Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

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)

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Use of this page

This page is to be used to discuss the proposed decision after it has moved to the voting stage. Any other discussion should take place on the general discussion page that has been set up for that purpose. Please do not post on this page until the proposed decision has been posted and is being voted on. For discussion that took place on this page previously, please see the archive of this talk page, and if you wish to continue a discussion that was previously taking place here or elsewhere, please do so at this page instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Updated here. 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Preparations for discussions

As work is continuing apace on the proposed decision, I have raised the question of making preparations for discussing the proposed decision. Please see here and here. As stated above, please do not post here, as this page is for discussing the proposed decision while it is being voted on. This post is an exception to that, as it is a notification post directing people to the discussion location. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking of the case

Posting a note here to point out that the case clerk (Amorymeltzer) is away this week. Dougweller has volunteered to clerk the case for the coming week (but is not available today), and AGK has also offered to help out when Amorymeltzer is back. The other available clerks have been asked to help out as needed. Hopefully there won't be anything that needs doing as regards keeping discussion orderly, but if there are problems, please post to the clerks' noticeboard or e-mail the clerks mailing list (address should be at WP:AC/C). I'll be setting up this page later in the day for comments on the proposed decision. Please don't post here in response to this, but direct questions to the general discussion page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Volume of commentary

Noting here that I'm following all the edits made to this page, but the high volume of edits (at least for the first few days) makes it more sensible to wait a day or two and then start commenting and responding to some of the points being made. Please also see what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Focus of discussion

Please try not to go off-topic. Discussion focused on the actual wording and diffs in the proposed decision, and alternative proposals, and constructive criticism of what should be omitted or added, will be far more helpful than more of the arguing and back-and-forth disagreements seen at earlier stages of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Page organisation

Structured discussion proposed

I don't think it's reasonable to expect contributors to constructively discuss 49 different proposals at once. Nor is it reasonable or plausible for arbiters to read through an unstructured discussion. Thus, I would strongly suggest that the clerk creates a topic structure reflecting the proposed decision below (plus a general section), so that proposals can be discussed one by one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much, so maybe some grouping? But StS is right, one giant pile won't work. ++Lar: t/c06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar and Stephan. Here's an idea for clearer organization: We could organize by the subsection on the Proposed Decision page, as I've done below, for the most part, by following the numbering of the Proposed Decision table of contents, with these exceptions: When we're talking about the people NewYorkbrad/Arbcom are proposing to sanction, we group those sections (findings of fact and proposed remedies) together, and do likewise with the sections specifically about administrators (all of those on the Proposed Decision page already have "Administrators" as the first word in the section title). Beyond that, since we'll want to go outside that order in some discussions that just won't fit in these topics, just add new discussions to the bottom. I think this is intuitive and simple, and even easier to see the organization rather than to describe it as I've just done. Since I've commented so much below (in part in order to show how the organization works), I'll refrain for a while. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you came up with a pretty good scheme and propose it be continued. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A rather logical proposal but the scrolling (not to mention server demand) will become off-putting even with direct linkage to sections.

49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much...

A discussion page for each section that might ultimately be overkill (highly doubtful) is addressible and easily corrected after the fact. Structure it now before it becomes the leviathan task of structuring it later. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One other consideration. A page dedicated to each individual section can be "watched". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General

I've been following the discussions here since they started, and the volume and spread of discussion is starting to get a bit overwhelming. It may be best to have a brief time-out to re-emphasise the need to focus on discussion of the proposed decision itself, rather than the more general discussions that are starting to dominate this page. There are also some off-topic threads, and threads where people are rehashing arguments from the evidence and workshop phases, that need to be shut down or refocused before they distract too much from the purpose of this page. I've put this section here for now, as this is where most people will see it, but once some discussion has taken place, this section should be moved up to the "meta and preliminaries" section (along with the other meta notes on the discussion). On a more general note, the clerks and arbs can try and keep discussion focused, but the main effort to organise the page in a way that makes it easy for arbs to follow and focus on what they need to read, has to come from those posting here. It is in the best interests of case participants to keep this page manageable and readable, and you are the ones best placed to do that. For starters, I suggest trying to unify similar topics under the same headings and making a distinction between comments on the actual proposed decision, and suggestions for completely new additions to the proposed decision. Some summaries of what has been discussed so far may also help, though summaries might be best done on a separate page and linked to from here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom hoping people might actually take notice of it and take action. I'd prefer people contributing here to follow Carcharoth's suggestions. For a start, how about adding to section headings 'OT' and 'New suggestions for PD' where appropriate? Maybe hat some OT if it seems finished? I can see where there can be some merging (with subheadings) of sections also. And some summaries - you all do want to avoid TLDR don't you? On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As you are an Arb, I would gently put to you - so you might disseminate it among your colleagues - that a reason why there is the "volume and width" in the discussion on these pages is that hardly anyone thinks that the PD as written has covered the dispute sufficiently, nor made suggestions that are going to finally resolve this matter. My understanding is that ArbCom are not constrained to limit themselves to the topics, issues, and parties presented in an accepted Request, but I should suggest that it does not fulfill its function where there is genuine concern that the breadth of a problem is not being recognised. As previously, when the evidence section was closed down, the non-Arb participants do not know what the ArbCom consider germane and that which is pertinent. It is a bit rich to request that some material is in excess of what ArbCom require where there is no indication of where the line is being drawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume this is aimed at Carcharoth, but it's under my comment. Carcharoth has said, up at the top of the discussion part of this page, "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions". I presume you've missed that. Archiving and hatting, marking of sections as OT, etc are all intended to allow full discussion while at the same time making it easier for arbitrators and others to read and digest the material. There is a 500 word limit for statements, but I don't think people are seeing that as a problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What Doug said is correct. I would also point people to what was said here by Ncmvocalist: "as of the report date [23/08/2010], there were about 2680 words in statements while there was 17,236 words in unstructured discussion. As of this timestamp [26/08/2010], the figure for statements has less than doubled to >4000 words while the figure for discussion has more than tripled to >60,000 words." That is clearly unsustainable, so there has to be either a deadline by when to submit comments (this will force people to comment on the important bits), and/or a limit to the volume of contributions from any one individual (that isn't so much of a problem here). Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving approach

As the page was ridiculously large I archived practically every section that had not received any new comments in the past 48 hours. Any section containing anything timestamped on or after 25th August should still be there.

The page is still ridiculously large, sadly, but I feel a little bit better. --TS 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably should have left that to a clerk, since we have two. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that we should do that but it would help if contributors suggested when it should be done. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion within statements

Speaking of page organization... The header of the "Statements" section clearly says No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Would it be possible for one of the clerks to please hive off the extended discussion following Mongo's statement and move it to an appropriate place, presumably somewhere under the "Discussion" header? Others of us may want to make statements, and the material in its present form (a) sets a bad precedent and (b) is a long interruption that will obscure any statements that follow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Shell ^babelfish 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If I recollect correctly (which, admittedly, I might not, given the amount of activity!), the removed comments began as part of a properly threaded discussion lower in this talk, but got moved up to an individual "statement" section later. Out of fairness to the editors who made some of those comments, it might be appropriate to restore them somewhere below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have made the orginal post in the statements section but I had placed it at the bottom of the talkpage as a new section...it was archived...however, I prefer it now as it stands as I have nothing to add and don't want to create a meltdown again...--MONGO 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just clarifying that my original request was for the discussion to be relocated and not for it to be removed altogether, but in the end it's whatever the arbs think best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of those who commented, I was happy when it was archived, so speaking only for myself, I'm happy leaving them in the ether.--SPhilbrickT 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've copied my reply to my userspace and I added a small comment in my own statement section, giving a link to that text on my userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page too large

This page is too large. It's hosting the original statements, and a bunch of concurrent discussions. Could somebody please break it up? I'm not sure whether arbitrators are paying much attention. Perhaps people are just lengthening the page by repeating the same old arguments to no effect. If so, they ought to conserve electrons. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The statements are not the original statements. They are new statements (analogous to the request statements), intended to allow people more formal (word-limited) statements that can consist of summaries of people's thoughts on this matter. I agree that the normal discussion section is getting out of control, and we are looking at ways to bring this under control. If the page continues to grow without limit, we will likely close it temporarily to allow a summary to be written, but we would prefer the case participants to be able to manage and organise this discussion page themselves, with the assistance and guidance of arbitrators and clerks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, a couple of sections above. You need to be more actively engaged in the discussion here, at least to the extent of responding to substantive issues raised with the PD itself, instead of sitting back and bemoaning the amount of material presented. More active engagement will lessen, not increase, the volume. For example, what changes, if any, have you contemplated making to the PD so far? ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think anything a user wishes to say as a priority regarding the PD can be put in the word-limited statement as Carcharoth suggests and these should certainly be studied by all arbs. Many UK PhD theses are limited to 40 000 words and often candidates assume the external examiners read only about 50% of these words. We simply cannot and should not expect arbs to follow the lot so if there is something burning you wish to mention about the PD this should go into your statement. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

I've moved all discussion of aspects of the existing proposed decision under the relevant structured discussion sections. I've also created some new sections for discussion of, say, admin involvement, and moved related discussion under those headings. --TS 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt well intended, but you really should leave such things to the clerks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also archiving, hatting, and any other sort of thing. TS: you're not a clerk. Please leave this sort of activity to the clerks. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We're all mandated to hat and to add and alter topic headings. On clerking and archiving, see this comment by me on arbitration clerk Doug Weller's talk page. --TS 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is best left to the clerks and arbitrators, but organising the existing page structure is needed and Tony did a good job of it. I am going to go over the page in the next few hours and see what else can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Subpages

This page is still ridiculously large and it's currently growing at the rate of 100kb per day, nearly all of that in the discussion section. I suggest that the clerks should split off the entire discussion into one or more subpages. I don't know what others feel, but my comfort zone is somewhere near 150kb. 300kb might be a good compromise between comfort and the need to keep things together.

Perhaps there should be two separate discussion subpages, one for discussion of the existing draft decision and one for the proposal of additional clauses. --TS 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we can maintain a table of contents on this page with links to the other pages, so that you can still have an overview of all discussions on a single page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Subpages, unless done carefully, are harder to keep track of if you are trying to follow the entire set of discussions. I would ask that no-one create subpages unilaterally. I am going to be going through this page today to try and make it a bit more ordered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another set of comments on subpages. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about some well organized subpages to reduce the size of this monstrosity and avoid the need for hatting and archiving? Minor4th 04:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We could call these pages the Workshop, and maybe create a separate subpage for each editor's proposals. Jehochman ^Talk 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We considered workshopping (I was actually initially in favour of this) but overall opinion among arbitrators that commented was to go straight to a proposed decision and see what comments that got. My approach in future would be to actually set a schedule to work through each broad section of the decision, to refine it, and then move on to the next broad section. It takes longer, but is more orderly and easier to follow, and avoids a deluge of comment on everything all at once. Incidentally, this section is in the wrong place and I'm going to move it up to the right place. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

End copied section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Statements

An innovation for this case, intended to be similar to the statements made at requests for arbitration, but made here in the closing stage of a case rather than at the start. This is particularly intended for those named in the proposed decision, but is also for arbitrators and others to make more formal statements if they wish to do so. Once the proposed decision has been posted, if you want to make a statement please add it below as a subsection of this section. One single, signed statement per editor (can be revised but only within the word limit). No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration).

