doesn't seem to be any given here. "I ran 30 editors with 30K+ edits who are currently active through a rough bubble sort, and found no group of six with anything near the overlap on user talk pages." This isn't a statistic; it's an unrepeatable anecdote. In fact, gaming the definition as user talk pages seems to be blatant confirmation bias.
As a general comment, Wikistalk also tends to lead to absurd results, were opposing POV users often "overlap" very well. By definition, users with the same interests will tend to edit the same pages. You need to show something more to infer nefarious coordination. Cool Hand Luke 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia is now much more serious about enforcing the WP:BLP policies lately after several real-world consequences resulted from not doing so. In spite of this, if a group of editors still engages in supporting each other's abuse of BLP articles, this behavior is so out-of-bounds that I think it indicates a group of like-minded activists, i.e. a cabal. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposals by Lar~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Collegiality~~
~~1) The editing environment at Wikipedia is intended to be welcoming, collaborative and collegial.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Hopefully not controversial. ++Lar: t/c
~~WP:NPOV~~
2) The neutral point of view is a foundational editing principle, one of the five pillars that all users are supposed to be guided by. It holds that articles should not be written from a particular point of view, in accordance with verifiability, not truth but instead should present all views in reasonable relative proportion to the weight they are given in reliable sources. Writing this way is non trivial.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Relatively standard, except perhaps for the last sentence. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "non-trivial", do you mean it's difficult? Or important, or both? MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, computer science-ese... == not easy to do. It's also important if you want to comply with policy, but my point there is that writing in compliance with NPOV (or SPOV) is not easy to do. Switching from one to the other won't suddenly make the writing easier. ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Yes, I agree with that. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:SPOV~~
3) The scientific point of view is an alternative approach to the editorial decision about what focus an article should have and what material it should include. The essay linked does not necessarily give an accurate description of it as used by parties in this case. It in essence is a view that the primary focus and point of view espoused in an article (to the point that it is discernable to the reader) should be that of the current mainstream scientific consensus, insofar as it is possible to determine what it is from reliable sources, and that it should be clear to the reader that other points of view are not generally accepted in the scientific community. Writing this way is non trivial as well.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I think I've got it right, very open to modifying this one to encompass what SPOV is currently held to be. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care should probably be taken to harmonize pronouncements on SPOV with previous ArbCom findings on the subject (which are several). In particular, the Committee took this question head-on at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Science is not a point of view, and seemed to conclude that NPOV vs. SPOV is a false dichotomy. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, SPOV, as the term is used here (not just by me), is a weight adjustment to explicitly give scientific sources precedence, not an actual point of view. Misnamed, but it happens. Hence, the ArbCom finding, while correct in my view, doesn't apply to the term as used here. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But scholarly/scientific sources are explicitly given precedence on scientific topics, as a matter of existing guidelines and policy. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Similarly, WP:V clearly prioritizes scholarly sources: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available" (though they are not the only acceptable sources). And this isn't just a matter of the letter of policy; since our goal is to create a serious, respectable reference work, it's also common sense. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific and scholarly articles should receive preference, and as noted, this is policy. Roughly speaking, a peer-reviewed, scientific articles trumps a non-peer-reviewed source. This is in contrast to "dueling" statements from (non-scientific) RS, where the guidelines suggest we should note the disagreement. For example, if one reliable source says Joe lives in France, and another says he lives in Spain, absent a way to resolve it, we note that Reliable Sources disagree. However, if a RS says swinging a bucket on a rope is an example of centrifugal force, and a scientific source says it is not, we do not note the disagreement, we accept the scientific source. Two important caveats - preference for scientific sources in science articles does not mean that non-scientific sources are automatically excluded, the principle only addresses conflicts. Second, common sense should prevail. If a peer-reviewed source says the Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 2035, and a non-scientific article points out that this claim is based upon a misreading of the literature, it may be appropriate to accept the non-scientific source, or at least note the conflict.--SPhilbrick T 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urp. This needs a reword... what it says is not correct in emphasis about what actually changes (it's merely a sourcing/weighting focus change, not a point of view change as could be inferred from the wording) but is correct about the outcome (because if the scientific sources are given credence explicitly, the result will be weighting that reflects scientific consensus rather than popular views). Will reword soon. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a reword, and I'm having trouble understanding it. I have a problem with SPOV. This is not a science encyclopedia. I fail to see what is lacking in NPOV that should be covered by SPOV. However, I don't believe that this proposed principle, in its current form, clarifies matters. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~NPOV vs. SPOV~~
4) For many articles, such as ones dealing with nonscientific subjects (popular culture and the like) there is essentially no difference in these two approaches. Even for articles about scientific subjects where the current mainstream scientific consensus is well known, well accepted and has been in place for a while, there may be essentially no difference, as the fringe views presented will get little or no weight and their sources will make it clear they are fringe (the Earth being an oblate spheroid, for example). The place where there may be considerable difference is where the consensus is not quite as generally accepted, or recently settled, or where it is not in accordance with what "everybody knows".
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I think this is an important point to make. SPOV only matters in a relatively small fraction of the total article space. Everywhere else, these two are practically indistinguishable. A bold assertion but I'd be surprised at wide disagreement. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? Again, I'm not sure that this principle (or SPOV itself) serves any useful purpose. My concern is that some kind of statement may be issued that causes more trouble than it prevents, perhaps by being used as an excuse for fringe viewpoints. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia and the wider world~~
5) Wikipedia is a reference work that is widely consulted, and thus the impact of Wikipedia on events in the wider world, or on views held by folk in the wider world, is not inconsiderable. This should be taken into account when it is relevant to do so, and Wikipedia already does, to a limited extent, insofar as there are certain types of information that we do not present or that we control how we present, despite "not being censored"
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
For example BLPs of public or semipublic folk may have an impact (positive or negative) on them or folk associated with them, as does disseminating personally identifiable information of private folk (usually negative or potentially negative). ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The scientific consensus on Climate Change is relatively settled~~
6) While the consensus is not as settled, nor as long standing, as (for example) the shape of the earth, there exists a rough consensus about Climate Change... that something serious is happening, that it's caused at least in very large part by Man's activities, that it is more than normal/natural variation, and while it may be too early to predict exactly what will happen, it is likely to be very serious and negative for mankind as a whole. It is not yet clear whether the processes can be reversed or how, but consensus does seem clear that reduction of inputs of greenhouse gasses is called for, at the very least. At the same time, the world as a whole does not seem to take the problem nearly as seriously as one would think is warranted.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
An odd principle to articulate but needed. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence is hopelessly inappropriate. It is a normative statement, in an encyclopedia whose purpose (I hope) is fundamentally descriptive. (Normative statements about Wikipedia practices are quite acceptable, but a normative statement about the outside world is not.)--SPhilbrick T 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly worded in general; as Spb notes, the last sentence is particularly bad William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Scope of the topic area~~
~~7) The CC/GW topic area covers more than just the science. There is disagreement about how wide it is and what balance should exist between scientific emphasis and sociopolitical emphasis.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Seems clear enough. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that has been an area of disagreement. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Uundue weight is likely if NPOV is used~~
8) The real life impact of AGW on the world is serious. Wikipedia's coverage of this topic area has the potential to negatively influence what society chooses to do about AGW, if undue weight is given to viewpoints not in accordance with generally accepted scientific consensus. But coverage in the non scientific press, nevertheless reliable, gives these views more weight than is appropriate. Therefore NPOV will also likely give more weight than is appropriate.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
No other topic area may have as large a negative effect on real world affairs as this one. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Wikipedia "NPOV will also likely give more weight than is appropriate" is a self-negating statement. Policy states that WP:WEIGHT is a requirement of WP:NPOV. Thus it is impossible to adhere to WP:NPOV while at the same time violating WP:WEIGHT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically correct. But sometimes making something explicit instead of implicit makes policy easier to apply. Explicitly giving scientific sources credence reduces ambiguity and the likely incorrect weighting that might result. And THAT'S all that "SPOV" means, as used here. A weighting adjustment. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I understand NPOV to give deference to scientific sources in scientific subjects. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should avoid going down this road. It might be a good idea, though, to emphasize that even ordinarily high-quality sources outside the scientific community are often *un*reliable for statements of science (e.g. summarizing a particular result or the current thinking of the relevant experts, as opposed to interviews, more human-oriented stories, or funding). See Talk:Magnetic monopole#recent monopole 'discovery' for a discussion where Wikipedia gets it right despite many even in the science press making hyperbolic statements that are just plain wrong (it is still a fantastic result if you are in to spin ices, just not what it was hyped as). I do not see the current NPOV policy as requiring or even encouraging inclusion of erroneous statements even when made by usually highly reliable and relevant sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~No free passes~~
~~9) Normally, article excellence does not excuse behavior that is not in accordance with our norms.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Some tolerance is given but it is not infinite. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a true statement of ideals and principles. However, as a practical matter, our track record in handling counterproductive behavior from good article writers is checkered at best. Not to imply that we should just give up, only that this is one of many areas where we haven't quite figured out how to live up to our ideals. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vested contributor problem is still alive and well in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~10) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Collegiality~~
1) By and large, with notable happy exceptions, and with changes in the tone of individual articles/talk pages from time to time, for good and for bad, the editing environment in the topic area is not welcoming, collaborative and collegial. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This is wrong. WP:AGF is still applied; new editors who show up to edit in good faith are treated well. But for editors who show up and exhaust people's patience with the same old errors: well, people do not have infinite patience and should not be expected to. You are omitting to recognise the burden on editors to act responsibly William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. AGF isn't all that is required to be collegial. In fact one could AGF, and be snarky and snide, if that was one's routine manner. Further it's possible to move beyond AGF (when it's time to do so, because it's become obvious) and still remain collegial about it. I think you've missed the point entirely. Also "new editors who show up to edit in good faith are treated well" assumes facts not in evidence. Finally, I'll address burdens, in other points, in due course. These points are not always complete in and of themselves. But this is a major contributing factor to the overall problem in this area. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point by focussing on AGF. New editors are still treated well in general and are not snarked at. But when people persistently refuse to learn even the most basic facts then patience can wear thin William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it is you who miss my point. Entirely. Further, you raised AGF, not I. Further, and more importantly, "New editors are still treated well in general and are not snarked at." assumes facts not in evidence. Evidence of the converse is readily available. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should provide said evidence, rather than merely asserting it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As should you, rather than merely asserting it. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is your proposed finding. Are you saying that you can provide no evidence for it, when challenged? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying you cannot provide evidence of your bare assertion. Don't worry, the evidence of mistreatment of other editors when they appear is out there and will be referenced in due course. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that if I made a proposal of evidence I would be able to provide evidence when challenged. Alas you cannot. It would appear that you've come to a conclusion and are intending to rustle up the evidence to buttress your conclusion later. I'm sure you can see the problem with that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely see the problem with that characterization of my intent, yes. As do others, I am sure. It's symptomatic of your interaction style... hardly collegial, and assuming bad faith from the get go. To address your concern, though, I suggest you introduce a proposal of your own that posits that the environment actually is collaborative, welcoming, and collegial, if you think it's actually so. But most folk, after they stop laughing at the thought of such a proposal actually being put forth, don't need evidence in detail, they already know the truth of this finding. Nevertheless evidence will be identified for you. Reminder, elsewhere you and your colleagues are introducing assertions about why it's OK that the environment isn't collegial... all those editors besetting you.... "people do not have infinite patience", as you said. Some of us have more patience than others though, don't we? ... and some of us don't suffer fools very gladly, do we? ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can pretty much take it as a given that the editing environment on climate-change articles is unpleasant. The evidence is that we're here, at ArbCom, after exploring numerous other avenues of dispute resolution. It doesn't really make sense to quibble over this; the time would be better spent brainstorming ways to improve the editing environment. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's great evidence of WMC's style though, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself (I've only had a couple minor edits here and there) but been lurking on wikipedia for a couple years. I enjoy the articles, make a comment here and there etc. I've never had a bad experience with WMC, hes always been fair with me in my comments in the climate change area. But I do believe I fall into his above description of showing up in good faith and treated fairly. And conversely I agree with his assertion that people who end up wearing the patience thin are likely not to share my experience. --Snowman frosty (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. The atmosphere in some of these articles is about as collegial as the Battle of Verdun. However, I don't think that this is a knock on one side or the other. Both sides have "issues." That seems to be the state of play in a lot of controversial articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One evening in the 1970's a man was taking a walk in the Bogside when he was approached by a group of masked men. "Which church do you attend?" was the menacing question. "I would advise you that I am a Jew", replied the hapless fellow. "And are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?" was the response... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Why, neither, I'm a Jew of the Muslim persuasion" was his quick-footed response. . . Ronnotel (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your edit summary (Newcomers to AGW article editing are quickly evaluated as being on one side or the other of the debate, and then lauded or scorned accordingly) is overstated, but has a germ of truth to it. Editors pushing a point of view or showing hostility of any kind are definitely not welcomed and may feel scorned. However, I am new to those pages and never felt either scorned or lauded. I think that "indifference" is the description I would use on how I was treated by both sides of debates. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been rather difficult to pin down; just wait when They believe they have discovered where your sympathy lies (hopefully, with the encyclopedia!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this comment. Thank you, I consider that quite a compliment (I think). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that it's those who come to the GW and CC articles with an ongoing agenda of wanting to add half-truths, to reverse, tone down or confuse scientific statements, to use right-wing think tanks, blogs and opinion pieces from the popular press for their sources (and all, one can only assume, for personal political motives) who end up getting 'snarked at', then not feeling terribly welcome. And, no, before somebody says it, I don't see wanting to report scientific findings from peer-reviewed journals, and accepted as important by most of the world's governments, as an 'agenda' of its own. That is the process of building an encyclopedia, the other is trying to pervert it politically, to manipulate facts. Such extreme views are discussed in the BLPs of those who promulgate them, and in fringe articles about the details, but they are not central to the debate. The central debate is about when are the politicians and businesses in each country going to start doing significant things in line with the science, how much if anything will that cost, who will pay, how, etc. There are articles about all that too, but you won't be made to feel welcome there either if all you want to contribute is, "Do nothing because all scientists are proven liars, plotting to raise my taxes, and I have a blog post here that proves it". --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently Lar has got it spot on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've said before, (e.g. the CC RFC), if there are two sides to this debate (like peak oil, overfishing and various others), they are 'those who get it' and 'those who (for whatever reason) don't'. --Nigelj (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nigelj, thank you for these two revealing posts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. My point can be illustrated by List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which begins by listing "The main conclusions [within 'the scientific consensus'] relating directly to past and ongoing global warming", and includes graphs to illustrate these from established scientific research. Yet people will come along and try to remove those graphs or make other changes that blur the point about where this sub-article, about fringe activity, fits with or beside the mainstream. I have made a similar point myself[29] in discussion of the Climate change denial article. I'm sorry that these diffs are from a few months in the past; I have avoided getting involved in current CC debates, partly for my own 'blood pressure', and partly in awaiting some clarification as to exactly what it is that WP is trying to achieve in this area. --Nigelj (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By personal experience and much observation, I'm afraid that I have to admit this proposed finding is true. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~AGW articles should use SPOV for the science related portions~~
2) In view of the grave nature of the real world impact of climate change, and in view of the negative effect that undue weighting can have on coverage and in view of the impact that Wikipedia has on world public opinion, AGW articles covering the science (or partly covering the science) should be written from the WP:SPOV, and make it very clear to the reader what the consensus scientific view is, rather than expecting the reader to draw their own conclusion as is the norm. Non consensus views should not be given the weight they get in the popular press. This issue is so serious that it warrants abrogation of normal standards.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Follows from principles articulated above. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote this, Lar, it would be helpful if you'd explain what principles you refer to, and how it follows. It looks like a snarky piece of sarcasm, and is blatantly inaccurate. As has been explained above, NPOV requires due weight to expert views in the relevant field, and when describing science that means scientific views. So, how do you get this stuff about abrogation of normal standards? Or is this just irrelevant sarcasm on your part, and something to be considered as evidence? . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Lar is being sarcastic, but I do have concerns about this framing. When we cover scientific topics, we should clearly describe mainstream scientific thought on the subject. That's not an "abrogation" of our normal standards - that is our normal standard. If an article on a scientific topic leaves readers confused or mistaken about mainstream scientific thought on the subject, then we have failed, and we need to fix the article. We've dealt with discrepancies between scientific thought, political agendas, and popular opinion elsewhere, and I think we can do it here if we set amenable conditions. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@dave: #6) AGW/CC scientific consensus is relatively (but not completely) settled, most mainstream scientists agree it's happening, and that it's a huge problem. But it's a contentious topic. #2,3,4) NPOV and SPOV are the same when not dealing with science, or with completely settled long ago scientific topics, but are different for not as settled, or contentious, topics, or topics where the secular media and scientific media differ significantly in emphasis, or truth value. #5) What we do, like it or not, matters to the world. #6) (again) AGW is hugely important. #8) Use of SPOV removes the "well as long as we adhere to the scientific media, NPOV is likely good enough" risk, because in AGW, the mainstream media is out of step with the scientific media. From that, this finding follows. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPOV does not exist. Science is a method, not a point of view. Even Arbcom recognizes this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that science is a method, not a point of view, but that's not the meaning of SPOV as I and others have used it here. "SPOV" as used here in this case, is a handy label for editorial process (and not actually a point of view). Labels drift in meaning. Here (please read my principle #3) all that is meant is that the editorial decision of how to weigh sources is deliberately (slightly) short circuited to automatically give scientific sources precedence, without the need for prior justification. As for ArbCom, they have repeatedly stated that they are not bound by precedent, and more importantly, the ruling you reference (while completely valid and one I fully support) does not reference the term as several use it here. I hope that helps clarify matters. I am, frankly, surprised at the resistance to the notion that scientific sources should be given primacy when dealing with scientific topics. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:Count Iblis~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Wikipedia readers expect to get accurate information~~
1) The people who Google for information and click on a link to a Wiki-website, expect to get accurate information. Whether or not an article is written according to the letter of our policies is not what they are concerned about.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This should be obvious. Wikipedia recognizes that its policies and guidelines can be misused, see here. The whole point of all the policies and guidelines we have, is to make sure that we get an encyclopedia whose articles people want to read. For us this means that religiously citing policies and guidelines is besides the point if they contain loopholes that are contributing to the problems under discussion here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be their expectation, and it should be what we strive for but see WP:DISCLAIMER. Regrettably, we make no such assertion of accuracy. Nor can we if anyone can edit and we don't have flagged revisions and a sound review process behind it. Thus, not an entirely valid expectation. Regrettably. However the rest of it (that the readership care not how the articles get to where they are) may be true. Is it true of those who work on the articles though? Do they care not how the editing process goes? I suspect that is an incorrect assertion and they care very much. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree. I don't see any problem with this at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually, many readers come to Wikipedia hoping for truth, and have to be told that truth isn't our goal, instead, we strive for verifiability. While one hopes for a high degree of correlation, they aren't always the same. In my mind, "accuracy" is largely the same as "truth" which means I agree with the opening sentence, but am surprised that the correction is missing. We don't strive for "accuracy", we strive for "verifiability" while hoping the two are close enough.--SPhilbrick T 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but we do have a notion of reliability of sources; sources that we know are often off the mark are not considered to be reliable. Verifiability means that statements need to be verifiable using whatever sources we have declared to be reliable. What I'm trying to say with the principle is that we need to keep in mind that the policies like WP:V and WP:RS do have to yield good results; readers of Wikipedia are not going to judge junk articles to be very good just because they satisfy some policies we have here exceptionally well. For the climate change articles, this means that we need to consider the reliability of sources very seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the cartoon at the top of her user page, one Arbitrator (and perhaps more) appears to agree with at least the first sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unreliable sources~~
2) Generally reliable sources can be unreliable sources for certain topics. Highly reliable news sources are often not very reliable when reporting about scientific topics, they can even be questionable sources when they systematically distort the facts.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
See the evidence presented by User:Guettarda for the relevance to this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether rulings on source quality are the most productive avenue for this process to take. That said, I think this is a sound principle, and one that is explicitly recognized in WP:MEDRS#Popular press (supported by material such as this and this). MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is an important point. Much of the controversy has surrounded articles in which the mass media has been used as a source. Yet these sources can sometimes not be accurate or can sensationalize on GW. I think that this issue needs to be met head-on, as it seems to be a problem on the periphery of the GW articles where so much of the trouble lies. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A critically important point. The question "Is X a reliable source?" must always be answered "For what?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Importance of identifying unreliable sources~~
~~3) The Wiki policies WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR and WP:SYN can only work properly when unreliable sources are recognized as such.~~