Statement by Lar

Precis: Great principles. Good findings, as far as they go, but they needed to go much farther. Remedies, not so much. First, not enough parties sanctioned. Second, we will be back at ArbCom before the year is out, as the GS/CC/RE replacement sanction regime proposed won't work. I will expand later. ++Lar: t/c 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I somewhat agree with Lar here, which is rare enough. I don't see how this proposal will lead to any substantial change in the CC field. It does nothing to address the on- and off-wiki POV pushing. In particular, I have the following comments (short and incomplete, as I'll leave for the plane in an hour or so) Clerk, if the structured discussion proposal I made is accepted, feel free to move these to the corresponding sections. Thanks.:

• Purpose of Wikipedia - while I like the idea of "cameraderie and mutual respect", I don't think that this should get equal footing with "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia". WP is primarily an encyclopedia, nor a social network. Also, I would like some clarification that honest but vigorous discussion is not in conflict with this (while dishonest behaviour, no matter how sugar-coated, is).
• Role of the Arbitration Committee - historically true, but the committee should be aware of the fact that "good-faith content disputes" are not the primary problem, but that there are significant politically and ideologically driven disputes, some of which masquerade as content disputes.
• Neutrality and conflicts of interest - I share NYB's concern that this is problematic. There has been no significant COI problem in CC articles, unless one assumes the counterproductive notion that experts inherently have a COI and that editing to properly reflect the considered expert position on a topic is inappropriate editing.
• Sourcing - this is unclear. I fear some editors will read this as a general equivalence of sourcing (as in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is equivalent to PNAS on scientific topics).
• Disputes regarding administrator involvement - actually, a clear definition of involvement was at least given, if maybe not broadly accepted.
• William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped - the sanction of WMC at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute was explicitly overturned by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, and I'm surprised to see the overturned sanction here, but not the overturning.
• Discretionary sanctions - this essentially adopts the community probation, which has been a mixed success...
• William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change) - this looks purely punitive to me.
• Uninvolved administrators - this is very problematic, as it seems to indicate that any content dispute in one part of CC disqualifies an administrator from acting as an administrator in the CC area at all. It inherently assumes the notion of strong factionalism. I don't see why a discussion on radiative heat transfer at greenhouse effect (where we have some really really persistent and really really not educated editors time and again) should disqualify an administrator from administrative action one.g. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Moreover, while new administrators are welcome, they are also hard to come by. The topic area is a complex one, with vast scientific literature, and vandalism is, by now, often subtle. I have some doubts that an administrator with enough interest to understand the domain well enough to recognise these problems will be able to (or should be expected to) refrain from editing for a purely tactical advantage.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Polargeo

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

• I initially requested enforcement against myself for a very good reason, not to disrupt. I wished to show that I was not trying to act as an admin. The reason for this is that I got a lot of flack from Lar's supporters when I started to criticise his actions. People attacking me because of my admin status even though I hadn't tried to use that status to influence any decisions at the time. I was trying to absolve myself of the responsibility rather than to disrupt. I understand why this failled and I am wiser now but it was not disruption. The continuation of the special flack one recieves as an admin even when not acting as such has been in evidence in this case by the submissions of User:JohnWBarber against me.
• Disparaging remarks. This is an extremely heated area. The first supposedly "disparaging remark" was after Lar had said to me, "it was a joke son" I took this as a put down, a patronising pat on the head if you like. Put in the context of the RfC/U I had started on Lar I request that you realise what a harsh environment I felt myself in. I already felt I was being attacked by Lar's supporters and I had observed for some time that Lar was extremely patronising in his comments. The second one is an observation which I back wholeheartedly and am simply disappointed that arbcom has not been able to see the negative longterm effects of Lar's involvement in this area, if we are banned from making remarks such as this I fear for wikipedia. The third diff was reflective of my despair and was a response to another tiresome "you are the cabal" putdown where there was an attempt to discredit CC editors en masse because of supporting the same viewpoint in the RfC/U on Lar. The forth one is a legitimate observation during this arbcom case and I can make a whole watertight case for the observation with plenty of diffs if required, it is a sad day when we cannot make frank observations during an arbcom case on a case talkpage, a sad sad sad day indeed for wikipedia.
• The claim that two other uninvolved admins stated they felt it should be closed is stretching the significance of those statments a fair bit. There had been no discussion between admins, certainly no consensus had been reached, I simply acted to keep the case open so concensus could be reached rather than having Lar's supporters shut the case down with no concensus and no credible argument. No edit warring was involved. This is a far far weaker action by me than you are making out and is certainly not good evidence of disruption. Polargeo (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Further

• I am extremely disappointed with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Uninvolved administrators, it completely fails to address the personal involvement an administrator may have had with a user such as I outlined in the case relating to Lar. I stress this involvement was not the result of provocation or due to his previous admin duties. Also "content dispute" generally construed on any article, no matter how minor will ban a user for ever acting as admin on any CC article is a terrible judgement from arbcom and not well thought out at all. This will simply end up with the status quo of the regular enforcement admins deciding where the line is drawn to suit themselves. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5

Good work! I can see why this took some time. I especially like the purpose statements. This may be presumed; however, the role Wikipedia has in civility producing great content should be clearly set for community benefit. That is, the content is expressly created for the benefit of the community. This is why we serve Wikipedia. As such, it becomes clearer how obstructing NPOV content can actually be harming the community. In addition, it may become clearer how bias content may not be beneficial. NPOV is the best way to serve a diverse community. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Collect

Most appears in order. (comments refer to issues roughly in the order they appear in the proposal) I would have liked to see the good principle about collective editing reflected in the findings about individuals. The bit about "encyclopedic coverae of science" appears likely to cause more problems than it could solve, by appearing to negate NPOV as far as some editors may be concerned. WRT administrators, I would have suggested that those who are administrators and who have specific collective editing interests in an area, should be enjoined from acting as administrators in those areas. I would remove "however" in one of the administrator sections as being unneeded.

Concerning proposed remedies, I would have suggested that parallel choices as to results be rovided for each person listed, lest it appear that some users may be more equal than others. Let the discussions as to relative levels of culpability be patent. I would, moreover, add that any articles not currently obviously in this sphere, but where material is added or sought to be added, would place them in the shere of climate change related articles, be considered as being in this sphere. [1] from just last week is here proffered as an example of an edit which causes this concern. Collect (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

I expect to update my statement after thinking through this PD's in more detail, but initial impressions are that the Proposed Decisions do a pretty decent job at identifying general problems but the findings are not specific or detailed enough. The remedies are wholly lacking and are essentially a restatement or reminder of Wiki policies, which everyone involved knows by heart anyway. For each finding, there should be a corresponding specific remedy.

Factions:

Particularly concerning is the fact that factions are recognized and the harm caused by factions are recognized, but there is nothing addressing how to deal with this or prevent it or enforce against it. In general the remedies are very weak and do not indicate that even the problems identified will be remediated going forward -- we simply have a new venue in which to bicker.

Involved/Uninvolved:

I think the editors involved in this topic area really want a clear answer about who is an involved admin and who is not and for which purposes, as well as clearly stated reasons for the characterizations. If this is not settled decisively one way or the other with respect to the admins who have been enforcing sanctions and participating in enforcement discussions, it will continue to be the problem that it has been. At the moment, Lar cannot impose sanctions as a practical matter, even though he is uninvolved by definition. LHVU has expressed that he has not sought sanctions when he thought appropriate because of the backlash he expected, and so on. This needs to be settled so admins are not handicapped and rendered ineffective -- now there seems to be some internal contradiction about what actually constitutes involvement, so that perhaps certain admins who were previously considered involved would no longer be in that category. Please clarify this and make a decision about the actual admins who have been participating so that every enforcement discussion is not overrun with debate about which admin can participate and in what capacity.

BLP problems:

The BLP problem is not adequately addressed and the findings do not go far enough in recognizing how the BLP policy is manipulated, not just to denigrate BLP's but also to keep negative information out of some BLP's despite impeccable sourcing and notability. A recent example that comes to mind is ChrisO removing content under BLP policy because the content was "cherry-picking" from a journalist's views. See,for example, [2] at Diane Francis It has also been a recent practice for an editor to remove negative information from a BLP whose views the editor supports, and claim that BLP policy requires immediate removal of controversial content (even if well sourced and no dispute about its accuracy) and further claiming that the negative information must remain out of the BLP article until there is a consensus -- and in this context, consensus is said to occur only when every editor agrees that the content should be included in the article. See for example [3] on Michael E. Mann and this [4] as justification for removal of Washington Post referenced content.

More later ...

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

The proposed remedies make some solid steps forward toward resolving the dispute, however, the problem is much bigger than the three editors being sanctioned (and the fourth being admonished). In my evidence section, I presented very compelling evidence that demonstrated a clear and repeated pattern of misconduct by six editors, half of whom are unaddressed by the proposed decision. I don't see these editors magically changing their conduct especially when at least one of them edit-warred to include contentious material in a BLP in the middle of this very ArbCom case. Regrettably, this misconduct is unaddressed by the proposed decision and the resulting silence by ArbCom can be used as proof by these editors that their conduct is appropriate. But perhaps more importantly, in my issues suggested section, I asked the question, "What's the best way to restore the editing atmosphere at the CC articles to being based on civility and cooperation?" In my view, the proposed decision does too little, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere will resume unabated by the very same editors whose misconduct has gone unaddressed by this proposed decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am concerned that there does not appear to be a functional roadmap for the better editing of Climate Change related articles provided, despite there being the usual reiterations of how Wikipedia is supposed to work and the difficulties that may be encountered within the principles section and findings of fact on how the proper processes were not followed by a small number of individuals in that section. The proposed remedies are perforce restricted to those issues which are exampled in the the finding of fact section, and does not address the general major issues in trying to create content in an area - that is, stopping the formation of confluences of editors with the apparent purpose of promoting one particular pov, and (mis)using process to try to deprecate the insertion of content that relates to a differing pov and the diminishment of the ability of such minded editors to do so. Removing a couple of the totems of the two schools of POV, although in most cases there is reason enough to have them banned and otherwise sanctioned, is not sufficient to discourage "confluent" manners of editing and conduct. Neither is there a clear definition on whether the two named administrators (Lar and Stephan Schulz) are involved, and to what degree, or not, and nor on the detrimental effect on the ability of admins to enforce policy in the face of persistent - and continuing - questioning on the perception of their involvement. Without clear consideration upon these aspects of the editing and adminning environment that is particular to Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming subject articles, and the methods of addressing them, I fear that there will not be the hoped for resolution.

I shall be suggesting ways to address these concerns in the spaces provided below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnWBarber

I hope every ArbCom member will reread LHvU's comment at 22:44, 23 August [5]. Carefully. These are the pressures and problems that the current ArbCom draft is handing over to admins at Arbitration Enforcement, who will find that the editors LHvU is talking about will be loudly supporting overturning and lessening of sanctions on appeal at A/N and AN/I. The last overturn of sanctions against William M. Connolley just last week will be repeated, probably with William M. Connolley at some point, but with other editors too. The draft sets up a situation where excessive drama and ugliness will result, with editors getting angrier than they would be otherwise, and probably getting blocked for it. Although we're here to build an encyclopedia, we'll be spending more time arguing than we need to, and arguing more about behavior and personalities and less about the merits of sourcing or coverage decisions. This is because behavioral policies are violated right and left without effective enforcement. It's very depressing.

We need more editors sanctioned by ArbCom itself and we need to help administrators in the face of a phalanx of editors who will fight to overturn sanctions brought against their allies. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of SirFozzie's statement. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I think the proposed decision is well-written, well-thought, and very appropriate in helping resolve some of the issues involved with the topic area. I think, however, the decision doesn't go far enough. I was hoping for something more similar to the latest Palestine/Israel case in which a large number of editors were topic banned for not trying hard enough to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise (my interpretation of that decision).

I think you really hit the nail on the head on the issues that WMC has caused in the topic area, but he's just one editor (leaving the behavior of Polargeo, Marknutley, and thegoodlocust aside as separate issues for this discussion). If he was the only one acting that way or facilitating that type of behavior, as described in the findings, then it wouldn't have been so much of a problem. Unfortunately, you have a bloc of editors who have taken turns supporting his edit wars, who wiki-lawyer on his behalf on BLP talk pages, and sometimes join in with him in belittling, bullying, and insulting editors who make unwelcome edits to that blocs' articles. For example, please look again at the articles that have been fully protected since June and I think you'll see one editor in particular involved in almost all of those articles, and his name isn't WMC or Marknutley.

Your statement of what "involved" means appears to vindicate Lar. But, how do we avoid the same situation from happening again, in which a bloc of editors baits and bullies an admin they don't like and insist that he is involved even though he has never engaged in a CC content dispute? If you would, perhaps, name some names and find fault with their behavior, it might help in this regard.

I think if more names aren't named in the findings, even if no accompanying remedy is proposed, then we will be back here again in six months. The reason is that many of the editors mentioned on the evidence and this talk page are engaged in what they see as a righteous struggle, a struggle they will continue because they are unable or unwilling to stop on their own. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree 100% with the statement by Stephan Schulz. Reading also the comments on this discussion page, I think the "uninvolved Admin" issue needs to be dealt with. My opinion on the PD in general is that it fails to recognize that the source of the problem is that the people sceptical of the results of climate science are also sceptical of the reliability of the scientific processes like the peer review process. This leads to disputes about e.g. Reliable Sources and the application of other Wiki/policies far more than in case of the other contentious topics on Wikipedia. Then because the disputes spill over to the level of the Wiki-policies, it makes them more difficult to resolve.

I also largely agree with MONGO's statement about WMC below, this is my perspective on the WMC issue. Needless to say, I also largely agree with WMC's statement. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP

Overall I agree with Minor4th, Lar, and to a lessor extent, Stephan Schulz. The principles are good, but the findings are marginal and the remedies totally inadequate. It is not serving to change nor modify behavior, nor will it as written. For example, after the PD came out stating that you have to have real evidence to identify and revert a sock, ChrisO reverted an edit here by a new user, with an edit summary of "rv Scibaby sock." It was the first edit of the user, their entire edit summary was "Edit qualifier" and they removed what appears to be unneeded puffery. Exactly what evidence is there in one edit to show that this is a Scibaby sock? I grant that they may be a Scibaby sock, but at that point there is no real evidence to support the charge, and it is instructive on why there is a 20-40% false positive on those accused of sockpuppetry. GregJackP Boomer! 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by TheGoodLocust

1. Administrator involvement - enforcement matters: The rules have been gamed too long - editors/admins who should have recused themselves due to COI have not. This principal will be ignored unless it is enforced. In particular Bozmo has edited the area extensively and has edited WMC's talk page hundreds of times ([6]) - he has refused to recuse himself despite being asked several times, going so far as to use such a request as evidence against me to extend my topic ban. 2over0 has temporarily cut back from enforcement, but he demonstrates the need for something else - a DUCK rule and enforcement mechanism for involved admins. While his edits in the area have been telling they have also been minimal - the real DUCK test comes from the evidence [7].

It is essential to implement a DUCK test for admin involvement because admins, like editors, can be activists as well, but it is more dangerous due to the necessarily subtle actions and protection brought by admin status (note: WMC's block log was clear only when he was an admin). I guarantee that several activist admins will step up and continue the roles that Bozmo/2over0 have done. There will be a new WMC and they will protect him.

2. Use of blogs: Needs enforcement. WMC et all have been linkspamming his former blog for years. It is not highly regarded by mainstream (i.e. not skeptic) climate scientists like Judith Curry.

3. Checkusers: Banned/topic banned editors must be checkusered to compare with future new accounts. WMC has edited this area for many years and is clearly quite attached to it, while other pro-AGW editors have definitely socked in the past and yet avoided banning (e.g. Hipocrite). Also, as shown by the "parody" edits to the PD page and several of the editors yucking it up (e.g. Guettarda) on WMC's talk page they should definitely be checkusered to be compared to the vandal accounts. They know they won't be though since they've traditionally been able to avoid being checkusered, but it seems to me that they are bragging about their actions there.

4. Banning: Not nearly enough users are being sanctioned. Hipocrite and KDP in particular have behaved extremely poorly and will carry on like WMC has. Going by the diffs used to ban Mark and myself (I may post a defense of myself in the discussion section) far more editors should be banned. Regarding KDP, he has tried to keep a low profile during the case but he has adopted and promoted WMC's MO (this is NOT how you deal with a new user - see how he was copying WMC's behavior in the history).

5. WMC topic ban: Banning him from articles but not talk pages is ineffectual and even counterproductive. As shown by that KDP diff, a copy of WMC's behavior, his main role on talk pages is to increase the drama factor to either directly drive away other editors or bait them into saying/doing something that 2over0/Bozmo/etc can ban new editors for.

Statement by ATren

I think the decision addresses several major issues well, but it falls short in a few areas:

1. There needs to be a stronger statement on administrator involvement, particularly for Lar, who has been subject to relentless accusations and baiting. There was also extensive pointy behavior by others, particularly Stephan Schulz, who on several occasions disruptively asserted he too was uninvolved, to underline his opinion on Lar's involvement, even though Stephan is clearly much more involved than Lar by any definition of involvement. The Lar situation needs resolution or it will continue to flare up, more than likely resulting in another case.
2. The bans should be expanded to several other editors who have been disruptive. Hipocrite has been frequently aggressive and uncivil, and he even got into the BLP game by pushing a partisan opinion into the Lawrence Solomon lede. ChrisO has been very active in BLPs in the last month, with the most egregious violation being his edit-warring to keep a highly critical unpublished presentation in Christopher Monckton's BLP. Other editors were less active but supported the BLP vios (i.e. Guettarda and Verbal on Solomon's BLP). KDP has also had a history of unbalanced editorial opinion in BLPs (when comparing BLPs of skeptics vs mainstream view supporters) though he seems to have stepped back recently. Personally, I would favor a blanket ban on all the heavy participants in this entire topic area, particularly the BLPs. I would gladly include myself in that ban if it also banned all the partisans (and particularly the BLP violators).

Statement by Nsaa

Taking a look at this again makes me feel that stronger actions need to be taken against a lot of editors that removes everything they don't like by wikilayering to the absurd (and when they run out of arguments some even claim consensus: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia. So I agree with ATren above on his statement on this subject. Nsaa (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WMC

The PD is shoddy and broken; it needs to be thrown out and re-written.

The principle failing is the usual arbcomm one: the triumph of surface over substance. There is no appreciation in the PD of the importance of high-quality content, or the importance of high-quality contributors.

As we all know, there is no evidence for cabals or factions, and trying to hide this by talking about "blocs" makes it no better. People have opinions that they brought in from the outside; it is idle to pretend that people don't edit to reflect reality as they see it. Restating NPOV yet again doesn't help. Priciples 9, 10 sound great but are merely restatements of what everyone accepts anyway.

• Locus: the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes is wrong. The disputes are pre-existing ones, we all know that global warming is contentious in the real world. You could remove all the snark, etc, and insist on total surfaec civility - and the same disputes would exist. Having started with this fundamental error the PD goes downhill from there.

• Sockpuppetry: I don't believe that a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. is credible. If that is to be believed, a list of such accounts should be provided.

• Previous sanctions: as noted by others, noting that arbcomm previously imposed a revert parole on me, but failing to note that it was overturned as an error, is evidence either of carelessness or bias. Noting two RFC's but faling to note the (positive, for me) outcome is the same.

• Incivility: refactoring deliberate sniping is not incivil [8]. Reaction to an admin blocking you [9] is explicitly permitted by arbcomm's own decision (remember Giano?). Etc etc. You'll also notice that 80% of that section - all the second para - ends up noting that I was blocked for what all agreed afterwards were invalid reasons. A finding that The WordSmith had pointlessly inflamed the situation would be in order.

• Admin involement: The disputes were exacerbated because no clear definition of "involved" had been agreed upon for this purpose - this is not true. The probation had in fact been set up with a very clear definition of involvement - but it wasn't a defn that suited certain admins, most obviously Lar, so it was cast aside. But for arbcomm to pretend that the defn didn't exist is deceitful.

• Ownership: that section appears to be a deliberate joke, presumably in order to discredit the entire judgement. Just one page? And why on earth is [10] or [11] or indeed the others "ownership"?

• BLP: looks pretty desperate to me. Why is [12] a BLP vio? Could you not do any better? Perhaps [13], presumably for inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability - which misses the point. It is well sourced, undisputed, and (at the time) was one of the very few known things about him. And why is this [14] a BLP vio? That is just mudslinging by the drafting arbs. And dredging up edits 6 years old that actually pre-date the BLP policy itself [15] shows how weak this stuff is.

• The climate change noticeboard: became pointless when it was hijacked by involved admins Lar / LHVU. Getting rid of it is good; failing to note *why* it failed is a failure of the PD.

• William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area - thanks for the note, and then the deliberate belittling follow-up. Subtext: "yes you know what you're talking about, but we don't care, because there are plenty of people who can replace you". But you're wrong: the only other wikipedian I know of with significant climate expertise is Boris, and you know what he thinks of your judgement (oops sorrt: I forgot DF: but he doesn't really edit any more. You could ask him why).

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See my 28 Aug edits to the PD from 14:17 to 15:40 UTC. I've attempted to address much of this. Still working on suggestions from you and others on the PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Imagine a discussion between scientific experts and laymen who are sometimes dubious about the claims of the scientists...at first, the scientists act as teachers, generally doing what they can to educate, in this case with references and examples. But the laymen are still skeptical and are unable or unwilling to "believe" the scientists, and seek out a support system to allow them to hold on to their beliefs...in this case, nonscientists. Over time, the scientists, recognize that they can't educate those that don't want an education, so they give up...why bother trying to educate someone that either won't or can't be educated. Meanwhile, the "nonbelievers" are able to find what appears to be credible evidence that the scientists may have their facts wrong or are at least off a bit...(disregarding that the publishers of such information are mostly interested in selling books, not spreading facts)...so faced with a barrage of nonscientific ignorance, the scientists are then forced to apply "due weight" to such things, even though they can easily see that the nonscientific books and, for lack of a better word, "junk science" are just that, unscientific and junk. Wikipedia, in its quest to become a reliable reference base allows great latitude to those defending against obvious junk science but this latitude has a price...sanity. Over time, the constant barrage of non-science (aka nonsense) takes its toll..the scientists, exhausted by the nonsense and knowing that they can't educate the nonbelievers, snap...they may become incivil at times, they may become possessive, they may become disgusted. I know I did...dealing with the absolute idiocy of 9/11 conspiracy theories was a whole lot like dealing with CC nonbelievers...thankfully we severly restricted those who kept trying to ramrod conspiracy theory junk science (oftentimes published by those more interested in selling books than providing facts) in 9/11 related articles...a huge success for this project. Connolley drew a line in the sand, said no, we're not going to have that junk science in this article as it is undue weight...virtually no reputable climate scientists support that premise so it is not worth considering. Eliminating Connolley from editing CC articles is the worst thing this project could do...if you must, eliminate him from editing BLP's related to CC for 1 year....recognize that the barrage has been unrelenting, that WMC has been provoked, needled and at times harassed, and DO NOT allow "uninvolved" (is there such a thing) administrators from applying any blocks against him for his "incivility"...instead, his incivilities should be shown to arbcom and they can do the blocks...finally, as in all cases, 3RR violations should result in blocks...as they normally would to any editor. For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about CC...but I am learning, thanks in no small part to Connolley and his "evil cabal".--MONGO 11:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by recused Arbitrator SirFozzie

I've had no say in the discussion or the write up in the PD I'm recused on this case due to filing an Arbitration two years ago on WMC. I get this from dealing with the editors in this area over the last couple weeks, on the Monckton page, and the WMC Sanction issue.