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
It is obvious that unreliable sources that are not recogized as such by some editors can cause trouble w.r.t. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Statements in unreliable sources that are flawed can often not be debunked by giving a citation to the literature that addresses such statements literally. Argument why such a statements are flawed can thus be shot down on the grounds of WP:NOR. Even if one were to base any such argument closely on the literature, that would still be vulnerable to WP:SYN, unless the exact statements in the unreliable sources are debunked in the literature. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template~~
~~4) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Indoctrination by misleading news reporting on climate change in the mass media~~
1) The way certain news organizations report on climate change causes a significant fraction of the population of mainly the United States and to a lesser extent Britain, to be indoctrinated with flawed ideas about the science of climate change. As a consequence, a fair fraction of the Wiki editors of climate change related articles are indoctrinated as well.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This is the fundamental cause of the problem, see the evidence presented by User:Guettarda about the bias in the news media. Count Iblis (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but needs to be phrased differently, maybe that when news media reports and scientific journals conflict, the latter are to be given preference. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Climate sceptical Wiki-editors believe that the climate change articles are biased~~
2) Rather than knowing very well that the Wiki-articles present the facts on climate change very well, most of the climate sceptical editors truly believe that the coverage of climate change on Wikipedia is biased.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This is due to the fact that most of these editors are indoctrinated by the news media. This then causes conflicts that cannot be resolved well using the current Wiki-polices. Unlike e.g. the Cold fusion case, invoking WP:Weight to keep fringe opinions out won't work well if there are "reliable sources" that suggest that such fringe opinions are not so fringe at all. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cough* Some editors who agree with the scientific consensus regarding AGW believe that the articles are biased, in that the encyclopedic definition of NPOV does not default to that of the scientific viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern world (post-witch-hunts, post-blood-letting and leeches, etc) not many educated people seriously think there is a better description of the physical world than the scientific one, as taught in mainstream Western Universities. --Nigelj (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~3) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Climate change related articles are to be edited according to a scientific point of view~~
1) The Arbitrators will write an appropriate version of WP:SPOV which will serve as the official policy for climate change related articles. This will affect statements about the science of climate change in such articles. This will allow for more coverage of the politics of global warming in these articles, without the possibility of this being shoehorned to bring in bad science in the articles.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
It should be noted that the current versions of the climate change articles are consistent with both SPOV and NPOV, but from the perspective of people who are indoctrinated with climate sceptical ideas, the latter does not seem to be the case. So, if we simply make SPOV official, these editors could be willing to agree to disagree with this and continue to edit productively under the new rules. Count Iblis (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. As noted above, science is not a point of view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPOV was an essay Dunc wrote in 2005, at a time when NPOV didn't recognise things like WP:UNDUE. Basically he was saying "don't give creationist ideas equal weight with science". As Wikipedia grew, we raised our standards to value scholarly sources. We realised that all sources we're equal. We realised that just being verifiable wasn't enough. Granted, in recent months I have seen the return of that attitude, seen editors argue that we have to include every reliable source, regardless of quality.

The main points of Dunc's essay has been policy for years. It's a useful reminder when people try to argue that "all" perspectives need to be represented. The ideas enshrined therein, once radical and threatening to people, are now entirely mainstream. The wording is dated, and that makes it sound like more than it is. But that's only because it's a reaction to NPOV as it was, not NPOV as it is. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who "we" is, Guettarda, but editing that way is a violation of V and NPOV. Academic and high-quality non-academic sources are welcome in all articles. The community has roundly rejected anything close to SPOV every time it has been raised. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. Our science articles are written from what people who are into negative framing would call "SPOV". That is, their coverage is in line with mainstream scientific thought. This practice comes from the bottom up (you'll find it in basically any science featured article, including global warming), but has also been endorsed from the top down, repeatedly, by the Committee. It's a sine qua non of a serious, respectable reference work - does anyone believe that the editors of Britannica, or any other comparable encyclopedia, would even question whether scientific coverage should prioritize scholarly sources? MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~General amnesty for banned editors~~
~~2) Editors who have been (topic) banned or placed under restrictions because of misbehavior in the climate change area, will have their sentences overturned.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Everyone will get the opportunity to work productively under the new rules based on SPOV, regardless of past behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly. Are we really going to let Scibaby loose? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any editor is on a short leash: misbehave and you will be sanctioned. When we make the rules for editing climate science related articles less ambiguous, there is far less room for Scibaby, GoRight or anyone else with a strong opinion to make the articles less POV from their perspective.

Consider what Scibaby has been doing in the last few years. He created many hundreds of socks. So, what was he thinking? Clearly, he saw an opportunity to be able to get some sceptical text edited in climate change articles via his socks. Then, if we make SPOV explicit instead of implicitly implied by WP:WEIGHT as it is now, there is no room for his socks to operate under the guise of NPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
3)
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~4) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposals by User:Sxeptomaniac~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Civility~~
1) In a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, civility plays an important long-term role in the project. While the occasional flare-up of tempers is to be expected, consistently rude, condescending, bullying, or abusive behavior, particularly when directed at new users, creates a toxic atmosphere that harms Wikipedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Quite. We have several versions of this idea now and I think this one's wording is among the best. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree. Such behavior should be considered equally unacceptable when directed toward anyone, whether new or experienced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, speaking purely from personal opinion. However, in terms of harm to Wikipedia, which I believe is often the primary concern when discussing policy, I believe incivility to new users creates a greater problem. Established users are more likely to be aware of policy and processes that will assist them in dealing with an uncivil editor. Those with more experience of the wiki will be less likely to write off the whole experience if they've New editors are typically not as invested in sticking around, nor will they be as likely to know how to correctly address abuse. New users are also more likely to write off the whole wiki, assuming the rudeness is the rule, rather than the exception. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:Hipocrite~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Sockpuppetry~~
1) The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts, while discouraged, is generally permitted. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists—is forbidden.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
From Mantanmoreland Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Evaluating sockpuppetry~~
2) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
From Mantanmoreland Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Use of blogs as sources~~
3) Self-published blogs are not generally reliable sources. The only permitted uses of self-published blogs is when the author of the blog is a published expert on the narrowly construed specific subject of the blog posting, or the article the blog is used as a source for is directly and specifically related to the author - for instance, an article about the author, or something published by or about the blog author.

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
About time to just make SPAs realize they can't use their blogs. This is policy on all articles except articles where editors who hardly edit wikipedia believe sources they like are reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong in policy (and nothing inconsistent with common sense or the good purposes of the encyclopedia) with using a blog post as a source to show that a particular phrase, such as The Gore Effect was used at a particular time, showing that the phrase was used "at least as early as" the timestamp on a blog like Instapundit. Although it should be done on a case-by-case basis, there is nothing inherently wrong with using opinions from blogs that are significant voices in a particular field or on a particular subject, as has been discussed at Talk: Hide the Decline. You have opposed both, not always showing respect for the other sides' opinions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to Arbitration to make major changes to WP:RS in the guise of a "principle". WP has procedures in editing or changing such policies and guidelines. Nor has the committee in the past made any findings akin to that asked in terms of changing editorial source policies and guidelines. In each case, it is better to use established policies and guidelines than to alter one to make a ruling as a content dispute. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is established policy - nearly word for word. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? It is "established"" [30] does not seem congruent with your claim. The nly place in WP where I find " The only permitted uses of self-published blogs " is right here. Nowhere else. "Nearly word for word" requires actually using the words used about self-published material. To wit: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. is as close as I can find. Clearly nowhere near as far-reaching as you seek to imply is the current state. By a mile. But heck, someone at 10:30 today made a change [31] to that very guideline! And the same change last night [32]. And now insists this is a set guideline? Clue: When attempting to change guidelines, do not assert that your change is set policy when it has been reverted. Unfortunately, no one reasonable ought now to accept any assertion that this is "nearly word for word" anything. Collect (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change I made is in no way related to this section. Let's let the Arbs decide, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dig deeper? The edits you made were precisely to the same section on self-published material! The very same section of the guideline. And I grant it is up to the committee to decide, but I suggest that one editting the very same section one claims to be quoting "nearly woird for word" somehow might have an eeensy bit of credibility loss, alas. Collect (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part that I edited had nothing to do with self-published blogs. I really wish parties here could work together to find a way to make this work without the oneupmanship games. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conflicts of interest~~
4) Knowing or having worked with an individual in a professional or personal capacity is not a conflict of interest, nor is disagreeing with someone in a venue that is not Wikipedia. A conflict of interest is a conflict in which an editor can be reasonably presumed to be placing other interests ahead of the encyclopedia - editing the article of ones employer, or oneself, for example. It does not necessarily include editing an area where you have strong personal feelings, or personal involvement.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Frequently misunderstood. WMC is oft claimed to have a conflict of interest because he worked on Climate Science in the past, or with specific persons. That's not a conflict of interest, it's being an expert. Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is an unnecessarily narrow definition of conflict of interest. (Not to be construed as a comment on User WMC, but just a general comment.) ScottyBerg (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't the issue is necessarily a conflict of interest, more a question of general ethics. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Sockpuppetry~~
1) Articles related to Global warming are plagued with sockpuppetry - from a serial sockpuppeter with over 600 confirmed accounts, to a habitual abuser of open proxies, to a series of "new" accounts with far more knowledge than any new user would reasonably be expected to have, to an established editor abusing alternate accounts to vote stack.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Only the third point is remotely debatable. Evidence will be presented if anyone seriously doubts this. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to introduce the evidence. Others are introducing evidence that perhaps not every Scibaby tagging is correct, I think. The third point needs quite a bit of evidence to establish. I'm not sure I'd have framed it all quite this way but there certainly is sock (and meat) puppetry happening. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, add "to an established editor abusing alternate accounts to vote stack" to the above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Disruptive editing~~
2a) Marknutley (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively, engaging in edit warring, using unreliable sources, and generally failing to adhere to the standards of the encyclopedia.
2b) Heyitspeter (talk · contribs) has editied disruptively, engaging in edit warring, and generally failing to adhere to the standards of the encyclopedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Currently the worst of the unsanctioned parties (Thegoodlocust is far, far more disruptive, but he's been dealt with by the probation). Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see diffs, if only for the sake of feedback. Though lengthy, your evidence section entitled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Disruptive_behavior_by_various_individuals currently makes no mention of me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've spent two months arguing over the lede of an article, and have not once given a single inch of ground, and finally ending up by pledging to revert war back in a PoV tag every 24 hours. I solved the problem in the lede, I suspect, in one edit. It's in my evidence section. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your edit - That's just not true - you're the last bullet. Please don't make things up. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)

Lede: In conflict with your assertion that I have 'not once given a single inch of ground', a quick glance at the relevant sections of that talkpage (here and here) will show both that I have revised my proposal for the lede 5 times to take into account concerns and suggestions raised by editors such as yourself and that I have entirely refrained from implementing any of these proposed edits before gaining unanimous consensus.

POV tag: I readded the tag a total of once, after it was removed on the basis of a very explicit misunderstanding. You can find some later discussion here and can even find mention of this specific tag at the evidence section of this case here.

@Arbitrators: it should be obvious at this point that Hipocrite's assertions can be misleading. So I encourage you to look at sections when he gives diffs.

Unless I feel it is very necessary I will not be commenting further here to avoid cluttering the page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on Marknutley; disagree on Heyitspeter. Don't forget to add "repeated and blatant plagiarism" to the count for Marknutley, please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Poor use of sources~~
~~3) Sources have been used poorly in the space, generally, including here, here, here, and here, among others.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Someone who has been following "my" side is welcome to source links where blogs have been used wrongly by my "side," and I will happily add them. I am certain they exist. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes, I suppose.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, but it's ok. Newsweek is not a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" Hipocrite (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitors, however, should note that this kind of one-upmanship and battleground behavior is exactly the reason why Heyitspeter needs to be removed from the topic area for an extended period. Hipocrite (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thin Skins~~
4) Conflicts in the disputed area are characterized by exceptionally thin skins - editors seek out perceived slights and complain loudly about them, as opposed to discussing content. For example, in the evidence page of this very case JohnWBarber characterizes this as batteground behavior, and this as desparaging editors. Neither characterization is supported by any reasonable examanation of the text.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This is why the probation failed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to explain the innocent purpose of slapping on a title called "A new user arrives". My mind's open. I'd be happy to be convinced that one of my 15 diffs about your behavior was really a misperception on my part. Or all 15. Wouldn't that be wonderful! I'll apologize profusely if I'm wrong about so many. And are you saying that you didn't mean to insult editors when you wrote: I was answering the question that I assumed SV was asking - to wit "Where does the article on Global Warming deal with the fringe crackpots and fraudsters that deny global warming is in substantial part caused by man's activities." Am I missing something in the context that would explain that as something that would not promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere? Please explain. I'm all ears. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem with it is a symptom of your think-skinnedness. The new user put unrelated content in a section totaly unrelated to the content - he just tacked his edit on the bottom. I resectioned it. Of course you're missing something - you're missing the context. That edit wasn't about editors, it was about the content. Slim asked a question that led me to believe she was asking where the fraudsters were adressed in the article. I responded to her implied questions. You see slights where none exist, yet you don't see slights in writing things like "Jehochman does it again." You have a skin that's far, far too thin to edit controvercial topics. Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem with it is a symptom of your think-skinnedness (think-skinned -- sounds Joycean, thanks for the unintended compliment) The statement I've just quoted is a symptom of your WP:NPA tendencies. You're doing a fine job of demonstrating why ArbCom needed to accept this case. Using unnecessary language (fringe crackpots and fraudsters) in that extremely uncivil, thread (also peppered liberally with personal attacks), in which William M. Connolley and you were responsible for most of the incivility, was a contributing element to a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere on that page and in CC articles in general. No, there were not any WP editors on the page at that particular point and yes, you were not referring specifically to WP editors, but you knew a good number of WP editors would be offended by characterizing their entire side as filled only with "fringe crackpots and fraudsters". You unnecessarily ramped up the tension on that page when you and several of your allies were already there with a consensus and were facing just SlimVirgin who was politely asking questions. Anyone who might have liked to join the discussion would have seen the nastiness you and WMC were pouring in and would have been discouraged. Any newcomer who was unsure of himself would have been especially discouraged. Yes, technically you've demonstrated that your talk of "fringe crackpots and fraudsters" did not directly attack any Wikipedia editor. Victory for you, Hipocrite. Pyrrhic victory. Any ArbCom member should look over that thread. It's nauseating. Wikipedia at its worst. And one of the sadder aspects of it is that both you and SV had interesting points to make about an interesting question regarding that redirect. It could have been an occasion where editors had a meeting of the minds rather than just a clash of the emotions. It's depressing, really. A number of the diffs in my evidence about you show that you've got quite a head on your shoulders and could potentially convince a lot of other editors if you tried to avoid disparaging them. Instead, you've demonstrated over and over that you'll (figuratively) stomp on them. It even affects the quality of your arguments, as in that thread, where your 17:48, 25 May comment [33] is larded up with antagonism when you should have concentrated more on trying to be clear about the ideas you were getting across in a pretty fuzzy way. Again, there could have been a useful discussion there and other editors could have learned something from you, among others. You have created one toxic talk-page section after another. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That thread is very uncivil - but none of the incivility comes from me. Look over it again. There was a clash of emotions - between SV and WMC - as you may notice, I was attempting to hustle him out the door. It's a demonstration of your thinskinedness that you didn't read the thread, and instead decided "I'm hurt so the otherside all hurt me." Read the thread over, de novo. I'll wait for your retraction. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this is an "extremely uncivil" or even a "very uncivil" thread. Sure, it's not particularly pleasant, but that is a level of discourse people need to live with in any discussion with real differences of opinion. Telling someone that they are wrong is not uncivil, it's unavoidable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~(unindent) Well, let's go to the tape, all from May 25:~~
01:31: "Actually, given the fact that the "proposers" of this are drive-bys and banned users editing through proxies, I have closed this section."

15:04: calls alternate POVs on global warming "conspiracy theories"

17:48: To WMC: "SV isn't going to revert to the poorly formatted disambiguation page without reaching agreement with me - if and when we reach agreement, you can then reach agreement with us." To SV: "However, because you've asked over and over - "No.""

17:51: "This is not a user-talk page. I've answered your question. "No." Now you answer mine."

18:04: Entire response: "Wrong talk page."

18:07: "But, I'll humor you [...]

18:12: "I was answering the question that I assumed SV was asking - to wit "Where does the article on Global Warming deal with the fringe crackpots and fraudsters that deny global warming is in substantial part caused by man's activities.""
I'll grant you that this was not as bad as WMC's comments, but that's hardly a standard for civility. Guettarda also chimed in with some swipes. Your own comments successfully conveyed: (1) that you strongly felt that alternative POVs to mainstream scientific opinion on AGW were stuff fit onlly for crazy people ("conspiracy theories", "fringe crackpots and fraudsters"); (2) that SV was being a little "dim" and/or difficult to work with because she didn't agree with you ("going to revert to the poorly formatted disambiguation page", "However, because you've asked over and over", "This is not a user-talk page.", "Wrong talk page.", "But, I'll humor you"), and that you did not intend to try to come to an agreement with such a dim or difficult editor on such a crazy idea -- and that you had, in fact, after even your first edits, become completely impatient with her lack of agreement. This was on top of WMC's more overt sneers and insults ("If you look at the text at the top the word "discussion" is in blue. That is what we call a wiki-link, or hyperlink. You click on it [...] and there you do a thing we call "reading"") and complemented Guettarda's patronizing "Nope, not "acknowledging" anything of the sort. As to your second question - it starts with Global warming is the increase [...] and continues pretty much to the bottom of the page." (18:08) You worked with WMC and Guettarda in a team to disparage her in much the same way. That thread is a great, short example of WP:BATTLE at work. Again I think I answered this. WMC - let me try for a bit. SV isn't going to revert to the poorly formatted disambiguation page without reaching agreement with me (17:48). Perfect example.
Not one of you three indicated any interest in working with someone who had a different idea and who politely asked you a pertinent question, and you gave the very clear impression you would not work with anyone else that came to the page. It would take at least five more editors to overcome your oppisition to reach consensus on that page. Anybody reading it would have realized that, so who would bother if they had a different opinion? And who would want to put up with your bad attitude. There would, of course, always be the temptation by editors who opposed you to conspire together and get five more editors over to that page -- the kind of thing we should avoid like the plague, since the behavior would be repeated elsewhere. WP:BATTLE, through and through. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the principle (I have not looked at the particulars, being very busy for the last- and next few days). This is a consequence of the "no content evaluation" policy - instead of discussing content, which may be hard, it's much easier to complain about civility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thin skins are a big part of the problem, sure. Also, the current approach to civility "enforcement", as well as civility paroles, encourage people to have thin skins and to make the most of perceived insults, rather than rising above them. It's analogous to the way that soccer rules incentivize diving. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to abuse of dispute resolution procedures, in turn further degrading the editing environment ... - 2/0 (cont.) 07:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably better examples of thin skins. I'd humbly cite my analysis of Cla68's evidence, which showed two editors (Cla68 and another) allegedly "driven away" by conduct that, on close examination, appears to have been was neither incivil nor even especially curt. The reality is that hotly debated, battleground articles are not warm and fuzzy places for new editors. That doesn't justify personal attacks or incivility, but it does mean that there has to be a realistic assessment of the situation in those articles, and not an ivory tower attitude. The question facing this committee is whether they're going to go along with the views of partisans, people already engaged in long-term content disputes, and allow this case to be used to favor one faction over another on the basis of slim or cherry-picked evidence. The first priority, I think, is to bring in fresh administrators to supervise this area and make unbiased judgments. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at most of the comments here, I see excuses, excuses, excuses. "Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian". The evidence page shows that the WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE violations were frequent, substantial and involved numerous editors acting together. We can throw edit warring onto the huge pile as well. "Thin skins" and "gaming the system" by the other side doesn't shrink the massive scale of the problem. The "views of partisans" can't explain away the diffs and quotes in evidence. Which view of collegiality should ArbCom support: the views expressed here or in Wikipedia policy? There have been several editors on the other side who had similar records of violating these policies. They've been topic banned, blocked and even indefinitely blocked through the WP:GSCCRE and even by ArbCom (User:ChildofMidnight). It's hardly "partisan" to want to hold all editors to the same standards. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Presentation of minority viewpoints~~
5) The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is excessive, redundant, overemphasized, frequently shoehorned into unrelated areas, and glamorized regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
In contrast to LHvU, above, to give Arbs the other, more true, possibility. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This advice probably applies here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Do you think that applies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Presentation_of_skeptic_or_denialist_viewpoints_regarding_AGW_within_related_articles_is_deficient? Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs mentioning. We've learnt to live with it, but new "skeptic" editors may not know it, due to their worldview biases William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tiny-minority views are overrepresented in the science articles, not to mention the numerous articles about blogs, etc. that are being used to coatrack those views into the 'pedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that's true or not, given the immense number of articles and the lack of evidence presented on this issue, I don't think that it's realistic to expect the committee to make such a sweeping judgment. What they have to do is to look at this big mess and say to themselves, "how can we make it a little better?" They're not going to fix it. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Involved Administrator~~
6) Lar has inappropriately held himself to be an "uninvolved admin," while his prior statements have demonstrated a strong content position and animosity towards specific individuals, and has wheelwarred with other, uninvolved admins.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Evidence is in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Setting_an_example

Opinion on content is no disqualifier from participation, else every admin there would be disqualified. Animosity toward others assumes facts not in evidence (although there is sufficient evidence of animosity toward me from such as WMC). Finally, the claimed wheelwarring just isn't there. That evidence does not show what the submitter thinks it does. In sort, no basis for this finding whatever. No matter how many different ways you guys try to slice it, it's just not going to come out that way. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I raised a concern about Lar holding himself out as an 'uninvolved' administrator here, on 27 April, where he had just engaged in taking some cheap shots at WMC in an enforcement request concerning Marknutley, and then described WMC's actions to enforce BLP as being part of some sort of 'spin control' campaign for which he deserved a one-year ban from climate change articles. (Incidentally, Lar's purported concern with collegiality on climate change pages is somewhat at odds with his conduct in several places on that linked page.) Animosity toward WMC and others is evident in his remarks over the last several months. Here, on 12 May, he presents himself (along with LessHeardVanU) as the sole bulwark protecting Wikipedia against WMC. "I think it's premature to write this group off. I think there is a serious danger of underestimation here. If they successfully knock LHvU and myself out, they will have essentially free reign." I'd say that Lar has given at least as good as he's gotten in his bickering and jabs at WMC, with the distinction that he has been in a position of power — WMC can't block Lar. Moreover, when Lar did block WMC, the block was overturned by 2over0 on concerns that Lar was too involved: I think blocking administrator is WP:INVOLVED here - requesting review at WP:AN/I. In the ensuing AN/I discussion, 2over0 explains his unblock, and provides several diffs demonstrating Lar's animosity towards WMC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Requesting review of a block and unblock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. When an administrator shows personal bias/animosity toward editors or favors opposing factions in a hotly contested area, and/or makes it a habit of labeling/personally attacking editors as a "cabal" without substantiating the accusation or immediately following through with dispute resolution, he/she can't be considered an uninvolved editor. Recently an editor introduced the concept of "ethics." I think that if any group of editors should be held to a higher, "ethical" standard, it's administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abuse of good faith in dispute resolution~~
6) Cla68 has repeately abused the good faith of others by including series of unexplained "diffs" that he purports show things. Frequently, however, the diffs, aside from the first few, do not demonstrate what he purports they do. Additionally, he includes the same diff multiple times.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Just ignoring Cla68's evidence is no longer enough - a FoF is required. Note that this is not limited to this case - per Boris, he did the same thing in Lar's RFC - alledging that [34] is an attempt to provke Lar, for instance. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as far as this case is concerned. I sampled [35]two of Cla68's allegations in the Evidence section, and found that in both instances the underlying behavior, as supported by both the diffs he provided and the context that he did not provide, contradicted his claim of incivility on the part of WMC sufficient to "drive away" both himself and another new editor. If this is part of a pattern of conduct, a sanction is warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Editors instructed~~
~~1) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to Global Warming, or any related pages or discussions on any page is directed:~~
(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, or from alternate accounts disclosed as such on the user page of the alternate account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration; and

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.
A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Adapted from Mantanmoreland. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider adding "or declared alternate account"? Just thinking about accounts like Tony Sidaway's 'Tasty Monster', or one of the various "public computer" account that many people use. I'm also curious how this would affect editing from places like university networks or public WiFi networks. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I suck at wording these things without becoming too legalistic. Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe checkusers understand the limitations on users and respect their judgment with respect to proxies. The intent is not to ban one-user-one-account editing from wherever they are, rather to prevent intentional methods to hide alternate accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this is policy anyway, but I guess emphasizing it does no harm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editors banned~~
2a) Marknutley is banned for one year from all pages related to Climate Change, broadly construed. This includes pages in all namespaces (including, without limitation, Talk, User Talk, User, Template, Wikipedia), including all dispute resolution.
2b) Heyitspeter is banned for one year from all pages related to Climate Change, broadly construed. This includes pages in all namespaces (including, without limitation, Talk, User Talk, User, Template, Wikipedia), including all dispute resolution.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Needs to be excised. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MN's contributions are of the likes of Hide the Decline which is pointless disruption, done only just recently. If he has nothing better to contribute, he would be better elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment under "Disruptive editing" in this same section, where I request any diffs of poor behavior.--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating the article was disruptive behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now thankfully deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hide the Decline William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~HiP's disruptive tagging at Climatic Research Unit email controversy could do with some remedy William M. Connolley (talk)~~
I think that the committee should be cautious about lowering the boom on any editor, unless there is strong evidence of misconduct. I just don't know enough about these two editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Administrators Sanctioned~~
1a) Lar is prohibited from using his administrative tools or authority on all pages related to Climate Change, broadly construed. He is further banned from using his administrative tools to prevent disruption by individuals substantially involved in editing climate change articles.
1b) Lar is desysoped. He may reapply for the tools in the ordinary manner, or through petition to the committee.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proven necessary by his recent swipe at me, while the case was ongoing. Hipocrite (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What swipe is this? My apologies, but these pages are growing a wee bit gargantuan.

I would be leery of implementing 1a without 1b, at which point it would be redundant. A full 1b, though, would probably be too harsh. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for misuse of administrative tools by Lar is limited to the isolated incident of wheel-warring with Jehochman, as best I can tell. To his credit, he has generally deferred to the consensus of other admins, even when it conflicted with his preferred resolution of various conflicts. In that context, I don't think the evidence necessarily supports 1a. 1b would be way too extreme and clearly unsupported by the given evidence, even if we were to ignore Lar's history of positive work on the project.
My biggest quibble with Lar is that he hasn't used his position to set a good example. I think the reverse has been the case, in that he's betrayed an eagerness to mix it up as a combatant and a personalized animus toward some editors in the topic area. Those don't sit well with the role of uninvolved admin, but I'm not sure that they rise to the level presented in this remedy, either. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Enforcement~~
1) Any user who violates any restriction imposed by this decision, or imposed by an administrator acting on the authority of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. A warning should generally be given before a block is imposed, except for severe violations. All blocks, bans, or restrictions imposed under this decision shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate_change#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
From Mantanmoreland. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me how this differs from the existing situation with article probation. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hipocrite. You said above that the probation wasn't working but then ask to create the same thing over again. Is the difference that you are also advocating banning mark nutley, Heyitspeter, and Lar? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal differs by omitting the Requests for enforcement board (which to my mind is a good thing). I am in favor of novel approaches, but I think the evidence of this probation area indicates that it should be run more like other such areas (with the caveat that I have not been heavily involved at any of those). - 2/0 (cont.) 07:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Interpretation~~
2) The remedies contained in this decision should be construed and, if necessary, enforced so as to ensure that the highest standards of reliability and user conduct are maintained on the articles in question, to avoid further disruption arising from disputes and recriminations surrounding these articles.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Adapted from Mantanmoreland - the idea being that gloves can come off with respect to these transparent socks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follows Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; interesting. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:JohnWBarber~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Battleground behavior is destructive~~
1) Wikipedia is not a battleground for holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Ongoing incivility, personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, similar behavior and in-kind responses to those types of behavior are characteristics of "battleground" behavior.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Put forward as a key policy in this case. All of this is from WP:BATTLEGROUND section of the policy "What Wikipedia is Not" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite of the proposals along these lines. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you are using this case to retaliate against me,[36] an uninvolved administrator who had investigated your behavior? I notice that you were previously blocked indefinitely for abusive sock puppetry.[37] Excuse me for entertaining the possibility that you might have been up to no good (such as gaming the rules to get a content opponent banned). It seems rather odd that you are accusing other people of battleground behavior while you doing exactly the thing you complain about. It seems rather odd that you accuse me of assuming bad faith while you yourself use the inflammatory, presumptuous language "Jehochman does it again" over and over again in your presentation of evidence. Please model the behavior you'd like others to follow. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not excuse you for entertaining the possibility that I might have been up to no good. That should be evident based on my lengthy evidence against you. You keep your ABF entertainments to yourself, then I can excuse them. And you weren't entertaining any "possibilities" when you were deliberating about me, you were baldly accusing me of bad conduct for which you had no good evidence, as was explained to you in detail at the time. It's in black and white on that page. When you are in a position to deliberate over sanctioning someone, you follow WP policies -- got it? I actually read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:GSCC and quoted all three to you at the time, during the case against me. I laid it all out in excruciating detail so that you wouldn't be able to say you were mistaken. If there had been even a slightly harsher conclusion to those GSCCRE cases, I'd have hauled you and the rest of the admins before ArbCom that minute. Retaliate against you? Do you not understand that you were completely unfair? Do you not understand that you can't sanction people without some rational explanation? Do you not understand that you can't even make accusatory statements about someone without backing it up with evidence? Yes, indeed, you do understand that, as I demonstrated with the penultimate diff concerning you. As I told you, very explicitly at the time, WP:NPA forbids you to do that. It's on that page in black and white, and I quoted it to you. You said I filed that AfD in violation of WP:POINT. But you knew I had reasons to file that AfD -- concerns about NPOV that I have long held and even discussed with you six months prior to this incident. Which I mentioned during that case. And yet you insisted -- without any evidence at all -- indeed, without any possibility of evidence -- that my motivations must have been to make a WP:POINT. You never defended that no-evidence allegation and you never took it back. You then brought up WP:BATTLE, which is one strange allegation to make, considering that you had the rockets' red glare and the bombs bursting in air all about you in the climate change articles. You wanted to get me topic banned and/or blocked, but you've defended William M. Connolley as late as last week, and you were defending Ratel, who shocked even the editors who agreed with his overall POV. I demonstrated that ChrisO's statements were worse than anything I said and you didn't bat an eye. You bring up that bad block by an admin who said that if she had to do it over, she would not have blocked me. I think I'm going to give you an explanation of the facts in that situation and then you are not going to misrepresent it ever again, or I am going to haul you into dispute resolution for making a personal attack. One more point about "retaliation". If you've wronged me (as I am in the process of proving) and if I respond by making a complaint in the proper place, that isn't retaliation. If you cannot understand that, what are you doing with the tools? And by the way, when I chose the phrase "Jehochman does it again" I thought about whether that was a neutral enough phrase. I think it's entirely neutral, given that it's an allegation. But just to be extra civil, I'll entertain a suggestion for alternate wording. You see, I know what it's like to be in the hot seat and feel I'm being unfairly treated, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, including you. I've got to take a break. Please review the two WP:GSCCRE complaints. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Jehochman does it again" is not a neutral phrase. It's begging the question and poisoning the well all rolled in one. If your block was improper, you ought to ask the Checkuser to note it on your block log. Can you give me a diff showing that the block was improper? I'd like to understand the circumstances. Please try to keep your responses concise. Just delete the rhetoric; it has no effect on me. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this off-topic drifting. On this page, I'm focusing on what ArbCom can use. Respond on topic or not, as you choose. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about we shake hands (virtually) and let bygones be bygones. I very much doubt ArbCom is interested in this petty drama when there is much better fare to be had with the central issues of this case. Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just sent you and Franamax an email. Feel free to discuss this here or on my talk page or by email. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Battleground behavior vs. consensus achieved through reasonable discussion~~
2) Editors must not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia’s fundamental decision–making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Put forward. Taken from WP:BATTLEGROUND. The process of forming a consensus is meant to be intellectual ("to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints"), not fundamentally political (organizing a faction). (This is how we hope to reconcile our policy of governing content by the consensus of anybody who walks through the door with the goal of producing content that is based on reality -- the more consensus, the less fantasy [normally].) Intellectual agreement comes through discussion (unless the answer to the question at hand is obvious to nearly everyone -- a case-by-case judgment call). Mere political consensus doesn't require discussion, just voting, rallying cries and, often, denunciation of the opposition (very much like a political campaign, rally or convention -- human politics has identifiable patterns separate from reasonable discussion and even debate). This is a behavioral problem that I don't think ArbCom has addressed well enough in the past (I'd love to be proven wrong on that). ArbCom traditionally steers clear of deciding content disputes, but talk page behavior and edit warring are behavioral matters that can be shown to violate behavioral policies. Editors who fight in various ways rather than attempt to come to agreement on talk pages are engaging in disruption. Ediitors who do this repeatedly, especially after it has been pointed out to them that they are doing this, are engaging in behavior that properly comes up in dispute-resolution forums. Editors who do this in factions are compounding the problem by encouraging their fellow faction members as well as opponents to repeat similar behavior, perpetuating a problem that might otherwise die out, as WP:BATTLEGROUND indicates. When editors are behaving wrongly in groups, ArbCom should refer to WP:BATTLEGROUND to show editors how they can behave better, and show other editors how seriiously wrong faction-forming can be. ArbCom should also think hard about how faction-forming can be discouraged in this area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the above is that I do not think it can be evidenced that confluences of editors are being organised, even after the event of an obvious confluence occurring. People of similar viewpoints are going to both edit similar topics to the same understanding of policy, and to support other editors voicing opinions they agree with. Where there are subjects where viewpoints are polarised between understandings which admit little or no common ground, such confluences of editors form easily distinguishable groupings; no organisation is required. Apart from my belief that these groupings are the fairly natural formation of sympathetic opinions gathering around a shared belief, I think the rest of JWB's commentary to be very good. WP:BATTLEGROUND is fundamentally the denial of editing privilege to those who oppose a confluence of editors. That issue does need to be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. I think some states have passed taxes on illegal drugs. When someone is arrested on drug charges, the state then gets to tax them, increasing the penalty. Another example is a speeding ticket I received in New York State. The f****** b******s not only gave me the maximum fine for speeding downhill on an empty highway, they tacked on about $1,000 for some kind of fine, the official, fantastical reason for which escapes me (no doubt contributing to lower income taxes for NewyorkBrad, or more likely more pork spending for those corrupt, corrupt legislators to brag about). I'm suggesting here that when a bunch of editors are found to have engaged in edit warring, incivility, personal attacks and some other behaviors that are wrong in themselves, that this kind of confluence -- on similar pages and from any POV -- also be identified as a violation of WP:BATTLEFIELD and that sanctions be made more severe. It's one thing to smash a brick through a window and steal from a liquor store. It's much worse during a riot. I would also do the equivalent of fining people for spitting on the sidewalk during a riot -- that is, make what would normally be minor violations of, say, WP:CIV, citable offenses, at least in a small way. There is justification for this at WP:GSCC: Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian; -- does anybody recall now that that's what the sanctions were supposed to be about? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think NYS imposes $1,000 fines out of the blue without explaining them, and I seriously doubt that money is targeted toward income tax relief for NYB, though I am sure he wishes that it were. You seem to be saying that the world is against you in every respect. This does not strengthen your case at all. I recommend eliding this cruft from the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BUTT. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duuuuude!1! I created that shortcut.[38] LOLROFL. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incivility~~
3) Personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict are all violations of Wikipedia's policy on incivility. Not sufficiently explaining comments can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:

Roughly word for word from WP:CIV. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Assuming good faith~~
4) Editors who wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians should substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for the editor's concerns. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:

Roughly word for word from two sections of WP:AGF. First sentence from third paragraph of the lead; second sentence from "Accusing others of bad faith" section. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Personal attacks~~
5) It is never acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia to make accusations about personal behavior without being able to provide evidence. Serious accusations especially require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Accusations made without providing evidence when requested are personal attacks.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Taken word for word, for the most part, from two sections of WP:Personal attacks. WP:NPA#Why personal attacks are harmful states "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians." I take it that means it applies to all Wikipedians in terms of not committing WP:NPA as well as not being the victims of personal attacks. The first line of the policy reads, in boldface: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Anywhere. It further states (italics in original): "some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable." That's pretty sweeping. The same section states as an example: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Evidence means referring to facts about behavior (often with diffs) and adequately explaining how that behavior violates policies or guidelines. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Administrators' discussions are bound by behavioral policies~~
6) During discussions on whether or not to sanction an editor, administrators are bound by Wikipedia policies on personal attacks, civility, assumptions of good faith and battleground-behavior, which are all consistent with the ability to hold a productive discussion about an editor's behavior. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Obvious and, as far as WP:NPA goes, implied by "all", "anywhere" and "absolutely never" quotes from that policy, above. Anyone who wants to quibble with this should first look at the proposals which follow. This essentially prepares the way for those proposals.
~~Obligations of administrators in discussing editor conduct~~
7) In order both to comply with behavioral policies on personal attacks and assuming good faith and to set a good example of behavior to others, administrators discussing an editor's conduct should be able to state the reasons why they believe certain specified actions of the editor violated specific policies. If the matter is obvious, administrators need not explain themselves at once or at length, but if questioned about their reasons shortly after they comment, they should promptly reply with their explanation. This may also reassure editors ~~concerned~~ who think that they are not being treated fairly, and it allows editors to defend themselves by giving them the opportunity to point out mistakes administrators may have made.wording clarified a bit-- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Does this need to be broken up into separate findings? To me this proposal is glaringly obvious, and it's the way ArbCom (which is more formal and deliberate about these things) already acts, but I get the impression that not all administrators understand this. In fact, I've found this problem not just with Jehochman and Franamax (see my evidence) but in the past with Lar and even with the ArbCom appointed WP:AUSC. This bothers me one whole hell of a lot. We do not have a two-tier system here where admins get to do things that editors could be sanctioned for (at least not in principle, maybe we do in fact). That automatically creates a bullying atmosphere. ~~In fact, I have proof it did just that.~~come to think of it, no I don't. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This is a matter of fundamental fairness. It is not too much of a burden on admins for them to explain their conduct. I'm not saying explanations are necessary if they aren't requested, and in obvious cases they normally won't be requested. When behavioral violations are obvious, the explanation should be easy. If not obvious and if the editor in question doesn't understand the thinking, the explanation is necessary. Whether or not the editor is guilty is irrelevant to this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also failed this principle (I hope as a rare exception rather than a rule). Supported by Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and basic principles of fairness. Although I suspect that you mean *un*fairly in the final sentence. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the wording a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On third reading, my small statement just above is mistaken. And thank you for the below :). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that statement. My esteem for you just went up. Thanks also for the link. My concern is with admins not acknowledging the problem and therefore the potential of them doing it repeatedly. I suspect this behavior among admins happens a lot and is a serious problem across the encyclopedia. If ArbCom issues a ruling on this, I'm going to post a link to it at AN. I haven't noticed a pattern of you behaving badly in this or any other way, by the way. When you withdrew a statement you posted on my talk page, you essentially fixed any problem I had with you, and I'm sorry I brought it up in one of my initial statements to ArbCom on the requests page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Hipocrite and WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND~~
1) Hipocrite has been uncivil and made personal attacks repeatedly in articles related to climate change, contributing to a "battleground" atmosphere on those pages, with other editors joining him in contributing to that atmosphere.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. Follows from my evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clerk has told me that the analysis I posted here is better in the "Analysis" section below, so I've moved it there. See "Evidence about Hipocrite and a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Evidence about Hipocrite and a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:2over0~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Purpose of Wikipedia~~
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Final decision. This is partially redundant with some of the above, but it summarizes many of the issues with this topic area - editors sniping at each other, arguing the topic instead of our coverage of it, and treating articles as a game to be won. People argue various aspects of the science pretty regularly (and often disruptively, though genuine new editors often respond well to a short partial explanation + link to a relevant article or two + closing the discussion or moving it to a more appropriate venue); this sort of disruption on several talkpages, mostly Talk:Global warming, was a good part of why the community put this topic area under probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reliability and discussion~~
2) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work towards consensus. Participants in the discussion should remain mindful of our content principles and avoid debates that are inappropriate for Wikipedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Final decision. Goes a bit further along the lines of my opening comment for the previous principle. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral point of view~~
3) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision. This should probably be workshopped to meld with the similar proposals from MastCell Count Iblis. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understanding that definitions of "scholarly", "weight of authority", "relatively small minority", will continue to be argued. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the entirety and only with the entirety. Many Wikipedia editors, including some respected creators of featured content, appear to believe that neutrality means treating all views equally regardless of their weight or authority in reliable sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editorial process~~
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision. People joining edit wars that are clearly in progess and treating 3RR/1RR as an entitlement, especially in the absence of talkpage discussion, is disruptive. I do fear, though, that the people who monitor the several dispute resolution mechanisms may be getting a bit tired of this set of editors. Some emphasis on the if necessary might be in order to encourage somewhat greater effort at finding common ground than I like it! → I hate it! → Time to vote on it. Then again, if this case can do something about the endemic battleground mentality in the topic area, that might not be needful. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Added a link to WP:DE and changed the link on exceptions from WP:BLP to WP:3RR. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Citations~~
5) Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Final decision. Goes with some of the other sourcing-based proposals, above. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal conflicts with WP:V.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as a summary of WP:DUE. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added links to WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dispute resolution~~
6) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Final decision. The unwillingness to deal effectively with this sort of behaviour is a good part of why I think that the current requests for enforcement board for this topic area is something of a failure. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Dispute resolution seems to be another weapon of war. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. There needs to be sanctions for those who use the "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach. This is the main reason that the probation failed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Advocacy~~
7) Wikipedia should not be used to advocate any particular position. Talk pages are reserved for discussion of improvements to the associated article; unrelated posts may be removed, moved, or archived. Editing to increase the profile of an organization, individual, or idea is disruptive.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Attracting this sort of edit is probably an unavoidable side effect of being highly ranked by the search engines, but it bears repeating. Might also include something along the lines of your favorite blogger's most recent point probably does not bear mention. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[39] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Necessary context~~
8) Climate change is a complex and involved subject. Readers should not be expected to be intimately familiar with the details of the science or the public debate. It may be necessary to provide context to avoid misleading the reader.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Should not be construed to contradict the principle that subarticles and spinout articles should make necessary assumptions to avoid recapitulating the higher level articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Casting aspersions~~
9) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Casting aspersions. The flip side to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Proposals by User:2over0/Proposed principles/1.6 Dispute resolution - frivolous or vexatious reports are disruptive, but so are accusations made with neither attempt nor intention to substantiate. I believe I remember seeing at some point an admonition against continuing to raise the same allegations absent new evidence after the community has addressed or dismissed the concerns - if someone finds that, please let me know or make a proposal yourself. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Monitoring by a rotating board of appointed administrators~~
1) Upon the conclusion of this case, the Arbitration Committee shall solicit volunteer administrators to monitor the topic area of climate change. They will then appoint five administrators to serve five month terms, with one volunteer rotating out each month.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
After Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC#View by User:JohnWBarber (JWB - please edit this if I have misrepresented your proposal). I am not convinced that this is the best possible approach, and I might opt for 3/3, but the proposal received significant support at the RfC and I think it should be considered here. As I see it, this would not restrict other uninvolved administrators from acting in the area, but would establish responsibility for maintaining the RfE board, establish go to admins for minor issues, and ensure a spectrum of opinion to keep the topic area and enforcement in line with broader Wikipedia norms. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up 2/0. My best argument about this has been made in the RFC link just above. I'm not sure what the advantage would be in having other admins acting in this area. One of my biggest arguments for this was that appointed admins would likely do a better job, and they'd have implicit supervision, which would be helpful if they started to make mistakes. I also think a new group of admins would lower tensions just by being new. Evidence, some convincing and some not convincing, has been submitted about various admins, and I think ArbCom should consider whether or not ArbCom appointments would help in avoiding some of the problems that have cropped up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: Given (1) the divisions over controversial climate-change topics in public opinion, which is very divided at least in the U.S. and the U.K., and the heated debate about it in recent years, with rage from both sides, and (2) the fact that we're the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit", with people starting to edit as soon as they want, in the long run it just won't matter if you topic ban 20 editors today. In about a year, you'll have just as many editors battling about the same way. Systemic problems deserve solutions that change the system. This problem on climate-change articles can't be solved only by admonishing or even removing editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREEPy. Sensible administrators will rotate themselves out of controversial areas when they sense their nerves starting to fray. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And admins who aren't sensible will hang on forever, lacking the humility and self-awareness to recognize the problems they are creating. One of the advantages of admin rotation is to limit the damage done in such situations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins who aren't sensible" are like "tires that aren't inflated" or "computers that aren't connected to the internet", useless. Such admins should be beaten with the cluebat or exiled from adminship. Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@JWB: I think that not disallowing other admins would be necessary on a purely practical level, at least for minor or one-time actions. Making sure everyone knows and remembers would be a bit of a chore. If someone started dipping their highwaters in trying to solve the dispute they might be ... well, conscripted into the monitoring structures I guess is probably far more likely than being asked to add their name to the volunteer pool and wait a few months. This is one of the points that will need to be workshopped if the arbs are interested in something along these lines. Personally, though, I have no intention of volunteering any time soon if this goes through; LHvU has seemingly nigh-inexhaustible reserves of patience, but I prefer to direct myself towards novel stressors.

On the other hand, you make a very good point about needing systematic relief - the sociopolitical structures should be set up such that editing towards a serious respected encyclopedia is the easiest course to take. I suspect that similar reasoning is a good part of why recent ArbComs have been establishing so many special sanction areas. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think that this is a very good idea, and should be tried at least for a trial period. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Enforcement requests to be handled at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement~~
~~2) Requests for enforcement under this case shall be handled at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
After Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC#View by User:2over0. This can be enacted instead of (1) or in concert with it, abolishing Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main points in advocating an appointed board was removing self-selection of administrators. I'm unfamiliar with ARE (AE?). If the admins there are not appointed, I consider that a disadvantage. If it would be too difficult to get, vet and appoint admins for the kind of board I proposed, then AE might be a better alternative to the present set-up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible. AE should get more traffic, and attract more truly uninvolved admins. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:Collect~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Improper consensus~~
1) (previously adopted)
The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community.
Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎ does indeed seem to have brought in some "skeptic" editors, who are not representative of the wider community William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Co-ordination to achieve improper consensus~~
~~2) (logically following) Co-ordination of editors in order to strengthen any perceived consensus, whether done on or off Wiki, is improper.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:
~~NPOV is not negotiable~~
~~3) The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view is a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia.~~
Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~"Truth" is not superior to NPOV~~
~~4)(logically following) No specific point of view, no matter how much people know it to be true, is superior to the prior statement.~~
Comment by others:
As a corollary, if a point of view is widely understood to be true, then WP:NPOV demands that we make that clear to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until a few weeks ago everyone "knew" that the total amont of matter and anti-matter in the universe had to be equal. We no longer "know" that. That which is "widely understood to be true" may well not be "true" hence we can not alter the existing NPOV non-negotiability. Collect (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very frustrating argument that exactly misses the point of WP:NPOV and WP:RS — and, for that matter, MastCell's comment. We expect that Wikipedia will be steadily refined to reflect new knowledge, new research, new events. Something that is considered 'true' today may be relegated to the dustbin of history tomorrow. Them's the breaks. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a static medium. Wikipedia is not required to be a crystal ball, and we are not required to anticipate which things we thought we knew will turn out to be mistaken or modified in the future; we only present what is already published by reliable sources. The fact that the body of work on which we base our articles changes and evolves with time does not justify abandoning our responsibility to present what current reliable sources have to say, and to weight our presentation of those sources according to our best estimates of their suitability and reliability at this time. Sometimes our articles will turn out to be 'wrong' in the future — but that is not an excuse for us to turn into an indiscriminate blog, soapbox, or publisher of original work. We should not temper or weaken our scientific coverage on the basis of political, corporate, or blogger input.

Incidentally, Collect's comment above also gets the science 'wrong' and illustrates the dangers of nonspecialists editing highly technical topics — what the average lay person 'knows' about a topic may well differ appreciably from what a subject matter expert considers 'known'. In this case, someone with an introductory knowledge of particle physics (which one might get from an undergraduate physics course, for example) might well believe – or even have been told – that matter and antimatter must always be generated in equal amounts. (In practice, it is a damn good approximation for all but a few highly-specialized researchers.)

In reality, the problem of baryogenesis (the process leading to the apparent surplus of matter over antimatter in our galaxy and possibly our universe) is one that has long puzzled physicists and cosmologists. It's an issue that's been acknowledged for decades, and attempts to describe conditions under which it might come about have been made since at least Sakharov's work in 1967. Since then, theories to address the asymmetry have clustered roughly into two groups — first, that the production of matter and antimatter is symmetric, but for an assortment of reasons some parts of the universe ended up with more matter and some parts (far away from here) ended up with more antimatter; second, that there was a genuine asymmetry in the production of matter versus antimatter, leading to a modern universe depleted in antimatter. Our article on baryon asymmetry fairly (though rather briefly) presents the competing theories. The recent result (I'm guessing Collect meant this story?) simply lends some tantalizing but still very speculative and controversial support to one possible mechanism for breaking symmetry: supersymmetry models (which are again decades old).