I see both sides have broken down into two basic ideas on the Proposed Decision. A) That the PD is incredibly harsh to editors they agree with, and incredibly soft on editors they disagree with, or B) That the PD doesn't go far enough, remedy wise to solve this issue. Put me in Camp B, but that's because of my personal opinion that the only way that this setting will die down is the following:

Every editor named as a party in more than one edit-war? Topic Banned. Doesn't matter if you're a fervent believer, a disciple, a skeptic, denalist, or even agnostic when it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change. You get in more than one edit-war? You're done. Any other editor who wants to pick up the edit-war slack? They'll be next on the list of topic bans to be handed out via neutral administrators.

Oh. That's the other part. It's obvious to me that a lot of the administrators involved in this area are not trusted by one side or the other. That's probably because they believe that they are favoring one side or the other. I don't know how you can prove it, after all, how can you tell what's in the heart of administrators. So, we're going to solve the problem. All the existing administrators in the area are thanked for their efforts, but asked not to continue. We're going for a clean sweep there too.(and before anyone even thinks to ask, yes, that would include me).

If the Committee has to scorch the area, pave it over, and see a new batch of editors and administrators can work on the Global Warming area without fighting. I think I can name some of the folks who would take the edit-warrior's place on both sides, but hell... Assume Good Faith and all that. Besides, if the Committee did have to skim off two generations of edit warriors, the third generation of Wikipedia editors would realize that "Discussing changes on the talk page in a collegial manner" is not optional, but mandatory.

But what do I know.

Actually, what I do know is this. I've worked in some really putrid areas as an administrator. I'm sure my fellow arbitrators have seen areas that are just as bad as the areas I'm thinking of.

But the utter lack of congeniality, the utter bad faith, and the line in the sand edit-warriors on all sides in this area is the worst I've seen in my 4+ years on Wikipedia. There's a bunch of folks who are going to treat that as a mark of pride to hear me say that. It's not. It's a damn shame. SirFozzie (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Whatever the final decision, it cannot on its own solve the problem and as arbitrators I assume you recognise this. This poisoned environment must be made fit for the editors and administrators who have stayed away, and particular attention must be paid to encouraging administrator discretion. The proposed discretionary sanctions move in that direction, providing a standard regime that has been applied with success in other problem areas.

It may well be that we'd have to go as far as SirFozzie suggests. But meanwhile it's worth giving it our best shot to encourage uninvolved admins to act on their own initiative, and to make it rather difficult to reverse admin-imposed sanctions without a well established, clear consensus to do so. The amount of bad faith, gaming and battleground behavior that has been seen in the probation forum has been quite shocking, and those who have been engaged there would not hesitate to try to do the same to the discretionary sanctions if not actively deterred. --TS 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

K10wnsta's example is poorly chosen. The editor attempted to make a prejudicial statement about a living person by citing a fragment of an email which had been reproduced on the WSJ website, and adding an original interpretation of what it represented. This is contrary to several of our policies, not least that pertaining to biographies of living persons, which I cited in my revert. Unsurprisingly few editors were interested in allowing him to edit war this material into Wikipedia. A suspicion of sock puppetry apparently arose from the editor's combination of IP and logged-in edits, for which he later provided an explanation. --TS 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by K10wnsta

I preface this by saying I do not envy the committee. The amount of effort required to properly assess the state of this situation is mind-numbing. Based on my analysis, the manipulation of information here has persisted for far too long and correcting it will require a far-reaching, landmark decision, something I'm afraid the proposed decisions, in their current state, are not.*
9 months ago, as an uninvolved editor, I reviewed the state of our global warming article (tl;dr – it's the 1000-word summary of a 2 week analysis). It was no easy task, nor one I took lightly. To this day, I stand behind every word I wrote there – except the final passage. At the time, I gave the 'expertise' of certain involved parties the benefit of the doubt, even going out of my way to rationalize how they could honestly be misrepresenting material in the article. I have since resolved that my assumption of good faith was misplaced.
If I have time (I probably won't), I'll comment on individual propositions in their prescribed sections, but I’d like to address a more significant and understated one with my statement:

On Sockpuppetry

Many aspects of the Scibaby ordeal are alarming. A mind-boggling number of accounts and IP addresses are being blocked over a modus operandi left vaguely defined. Of particular concern is the following practice: Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user and may be reverted on sight. (emphasis added)
Such a procedure is dangerous, even in the hands of the most neutral editors. Wielded by activists, it’s an extremely powerful tool in suppressing outside dissent in a contentious matter and stands as disturbing precedent, not just for articles related to climate change, but the project as a whole. The following incident, in addition to being one of several examples of collusion by involved editors, demonstrates why the treatment of socks warrants further assessment:

• [16] – Vryadly attempts to incorporate valid, reliably-sourced information.
• [17] – TS removes it, stating the Wall Street Journal is a poor source.
• [18] – Vryadly reverts.
• [19] – ChrisO removes it again, also citing the Wall Street Journal as a ‘poor source’
• [20] – Vryadly reverts, questioning how the WSJ is a ‘poor source’
• [21] – Scjessey reverts, declares the effort vandalism, and reports Vryadly for edit-warring. An accusation of sockpuppetry is leveled.

This is a case of a relatively new editor attempting to make what is, by our own standards, a valid contribution to the project, then being (metaphorically) pursued and lynched for the effort. If you were an inexperienced editor, trying in good faith to contribute to an article, would you want to continue helping the project after such an ordeal? Vryadly hasn’t. I implore the committee to examine more closely the procedures on these matters as they blatantly defy the founding principles of this project.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
*Not to shortchange Newyorkbrad’s efforts in proposing them – following a 10-day vacation, this would be the last thing I’d want to be plunged headfirst into.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

This decision took two months to craft and we've been told that one of the arbitrators spent 350 hours working on the PD. We should all thank the committee for spending so much effort on the case. But unfortunately the effort doesn't show in the result. With one significant exception, most of us could have scribbled this PD on the back of an IHOP placemat months ago: Put the smackdown on WMC, block an editor or two from the other side for balance, and restate the usual platitudes (essentially as summarized in the "vandal version" though the vandal version is clearer and more concise than the actual PD). The exception is that the PD finally puts the poor old sanctions board out of its misery; this is good.

The PD refers to "blocs" of editors but that's painting too broadly. Yes, there are two identifiable groups, which one could characterize as the WR/contrarian coalition on one side and the "science club" on the other. But there are many gradations within each group. The WR/contrarian group ranges from those who make good-faith efforts and try to rein in the excesses of their colleagues to obnoxious jerks who contribute nothing of value to content, and every shade between. (Perhaps the same could be said of the science club but I am too close to characterize my own group.) The PD ignores these gradations.

On WMC: He has made some boneheaded moves and I've told him so. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that it wouldn't have mattered if he had behaved himself. The evidence against him includes an RFC from five and a half years ago (!) and a second RFC that ended in his favor. The arbitrators seem to feel that merely being the subject of an RFC is a blot on one's record; strangely, no such warning appears at WP:RFC/U. There is also a note of a previous arbcom sanction – with the fact that the sanction was later overturned being conveniently overlooked. Some of the diffs purportedly showing misconduct (especially the ones regarding ownership) are perplexing. Perhaps WMC deserves the sanctions that are being proposed, but it would be nice if the arbitrators could bother to present relevant evidence.

One last point. The fruits of the PD's endorsement of Lar's behavior are apparent on this very page. Unsurprisingly, he has taken the committee's endorsement as license to up the ante, even boasting of having "pwned" an arbitrator. In light of his response to the PD, should the committee continue to turn a blind eye his behavior is likely to become worse and worse until things end very badly. He once was almost universally respected (including by me) but over the past year or two has been treading a bad path. A desysop may or may not be warranted; perhaps simply calling attention to his misbehavior will suffice. In short you have a chance to steer him away from the path he is gong down. Take it.

And my 500 words are done… now.

Statement by Woonpton

I have only once looked at any CC article, back when I first discovered Wikipedia quite by accident and was appalled by the poor quality of the articles I saw. They read to me like bad high school term papers, full of misinformation and marked by an apparent lack of ability on the part of authors to read and fairly summarize sources. Then I thought wow, if these articles are this bad, imagine how bad the articles on politically controversial topics, like climate change, must be! But when I looked at the climate change article, I found that it was solidly based on the best sources, knowledgeable, authoritative, a pleasure to read, as any good encyclopedia article should be. It was the quality of the climate change article that persuaded me to stay at Wikipedia and try to edit here, and the courage and dedication of the (ever-dwindling) group of science-literate editors that has kept me interested in Wikipedia.

Now I can see what an effort it took to keep CC the excellent article it was. Since it seems apparent from all accounts that WMC has been the guiding hand maintaining that quality, I suspect that content quality will suffer if WMC is topic-banned, but I am no apologist for or follower of WMC (despite being named by Abd as a member of WMC's "cabal," which BTW makes me extremely wary of the talk here of "factions" and "blocs;" how do I know there's any more basis to these charges than to Abd's charge that WMC and I were in cahoots with each other? I don't even like WMC; we've never edited the same articles, at least according to wikistalk, and the only conversation I can remember having with him was a disagreement over the courtesy blanking of the Abd/WMC case pages.) The fact that wikistalk lists 19 user talk pages in common between us, although we've almost never interacted, is another indication of the inadequacy of this tool as a measure of "cohesiveness". I show here and here how misleading wikistalk can be as an index of coordinated editing. AFAIK that wikistalk "evidence" was the only evidence offered that a "faction" exists here; it's poor proof indeed.

I don't think the crucial issue here is WMC, or a "faction" of science-oriented editors; the crucial issue here is more central: What is more important to Wikipedia? Providing information that the public will respect and rely on as an accurate summary of the best available sources, or providing a welcoming environment for those whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote a minority POV? You can't have both; your decision here will tip the balance one way or the other. Woonpton (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

Users that impedes improvement of articles in CC area with battleground mentality and ownership issues need sanctions that control their conduct. After reviewing the contributions of editors involved in the dispute, I've added diffs and recommendations for several editors below. I strongly recommend that ArbCom take the initiative and clear out the most problematic editors from these articles since this area is one that admins have difficulty doing enforcement because so many of the editors are established users where sanctions are the most difficult to find agreement in the Community. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.

Proposed principles

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed principle" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the principle numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

P3: User Conduct

It seems to me that the use of disparaging terms such as "denialist" or "warmist" constitutes uncivil behavior (specifically name-calling) under policy, for which I think editors might expect to find themselves sanctioned going forward. I point this out because I continue to see the ongoing use of these terms on this very page. Engaging in uncivil behavior while discussing the PD of a case largely about civility seems to be... a poor choice. - DGaw (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that there should be a strict prohibition against editors labeling each other. However, a quick word search of this page shows that editors seem to be using "denialist" in conjunction with the word "viewpoint," which is not uncivil behavior. I think that a more common form of incivility is to gratuitously attack other editors as being members of a "faction" or "cabal," usually in the context of "your faction does this and that." I've seen a lot of that. Editors who engage in this kind of personal attack should be sanctioned for incivility if they make a habit of it, particularly when they have been called on it and continue to defend their conduct, and persist in it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I don't think I've ever used the term "warmist," but many on the AGW side constantly use terms that are intentionally offensive. Bait any skeptics that show up by using those terms and then file enforcement requests when they lash out in kind. If someone wants to call someone a skeptic in quotes then that is fine, but in general, and this goes for BLPs too, we should use self-identified labels - not scarlet letters.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

P4: Collective behavior of blocs of editors

This cannot be emphasised enough, IMO. The often natural and good faith formations of like minded editors, working toward a common understanding of the policies of the encyclopedia, must not be permitted to become a bloc vote mechanism by which one viewpoint becomes petrified and is used as a means of creating the status quo. Collective behaviour awareness should become part of the self regulation of any confluence of like minded editors, to better ensure that the necessity of NPOV is addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The section seems focussed on the negative aspect of people having shared understandings of the subject, and there's the danger that "bloc" will be the new derogatory term, replacing "cabal" and "faction". We should indeed recognise that people approach the subject with widely different views, and the polarised nature of public information on the subject, particularly in the mass media, can lead to difficulties in understanding. We should treat all editors as individuals, not categorise them, and work in full accordance with policies. In particular NPOV requires standards which differ from the false balance which has been rather common in the media, and editors have cooperate as individuals with differing viewpoints to meet policies. . dave souza, talk 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the negative effect that when a group of people find themselves agreeing with each other that they conclude that theirs is the NPOV, and once that mindset takes place it becomes difficult to impossible to allow a shift in that representation of a POV. That is why those who agree on an interpretation or opinion on a subject need to continue to test the validity of that perception, and not disregard anything that might counter it. It would be foolish to disregard that people will agree with each other, and that human nature then creates bonds within such a social construct.
As for false balance, it is not within the remit of WP to weigh it; but to report it as faithfully as the sources permit - and all the other references. It is recognised that there is bias in much of that which is reported, so only by providing the reader with as wide a range of commentary as possible is there the potential of giving a true picture (or pandering to their own bias). WP is permitted to lead the hobby horse to water, but not to make them think... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always within the remit of WP to weigh sources – see WP:SOURCES – and give more weight to the most reliable sources on the subject. The mass media find it more newsworthy to present fringe views as equal to mainstream views, but we shouldn't give "equal validity", even if op-eds in the WSJ support fringe views. I fully agree that consensus should be reached on talk pages in terms of policy, not always easy but essential in the long run.