I suspect that MastCell's meaning when he says "widely understood to be true" is further silently qualified with "widely understood to be true by qualified expert practitioners in the relevant field". When we talk about gravity, we refer to the work of physicists, not to viewers of Wile E. Coyote cartoons — or to lawyers, or to politicians, or to bloggers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My degree is in Physics. Read the latest papers showing an asymmetry of creation of muons and anti-muons before asserting anyone is "wrong." And the use of massive amounts of text does not affect the core of rhe principle presented. Collect (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what your degree is in (though one of my degrees is in physics as well) — your statement that "Until a few weeks ago everyone "knew" that the total amont of matter and anti-matter in the universe had to be equal" is still false. I provided references back to the 1960s showing that serious physicists were contemplating ways to produce a matter/antimatter asymmetry. More important to this discussion, I believe that my remarks related to Wikipedia still stand. Great care must be taken in interpretation and weighting of sources before we draw conclusions about what everyone 'knows' to be true, and we must be cautious about which 'everyone' we consult. It is very easy for someone with a little bit of knowledge (oh, how dangerous that little bit of knowledge can be!) to present a plausible-sounding, glib, yet completely incorrect argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas for you, most of the theorizing was based on positing "dark matter" and the like - the 1% excess of muons over anti-muons was not posited, as nearly as I can find, by anyone - and especially not in the 60s when QED was the main topic. Collect (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But such issues would never cause problems for Wikipedia as any sicentific disputes are always discussed in the peer reviewed journals, at scientific conferences etc. It would only become a bit similar to the case of climate change if, say, a few scientists would feel that they can't get their ideas accross in the peer reviewed journals or at conferences. If they then were to be able to frame their problems into some alleged conspiracy theory against their theories and then get FOX NEWS or the Wall Street Journals to publish their ideas, the question would be how much weight Wikipedia editors would need to give those news reportings. Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You likely should tell Ten that, and also that it is not a good idea to tell any editor that his clear posting was "false" on a matter of fact. The fact is that there is no such animal as a "true" point of view in science. Heck, even Mendel was shown to be wrong this past year IIRC. Collect (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Should I take your response to mean that you have no comment on or objection to my remarks regarding Wikipedia policy and its application? (In any event, I already provided a direct wikilink to the appropriate section of our article on baryon asymmetry which discusses Andrei Sakharov's 1967 work describing conditions in the early universe under which a baryon asymmetry might arise. No, he didn't predict that it would arise in a muon-antimuon asymmetry – which, it must be emphasized, is still a very preliminary result, subject to verification and validation – but that isn't what you said. Supersymmetry theories, which would provide an explanation for the apparent result, have been the focus serious work since at least the 1980s. In other words, I stand by my assertion that your claim quoted above – regarding the relative amount of antimatter versus matter in the universe – is not accurate.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best discussions I've ever seen in Wikipedia and I'm not being sarcastic. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Verifiability, not truth; A SPOV may be orientated toward a consensus of what is likely true, but WP:V and WP:DUE requires that other pov's may also be included if they are WP:Notable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~"SPOV" is not superior to NPOV~~
~~5)Wikipedia specifically does not assert that any "scientific point of view" exists as a "true" point of view required to dominate any article or group of articles.~~
Comment by others:
In multiple previous cases, the Committee has affirmed what should be common sense - that as an aspiring serious, respectable reference work, our outlines of scientific topics should be in line with mainstream scientific thought. To use your preferred framing, then, mainstream scientific thought should "dominate" our articles on scientific topics, although not to the exclusion of other notable minoritarian viewpoints. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found absolutely no case in the Arbitration archives where the committee has ever come close to abrogating the non-negotiability of NPOV. And, as I learned many years ago at MIT, science is never determined by votes, but only by repeatability of experimental evidence. Thus we should use actual articles and their data, and not petitions or votes by groups as material for articles on science. This would, indeed, remove much of the apparent "battleground mentality" evinced in the articles in question. See WP:TRUTH as well. Collect (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPOV is poor framing. All "SPOV" only means giving priority to scholarly sources in scientific articles. Which is, after all, what policy currently suggests we do for all topics. So SPOV == NPOV, when writing about science. The whole idea is really an artefact, left over from when we didn't have as clear a sourcing policy. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the material above from others where SPOV was given as some sort of absolute goal. My point is that, unless ArbCom disavows NPOV's non-negotiability, ArbCom pretty much must reaffirm the primacy of NPOV in Wikipedia. BTW, what would you have said about the news about non-equal numbers of muons and anti-muons? Seems that this would have been heresy only a few months ago, and promptly excised from any articles <g>. Collect (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guettarda that SPOV = NPOV. It is just that in case of climate change, there has been a reasonably successful media campaign to distort the facts. This means that Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources is now undermined. It is always a bit problematic to use popular media as sources for scientific statements in any article, but you could usually deal with that by appealing to the RS policy, by appealing to the WEIGHT policy in case of fringe opinions, etc.
However, what we now have to deal with is that e.g. FOX NEWS will claim that e.g. "there is no scientific consensus on climate change" and that you'll have a fair number of Wiki-editors who will believe that (or replace this statement by any other flawed statemen about climate change). Then, because FOX-NEWS is a RS in the eyes of these editors and all reliable sources should be given a reasonable weight (i.e. a weight of at least larger than zero), they will demand that the statement about the scientific consensus in the Wiki-articles be qualified somewhat as there are reliable sources who have a contrarian opinion about this.
In this example, short of these editors "seeing the light" and recognizing that FOX-NEWS is not a RS on this point, there is no way one can resolve this disagreement on the basis of the current Wiki-policies without compromizing on the veracity of the scientific statements in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for so clearly showing that this problem exists (that is, of editors insisting that SPOV = NPOV in order to then assert SPOV = TRUTH). And that WP:RS is not WP:RS. In short, you have just destroyed your own position <g>. Collect (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with correctly identifying unreliable sources, which is difficult due to the fact that a significant fraction of the population is indoctrinated by unreliable sources. Without this problem, one could simply stick to NPOV. Due to this problem, we have to stick to SPOV to get the same result that NPOV would yield had either the propaganda campaign in the media that distorts the science of climate change not existed, or if somehow the editors were not affected by this propaganda. Count Iblis (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, policy recognises scholarly sources as most reliable. The "SPOV" is short for "use scholarly sources in articles about science". Are you saying that "use scholarly sources" is incompatible with NPOV? Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No and kindly refrain from assigning straw men in a workshop page. I would, moreover, suggest that a !vote from a governmental or quasi-governmental organization is not the same as a research journal article, if that is what you are asking. Collect (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a straw man. I'm asking if you believe that saying "use scholarly sources" is incompatible with NPOV. Because SPOV amounts to "use scholarly sources for science". Unless you're using it in some unconventional way. In which case, you should refrain from making up new definition and using them without explanation here. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: 1. Policy say that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available; 2. peer-reviewed publications have found that news reporting of climate change is unreliable; 3. sources that are known to be unreliable should not be presented as if they were reliable; 4. peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources about science. So, in this case, academic sources (in the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities) are the best sources for reliable information. Guettarda (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now reaching out to ArbCom to settle content disputes which Arbitration is not intended to do. And I note that you WP:KNOW that some reliable sources are unreliable which again demonstrates precisely why this principle ought to be adopted. It is precisely this knowing that is a root cause of many issues on WP, and which must once and for all be dismissed as an editing concept. Scientologists know what is true about Scientology, and so on. And WPAGWers know that all criticism has venal motives. Collect (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is correct. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary for Arbcom to embrace a "scientific" point of view. Do we begin an article on the Bible by referring to it as "a collection of unverifiable, logically dubious folk tales"? As long as the strictures on sources and fringe views are enforced, Wikipedia doesn't have to take the "scientific POV" position. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already does this. Cla, please see WP:SOURCES. If you want to change policy, this isn't the place. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The SPOV on a science topic informs NPOV in regard to WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, but the weight of WP:RS and WP:V may provide reason to include viewpoints that is dismissed or deprecated by SPOV. SPOV might not, also, be the only determination on whether the subject is a science matter or a general one based upon science. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SOURCESAcademic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science. Yes, it goes on to say but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas (emphasis added), but policy clearly says that academic sources are the most reliable. Not "should inform". It says "most reliable". Guettarda (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are the most reliable and are used prominently in (a good catch all phrase) academic articles - but of their own they are not necessarily the NPOV, by the use of WP:Source, as quoted other reliable sources may also contribute to the NPOV of an article. The most reliable sources thus inform (i.e. dictate the general form) but do not determine the NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as SPOV, so arguing over it is pointless. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Assume Good Faith~~
~~6) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.~~
Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~Sock accusations fall under AGF rules~~
~~7) The issuance of blocks of new users as socks, or the labelling of any editor as a sock, without reasonable and substantial evidence is contrary to the requirement to assume good faith.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:
No evidence that anyone has been socked-blocked without good reason. Dubious about the labelling too. Certainly no evidence of bad-faith sock tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As a corollary, unconstructive, knee-jerk disruption of efforts to deal with sockpuppetry is also contrary to the requirement to assume good faith of those trying to address the problem. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~What Arbitration is not~~
~~8) Arbitration does not address matters of content dispute.~~
Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~AGF also applies within the Arbitration procedures~~
~~9) Personal attacks which occur during the course of Arbitration either on the Arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration.~~
Comment by others:
Per WP:BUTT (thank you JWB &Jh). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~Assertion of Expertise does not make some editors more equal than others~~
~~No editor has a superior position to any other editors in Wikipedia due to any assertion of expertise in a topic.~~
~~Comment by others:~~
This may well be one of the root problems to be addressed. Are any editors "more equal than others" due to assertions of expertise in a field? This was a problem in the Scientology case - where the people who were Scientologists asserted that they knew more on the topic than others knew, and has recurred in other areas as well. Is it a root principle that Wikipedia seeks verifiabilty and not "truth" as asserted by an expert in a field? If it is not so, then let us tear that principle from out of the pages of Wikipedia. Who here is so bold? Collect (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of Expertise are irrelevant, evidence of expertise by the procuring of excellent sources and the clear dissemination of the material evidenced by such references are, and also the careful and respectful examination and courteous discussion of existing sources. Any assertion of expertise not grounded in the latter is worthless within this project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree experts need to prove their worth and leverage their expertise to produce good sources and write solid content. The dominant culture here is actively hostile to simple assertions of expertise, and (on some level) to the very idea that expertise matters (e.g. [40]). Courteous discussion is key, and an area where real-life experts typically fall down on Wikipedia. Whether the answer is to say "good riddance", or to find a way to reach out to experts because their expertise has some value to us, is a project-wide philosophical matter which probably can't be solved here. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Treatment of others~~
1) That some editors have routinely violated principle 7 with regard to new editors on Climate Change articles.
That some editors have violated principle 6 by referring to editors as mentally ill, having ADD, being "septics" and the like.
That some editors have asserted a privileged position for a "scientific point of view" to the point of excluding other views published by reliable sources.
That some editors have routinely disparaged other editors for opposing the "truth" as a requirement for edits.{text of proposed finding of fact}
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Need evidence. Also, your point 3 isn't an issue of "treatment of others" but of sources William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reasonable outside observer~~
2) That some editors might reasonably be viewed by an outside observer as making comments and directives to others who might be viewed as forming a group.
That some editors might be viewed by an outside observer as using user talk pages to further their positions concerning Climate Change, and that such usage might be viewed by an outside observer as being in furtherence of advancing a united position.
That some editors might be viewed by an outside observer as being in substantial non-compliance with principle 2.
That some editors might be viewed by a reasonable observer as therefore also being in non-compliance with principle 1. {text of proposed finding of fact}
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Vague to the point of meaningless, not backed by evidence, amounts to hearsay William M. Connolley (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment considering the vast amount of evidence presented already. And "vast" may be an understatement. Collect (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors might reasonably be viewed by an outside observer as using excessively legalistic phrasing to make insinuations without having to stand behind them. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Activity within this proceeding~~
3) That on its face [41] is a violation of principles 6 and 9 as numbered above.
Adding [42] wherein an editor is specifically accused of misrepresentation of evidence, and an implicit accusation that I "attacked" editors.
In each case, it is left to the committee to discuss which editors are sufficiently involved to be listed.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I think you may have cited the wrong diff. Surely you meant the post by JohnWBarber immediately preceding, which asked exactly the same questions (and implied the same conspiracy on the 'other' side, and opened the door to the obvious followup response) first. Simply saying "I'm not assuming anything" isn't actually sufficient cover to meet the requirement of AGF. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. I assumed nothing. I brought up facts and asked reasonable questions based on those facts. WP:AGF isn't an invitation to leave your brains at the door, as AGF essentially states. If you still have concerns about that, feel free to bring them up on the talk page here or my talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a PA. Not obviously an assumption of bad faith. And, as TOAT points out, [43] *does* look like a failure of AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Leading by example~~
~~1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Excerpted from WP:ADMIN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Administrators should step aside rather than engage in poor conduct~~
2) If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Also excerpted from WP:ADMIN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Administrators should not act where they have conflicts or strong feelings~~
3) Editors should not act as administrators in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor(s) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of that dispute.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Paraphrased from WP:INVOLVED. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editors should not promote factionalism~~
~~4) In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Verbatim from the WP:BATTLE policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight~~
5) The neutrality policy requires that articles (i) accurately reflect all significant claims or viewpoints published in reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source. The verifiability policy requires the use of the best and most reputable sources available, with the claim or viewpoint's prevalence in these sources determining the proper weight to be placed upon it. Apparently significant claims or viewpoints which have not received proportionally significant attention in the topic's literature should be treated with caution and reported only to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a claim or viewpoint, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Repeated verbatim from the principles in the Transcendental Meditation decision. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accuracy of sourcing~~
6) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Repeated verbatim from the principles in the Transcendental Meditation decision. Misrepresentation, out-of-context quoting, and other misuse of sources has been an ongoing problem in the present case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Scientific focus~~
~~7) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Repeated verbatim from the principles in the Speed of Light decision. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~User:Lar has acted as an administrator despite prior conflicts with and strong feelings toward users~~
1) For example, after the 2009 Arbcom elections Lar taunted User:William M. Connolley as polling "the highest of the wacko candidates". After User:Dave_souza opposed Lar's reconfirmation as steward Lar imported this prior conflict into the climate change probation Requests for Enforcement page, throwing User:Dave_souza's comments on the reconfirmation in his face.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Note: I polled slightly better than WMC, therefore I was the highest of the wacko candidates. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's actions have been above-board and defensible, in spite of all the baiting and rude comments directed at him by members of the WMCab. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki users are free to express themselves, and civility policies are applied lightly. Lar is free to say whatever he wants. I doubt he is going to be sanctioned for incivility. But he shouldn't be allowed to put on his "administrator hat" with the same people against whom he demonstrates hostility, and act as an administrator on the basis of his not editing in the same area as those editors. That's not fair to the editors, and it erodes confidence in the Wikipedia administration. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Lar has often failed to behave in a respectful, civil manner in his interactions with others~~
2) While engaged as an administrator on the climate change dispute he has derided specific editors or groups of editors involved in that dispute as "socially inept", "lack(ing) introspective ability", and the like. When it is suggested that he refrain from such comments he typically blames his behavior on others. In a similar vein he often objects to others' "snarkiness" on user talk pages but engages in such behavior himself, for example by post facto insertion of snide subject headings to discussions.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
~~The header is an overgeneralization and is overly sweeping. However, t~~ The examples indicate a lack of restraint in interactions with certain editors, and Lar should not function as an "uninvolved" administrator in his official capacity concerning those same editors. If he feels that a "cabal" exists, that is his opinion and he is free to express it. But it disqualifies him from acting as an administrator on members of the so-called cabal. Otherwise it feeds resentments and contributes to the "battleground" atmosphere. I think that Arbcom needs to state a broad position that administrators can become "involved" by more than just editing of articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Lar has promoted factionalism~~
~~3) He persistently refers to certain editors using terms such "the cadre,"[44] the "science club,"[45] and "cabal."[46]~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I agree that labeling needs to targeted by Arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: his casual use of the labels recorded above serve to contradict his claim in this Workshop[47] that his remarks reference serious misconduct. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also my point #3 at RfC/Lar. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by User:Polargeo~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Bureaucracy should not exist unless clearly beneficial on balance~~
1) If some bureaucratic mechanism is not construcitve to wikipedia and causes more problems than it solves than we should not stick doggedly to it. Sentiments expressed in various places including WP:BURO.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Climate change probation is not working well~~
1) Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation is not working at all well as outlined strongly in the RfC running parallel to this Arb Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
There appears to be a strong split down lines already apparent in this case in this RfC (and similar to the other one which immediately predated this case). Those whose edits are inclined toward the scientific consensus have generally found fault with the Probation and particularly its enforcement, and those who edit otherwise did not - and this despite editors of all viewpoints being reported, reviewed, and sanctioned when required. The inference of the effectiveness of the probation needs to be weighed against the mindsets of editors whose activities instigated the Probation initially. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Climate change probation and sanctions should be removed in their current form~~
1) Following the lack of enthusiasm for the climate change probation which has been clearly expressed in the RfC it is clear that the system should be replaced by a more constructive, less bureacratic system of editor cooperation. Scrapping it altogether in its current form would help. Anything that does not promote and reinforce the WP:BATTLEGROUND situation could be discussed (in fact much has been discussed already in the RfC, such as working groups etc.).
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I disagree that the probation should be dropped but agree that the RfE system should be dropped, for reasons stated here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/RFC#View_by_User:Polargeo.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that the current probation enforcement mechanism is working. If the Committee decides on a different structure for it, I think that's fine also. The important thing is that there is some kind of adult supervision being given to the AGW topic, because it needs it. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything serves as a detriment to new editors entering this topic, I'd wager it is the stiffly worded "article probation" notice on each page. That serves as the equivalent of a "do not swim" sign at a beach. At a minimum, the committee should try to soften the language, or perhaps include a proviso providing a special mechanism for new editors who feel that they are not treated properly. However, for that to be effective, there needs to be a fresh crop of administrators watching over these pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by Heyitspeter~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV entail that the factual status of a proposition cannot determine its assertability on Wikipedia~~
1) It is not the prerogative of a wikipedia editor to determine when a proposition P is a fact (scientific or otherwise), so the factual status of P cannot determine its assertability in a Wikipedia article. Therefore, P's assertability must be determined by its assertion in a reliable source. Where two reliable sources (scientific or otherwise) conflict as to the assertability of P, both P and not-P should be asserted in the article.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
First sentence per WP:OR. Second per WP:V. Third per WP:NPOV.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what is meant by assert? Do you mean a sentence in the article stating P, or a sentence in the article stating that a source has stated P? In either case, I would add a few caveats.
We discard older, less reliable scientific sources in favor of newer and better sources all the time in science articles; for example, phlogiston is not covered at Thermodynamics (though it is covered at History of thermodynamics). This is a natural part of keeping articles up-to-date.

Non-scientific sources should rarely if ever be used to source statements presented as scientific. As long as both statements meet WP:DUE and are presented with necessary context (usually just attribution), though, I like your third sentence.

- 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. :) This is a slightly long response but I'm not sure that matters.

Assertability is a philosophical term in pragmatics designed for projects like wikipedia. In a nutshell, it is not the case that wikipedia should include true statements. It is the case that wikipedia should include assertable statements, where statements are assertable iff they are asserted by reliable sources.
I think your remarks about common practice are endorsed by this proposal. As to your first point to the effect that new sources displace old sources in scientific articles all the time: (1), which is only WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, allows a newer reliable source A to displace an older source B, perhaps to the 'History' section. (1) only ensures that the argument, "As findings are correct and Bs findings are wrong, so B has no place in this article", cannot be made as per Wikipedia's five pillars. Where two users take different sides on the accuracy of A and B, the "rightness" of one of these users does not have any sway, and both should be included, perhaps with qualifiers (always following Wikipedia:NPOV#Words_to_watch).

Remember that 'newer' scientific studies are often found less valid than 'older'. Were a metaanalysis of studies of global warming to appear now finding no evidence for AGW it would be the newest, but not worthy of replacing older studies. (1) prevents users from arguing that the older and in fact more accurate studies, with positive findings about AGW, should be removed from the article. I view that as 'good'. And of course it goes both ways, protecting sources with negative findings as well.
As to your second point, I agree, as I think you do, that non-scientific sources should rarely if ever be used to source statements presented as scientific and that (1) does not say it should.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think that we are on pretty much the same page here, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~For the purposes of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, a fruitful distinction can be made between scientific research and its findings~~
2) Experts in x are not ipso facto experts in meta-x: scientists are not metascientists. That a scientist is an expert on the facts of climate change does not make that scientist an expert on many aspects of the process used to determine those facts (e.g., the publishing of research, the politics of global warming policy, research ethics, etc.). So, for example, the existence of a scientific consensus that a scientific process has been carried out ethically does not render assertions to the contrary fringe assertions. And where reliable sources contradict peer reviewed sources on the subject of peer reviewed sources, peer reviewed sources cannot be granted priority under WP:UNDUE.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Per Second-order logic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. By extension, does this mean that experts in, say, astrophysics, economics, or geology are not to be taken seriously as "experts" on climatology? MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you can derive that from (2) using second-order logic. It has no implications for the relevancy of astrophysics, economics or geology to climatology.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably misunderstood you, then, when you wrote that experts on X are not automatically experts on meta-x. No biggie. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was an odd way of putting things. You can take me out of philosophy, but you can't take philosophy out... or something along those lines.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "of course", by extension, experts in, say, astrophysics, economics, or geology are not to be taken seriously as "experts" on climatology. Per Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt, to name the most recent source I heard this from. (See my evidence). Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where Heyitspeter was going now, and while I see Guettarda's point, I think it's outside what Heyitspeter was getting at. I think we should probably leave it there rather than getting into a discussion about who qualifies as an "expert" in climate change (and I apologize for starting things down that road). MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~WP:SPOV is in conflict with Wikipedia's core content policies~~
~~3) WP:SPOV contradicts WP:V. It requires editors to determine the assertability of a statement on the basis of its factual status.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Per (1), though it follows from WP:V alone.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPOV, through the references used, may inform the NPOV, as providing the most reliable sources. It cannot be the NPOV, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be worth looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Science is not a point of view, because pronouncements about what SPOV is or isn't should probably harmonize with that. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCES: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. That's SPOV for you, right in the heart of WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~V does not advocate or allow SPOV. Quite the opposite. It makes clear that a variety of sources are considered reliable:~~
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
~~SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Maybe you should read the text you copied. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available. Prioritising the most reliable sources available is entirely in keeping with NPOV. Failing to do so, giving equal weight to unreliable sources, is a violation of NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, WP:SPOV was written in March 2005. It was written before the idea of WP:UNDUE was established. When Dunc wrote the essay, it was in response to this, which was taken to mean that pseudoscience and other fringe ideas should be given equal weight. Our sourcing policy has evolved since then, to the point where the underlying ideas of Dunc's essay are written into policy. Both WP:V and WP:NPOV now reflect what Dunc was calling for in the essay - that we can't give equal weight to fringe theories in science. Where Dunc went wrong was when he said that NPOV - as it was understood by some, circa early 2005 - was acceptable in areas like history and social sciences. Dunc's idea now pervades those fields as well. Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, in your reading of SlimVirgin's copy-paste you confuse "less reliable" with "unreliable."