Where this proposed section goes wrong is in the WP:BEANS effect of legitimising the sort of mindset that talks of "breaking" "the powerful AGW faction of their pernicious behavior" when we should be looking at the behaviour of individuals, not looking at them as "cogs" in "the AGW faction". Also note how one-sided this sort of paranoid vision has become, plenty of editors have been promoting various skeptic or denialist views without being accused of being cogs in the "skeptic faction". As far as I can recall – if diffs show otherwise I'm ready to condemn any such accusations as similarly uncivil and disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider who has commented or asked questions, that I should say mostly went unanswered, I think that the comments about "Collective behavior of blocs of editors" or factions or cabals or any other name you want to call it needs to stop. There is a distinct set of two groups of editors in these articles which includes supports from administrators who are supposed to be uninvolved. These administrators from an outsiders view watching comments on talk pages and various other pages do not seem to be uninvolved. It looks more like politics and revenge to me, sorry but that is how it looks. I am not naming names because I do not want to get myself on a list again which feel is a a personal attacks and totally uncivil to call any editor a cabal member or any other term. There actually are editors who believe the same things and are editing within their own belief's and not as a faction. I guess if you say it enough times it somehow becomes true. This is a complicated case with a lot of different editors involved. I find calling out editors as factions, cabals and now blocs of editors to be a distraction. If sanctions are needed than they should be for individual behaviors and not because they have other's who think like they do. I didn't read the beginning of this case (I already have a good idea what each party had to say) but I have watched the behaviors of this case since the sanction board was set up. There are no clean hands here. I don't think pulling a few out and giving them sanctions like banning them or warnings will stop the ongoing behavior that has been occurring. Heck, just read the talk pages of the main editors and administrators to see what is going on. It's not that difficult to see the issues here. All that is really needed is to check talk pages (some should be done through the history), boards like COI, biography of living people notice board and ANI. Just insert a user name in the search and see what shows up. At least this is what I've seen as an outsider, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I recognise that it may be unhelpful to stigmatise people as "belonging" to a grouping of editors based around their pov, but there is an issue that the behaviours of members as a group of a shared opinion need addressing; that individuals will take actions that of themselves is not disruptive or in violation of policy, but when added with other individuals performing the same actions (along with another set of individuals reverting those actions) are. I have been very careful not to point to any one pov or label in describing these "fellow travelers" since I think there is fault found within any bloc when they occur. Also, I was using the terminology used in the PD - since I prefer the more nebulous term "confluences" where some editors agree on some aspects of a viewpoint but disagree or are not known to comment on other points. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie girl makes an excellent point let us not drag this back to trying to discredit editors because of supposed negative "confluences". When editors agree on things that should be an occasion to rejoice not criticise because it does not match your own opinion (even if you are an admin). In fact when admins start attacking editors because they seem to agree on stuff that is an indication that the admin does not agree and hence should withdraw themselves from being "uninvolved" Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of blocs, factions and confluences

The effect of confluences of editors within articles and article talkpages

See also: Earlier archived discussion

The effect of confluences of editors within Probation enforcement requests

Proposed finding of fact: "It has been shown that the perceived split in opinion between editors of climate change articles also manifested itself within the enforcement request process. Claims of violation of the probation against any one member of a confluence would be swiftly opposed or condemned by those whose viewpoint or opinion was similar, and sometimes the motives or culpritability of the accuser raised, and the request enthusiastically endorsed and expanded by members of the opposing confluence. Very quickly a request would be turned into an arena of claim and counterclaim, often involving the issue originally disputed, and the opinions of parties - including and latterly specifically the uninvolved admins - critically examined on the basis of allegiance to one or other of the disputed POV's. The requirement for editors to partake in such process' to reduce violation of policy and the restrictions within the probation were put aside for partisan involvement for the benefit of one preferred viewpoint and the deprecation of the other." Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you don't like the normal process of discussion of proposed sanctions and assume bad faith? How does this differ from ANI? Specific evidence would be needed of this supposed infraction, together with an opportunity for those accused to explain their actions. . dave souza, talk 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a lot of this right, people have tended to pile on support in their predictable ways and this has certainly included supposedly "uninvolved admins" the scary thing is when people are then judged as being part of "the cabal" by "uninvolved admins" such as Lar just because they oppose his viewpoint on a particular issue. Polargeo (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, this is the last warning you're going to get. Your comments on this page have been unhelpful and borderline attacks. If you don't have something constructive to say, find something else to do. This isn't an opportunity to take pot-shots at editors you disagree with. Shell ^babelfish 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My comments on this page have been mostly responses to the posts of others about me and have been in my own defence. What may seem like a borderline attack to you is just my open assessment. If I am not open to comment on the actions of admins here whilst others are allowed to openly comment on my own actions then I really feel that this is censorship. Maybe I should just take a whipping, say thank you arbcom I deserved that and smile. Polargeo (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The factionalism LessHeard vanU describes was exacerbated by the way in which the probation was interpreted. Admin initiative was actively discouraged by the emphasis on group discussion prior to action, and lax management of the discussion page which meant that the request page became a central point for battleground behavior. Admins were empowered, on paper, to act on their own initiative, but the interpretation was such that admins who had formerly done so were discouraged and, in some cases, actively accused of misbehavior because they did so. It was doomed. We must move on from there. --TS 15:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Factionalism was also created by admins who came to enforcement with an agenda to "level the playing field" rather than sort out the issues at hand, this absolutely has to be dealt with. However, I see no attempt to deal with this in the proposed decision. Polargeo (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both TS and Polargo. the factionalism has been strong (as strong as middle east factionalism) for quite some time. (since at least the WMC-ABD arbcom case) Prior to that case, WMC, as an admin, seemed to mostly try to act in an even handed manner and not promote factionalism. After that, when no longer in a 'position of authority' within the project....WMC has seemed to act in a way that increases factionalism. People who are philosophically opposed to science have always been a problem and promote factionalism at about the same rate as always (which is a disruptive amount). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am open to the wording being tweaked, or even ripped apart and reassembled, but are people really saying that there is either no perception that editors appeared to be aligned with one of two camps, or that the perception is entirely wrong? Forget labels, is there really disagreement that any named editor is placed among other specific editors in reviewers minds? Further, are people also saying that the perception of knee jerk reaction by members of one "amalgam" to the actions or opinions of persons from the "other camp" entirely fanciful? Even if it is agreed that there seemed to be a lot of sharing of similar opinions/viewpoint between two distinct groups of editors, is it suggested that this was always beneficial and did not instigate edit wars and long, involved and often inconclusive discussions on talkpages and Probation enforcement? If so, why are we involved in an ArbCom case? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the same problem with the previous proposal. I just fundamentally disagree with this approach. To me, the problem with the enforcement mechanisms is that they've become overused, often by editors with trivial non-cases, or to make a point. That should be addressed. It's just not necessary to stick labels on the editors participating in these proceedings. So let's say six editors say A and six editors say B. Let's say the editors that say A are right. Should they be punished because there are five other editors saying the same thing? The same goes for the editors saying B. Maybe they just have a different interpretation of policy. The focus should be on the individual actions of the editors/administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No one should be sanctioned because they hold a certain viewpoint or opinion, but where they act in concert with others who share that opinion to frustrate or deprecate those whose opinions differ rather than work through the dispute resolution or find consensus through the application of policy and the input of third parties, etc. then they should - and very especially it should not matter if the shared viewpoint happens to be "right", it does not allow those editors to avoid the proper WP editing process. A RS for instance cannot be removed without comment because it is "wrong", in the context of the subject, but needs to be explained and agreed (after the event is fine) and neither can a non RS like a blog be used even if it agrees with the consensus. When people with shared opinions or viewpoints act together as a group to make such invalid actions, then there is a problem - one which I am trying to address. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more open to your argument if there was any evidence introduced during the past three months showing editors acting in concert. There have been many complaints about editors, and many allegations of "factions," which in my opinion have poisoned the atmosphere. What has made these allegations poisonous is that they're thrown around willy-nilly, adding to the battleground atmosphere. What I haven't seen has been any evidence of editors acting in concert. I looked through the Evidence section and found none. I looked through the Workshop section and found allegstions that editors X, Y, Z, and AA were in factions, but silence when an example of factionalism was requested. Can you provide an example of editors acting in concert to thwart concensus or subvert policies? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that it is hard to see the "factions". There are so many examples. The most obvious is the attempt to have an article named Climategate. One "faction" argued that it does not matter what the consensus is, there will never be an article with that name. It took months, and the help of Jimbo Wales, to even get the term allowed in the article. On another page, when a driveby dogooder decided to rename the Anthony Watts article to Anthony Watts (meteorologist) (without any discussion at all), the same "faction" argued that, in Europe, the term "meteorologist" means that a person has a degree in meteorology. There was NEVER any evidence to support that claim. It was simply pushed through and, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be written in American English, this "faction" forced the use of the derogatory term "blogger" in the article's title. (In general, the term "blogger" is not derogatory. But in the ClimateChange area of wikipedia, bloggers are typically run down as totally worthless. In addition, I don't see a page William Connolley (blogger), yet that is exactly what he is known for.) There is also the case of the Fred Singer article where irrelevant, and sometimes even false, information was repeatedly added against obvious consensus. These are just a few of many such instances where consensus against the "faction" is irrelevant. There are also cases where editors who opposed the "faction" have found themselves banned from wikipedia. Q Science (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "Climategate"; that was the one area I became briefly involved in, as I suggested a title compromise that did not include that term - and I argued that suffixing "-gate" to any dispute was often a ploy by both activists and newspapers designed to insinuate corruption and illegal activity without it been shown to be correct, or just to sell more copy... There you go, folks, there is even a question on whether my status as an uninvolved admin, because of a few edits there, is as clear (except for one insane interpretation, to be found in the evidence section) as the majority would suggest. So, my friends, if I were not uninvolved, whose pov should I be regarded as supporting..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems equating the "skeptic" faction with the AGW faction. The most obvious of which is that most people in the "skeptic" faction actually believe in AGW (not myself obviously). Also, there is a lot more disagreement and more substantive disagreement among the skeptic faction (e.g. my disagreement with Cla about using advocacy books as sources). The most obvious difference is how tight-knit the AGW group is as evidenced by how often they show up in certain places together (AfD discussions, certain user talk pages, etc). Finally, the AGW group is far far more likely to insert and defend BLP violations or remove/fluff qualifications based on the ideology of the subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding confluences of editors