A quick explanation of (3) should probably head off further discussion in this section. WP:SPOV "holds that scientific views are correct". That violates WP:V, WP:SOURCES included. (3) is meant to stop stuff like this, where editors waste time (and occasionally hurt feelings) by arguing that a reliable source is "wrong" and by operating on the basis of that idea.

The rest of WP:SPOV consists in a statement that we ought not exclude non-consensus sources but that we should prioritize consensus sources. Since I don't believe that the word prioritize is meaningful enough to provide anyone with any concrete dictate on editing behavior I feel comfortable leaving that half of SPOV to its own devices.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I "confuse less reliable with unreliable" in [my] reading of SlimVirgin's copy-paste? Fascinating. Thing is - I don't see "less reliable" anywhere in that quote.~~
If "holds that scientific views are correct" violated NPOV, then so does WP:V, since it says academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available. The only difference between those two is that the latter extends the idea to all subject areas. The difference between "most reliable" and "correct" is the difference between normal language and carefully constructed legalese. It's not a meaningful difference.

The rest of WP:SPOV consists in a statement that we ought not exclude non-consensus sources but that we should prioritize consensus sources - in other words, WP:UNDUE. Which, of course, did not exist in NPOV policy at the time. Pretty much all of WP:SPOV has come to be incorporated into policy in the 5+ years since Dunc wrote the essay. There are always people who want to give undue prominence to unreliable sources. That's pretty much the heart of this dispute - we have a group of editors trying to use blogs - and now even blog comments - to support a fringe agenda. Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, I don't feel you're awarding my comments or Slim Virgin's quote from WP:V enough thought or credit per WP:AGF. "Less reliable" was not a direct quote (for that I would have used single quotation marks), and "prioritize the scientific consensus" is not even paraphrased by WP:UNDUE, etc.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you're say that despite the fact that you specifically said: in your reading of SlimVirgin's copy-paste you confuse "less reliable" with "unreliable." you aren't actually talking about my reading of SV's copy-paste? Then what are you talking about? Can you please, then, explain what you're actually talking about? Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant when I wrote in your reading of SlimVirgin's copy-paste you confuse "less reliable" with "unreliable" was that you were obviously interpreting the quoted section of WP:V, which states that certain sources are "best" or "most reliable", as implying that any other sources are "not reliable". But that is in no way stated or implied by WP:V. It states that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available [this is where your quotation cut off a couple comments up, but the sentence is longer than that], such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:ScottyBerg~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Administrator conduct~~
1) Administrators who have a record of personal antagonism concerning certain editors, whether or not they have engaged in editorial disputes with those editors, should not become involved in administrative actions concerning those editors.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
This principle needs to be applied to all equally. I notice that Lar, who has been the subject of considerable concern in this area, agrees with this principle and has indicated that he may provide evidence concerning administrators who he believes has violated it. See [48] ScottyBerg (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Lar is not an uninvolved editor in the climate change articles~~
~~1) Lar has a history of personal antagonism with certain editors in the climate change articles, and therefore is not uninvolved.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
If other administrators are involved under the same criteria, they can be listed under this subsection. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes facts not in evidence. We also don't grant "I don't like him so he's disallowed" requests. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This point has been addressed by several editors, most recently here. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:Cla68~~
~~Proposed principle~~
~~COI vs ethics~~
1) Currently, one of the primary mechanisms to address concerns that an editor may be editing in a partisan manner due to off-wiki personal or professional relationships is WP:COIN. In many cases, however, the issue is more a question of general ethics than one of conflict of interest.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. In at least one instance that I've observed, an editor no longer has any formal, visible ties to a partisan advocacy organization, but still edits in a way which appears to support the organization. Also, the editor may abuse the BLPs of people who may be perceived adversaries of personal acquaintances, but don't appear to be a personal threat to the actual editor him/herself. In this case, COI doesn't seem to really apply. Instead, it is a matter of general ethical conduct. Since ArbCom is charged with governing user conduct, then it falls within their remit to make statements of opinion on ethical standards for Wikipedia editor behavior. Ethical conduct is more than simply complying with the letter of Wikipedia's policies, but requires a higher standard of behavior in which we conduct ourselves in a manner which will not bring the project into disrepute, whether we are technically following the rules or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting notion, but difficult to deal with in the abstract. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what the principle should be here. I have, however, always held that we should not penalize editors for editing under real names or identifiable identities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I think that you'd also define need to define "ethics." As defined here, it can be used to mean "actions by editors with whom I'm in a content dispute who I can't nail any other way." One example is given: "an editor no longer has any formal, visible ties to a partisan advocacy organization, but still edits in a way which appears to support the organization." I'm hard-pressed to figure out which concept of "ethics" is breached in such a situation, as long as policies are not disregarded. It's not against the ethics of the person's professional association, necessarily. Is it against the "ethics of Wikipedia"? Wikipedia has a host of policies that are overlapping, sometimes contradictory, but isn't supposed to be a cult that has a code of behavior beyond the extensive list of rules and policies. "Abusing BLPs" is prohibited by an array of customs and policies that appear to be actively enforced. He says, "it is a matter of general ethical conduct." No, it is a matter of WP:BLP. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Real World, conflicts of interest are often handled through disclosure. That is, if I work for a drug company, I can publish articles about how great our drug is - but I need to disclose that I'm employed by the company that makes it. Typically, such conflicts are not considered unethical if disclosed. On the other hand, the failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest is often considered a serious ethical breach. That's not necessarily how Wikipedia has handled things, but since this proposal seems to get at real-world concepts of ethics and conflicts of interest, it seems relevant. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed finding~~
~~Ethics issues forums~~
~~1) Wikipedia currently has no formal mechanism besides the standard dispute resolution process, such as a designated noticeboard, to address questions of unethical conduct by editors.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed to serve formal notice to the community that a special forum for such issues may be required. I understand this topic has been discussed at Wikiversity. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Requiring editors to behave better is not a bad idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)~~ See my comment in previous section, timestamped 13:29, 9 July 2010. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should probably be at least a little bit careful in using words like "unethical" to describe people who, after all, edit under their real names or are easily identifiable. It's one thing to say that someone's editing is inconsistent with this project's goals or expectations. Accusing people of a lack of integrity or of unethical conduct is a much more serious and far-reaching charge. I don't really care what's said about me, because at the end of the day I'm pseudonymous. But if I edited under my real name, or with a clear connection to my real name, I would take serious exception to such language. I haven't looked at Wikiversity in a long time, but last I checked, their "ethics" project was an ironically titled train wreck that seemed likely to drag down and destroy that entire project. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:Jehochman~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~The only way to win is not to play~~
~~1) If other editors are playing games, don't join them.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Instead, give them enough space to do themselves in. Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of evidence~~
~~Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis~~
~~Evidence about Hipocrite and a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere~~
Moved from the JohnWBarber "Findings" section above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This analyzes evidence related to my findings (above) on Hipocrite, specifically: Hipocrite has been uncivil and made personal attacks repeatedly in articles related to climate change, contributing to a "battleground" atmosphere on those pages, with other editors joining him in contributing to that atmosphere.
For instance:
(A) At Talk:Judith Curry, (here [49]) Hipocrite's incivility was combined with Guettarda's (14:00, 27 April). Cla68 commented on Hipocrite's incivility (06:00 April 28) and said he'd filed a Wikiquette alert on what he'd seen on the page (05:03, 28 April). Pete Tillman mentioned his negative reaction to Guettarda's comments (20:18, 27 April) as did Cla68 (04:55, 28 April). By the end of the same "Curry's notability" thread, Hipocrite accused me of being someone who wanted "to use blogs to libel living persons" [50] to which I objected at the time. [51] Hipocrite's comments to Mark Nutley should also be noted [52] [53] I linked to this entire discussion in my evidence but I hadn't looked at it closely enough to see Guettarda's contribution to it.
(B) I've mentioned elsewhere on this page ([54] [55]) a May 25 discussion in which Hipocrite's WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations (and, to a lesser extent, Guettarda's incivility) also contributed to a battleground atmosphere. On the evidence page, I linked to one edit [56] in which I was mistaken, but Hipocrite's conduct as a whole in that May 25 discussion is another very good example. Although I didn't link on the evidence page to the whole discussion, where the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere plays out, I don't think ArbCom should ignore it for that reason.
(C) At "Talk:The Gore Effect" he pushed the discussion away from "interact[ing] with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation" here [57] and encouraged ActiveBanana in doing the same. [58]
(D) Other links in my evidence section took place in the overall battleground atmosphere of CC pages.
-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I think behavioral violations as part of a faction are part of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, so I mention Guettarda and Active Banana (and in the May 25 example, I could also mention William M. Connolley). Otherwise, this is just a lot of WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations. I think there probably needs to be enough of this over time for ArbCom to address it. I don't have evidence of Guettarda or Active Banana engaging in this enough to be a major concern. As I've said, this makes the WP:CIV and WP:NPA more serious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
There is no nice way to point out that someone is misrepresenting sources. User:Tillman had done just that. I pointed it out. Sure, there are people out there who could have found kind, nurturing, affirming language for this. But that's not my job. And the reaction to this was pretty remarkable - User:Cla68 filed a WQA complaint against me for this; neither of the responders there saw much wrong with what I had to say. He followed up by calling on me to "reach a compromise" with Tillman over the proposed edit.

Compromise is good, compromise is important in article editing. When we differ over what sources to include, when we differ over how to present material, it's useful to seek compromise. But when the choice is between representing sources accurately and representing them inaccurately, "compromise" can only compromise the integrity of the article. I honestly think that misrepresenting sources is a serious problem for Wikipedia (and any reference work). Most readers don't check sources, they just look so see that they exist. Editors who misrepresent sources should not be coddled. Could I have found a kinder way to say it? Perhaps. As I said to Cla68, if anyone can suggest a better way to handle this issue, I'm all ears. But ignoring a serious problem out of a fear of hurting someone's feelings? That's not a viable alternative. Guettarda (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I have found a kinder way to say it? Perhaps. In the instances where I referred to yoru edits (the version removed by the clerk), that was exactly the problem. More to the point, Hipocrite and you together, on occasion, degraded the discussion. I can show a pattern of Hipocrite doing this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your point here is that, while my comments were found to be acceptable by uninvolved editors at WQA, you raised them here because they were not kind and affirming enough? So, let me get this straight – you're arguing that civil isn't good enough, that we need to be kind and affirming in our dealings with editors even when they misrepresent sources? Guettarda (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil comments in those discussions contributed to a battleground atmosphere. I think it would be helpful to you for ArbCom members to remind you that you shouldn't do that, perhaps just above in the "Comment by Arbitrators" section. If there are several more instances, you should be formally admonished in the final ArbCom decision. If there are many more instances, arbs should consider stronger measures. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so here's the thing - my comments were presented at WQA. Uninvolved editors there saw no problem with them. Despite that, Cla68 continued to complain. I asked him for suggestions as to how I might better deal with behaviour like Tillman's. He never responded. Now, you're again claiming that my comments were unacceptable. Yet you also seem to have no suggestions for how one might better deal with editors who misrepresent sources. Like Cla68, you have chosen to ignore the problem with actually hurts Wikipedia's credibility, and instead hammer away at my choice of words. Which were not, according to uninvolved editors, uncivil. If neither I, nor the people who commented at WQA saw any problem with what I had to say, and if, despite my request, no one is willing to outline a preferred alternative, what is the point of this? That we coddle editors who misrepresent policy, because it might be unkind to point out what they have done? Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct... your comments taken by themselves, and without long term context, were not enough for the participants at WQA, which tends to deal with egregious violations of politeness, not long term corrosiveness, to find against you. "Anyone who does not share that view is subjected to low-level harassment and disparagement, never strong enough to rise to the level of a valid complaint, but cumulatively enough to keep all but the most determined away from the subject" ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Lar, interesting that you should quote a RFC view which attracted 12 supporters including yourself and several editors who persistently promote fringe coverage of AGW, without mentioning this view which attracted 28 supporters including many who promote due weight being given to scientific coverage. Of course that one included a point about you promoting "a battleground mentality by lumping editors together", and noted your tendency to make remarks which in my view are cumulatively enough to keep all but the most determined away from the subject. An analysis of the drop-out rate of ~~scientifically literate~~ pro science majority view editors would be of interest, as would consideration of the numbers promoting fringe views who are kept away by being blocked for sockpuppetry. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC) clarify self a bit dave souza, talk 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
about you promoting "a battleground mentality I take it that your lack of a defense for Hipocrite and saying, in effect, "Well, Lar has done something similar ..." is an implicit acceptance of the charge against Hipocrite. I can understand that. It's hard to deny it after looking at the evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Lar, that's a tad more fair than JWB's accusations. Of course, if we want to go into "long-term corrosiveness", I think your what, two, three years of sniping against me puts any alleged "corrosiveness" of mine to shame. But what's really going on here is, when you're wrong on content, attack personalities. In this case, you've constructed a narrative that's essentially at odds with facts, but which has been repeated over and over, to the point where people accept the myth as truth. And sure, anyone can cherry pick enough instances over the course of a few years to fill out a narrative. But the fact is that you and Cla68 have been attacking me ever since Moutlon manufactured a controversy on WR, back in what...2008? Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is an idiosyncratic view, but I don't really see Hipocrite as part of the problem here. He's one of the few editors to acknowledge the degeneration of the topic area into a battleground, and I think he has made honest efforts to reach across the aisle. At the same time, I think he's prone to frustration, particularly at the cavalier use of sources, which is an ongoing problem that in an ideal world we would take more seriously. I guess I see him as someone who could help create a more productive editing environment, and someone who would thrive in such an environment, rather than someone who needs to be removed. (Parenthetically, I would say the same of User:A Quest For Knowledge, based on my limited experience). MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I don't know if you're responding to the version after the clerk removed nearly all of it (I'll assume that) or what was there before. [NOTE: THE INFORMATION IS NOW RESTORED -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)] I just put up a link to my original analysis near the top. If you don't see that Hipocrite was acting in a way that degraded discussion after discussion, and doing it in conjunction with others, I can't imagine that anything more I say will convince you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Analysis of evidence by several parties, as analysed by Lar~~
~~Evidence presented by Polargeo~~
~~Capsule summary: Shooting the messenger~~
Polargeo claims animosity is a motivation. We don't judge motive, we judge outcome. No evidence of bias is presented, no evidence of any incorrect sanction is presented. Polargeo also distorts the outcome of the RfC and blithely ignores many views that may fall slightly short of getting the most supports, contradict the entire thesis of Polargeo and WMC's initial diatribe, which failed to get any support from anyone.
For those keeping score, use of this wacky diff which is, I believe, his 4th or 5th try at using it.
~~Evidence presented by Count Iblis~~
~~Capsule summary: Interesting thesis but not supported.~~
No evidence in favor of making SPOV policy is presented, nor is any evidence presented that doing so would solve any issues. Which is unfortunate, because perhaps SPOV is the way to go and we should do just that. (in my initial questions to be considered, I asked if this topic is important enough that we set our normal processes aside. I think that's a legitimate question, worthy of close examination, it may indeed be what is needed. Count Iblis's evidence comes closest to addressing it but falls short of making a convincing enough case for a radical change, and thus we do not have sufficient grist to really give this idea the careful consideration it deserves)
~~Evidence presented by Stephan Schulz~~
~~Capsule summary: Mostly irrelevant with a dash of shoot the messenger~~
Scientific competence: So stipulated. However this issue is not primarily about the science.

That's a matter of opinion. Much of what is touted as such is indeed not science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockery: Yes. But neglects to acknowledge the false positive identifications and the harm done by them.

Going by the discussion here, there were 133 confirmed Scibabies and 20 other users investigated in the first 4 months of 2010. 8 of the 20 were confirmed as other socks. Of the 12 remaining ones, only two were blocked (and, IIRC, neither by a CC regular admin). Neither chose to contest the block. While there may be false positives, this is not a large problem, especially not compared to the size of the problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wiki campaigning: Yes. But neglects to acknowledge the extensive offwiki campaigning by his side.

I'm not aware that any evidence for that has been submitted, and I'm not aware of any such campaign, neither in general nor targeting Wikipedia or specific users in particular. Would you care to explain what you think "my side" is? And would you care to submit some evidence for your claim, or point it out if I missed it? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus on CC: Yes. But not really at issue.
~~Evidence presented by JohnWBarber~~
Capsule summary: Chock full of evidence of problematic behavior by several parties. Interesting material about Jehochman, which tends to show that in an environment where most other enforcing admins operated by consensus, JEH did not.
~~Evidence presented by William M. Connolley~~
~~Capsule summary: Cast iron pot calls shiny aluminum kettles black with a dash of shoot the messenger~~
Competence is required: True, but seems more like a finding than evidence.

False neutrals: What matters is outcomes, not personal views. Using the term "false neutral" is pejorative. Needs evidence that having a view (not to be confused with having a COI and a motive for controlling an article, mind, just an opinion) leads to bad editing. Many folk have opined this is false.

Excess Kibitzing: "incoherence ... is more in his line". WMC provides neatly packaged evidence of his incollegiality for us without needing to dig for it. Perhaps if the topic area taken as a whole wasn't such a hash less outsiders peering in would be required.

MN: MN is not an ideal editor. I think we already figured that out so the pile-on isn't needed. Others have introduced evidence of WMC's unremitting belittlement of NM, so I guess kudos to WMC for not being as harsh as usual.

Lar: WMC claims I've "taken nothing" from my RfC (the one where his view failed to get a single support). But belies that notion. WMC may have a hard time recognizing introspection and thoughtful admission of issues that need attention, due to lack of personal familiarity with those sorts of activities. WMC makes much of the MfD, claiming animosity on my part, so perhaps some record straightening is in order there... another user nominated it, but when that user turned out to be a likely sock, I stood behind the edits as the reasons put forth were sufficient to merit community discussion. WMC may not be fond of the community discussing his actions, since that often goes poorly for him, but there was no animosity there. WMC continues to allege bias but presents no evidence of any action on my part that's biased. The sum total of my actions against him? A block that lasted 47 minutes of the hour (not bad, really... the ANI discussion had no consensus either way. That's cool. (see User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy which has been prominently displayed on my user page for years) and an imposition of a sanction (to stay the heck away from Fred Singer for a long time) that had consensus among admins. WMC wants every ref not partial to him taken out of play.

Problematic editors: WMC is right, there are problematic editors in this topic area. The editors he cites have issues. But he fails to acknowledge that he's part of the problem here, a very big part.

Bishop Hill: WMC claims it "was deemed" non notable but does not introduce evidence to that effect. His say so won't do. (that's what was tried at the start of the RfC, remember?...His side thwarted the RfC to determine the matter, to the point that respected editor SlimVirgin brought an enforcement request...) his complaint about LHvU boils down to the fact that LHvU didn't let them get away with it, ensuring that the RfC ran.

Climategate: Aside from quibbling about the appellation used (I'm a "science-based editor" myself, actually)... this particular controversy is fundamentally not a matter of science, (unless we want to deal with the science of hacking into mail systems or the science of why people decide to leak things) so complaining that others built an article "over the objections of the science-based editors" is really classic. Again, WMC has given us excellent evidence of the problem, all in a neat package... WMC and his allies wanted to control this article by any means, (perhaps because the details reflect badly on his real life ally?) and he is upset that things didn't go exactly as he liked.

Dogs: Well, I think ScottyBerg is starting to show his colors, which explains why he didn't see the hostility others did. But the key point here is that "we were civil up to a point, then we got frustrated and stopped being civil" isn't policy. Policy is turn the other cheek, over and over. If that doesn't work, seek formal dispute resolution rather than snarking your opponents off the field.
~~For those keeping score, another use of this wacky diff~~
~~Evidence presented by Guettarda~~
~~Capsule summary: yes, but irrelevant except for the bit about alarmist views not being where mainstream consensus lies.~~
~~Evidence provided by Collect~~
~~Capsule summary: Does not go far enough.~~
There's overlap. Those trying to deny it exists are wasting their time. What is more relevant is to show that it's not just overlap, but that MZMcBride's observation is correct: "don't all show up to the same discussions, support each other unconditionally, and then expect nobody to notice." People noticed, all right. But evidence is needed, not just folk saying "everyone knows that". Most everyone does but that's not enough for ArbCom.
~~Evidence presented by Mark Nutley~~
~~Capsule summary: A bit scatterbrained, could stand some editing but raises good points.~~
~~Evidence presented by Hipocrite~~
~~Capsule summary: Shooting at the messenger but missing.~~
Global Warming: Hipocrite might be right, the non mainstream-scientific-consensus POVs in the lead article might be overweighted. But the lead article's not the problem here.

Admins: Hipocrite trots out the same stuff that didn't fly in my RfC, with a bit of slagging LHvU for good measure (this diff is LHVU expressing an opinion of content, not taking an administrative action). This movelog entry is a gem though. MN came to me (under terms of his sanction) asking for a review of the sources to see if they were suitable. I reviewed them and commented on the talk page of the article, and he asked that it be moved to articlespace. Moving an article from a sandbox to article space is a sign of bias, according to Hipocrite. The rest of his evidence is of similar quality. H trots out my 1 hour block of WMC too. Oh, and apparently my agreement that MN was likely in violation of a sanction is evidence of bias. I may need a bit more help understanding that one!!!

BLP: Entirely agree with the sentiment. However evidence introduced by others shows that the problem is rather one sided. Skeptic bios slant bad, ally bios slant good. Maybe a bit the other way too, but that's the direction.

MN: Pile on. We get it.

Disruptive behaviour: Seems to be a grab bag of complaints against all and sundry on one side, but with plenty of omission on the other side.

Pile on noticeboards: I will wait to comment on this one part until diffs are placed (that's not a request to others not to engage in discussion on all this, merely a note)

Specific responses: TGL overstates matters. It's not about whether people left WP, it's whether they left the topic area. Plenty of evidence has been introduced that folk have fled. Presumably, most folk want nothing to do with this highly contentious area, presumably because they don't care to deal with the snark and hostility. Hipocrite hasn't exactly been an island of calm good will and good cheer in article space, as evidence shows.
~~Evidence presented by MastCell~~
~~Capsule summary: Shooting the messenger~~
Quality: Yep, the lead article is great. So stipulated. Section misses the point, there are plenty of problem areas as soon as you step away from pure science and the leads, and more importantly, the ends do not justify the means. FAs don't grant their editors free passes.

Socks: Yes, Scibaby is a huge ... um... bogeyman. Evidence elsewhere deals with the false positive problem, and the over extension of WP:DUCK which now seems to mean "don't hew to the team line? Must be a sock! Block him!".

Setting an example: MastCell acknowledges that he's going to be picking on me. Well that's something anyway. Oh, and I'm "highly respected". So respected that my pointing out problems here has pretty much fallen on deaf ears among the sources of the problems. News flash: We are none of us perfect. Some of us actually know that.

Wheel warring: A very novel definition of wheel warring. MastCell neglects to include the long discussion period (almost a whole day and pages of commentary) and between JEH's first close and his second one. I subscribe to User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy and WP:BRD... JEH was bold (closing unilaterally when we had a process to seek consensus) and got reverted, and we talked about it, and worked through matters, both times, and eventually got to a successful close that had consensus. To call that wheel warring? MastCell distorts what happened here horribly, it's really quite disappointing and shows partisanship. He should reread this more carefully.

WMC: This again? How many people are going to try this thesis on for size?

dave souza: First para: That convo was a mess. Lots of people trying to wind me up and lots of misstatement (as soon as someone introduces concentration camps you know that the convo isn't going anywhere useful). The volume of posting on my talk was pretty amazing. People were trying to wind me up. Anyone who reads 66 (255k worth of reading) will see lots of that. Winding up people is a standard tactic. Then once they lose it, even a little, keep using it over and over. As we see here... I say something a bit off, and it appears in the evidence of 3, 4, 5 or more people.

interaction: By this point I no longer trusted MastCell not to be trying to wind me up. Sorry, but AGF only goes so far. ATren summed it up well, and I agreed with him.

I'm only going to address the wheel-warring issue, because I think it's the most serious and clear-cut. First of all, User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy says that you're OK with other admins overturning your actions. It doesn't license you to go around overturning the actions of others. Secondly, WP:BRD explicitly states: BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. You reverted Jehochman's closure twice, which is wheel-warring by any operative definition (as closing enforcement requests is an administrative action). BRD (an essay) also doesn't absolve you of the expectation, laid out explicitly in policy, that you discuss before undoing another admin's action absent an emergency.
The fact that you're continuing to defend these actions makes me question your assertions about introspection and admitting your mistakes. You've pointed me back to this diff, which I cited in my original evidence. I take that to mean that you still believe your actions in that case set a good example, in which case I'm not sure what to say. MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still neglecting to acknowledge the considerable discussion that happened in the 22 hours between when when JEH uninlaterally (and contrary to the conventional approach to the process that by that time had evolved) tried to impose his will against consensus the first time, and the second time. I don't fault JEH for trying, I'm sure he thought that was the best approach, and I'm normally supportive of bold action, when tempered with discussion afterwards, but it wasn't. ("This isn't working" isn't calm reasoned discussion) The discussion at the time among the other admins supports that notion. That you're trying to twist this around into something it is not, or even claim that it made things in the enforcement area worse (rather than better... most other folk routinely praise the calm and collected way that the uninvolved admins worked to find consensus on what to do with each case... consider what it would have been like if we had an ambulance chaser, first on the scene wit no discussion approach... ) suggests that you're more interested in smearing me than in acknowledging the truth. That's telling, as it nicely reveals where your loyalties can be assumed to lie. The person lacking introspective ability here... would be you. ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever discussion took place seemingly wasn't sufficient, because you continued reversing each others' actions. I would welcome an explanation of how the diffs I provided are not evidence of wheel-warring. You've cited User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy and WP:BRD, but they don't seem to cover this scenario. If you think my "loyalties" (as you perceive them) have negatively impacted the project, you're welcome to introduce evidence in that regard. I think it goes back to setting an example - if you pigeonhole people and disregard them because you've mentally assigned them to one "camp" or the other, then how can you expect to credibly address this behavior in others? MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Evidence presented by dave souza~~
~~Capsule summary: Shooting the messenger~~
Battleground: Pro-tip for the "cadre": don't all show up to the same discussions, support each other unconditionally, and then expect nobody to notice. - MZMcBride's view

Fringe material: OK, but misses the point. Others deal with the underlying problems here.

Due weight: OK, but misses the point. Others deal with the underlying problems here.

BLP problems with Blogs: Yep. Blogs are tricky to determine correctly. Collegial cooperation might help. But the current playbook of "my blogs are OK and yours aren't" doesn't work.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~MN's evidence "Further Evidence"~~
~~Expanded from the analysis at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Suggest removing Marks_late_evidence.~~
[59] - nearly three years old, and not, as MN says WMC uses his own blog. It isn't a blog, and not even my site. This is MN failing to understand sourcing, again.

[60], MN summary WMC reverts his own blog - no: as before, its not a blog, and not mine, and that edit doesn't revert it back in anyway. Just how wrong can you get?

[61] - errm yes, it is a translation of Fourier. It isn't clear what the problem is though.

[62], MN comment "WMC`s use [sic] his blog as a source". This is, yet again, MN failing to understand sourcing. The link is to what we once in the trade call a "peer reviewed scientific paper" but alas MN fails to understand that.

[63] from more than four years ago.

[64] - yet again, MN fails to distinguish a blog from a scientific paper
~~As an extra bonus, MN suggests looking at Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion#Synthesis. And I agree entirely: please do look William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
It may be worth introducing this analysis as evidence itself. Even when involved in a case that may result in serious measures being taken against him, WMC cannot restrain his tongue, cannot refrain from gratuitous insults, in general, simply cannot act in a collegial and civil manner. But then, WMC has already given his view on most of the participants here (I'm stupid and malicious, Arbcom as a whole are fools, etc) and even his defenders admit he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Since WMC apparently considers almost everyone a fool, perhaps his time would be better spent in other pursuits. Ones where his lack of tact is applauded instead of generally viewed as counterproductive. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, that may not be your personal blog, but is it the/a one on which you were one of the major moderators? Cla68 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~New editors driven away by incivility?~~
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#New_editors_in_Climate_Change_are_treated_well_and_WP:AGF_applied I've presented evidence that new editors are received well, even after they become incivil. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Reactions_by_editors_treated_this_way Cla has attempted to demonstrate the opposite. However, his examples are unconvincing:
[65] - this is Cla's first diff, but I don't understand what he means by it. It shows Gwen Gale (hardly a nebie) talking to people who aren't me, in what appears to be a civil manner. Is this really a diff worth bringing up at arbcomm?
[66] - this is someone who didn't like the discussion at Talk:Climate_sensitivity/archive#Cloud_and_Radiation_Budget_Changes_Associated_with_Tropical_Intraseasonal_Oscillations. I think rather than referring just to the disgruntled editors complaint (which was rejected) it would be better to read the original discussion, where you'll find, alas, that Reissgo didn't really know what he was talking about and reacted badly to being told so.
~~William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Another candidate for evidence. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cla's evidence of POV is ridiculous~~
~~I'll quote Cla's bit here in full because it is so bizarre you need the lot:~~
aware of article traffic - 2007-11-30T22:50:16

WMC pushes RealClimate blog - 2009-11-20T22:41:39
Yes, that's right, there really is a *2 year* gap between those edits that Cla is hiding from you. And knowing that GW is a high traffic page? Is that worth mentioning? And "pushes" the blog seems a rather biased way to describe me merely mentioning it.
~~[67]~~
~~It is hard to see what the problem is with this diff. Perhaps Cla can explain.~~
~~[68]~~
This is Stephan Schulz talking to an anon, probably one of the many who turned up around CRU-controversy time, having been mislead into thinking there was data manipulation. Again, not clear why this diff is invoked.
~~So, Stephan, have you added a mention to the article yet?~~
~~Absolutely no idea why this is in here. Cla's interpolated text bears no realation to it.~~
~~[69]~~
This is me discussing Keenleyside et al. I'm not sure what the problem with the diff is supposed to be.
In conclusion, I think Cla is convinced in advance that there is a POV problem and has strung together a few vaguely related diffs in an effort to prop up a conclusion for which he has no evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~James Delingpole~~
It is important to note that Lar includes an entire section discussing a violation of UNDUE on James Delingpole. The only major parties to this case that have edited that biography are Marknutley, A Quest For Knowledge and Nsaa. IE - while Lar uses the James Delingpole violations to build a case that coverage of BLPs in the space is poor, he fails to note which individuals responsible for that poor coverage - random uninvolved editors and the denialist !cabal. Perhaps if the responsible editors who maintain the vast majority of our Climate Change articles were aware of this biography, they might have solved its problems. Hipocrite (talk)
The arbitors should also evaluate the consistant requestors that WMC cease editing the bios of living skeptics (a request I have joined in). When WMC edits the bios of living skeptics, it's evidence of COI (I personally believe it's just not helpful for him to edit them, tactically). When he dosen't edit them, it's evidence that WMC was maliciously not fixing the problems with the bio. It seems that there's no way to win, right?