Proposed remedy: "For the purposes of Arbitration Enforcement, upon the perception of editors who consistently arraign themselves or are arraigned with one viewpoint regards CC/AGW being involved in an edit war and not meaningfully engaged in discussing the issue on the relevant talkpage, any uninvolved administrator may block all parties involved in "bloc" warring for up to 48 hours in the first instance, 1 week in subsequent instances, and following more than three instances in any one 6 week period up to 1 year. Further, upon perception that article talkpages are being used inappropriately, in that issues regarding the insertion or removal of content or links, etc., are being only advocated or deprecated and no discernible progress made toward finding a consensus, any uninvolved administrator may sanction parties initially for up to 24 hours, and subsequently up to a week. Should an uninvolved admin determine that an account is habitually being sanctioned for nonproductive "bloc" warring on talkpages, then topic bans and extended blocks may be considered." Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is obviously in regard to my belief that there is a battleground mentality existing between two perceived camps of opinion regarding CC/AGW, per my proposed findings of fact. I am suggesting that any actions which appear to be either an edit war or a nonproductive argument on an article talkpage, where the participants are those who appear to belong to one of either confluence of editors and are simply repeating the actions or opinions of other editors also regarded as being within the same confluence, that sanctions are more quickly triggered, so that resolution and consensus becomes the premium option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I should mention, that I have tried to make the sanction regime for talkpage violations less severe, in the hope that editors may return quickly to contribute usefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This perpetuates the myth of only two factions. Some of the articles are so biased, it is no longer possible to determine if an editor is a skeptic or is simply trying to follow NPOV. How do you propose to distinguish between these two groups of editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It also assumes that editors consistently line up in coherent blocs. I think this is a false assumption, given that there's a wide variety of opinions on any given issue. Different editors may agree with each other in one situation and disagree in another. There are no "two perceived camps" - what we have is more like a kaleidoscope of views which will sometimes align and sometimes conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with A Quest for Knowledge and ChrisO. This proposal will just result in intense wikilawyering over what is and is not a "bloc." If you want to impose tough remedies, you can do it on individual editors based on their actions, without trying to tie them together. That might actually make it harder to impose sanctions. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Honestly, I'm having trouble figuring out why the issue of "factions" is included in the above. Evidence of factions is rarely more than a subjective assessment that risks including people who merely happen to agree at the moment. That said, I agree that edit warring without "meaningfully engaging in discussion" is a persistent problem. As is inappropriate use of talk pages, though that is also a very subjective thing. Would it not be simpler and more balanced to go after these behaviors, without trying to layer on the question of factionalism? For example:

"For the purposes of Arbitration Enforcement, any uninvolved administrator may block any editor who consistently engages in edit wars and is not meaningfully engaged in discussing the issues on the relevant talk pages. In the first instance for up to 48 hours, 1 week in subsequent instances, and following more than three instances in any one 6 week period up to 1 year. Further for editors who use article talk pages inappropriately, in that issues regarding the insertion or removal of content or links, etc., are being only advocated or deprecated with no discernible effort toward finding a consensus, any uninvolved administrator may block such editors initially for up to 24 hours, and subsequently up to a week. Should an uninvolved admin determine that an account is habitually being sanctioned under these provisions, then topic bans and extended blocks may be considered."

That focuses on objective behavior, without the subjective consideration of factions. I realize that your intention was to address "factions", but frankly, the remedy seems much cleaner if you don't ask admins to try and make that subjective determination. Dragons flight (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your simpler solution does work, if it is one editor that engages in edit warring or unproductively returns to one issue - my concern is when one issue is fought over repeatedly by editors A, B, C, D, etc on one interpretation and are opposed by editors 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. No one editor makes more than one revision, or repeat point, but all the alphabet editors are making the same edit as each other as are all the numerical editors sharing the same contribution. My attempt is to stop not only this edit war, but any subsequent similar edit war that an individual (or group of individuals) alphabet or numeric editor may get involved in. "Pile in" edit wars or non productive discussions suddenly become less attractive to editors who are perceived as belonging to a group, and productive discussion leading to a consensus becomes a premium. All participants in any edit war may be blocked, because it is obvious that the faction or confluence is engaged in it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Also, my use of confluence means that the faction or "bloc" may only be determined by the actions within a single topic; it does not matter if one editor sometimes finds themselves "shadowing" the actions of one editor one day, and then reproducing the arguments of another editor with a different viewpoint on another. The fact that they were sanctioned for the first instance means that that they are more severely sanctioned the second time (while both editors may only be sanctioned the once) because it is apparent that their preferred method of winning arguments is by warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we have different definitions of "edit war", but I'd say that if A and B are engaged in an edit war with 1 and 2, and then C, D, 3, 4 come in and start making reverts then they have participated in the edit war, even if they each reverted only once. If someone is jumping into a conflict to add more reverts without meaningful discussion, then they deserve to be sanctioned. I don't think one needs to determine that A-D and 1-4 are "factions" in order to reach that conclusion. I might consider supporting something explicit about non-constructive "piling on", if you have a suggested text, but I don't think a discussion of sides, per se, is necessary here. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think some allowance needs to be made for situations where an editor may inadvertently participate in an edit war without even realizing it. I'll give a real-life example: Me. I woke up one morning to discover an edit-war over whether the word "free-market" should be used in the Lawrence Solomon article.[22][23][24][25] I followed the edit-war but did not participate. During the course of the edit-war on the word "free-market", Hipocrite removed "environmentalist" from the article.[26] which I reverted.[27] Since this Hipocrite's edit was not about the "free-market" edit-war, I considered it to be the first in a WP:BRD cycle and my edit to be the second of the BRD cycle. In my mind, neither one of us had edit-warred. However, a month later I was shocked to learn that I had indeed participated in an edit-war.[28] At the time of my edit, I was unaware that other editors (probably while I was still sleeping) had previously added/removed "environmentalist" from the article. So, it was an honest mistake on my part. I guess you can argue that I should have done a better job checking the article's history, but still, it was a good faith error on my part, and had I realized that "environmentalist" was part of the edit-war, I would not have made this edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. Presumably you'd be more careful if you knew a specific sanction existed (obviously strangers to climate change would get a warning first). And, if were an isolated event or first offense rather than a pattern of behavior, then I'd also expect an admin to act with leniency. I don't think accidents like yours need much more than that. Dragons flight (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of factionalism?

In the interest of keeping this page readable, I'm adding a subheader to the discussion about whether evidence of factions was presented, and separating it from the discussion of LHvU's proposal. This is also an interesting topic but I think interleaving the general question about factions with specific discussion of the proposal makes things harder follow. Feel free to revert if anyone involved objects to this separation. Dragons flight (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I've taken the liberty of changing the topic header, which I think I have a right to do as topic starter. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you all talking in small voices? Does someone have a hangover? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing that I find distressing about all the talk of factions is that it's just that, talk. There has been ample opportunity to provide evidence, but, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has actually presented evidence of factions. Sure there have been bald assertions, notably by Lar here[29]. But if you go to the comments section, you can see that MastCell asked for examples of factionalism and there was no response. If you go the Evidence section, you can find that nobody, not Lar or anyone, presented any evidence of factionalism. Again, if I'm wrong please correct me. Please show me where, in this entire lengthy proceeding, there has been evidence of actual factionalism taking place. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: If no one's presented any evidence, it's probably because there is no agreement on what kind of evidence would be sufficient to establish factional behavior, but anyone who spends any significant length of time can easily see that there are 3 groups of editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that people were stymied by evidentiary standards, on this or any other issue. There were plenty of diffs thrown around, and the diffs often did not signify what they were supposed to signify. I saw not even an attempt to substantiate the constant "faction" and "cabal" smears. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Then you are mistaken. I recall this very issue being discussed by several editors earlier in the case. They couldn't agree what type of evidence would be sufficient to prove factional behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but nobody was precluded from trying, and certainly the editors asserting that editors X, Y, and Z were in a faction had an obligation to back up their assertions. We certainly had plenty of diffs on every other issue and nonissue, except for this one. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Why would anyone in their right mind bother spending the time to gather all these diffs if there's no agreement on what kind of diffs would be sufficient to prove factionalism? BTW, I note, that you have not provided any guidance on what kind of evidence that you would consider sufficient. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence I would consider sufficient? Doesn't matter, as no evidence of any kind has been presented. No one has even attempted to substantiate that position. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Sorry, I tried to help, but I have no interest in engaging in a circular discussion. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Committee is interested in this they could provide guidance on what would be sufficient to prove factional behavior. For now, we have "Wikipedia is not a battleground", which is policy and fairly easy to implement and enforce without assumptions of factionalism. And in the meantime it would be unwise to claim factionalism, cabalism or whatever if we can't agree on whether or not it's happening. --TS 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues with this ArbCom case is that all of the non Arbs attempted to second guess what the Arbs were looking for, and what types of evidence was going to be wanted. Now with a PD written I - as I guess you and most others are - are trying very hard to put in place Findings of Fact and Remedies that sit with those provided. I think I could find that evidence, in the articles Bishop Hill (blog) and Fred Singer for instance, or at least an example of the same editors supporting and opposing others in both cases - but, hey, the evidence page is closed... Just because no-one had the foresight to know what shape the PD was going to take does not mean that evidence is not obtainable, or that proposed FoF are invalid through the lack of same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No crystal ball was required. The Workshop has allegations of factions, but there was no evidence, not even a specific example when requested. It's as simple as that. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that factionalism is rather like pornography - everyone thinks they know it when they see it, but nobody can agree on a definition of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference was that people flooded the courts with nudie pictures purporting to be porno. I don't think you can say that the Evidence pages have been flooded with examples of factionalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two potential reasons for that; firstly, perhaps some people thought it self evident? I know I do. I recall that some people historically have been named "WMC apologists" and others "Scibaby enablers", others have been referred to as "editing toward the scientific consensus" and some as "editing to a skeptic or denialist viewpoint". Such terms and similar abounded in the probation enforcement pages, which is where I was active. Secondly, who was asked and when? I note that Lar was asked to provide evidence, per discussions above, but who else? Lar has been pretty busy in responding to different matters relating to this case, and may have placed a low degree of importance to it. As for others, I would first request who else was asked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar was/is the only editor who specifically named editors whom he believed inhabited a "faction." He frequently has laced his posts with casual references to editors, usually the ones he's addressing, as belonging to a "faction." These are serious allegations, because in the past arbcom has acted against entire factions. He needs to provide evidence, or he needs to desist using that kind of rhetoric. It can't be assumed or taken as "self evident," particularly when this editor has frequently and casually said that specific editors belong to a "faction." Such unsubstantiated labeling, when used casually, is battleground behavior. Lar has said that criticism of his rhetoric is "shooting the messenger." I'm simply suggesting that the messenger, and anyone else advancing "factions" as an issue, need to back up their assertions with facts. If they can't, or won't, don't make them. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review the clear evidence of strong editorial overlap (shown on counts of overlap on User Talk pages to avoid the claim that the CC area has a huge number of articles and that therefore a huge overlap is logical) presented on the initial evidence page. In short, specific facts do exist and were presented, with the argument against mainly being that no one ever thoght to make such comparisons in the past. The editors on that list showed, in fact, a significantly greater cohesiveness than any sub-group on ArbCom, where such would be fully expected. In short again "no evidence" is inapt as a statement. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All I see there is evidence that editors interested in climate change edit CC articles. Though many things can't be accepted on faith, I think that's a safe bet. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The overlap is not on "CC articles" - there are a large number of such articles, and so they were not used as the criteria for looking at overlap. Repeat: The User Talk pages examined are not "CC articles". Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're referring to [30]. The first page on the list is [31]. Where's the collusion? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I did not call it "collusion" I can not say where it is <g>. I can aver that the amount of 6/6 ovverlap on user talk pages is far higher than for any other group at all I examined, and surpasses the ArbCom overlap significantly (where it would be fully explainable). The overlap is far beyond any of the several hundred sets of editors I examined, and I welcome anyone to see if they can find any similar sets of overlaps. Collect (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Collect. What do you mean by your new measure "significantly greater cohesiveness"? Have you looked at any of the talkpage additions to see if they are cohesive? This sort of vagueness runs through all of your analysis, the methodology of which was selected by yourself. Also by methods similar to yours evidence was equally shown of talkpage overlap between other editors who have set themselves up against this claimed "faction". The process of statistically pointing the finger at users is fundamentally flawed and I see it as doing nothing more than entrenching a battleground situation. Polargeo (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Neat to see you entering this colloquy. As you are aware (especially since I defended you elsewhere only to have you attack me) I look at this as a completely disinterested observer. The methodology was explained now four times, which should have been enough. The only group with an expected similar (though lesser) cohesiveness was an ArbCom subset, where it would be expected. Using a buzzword like "battleground" is a sign of table-banging (ref to lawyer aphorism). No similar overlap was shown of any group of 6 whom you assert are in a different "faction." And I submit that statstics are as neutral a means as possible of identifying groups -- certainly better than "super secret means of identifying socks which can be disclosed not even to ArbCom" which then have up to a 40% error rate <g>. This is an open methodology, susceptible to anyone examining the results for any group they wish. Indeed, I invite anyone to find as great an overlap (6/6) for any group of "unrelated" editors on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not attacking you I am highlighting that your methodology is self selected and flawed. Your finding of overlap of 6/6 is totally meaningless in terms of establishing cohesion. I doubt anyone would be in the least bit surprised to find that established editors who work on a similar group of articles for a long time had high talkpage overlaps, to suggest you have shown cohesion is a sociological statement which cannot be shown by your statistics and is reinforcing WP:battleground. This is because it adds to the fact that editors have been presented variously as a cabal, collective, faction ect. in order to discredit them in this area (whichever word the user thinks they can get away with at the time). Also battleground is not a buzzword but a policy. Polargeo (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is "User Talk" overlaps - and the universe of such is remarkably constant in my examinition of several hundred groupings of editors that is, unless the editors have a strong cohesiveness otherwise. By the way, I even examined the notorious EEML editors without finding such cohesiveness on User Talk overlaps. And again the table-pounding accusation of "Battleground" is used here as a buzzword, and not as any conceivable accusation about my evidence. Collect (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have outlined why I think your analysis reinforces battleground therefore I do not believe I am using it as a buzzword. I also fully understand that you are refering to user talkpages and everything I have said in this thread is on that understanding and this changes none of my commentary. Again you are not examining cohesiveness and you should not present your usertalkpage overlap as such unless you wish to enter into the battleground arguments of putting people into factions. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors (including several Arbs) raised concerns here about the validity of Collect's analysis. It's Collect's prerogative to ignore or misrepresent those concerns, but it doesn't inspire confidence. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I noted one of the concerns was that it did not deal with article overlaps - and I answered that concern (especially since I recall one of the complainers had complained about another editor using the tool to examine article overlaps!). Another asked for methodology, which I have now answered four times or so. Another just did not like it - there is no way to address that sort of concern <g> And I really, really like having third person asides aimed my way. It gives me confidence about those editors <g>. As for charges that I "ignore or misrepresent" such stuff - I assuredly do not, and sought in each case (other than the IDONTLIKEIT ones) to answer all specific queries about how the study was made, and how many effective sets of six editors I examined (300 editors taken six at a time, removing sets without significant UT page overlap). Or essentially 300!/294!6! cases for the mathematically inclined. Collect (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I have never edited or even watched any of the Climate Change articles, nor have I followed this arbitration, but I do have several of the active participants' user talk pages watchlisted for reasons of my own (I like these people; they are witty and smart and I just enjoy eavesdropping on their conversations) and their comments about the proposed decision led me to watchlist and read some of this page. As a statistician, I've been interested in Collect's analysis and would like to know more about the methodology, but all I see here is Collect insisting again and again (without diffs) that he has explained the methodology already and that it shows extraordinary cohesiveness within this particular group of editors. I found my way to his evidence section, which points to two results pages from a tool called Wikistalk, one of which gives a list of six editors followed by a column of numbers, and the other shows five of the six editors (eliminating Stephan Schultz) which is said to be "even more striking." I have no idea what those numbers represent or why I should be persuaded by them, to what conclusion.

I was especially surprised by the assertion in that evidence section that this small group of editors is "extraordinarily apt to edit on the same user talk pages in far beyond random chance numbers" [emphasis in original statement by Collect]. This is a kind of statement that is ordinarily supported by a statistical test; does the wikistalk tool provide a statistical test of the deviation from "random chance?" If not, this statement should not be taken very seriously, as without a statistical test, there's no way of knowing whether whatever-these-numbers-represent deviates significantly from "random chance numbers." I searched for the tool and/or a description of what data are generated by the tool, and came up with nothing, but my search did bring me to the workshop section MastCell points to just above, where the data are called into question, but again, little discussion of the actual methodology. I'd appreciate some more information by which to judge the adequacy of this assertion on the basis of this tool, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I empirically studied a substantial group of editors, specifically looking only at UT pages, as overlaps on article pages was shown to be meaningless as it is proportional to the number of potential pages in a topic. UT pages form a relative constant. The numbers showed a fairly random distribution - with only one or two UT pages in common other than the editors' own UT pages as a rule. Out of the several hundred runs, only one showed nearly the same (well - about half the level) of overlap, and no others showed even one fourth the level. These runs effectively dealt with 300!/294!6! combinations of active editors. Again - use of article overlap is misleading as it shows higher overlaps in popular fields for small groups (birds of North America, as an example) while there is no such excuse for huge numbers of overlaps on user talk pages. Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of a Monte Carlo method would seem reasonable for such an analysis, but I have seen no evidence that similar methods have been employed here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Using 300 active editors does qualify - what criteria would you have used for selecting a large number of active contributors? Note that I have now mentioned this well over four times <g>. Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Collect didn't answer me directly, and answered someone else above by saying he has already provided information on the methodology four times (without having the courtesy to provide diffs for where these previous explanations can be found; I'm certainly not going to wade through all the text on this case to try to find them myself) it rather looks as if he doesn't intend to help me understand his methodology. I finally found the tool so I can use it myself, and have learned that what the tool does is take a group of editors and list every page in a given namespace which at least two of the named editors have edited, at any time. No requirement that the overlap needs to be in the same discussion, or express similar views, or be on related matters, or even be in the same decade, just any edit to that page. That's not much proof of "cohesion" it seems to me, but okay, let's go with this idea. So above, Collect says that the group he identifies as "extraordinarily cohesive" had "significantly more" pages that all six edited, than did six ArbCom members, who you would expect to edit the same user talk pages since they are dealing with the same parties in arbitration cases. Again, "significantly" is a statistical term and I would expect a statistical test presented to support it, but don't see one. I for one would need to see a statistical test supporting the assertion, to be convinced that 29 is "significantly more" than 27.

But there's more. Once I found the tool, the first thing I did was substitute a couple of names into the mix, so not all the names in the "group" are identified with one "side" of the content debate, just to see if that makes the "cohesion" fall apart. I forgot SBHB wasn't in the original group, so I put him in by accident, then there were three from Collect's analysis: Guettarda, WMC, and Tony Sidaway, and then I put in Lar and Cla68. Result

So if 29 cases where all six editors in a group edit the same page is considered proof of "extraordinary cohesion," what does it mean when all six of a group including some of those same people +Lar and Cla68 edit 34 pages in common? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I don't know if you would get more "cohesion" or less by changing the personnel of the group one way or another, but I think this one result shows rather clearly that this tool doesn't prove squat about how much a group works together or thinks together or acts together. Woonpton (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it proves that Lar is part of an "extraordinarily cohesive" faction of climate-change editors, and thus has no business acting as an uninvolved admin :P Well, according to Collect's logic, anyhow. Personally, I think the tool provides invalid and meaningless quantitative trappings which can be used to dress up a preconceived opinion, and so we shouldn't hold its output against Lar or anyone else, but I've expressed that belief elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

34 User talk pages? I would suggest that a cursory examination would show that often they specifically showed disagreement on said pages - making cohesiveness much less likely. There is the odd chance that the first group often disagreed with each other, although I find that scenario a tad less likely. Collect (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "that dog don't hunt," sorry. Before I posted my analysis, you were claiming that the 29 talk pages that these six editors had all edited at one time or another was definitive proof of the "extraordinary cohesiveness" of this group of six editors. When I showed that a group of disparate editors showed even more extraordinary cohesiveness, by your measure, that undermined your claim, if not toppling it altogether. To come back now and say well, it only works if you already know that the group are in agreement; it doesn't work for editors who disagree, further undermines your own claims for the utility of this tool to show the degree of "cohesiveness" within any given group of editors.

You seem to be assuming that in both cases the editors in question must have been in discussions with each other on these shared talk pages; the group you chose agreeing and supporting each other in these discussions, the group I chose disagreeing with each other in these discussions. You have provided no data to show that that's a valid assumption in either case. All that the tool does, as I said above, is to show that each of the six editors edited each of the shared talk pages at least once in the history of that talk page. As I've said before, there is no data to show whether the six editors participated in the same discussions on those talk pages, much less whether they expressed similar or different views in those discussions; there's nothing that says how many times each of the editors edited that talk page, or when. One edit to a talk page by each of the six editors over years of history would result in the page being listed as a 6/6 hit. With a talk page like Jimbo Wales', for example, which I believe is on both of these 6/6 lists, that's not as unlikely a scenario as it might seem. Or arbitrators' talk pages, the same.

The wikistalk tool, as I'm told by others more familiar with its use, tends to show a high degree of overlap when you look at groups of active editors who edit in lots of different areas; there are talk pages that are watchlisted by hundreds of people, and many active longterm editors will have posted on those pages at least once or twice in their history. On the other hand, if you had a group of SPA accounts who were actively collaborating offwiki with each other to bias content in one particular topic area, say cold fusion, you would get a very low number of user talk pages in common, since they would be in contact only with each other on this particular topic, not with a wide variety of users on a wide variety of topics*. In other words, this extremely cohesive hypothetical group of editors would score very low on this purported "cohesion index." So, perhaps to overstate the point in order to be sure it is understood: this tool says nothing about the "cohesiveness" of editors in the sense that seems to have been implied here, and to suggest that it does is simply, well, I think MastCell said it best: the tool provides invalid and meaningless quantitative trappings which can be used to dress up a preconceived opinion. Woonpton (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) *To test that hypothesis, I ran a group of single-purpose editors who discuss Wikipedia strategy on offwiki forums, and at least this one test supported the hypothesis: there is a very small number of user talk pages where even some of the editors overlap, but these are almost without exception the talk pages of their perceived opponents, rather than each other's talk pages (since they talk offwiki, there's no reason for them to contact each other on their talk pages). I won't post this link because I don't want to get into a discussion about this group of editors or this other topic area here; this is not the place. The point is that these are known SPAs with an agenda who do actively work together to bias content, the very definition of a "cohesive" group of editors (some of them have been banned for this activity) and yet they don't even register on this ersatz index of cohesiveness. Woonpton (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The cabalistic declension. I think it goes something like this: "I edit to the consensus view, you (singular) are pushing a point of view, he or she edits tendentiously, we have consensus, you (plural) are a faction, they are a cabal." TS 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas. no language scholar has come forward to point out that, far from a declension, my sequence was a conjugation. My confidence in Wikipedia's collective scholastic acumen may never recover! --TS 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