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Marknutley is particularly at fault - [70] is titled "more npov, wikifi," but fails to fix the transparent UNDUE problem. Hipocrite (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Looking at the history of that article,[71] I only made one change, a minor punctuation fix.[72] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - unless Lar is being balanced and this example is intended to blame MN, it really isn't clear why he has introduced this section. Per H, this looks like a case of probelms arising *becuase* the regular responsible editors were not involved William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this? They forgot to sign their work. ScienceApologist was among those editing this article, as it turns out, along with lots of anons and fairly likely socks. Since the "regulars" can't prove they weren't aware of this article (although I'd be surprised if they weren't, frankly, since JD is one of their demons, isn't he?) this argument isn't going to go very far on lack of plausibility. But the converse, that it's likely they were aware, but stood aside and left it a mess because it suited their purpose... that's much more plausible. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SA isn't a party to this dispute - his appearance seems limited to this article and this arbitration. Your paranoid conspiracy theories aside - I was not aware of this article until it was mentioned here. I've signed my analysis. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Paranoid conspiracy theories" ??? Another candidate. Note: We've been told that the identification of parties is not as relevant to this case as some other cases. That said, I wonder if SA is willing to stipulate that he has a particular view about the science in this area and a particular view about those who do not agree with his view... or is it necessary to introduce evidence that Science Apologist has a view about science and a view about those who do not agree? ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed, Given Lar's insistance on casting aspersions on SA, that SA must have edited the article when it had the obvious UNDUE violation in it (because I assume good faith, even of people who are damaging the encyclopedia). Imagine how shocked I was when it turned out that SA's two edits to the article [73] and [74] took place while the article did not contain the problematic sections. SA isn't a party to this case because he hardly edits in the topic area. When I say "Paranoid conspiracy theories," I mean your paranoid conspiracy theories that "it's likely they were aware, but stood aside and left it a mess because it suited their purpose." You know, the paranoid conspiracy theory that at least two (and a half) admins were aware of a BLP violation and chose to ignore it. However, we are aware that Marknutley was aware of the BLP violation, and he did ignore it. Perhaps it suited his purpose? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you are demanding that people prove that they were not aware of an article, or else accept blame for it. I think that if you read this over once things have cooled off a bit, that will sound as unreasonable to you as it does to me. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added evidence on this, and while Mark was the one active regular on the article at the time, note that the source fully complies with WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLPSPS so the sourcing isn't at fault. However, I fully agree that undue weight was given to this particular incident with only one critical source, and it's unfortunate that SlimVirgin, Jprw or Nsaa didn't notice it on their watchlists. Note that this problem isn't confined to "skeptics" bios, it's a coincidence that Gwen Gale innocently suggested a Dellingpole blog with considerable BLP problems as a source on global warming. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist currently includes some 6,946 pages and if I'm not watching it many times per day, a lot slip through. I assume this is whats discussed?. And yes I would have reverted it on sight as MN did :-). As for "The only major parties to this case that have edited that biography are Marknutley, A Quest For Knowledge and Nsaa.": I've only edited the article one day (1 March 2010) with 13 edits doing some technical edits. Nsaa (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accusations by Hipocrite of Admin abuse, no diffs and hidden from easy discovery~~
In the "Adminstrative conduct" subsection of Hipocrite's Evidence#Global warming, accusations are made regarding Lar and mine supposed sysopping to an agenda. Diff's are given a holding space, but not provided.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Although irritated by specific accusations being not readily discoverable - neither Lar or I are noted in the evidence titling, and it appears as a footnote to a general preamble about the state of Climate Change articles - I am most annoyed that there is no evidence provided of said abuse. These are serious accusations which if sustained may well result in desysopping. Unless these diffs are forthcoming promptly, indicating how admin actions were intended or able to influence content (including how issues were brought to the requests page, other admins persuaded to act according to the accused desires, and thus in what way specific pages were effected) I suggest that Hipocrite strikes them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected this oversight. Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge you have provided diffs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Analysis of Cla68's "evidence"~~
Cla68 includes a lot of diffs. I would ask that arbitors not just use the "throw the paper down the stairs" method of grading - some of his diffs which he states are "incivility" are actually the opposite - they demonstrate civility even in the face of incivility from disruptive skeptics (I did not review all of the diffs, but I clicked some in the middle at random - [75]), are merely procedural copying of things from point a to point b ([76]), or are included multiple times([77], [78]), ([79], [80]), ([81], [82]), or a host of other deficiencies. Cla68's evidence is fundamentally flawed, and should be discounted based on Cla68's lax standards. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of Cla68's evidence~~
~~His reception as a new editor~~
At the risk of "piling on":
It's correct, as observed above, the Cla68 presents a lot of diffs, some quite ancient. The ones I am analyzing here are four years old. To sample the accuracy of his allegations, I focused on his contention in the evidence section that "WMC's group [has] employed incivility on the talk pages" of climate change articles. He cites two diffs from March 2006 [83][84]and says "I gave up trying to discuss and improve the article's content soon after."
Summary of my analysis: I believe that Cla68 mischaracterizes an inoffensive exchange. In isolation, those diffs show WMC as being, at worst, brusque. They do not show him as being incivil to a new editor, such as to scare off that editor and cause him to "give up" on working on that article. Nor do they serve to demonstrate the existence of a "WMC group." They show experienced editors responding politely, though not warmly, to a new editor who seems bent on pushing the "skeptic" POV against the weight of scientific evidence at the time. Omitted diffs show perfectly polite responses from WMC and other editors.
To understand the context, one needs to look at the entire discussion in 2006, which can be found here.[85]. Cla68, evidently a new editor at the time, had added "Controversial Topic" to the discussion page and a "POV" heading[86] to Global warming.
WMC responded as follows: "The controversial tag is fine. The POV tag isn't, and I've removed it. Please list your objections, as you and DF suggest. It would be nice if you'd review the talk and archives, because just about everything has been discussed to death already. The 'good' [article] tag - I added that; its been uncontroversial; I've seen no objections, up till now."
That response was perfectly civil. While not warm and fuzzy, it was an appropriate response.
Cla68 responded: "Human-induced global warming is a theory, not a fact. This article presents it as a fact. Therefore, the POV tag is appropriate." There were continued civil responses to this from other editors.
Cla68 persisted, saying:
"It's just that, in spite of all that, the article still appears to favor one side over the other, which is a Wikipedia no-no. If an article wants to promote a particular point of view, then it belongs on a different web forum or needs the "POV" banner at the top of the main page"
Again, Cla68 was factually wrong, and advocating rather dogmatically the "skeptic" point of view. The weight given to GW as a fact was not a "no-no," but required by WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
Again, he was not greeted in a warm and fuzzy manner by WMC, who ignored his substantive points and said only "Deeerrrr... you're not supposed to put in the 'nowiki' bit too."
It was at that point that we get to the diff provided by Cla68 as evidence of "incivility" in which WMC chastises him for not signing his name, and says "You've made a pile of the conventional sort of errors; hopefully you'll be able to learn from them."
WMC was being factually correct. Cla68 had indeed made errors, both substantive ("global warming is a theory") and procedural (not signing his name). Would it have been better for WMC to patiently explain to Cla68 why policies favored the current version [87]? Yes. Does it rise to the level of incivility so that it can be trotted out four years later against that editor? No.
Conclusion: I suggest that the committee thoroughly investigate, and place in context, the other diffs and evidence presented by this editor, and not take them into consideration unless it has the time to investigate their context in full, and independently. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Another editor "driven away"~~
I apologize if this is too late or past deadline, but I'd like to add one additional sampling of a reading of the voluminous diffs provided by Cla68. I refer to the subsection[88] "Has this incivility hindered cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in building or improving articles?" to which it is answered "Yes, most definitely."
The first paragraph below says: "newbie editor driven away by WMC's incivility [221] I think WMC should have been the one to notify this editor of the ArbCom case as requested by that editor because WMC was the other party involved. I don't know if WMC did so."
The hyperlink goes to a Wikiquette alert marked "stale"[89] and the link at 221 goes to a section of editor Reissgo's talk page[90]. The actual exchange is not linked. It can be found here.[91].
Again, I don't see incivility, much less incivility of a level that would "drive away a newbie editor."
Reissgo posted a polite note asking for a reference to be added to Climate sensitivity. WMC responded, also politely: "Per earlier talk: that paper isn't obviously about climate sensitivity. Could you point to some bits of it that you think are relevant here?"
This is a discussion of a technical nature. WMC displays impatience, but at no point does he cross the line to incivility.
Conclusion: This is now a second example of Cla68 claiming "incivility," but in which an examination of the actual discussion shows no incivility. In this case, nothing even approaching incivility. Again, I hope that Arbcom takes the time to read the actual conversations cited by Cla68 in his massive barrage of diffs. Based on this sampling, I think it is fair to say that the committee would be mistaken to take any of Cla68's "evidence" at face value. Allegation is not proof. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mischaracterization of good-faith discussion~~
~~Cla 68 asks[92]:~~
Has WMC or any others in his group used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?
Yes. I believe that evidence scattered throughout this evidence section above attests to this. I don't have time, because of the tight deadline, to find further evidence. One point I want to make, however, is how frustrating it is to deal with this group's wikilawyering when it comes to sources they don't like, but which otherwise meet WP's reliable sources policy, such as, for example, this one.
None of the conduct ascribed to "WMC and his group" is substantiated by the link provided. There was a good faith dispute as to whether a book could be considered a reliable source. The discussion linked was Cla68's effort to obtain outside input. The responses were polite and on-point, and the discussion was indistinguishable from any other discussion on that noticeboard.
Again, Cla68 overreaches, making an allegation that he fails to substantiate, mischaracterizing as "wikilawyering" the posts of editors who simply don't agree with him. While I sympathize with his desire to obtain "outside" input in that discussion, I feel that in this and the other examples he cites he is trying to re-fight battles from the past in which the consensus was against him.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Part of a pattern~~
While others have pointed out specific problems with the present evidence, it is worth noting this is by no means the first time Cla68 has used a barrage of diffs many of which do not actually support the point being argued. He did the same thing in Lar's RFC, for example. I will leave it to the arbitrators to decide whether this establishes a pattern of abusing the dispute resolution process sufficient to merit sanction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Agree that if this is part of a pattern, there should be sanctions. Overreaching in this fashion undermines confidence in the dispute resolution process. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amazing theory to advance, frankly. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this negative and derogatory characterization of Cla's contributions... perhaps this is "shooting the messenger" behavior? ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Concerns about the relevance of SlimVirgin's evidence submission~~
In SlimVirgin's statement of evidence (permalink), she describes a rather unpleasant situation involving threatening or bullying emails. I fully agree that that sort of conduct is inappropriate, and that SlimVirgin should take appropriate steps to seek redress. However, I am not persuaded that this case is the appropriate forum.
I have asked ([93], [94]) SlimVirgin to be a bit more specific about how her conflict at WP:NPOV was related to this arbiration case. That is, were any of this case's participants named in (or authors of) emails she has received, or were any of this case's participants involved in reverting her edits to WP:NPOV? (I took a cursory glance at the page's history and didn't see any familiar names pop out; it's entirely possible that I missed someone.) SlimVirgin has twice declined to offer a substantive response: [95], [96].
I have strong suspicions that this is because there is no such link, however I welcome clarification.
As it stands now, SlimVirgin's submission attempts to link the execrable conduct of one individual – who was apparently acting entirely independently – to a large group of editors ("...there are strong relationships between him and some of the climate-change editors. Some are off-wiki friends, they edit from the same songbook, rely heavily on the UNDUE section, target the same editors who disagree with them...") with whom SlimVirgin disagrees over policy interpretation, and thereby tar them (and their opinions and interpretation) with the same broad brush. SlimVirgin's steadfast refusal to identify any of the parties she impugns or offer diffs of any objectionable actions casts a pall over one side of this dispute which cannot be lifted because there is no specific charge to answer. She does not offer any proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies which flow from her statement (nor does anyone else, to my knowledge). Her evidence should be amended to clearly show its relevance to this case, or withdrawn as out-of-scope and needlessly inflammatory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, she has said she does not wish to name names, that is her prerogative, her evidence shows a certain mindset prevalent in some of the editors here and is obviously relevant mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, however, that her evidence does not show "a certain mindset" of the editors here. It shows, at most, such a mindset among editors who have at a best a tentative connection to some of the editors here. I am, for example, fairly certain that I have no off-wiki friends with an interest in Wikipedia politics pages. Whether intentionally or not, this is trying to show guilt by association where the association is extremely weak. I'm also concerned about the suggested "off-wiki friendships" - what's the nature of them? I'd expect most such friendships to be practically unknowable. Slim, can you elaborate on that aspect? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand her desire not to name names, as that would be a violation of web etiquette. However, that makes her evidence unverifiable. She may be right about SPOV; I tend to agree with her on that. However, I don't believe that her evidence is helpful as it can't be independently confirmed. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom is supposed to be able to handle confidential information. I have just asked SlimVirgin if she has forwarded copies of the emails in question to the committee. I have also asked if the editor who sent the messages is currently blocked or banned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and she has declined to answer either question: [97]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean she hasn't done it. Since it's so nebulous without specifics, I doubt it would carry much weight without her privately disclosing who sent the emails. I agree that, on the face of it, the emails have limited if any relevancy to this case. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good example of the kind of intimidation editors are subjected to when they engage in certain topic areas or policy matters. ATren (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Lysenkoism is a good example to what happens if proper science is ignored for political reasons. Neither has anything to do with this case, though. It's called the "Great Climate Change Omnibus Case of 2010". The "Great Omnibus Case of 2010" still lies this way.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV seems to suggest there is some overlap with CC editors, so there does appear to be some relevance to this case. ATren (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. In fact, she specifically says the opposite ("The e-mails were not written by a climate-change editor" and "The editor who wrote to me is not so far as I know a climate-change editor."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's premature to fault SV for not offering PP, FoF, or R's yet as the evidence was just entered a few hours ago, it seems. I counsel patience. To the other point: as a compromise, remaining sensitive to the desire for anonymity, (and in view of the fact that at least two other folk have submitted private evidence that they have discussed to great or lesser degrees) perhaps SV could make the names of the relevant parties available to ArbCom or some subset so they could validate relevance to this case and so state. Also, remember, we were told early on not to be too tightly bound by who was named as a party and who wasn't... this is a big case. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already spoken to the editor involved and, with his permission, identified him to NYB. I don't think there are other relevant parties - if "my friends" doesn't include me (which it didn't) I can't imagine who else if could include. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of her evidence is mainly in what it says about SV's behaviour - when I declined to get involved in her spat, she started aggressively editing climate change articles. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the fact is that she saw that spat as connected to this dispute. It seems to confirm my assumption that she imported an external conflict into this area, and did so specifically to get back at me for failing to do get involved in her spat. Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is, supposedly, a "climate change" case. That seems like enough to bite off without importing the fact that SlimVirgin doesn't like the direction WP:NPOV has taken over the past few years, and without dealing with off-wiki conflicts between SlimVirgin and an editor not associated with climate change.
As to the emails, they are clearly inappropriate given the context SlimVirgin has related. If she intends them to be considered in this proceeding then they should be forwarded privately to the Committee; barring that, I don't see how they can be given any weight. If the substance of the emails is as SlimVirgin has represented them, then I would certainly think some sort of sanction would be in order against the editor who sent them, as they're clearly way over the line. I would also think that for the emails to be deemed relevant to this case, there would have to be some sort of clear connection to climate change, or to parties thus far involved in the case. Vague assertions that they "sing from the same songbook" are not evidence of a connection; they're actually closer to the unsubstantiated charges of cabalism that have previously marked this proceeding.
I hope it's obvious why presenting these inflammatory email snippets, linking them through a tenuous and completely unsupported chain to "climate-change editors", and refusing to provide additional context might look like poisoning the well or FUD-mongering. I suppose we'll have to trust the Committee to sort that out. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, they look rather different in their full context. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Telling stories"~~
In [98], SlimVirgin wrote "the essence of the project [, which] is simply to tell other people's stories". I hope this is only a infelicitous turn of phrase, but if that is what she really means, it's a sign of a deep chasm in understanding of the project. I'm here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the aim of creating a summary of all human knowledge. We can certainly report on stories, but we do not tell stories, neither our own nor those of others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by others:
I wonder if this is a language thing? I see the point as being "WE/WP don't tell the stories, per WP:OR and WP:V, but we retell the stories told by others - they being WP:RS"; that is, we record what is said by others. As for stories, that is the title given to a news item both in the printed press and television - and both in the US and UK. When somebody says they are reporting the story of President Obama/Prime Minister Cameron's ~~decision on troop levels in Iraq~~visit to another country, we do not expect fabrications. Like I said, I think this is a language thing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LHvU here. "Stories" can be interpreted several ways and while Stephan's interpretation is plausible, I don't think that's what she meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree basically - that's why I chose the formulation. But even then, telling stories, even true, ones, is different from writing an encyclopedia. It has different priorities for e.g. accuracy vs. dramatic tension. I would like to see some clarification from SV here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a very strange way of describing writing about science, but may explain some of her actions William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~General discussion~~
If nothing else, all of these pages are exampling the manner by which making progress in evolving consensus within AGW/CC article and talkpage space is painfully slow or even non existent. It should be noted that these exchanges are also nothing like as "adversarial" as might sometimes be found in article and user talk space, and often on Probation enforcement request pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
@LHVU and TRYTO - this topic was long overdue for arbcom. That three RFARs were filed at the same time should not be surprising; nor should the fact users are pushing the same agendas that got the issue here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Am I the only person here who suspects that not only are many, likely most, commentating here basically digging the same hole as brought this matter to ArbCom, and are finding what we are excavating may turn out to be a cesspit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Resp to Rlevse)...but ...but ...but these are the pages where we are supposed to be indicating where everyone (else) has been misusing WP policy to ensure that their version of Da Troof has premier or sole possession of article space, but instead are misusing the case pages to present that viewpoint... I suspect a great deal of the material provided by the parties is going to be largely disregarded as examples of the problem. It is quite exhausting to read. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, that's true, it's not surprising, but it's also as LessHeard described. Given the volume of the reading assignment, I'm glad you're on the Committee and I'm not. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually more than half of this page can be (and I think ultimately will be) ignored. Considering most people involved in this case are experienced users the amount of content ruling requests masquerading as Principles, Fof's, and Remedies is staggering. Arbcom won't rule on content, no matter how many times you ask. You guys should know that by now. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could clarify for me what "content" is in this context that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to avoid singling anyone out, here is a generic example. Two people dispute about wether FOO is green or blue. A proposed principle that states roughly 'Reliable sources show that FOO is green' is essentially a request for arbcom to 'win' their content argument by making it against policy to say FOO is blue because arbcom said so. In this particular case I would assume that wether or not climate change exists (and the various POV's associated with that conflict) constitues content. In a strange inversion of Wikipedias normal way of doing things, in Arbcom you should focus on the contributor (and his actions) and not the content. It doesn't matter if you are right, its if you misbehaved. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I think I get the basic idea. Thanks for the clarification. Just to feel this out, do you think, e.g., that this is too close to content? Maybe this question could be posed to arbitrators as: "is that the kind of thing you would refrain from addressing on principle?" Thanks again for the responses. No expectation for further answers, of course.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That links to evidence, which is a bit of a different kettle of fish. But as a guideline for that, the content question (wether or not certain newspapers represent distinct critisizm of Climate Change) should be used as background. You shouldn't ask Arbcom to decide if newspapers are critisizing Climate Change or not, but you should ask Arbcom to determine if one side or the other was being disruptive in their support/opposition of that point. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Cortonin.27s_view_of_real_greenhouses William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow the context of that link. In my view, that is a finding of fact that shows a user was disruptively gaming the system by juggling definitions to suit his liking. The content is irrelevant, the fact that he could not separate metaphore from definition (and stubbornly refused to even in the face of repeated good-faith attempts by others) was what got him in trouble. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, in the five years since that diff Arbcom has made strides to tighten up the language used in their decisions. If those proposals were suggested today I would expect Newyorkbrad to copyedit them like crazy to avoid future clarification requests. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, if by your comment you are implying that some drastic measures to correct the situation are being contemplated or discussed by the Committee, then I welcome what may be coming. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we had first Climate Change Articles, but they turned into a battleground. Then we had Climate Change Probation, and that turned into a battleground. Now we have Climate Change Arbitration, which has been allowed to turn into a battleground. So they had better be contemplating drastic measures or ultimately they will have only served to entrench the battleground participants further. Weakopedia (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
~~Comment by others:~~

@@ Line 809: / Line 809: @@
 ::So, when [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/07/lottmustard-2.php#comment-1331961 Hipocrite told Tim Lambert] he was "needed" at wikipedia, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lott&diff=prev&oldid=19245227#NPOV_failure Lambert did indeed provide support with Hipocrite], helping both you and Hipocrite to keep your "consensus" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lott&diff=19503902&oldid=19455962][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lott&diff=19247108&oldid=19226782], you don't find that to be a case of cabalism? From what I understand there was sockpuppetry going on there, but that certainly doesn't excuse, by your definition, cabalistic activities now does it? Are you going to [[denialism|deny]] this just like you've denied calling people "septics?" [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 ::: 2005? That's the best you've got? And you co-run blog with a banned user, who is now sockpuppetering with proxies that has explicit "how to make a new account that won't arouse suspicion you are a sock" instructions? Right, it's all clear. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+::::Propagating Stephan's lies eh? And no, I don't even run the blog, nor did I even write that section, and several people were invited to contribute. I find it quite interesting how you and your friends have "participated" with each other over the years, and across topic areas. You know in criminology there are basically two theories as to why criminals aren't arrested/imprisoned with the same frequency they were during their youth; one side says that criminals "mellow" as they get older, and perhaps that is true, but I personally subscribe to the theory that criminals simply gain experience as criminals, learning how the play the system and not get caught. I wonder if the same holds true for sockpuppeteers and cabals - what do you say Hipocrite? [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 ==== Locus of dispute ====

Revision as of 00:01, 10 July 2010

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to add two users to the listed parties

Motion to set aside distracting issues

SlimVirgin directed

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

GoRight unblock

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Sub-issues to be addressed

Suggested topic(s) by LessHeard vanU

Issues by Hipocrite

Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber

Suggested question by Tryptofish

Suggested issues to examine by Cla68

Suggested issues to examine by Lar

Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo

Suggested Issues to examine by ATren

Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz

Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5

Issues suggested by William M. Connolley

Issues suggested by Count Iblis

Issue suggested by Heyitspeter

Issues suggested by TheGoodLocust

Issues suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Issues suggested by KimDabelsteinPetersen

Question raised by BozMo

Issues suggested by WavePart

Issues suggested by ScottyBerg

Issues suggested by dave souza

Issues suggested by A Quest for Knowledge

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:ScienceApologist

Proposed principles

When the science is settled

Reliable sources

Proposed findings of fact

Editors with a political bias against the scientific facts relating to global warming

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is a General Purpose reference work

The purpose of a General Purpose Encyclopedia is to educate the general public

Articles may be more than a definition of a subject

WP:NPOV is a distillation of all notable viewpoints, per WP:Due weight

The determination of the primary genre of a topic is guided by general public perception

template

Proposed findings of fact

Presentation of the scientific consensus regarding AGW within related articles is excellent

Presentation of skeptic or denialist viewpoints regarding AGW within related articles is deficient

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by ZuluPapa5

Proposed principles

The basic foundation for civil editors to create a free and open NPOV encyclopedia

Template

Proposed findings of fact

WMC is uncivilly abusive to editors collaborating to produce a NPOV

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

Proposed principles

Avoiding article bloat

Scope

Purpose

Article content influence

Timeliness

Proposed findings of fact