←I'm probably going to regret posting this (and one could argue that any comment beginning with those words should never be made) but this discussion about "factions" is "laugh out loud funny" in some places. This is not intended to be a provocative comment, but rather it is intended to shed some light on the Great Faction Debate. Of course there are two factions, and it is laughably easy to get a rough idea of who is in each camp by looking at one of the umpteen !votes that takes place here. One faction is very roughly defined as anyone who has demanded that article be called "Climategate", and the other faction is more or less everyone else. This may seem simplistic, but I'm willing to bet it's pretty accurate. And anyone claiming to be in some sort of middle group is almost certainly in the "Climategate" faction from what I have observed in my limited experience of the climate change topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, Jimbo is a member of the "skeptic faction," because he advocated on his talk page renaming the article to Climategate. I remember that distinctly because that's what got me interested in this stuff. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this Proposed Proposed Remedy is quite problematic. Perhaps someone can formulate a Proposed Proposed Proposed Remedy for LessHeard vanU's consideration that has less problems... Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: That's exactly the point I was trying to make. By Scjessey's definition, Jimbo is an anti-science skeptic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

An extreme interpretation of what I said, which included phrases such as "a rough idea", "very roughly defined" and "more or less", could lead someone keen to paint everything I say in the worst possible light to conclude I thought Jimbo was a skeptic, I suppose. Mercifully, I don't think most Wikipedia contributors are likely to read and inwardly-digest my comment in quite the same way as you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re evidence; If one were minded to, we could always look at the contrib histories of the articles noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Edit warring on Climate Change related articles and use Marknutley and WMC as base plates to see if any of the 28 other names were associated with making edits in support with the both of them at different times, and if not how many times they edited in support of either. I have not looked, but I would be prepared to suggest that there would have been quite apparent divisions on who edited along side either editor. If we throw in the Bishop Hill (Blog) and Fred Singer articles for a more historical perspective, this might also provide some data on whether there are grounds for a perception of there being editors who tend to edit in a similar fashion to some but not other editors. This would be an exercise for ones own satisfaction, of course, there being no new evidence being accepted regarding past issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with your edit summary (lack of evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence) if there weren't Workshop proposals naming specific editors as belonging to factions, and if a comment asking for specific examples of factionalism by those editors went unanswered. It doesn't help that the word "faction" has been thrown around so much that it has lost all meaning. However, it's not too late to cite at least one example of factions at work. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: I don't agree that this is a good metric. Beginning around January of this year, the pro-AGW viewpoint faction began to greatly outnumber the skeptic faction. As a result, I've pretty much given up arguing against the skeptic faction because I knew that the pro-AGW viewpoint faction was going to do it for me anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You could look at the editing history of articles and study the editing on certain issues that today are settled, but which were not settled some time ago. You first determine what the facts were that settled the issue in question. You then look at what each editor is assuming in the absense of evidence and how they change their views regarding the issues as more evidence comes in from sources. Factional behavior manifests itself in sticking firmly to a POV in the absense of evidence or if there is ambiguous evidence for it, while demanding quite a lot of evidence to the contrary to accept that the POV is wrong. You then belong to a faction that supports that POV, even if you're the only editor in that faction.

One can repeat this for many articles. You can then also measure if the prior POV of certain editors tends to correlate strongly with the facts according to the latest version of the article. If that's typically the case, then that is a measure that the editor in question had prior information allowing him/her to make good judgements based on whatever inflrmation there was around. This indicates expertise in the subject matter. One can separate factional behavior from good behavior based on expertise by studying these correlations. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are attributes that every editor should try to emulate. To find the factions, look at the edit wars, name calling, and ad hominem attacks. When the same 3 or 4 editors appear to have a multi-year tag team, then you have a "faction". Also note those that delete properly referenced material that does not fit their POV and work to ban editors that oppose them. Q Science (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all talk of factions and blocs of editors is simply unhelpful. Here's a hypothetical example of non-factional thinking that should make everybody wary: "The GW articles are so biased towards science and against free market mechanisms, that after the science faction are disabled, neutral editors like me are going to have a hard time sorting them all out." Much more useful is simple talk about sanctions for 'pile-on reversions', provided clear and formal warnings from identified, uninvolved enforcing admins are given first in each case. --Nigelj (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: That's an interesting twist on the situation but hardly reflective of reality. As you well know, or should know, I don't edit any CC science articles. I was referring to our Climategate articles and BLPs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of equivocation is particularly unhelpful. --TS 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A two step RFC to deal with factionalism

Factionalism is only an issue when it subverts WP:5. This is, when a group puts themselves above Wikipedia. Democratic methods would bring forth Minoritarianism and require supra-majority on issues. In Wikipedia the supra-majority is gained by escalating up the dispute resolution process. This issue can be handled by sticking to the standard editorial DR steps. What's been happening are disruptions that that prevent or convoluted the normal DR steps. A proxy process may help here. First the normal open RFC step, then a selected closed group, have a second round on the DR. I have faith in RFC to help here; however, a two step RFC process may balance the issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

P6: Casting aspersions

• I hope administrators in the future will consider this principle encouragement to enforce WP:NPA in CC article discussions. It's one of the most toxic problems on these pages. If editors do this repeatedly, they need to be blocked. I wish the proposed sanctions against one editor would have indicated that ArbCom was taking this more seriously, but more on that below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would hope that the casting of aspersions upon administrators (generally as to "involvement", but also to general bias) inappropriately is also emphasised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

P7: Neutrality and conflicts of interest

See also: Earlier archived discussion

• I believe this needs to be stated more strongly. The committee should make a fearless statement of principle that, when editing wikipedia, it is unacceptable for a person to allow their off-wiki interests and beliefs to take priority over wikipedia's interests and principles. This should apply not only to content space, but to article talk, user talk, and meta-discussions such as these. If a person finds a cause so important, and the desire to "get the right message out" so urgent that they cannot bear the thought of compromise, they should not be editing in that article space. The current text that "advocacy for any particular view is prohibited" is weak and universally ignored - even on this talk page, in this very discussion. Thparkth (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestion for a wording you think would sound stronger? Shell ^babelfish 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples being discussed

Retitling section. Could be a useful discussion of the 'Neutrality and conflicts of interest' principle. Also relates to the sourcing principle. Will move up to principles section. Possibly this could develop into a related finding. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall exactly whom, but I believe the oft-cited person who gave the CC articles high ratings was a RealClimate participant, an obvious partisan. TGL alluded to it earlier, maybe he can clarify. I bet we could get high ratings of Conservapedia if we ask Heritage Foundation to do the rating. ;-) ATren (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Typically (when it has been referenced), this study has been thrown out, which relied on David Archer (of Real Climate) to review. Surprisingly WMC still has contact with him as of this June. I believe the term for this is a "positive feedback loop." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Chaps, as I understand it the writers for RealClimate are all mainstream climate scientists, and most of them are of the first rank. Trying to denigrate studies of Wikipedia because some of them may have involved evaluation by real, working, climate scientists seems to me rather pointless. Okay, you don't trust these fellows, but within their well established and reputable field their opinions are worth a lot. As reliable sources on their respective fields of study and research, they are the gold standard. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They are political controversialists engaging in political controversies. That is the purpose of RealClimate. It is not an academic publication and not entitled to the regard we give academic publications. Tony, stating what everyone knows is wrong doesn't make it right because you adopt a reasonable tone. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the Wegman Report Tony :). Also, the point you are missing is that the guy evaluating the articles has known WMC for years - it is called a conflict of interest. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wegman Report does not impeach the scientific credentials of any climate scientist. Also you seem to be saying that a scientist evaluating a Wikipedia article on science might be unduly affected because he knows one of its authors. Wouldn't that amount to an argument against peer review? The scientists all know one another. --TS 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC that was one of the points of the Wegman report - that peer-review among a small group of friends is no peer-review at all. I guess we can agree to disagree though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We definitely should not debate the topic itself here, but one of the points of the Wegman report was the same positive feedback loop which appears to have taken place in the ratings of these Wikipedia articles. RealClimate is an advocacy site, in the same manner as Climate Audit, Watts Up With That?, and DeSmogBlog. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, exactly. If Conservapedia has Al Smith writing articles and Bob Jones endorsing them, where both Al and Bob are AEI fellows, do we consider that a good, neutral endorsement? This is yet another example of editors acting as if their POV is the truth, citing partisan sources as neutral. It's all over this talk page (see Viriditas's and Nigelj's earlier citation of essays as fact). We're not Conservapedia. ATren (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

They weren't 'essays'. Did you follow the links? --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Conservapedia, on the other hand, is a work of fiction. If you can't tell the difference, then that speaks volumes about the problem. The earlier citations of essays you refer to are based on known, historical events, no opinions. You were asked many times to raise a single objection about the information, and you failed to find anything wrong with the information presented. Yet, here you are, repeating the same distortions, even after they were addressed and you were corrected. That says a lot about the credibility and quality of your arguments. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic sub-thread removed. Please stay on topic. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

P9: Encyclopedic coverage of science

• This is, IMHO, the central principle here. I would like further clarification if I'm wrong, but I read it to mean that scientific accuracy per the peer reviewed literature, and academic fidelity to accepted scholarly works in fields such as the history of science and the social sciences, should not be regarded merely as one 'POV' in the terms of the encyclopedia, but as the current basis for knowledge in the field. "Significant alternate viewpoints" should be "recognized" as such, and these include the errors and distortions that sometimes appear in the mass media (and are often later apologised for), the bias that follows from some extreme political and religious views, the political pressures that can distort or delay implementation of government policies, and the vested interests of some in various industries. This is different to the way that some editors have in recent months tried to insist that fringe or erroneous, non-academic, or political POVs be used to 'balance' or distort statements of current scientific and academic knowledge in CC-related articles. --Nigelj (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in the first part, that the scientific consensus as regards CC should be the basis on which the description of the subject is built. I do not agree that the scientific consensus ("sc") dictates the NPOV, because the subject is greater than the sum of its scientific definition. This may be frustrating for those who are persuaded by the sc, but the special interest (or just "bad science") viewpoints do form part of the debate regarding the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And in articles, and sections of articles, that are about the debates, the denialism, the bad science and the lies, they should be discussed. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism is a randomly selected academic reference on the subject. --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

P10: Undue weight

• Again, I would like further clarification if I'm wrong, but to me this principle should be read in the light of the most recent academic and peer-reviewed meta-analyses of the field. The most significant one that I know of at the moment is Anderegg et al (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) whose chief finding is that 97–98% of active climate researchers support the tenets of CC as outlined by the IPCC. That leaves a 2–3% due weighting for contrary climatological views, overall. --Nigelj (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't understand the purpose of this principle in the PD, as it just states what is in policy and makes no further mention of the subject. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember also, that polls of the general public do not show that level of acceptance. This is why we have to work out amongst ourselves how much space to allow for alternative or contrary views of the science, politics, economics, etc. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't weight our coverage based on popular opinion, because our goal is to convey knowledge rather than popular belief. A substantial percentage of Americans incorrectly believe that Barack Obama is Muslim, but I would hope our coverage doesn't pretend it might be true. Policy is explicit on the subject: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. In that regard, the percentage of experts holding specific views is more relevant to our purposes than the percentage of the general public. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, MastCell, but I disagree. For example, did you know that of the two current contenders for head of state of Australia, who are currently in a dead heat, that one of them has been described as a climate change skeptic? It is the public that will elect one of those two to power, not the scientific community. Once in power, the winner of that election will potentially have great impact on the climate change debate and related actions. So, it's not just about scientists, not at all. The attitude that it is only about science is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in making progress in the CC articles content quality. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

MastCell is right that perceptions of CC do not affect the science of climate change. Popular perceptions shape press coverage, which is why quick-hit press articles are not the best sources for articles on climate change. However, articles on media circuses, such as "climategate," require substantive treatment of popular press coverage. There has been some tension as to whether the popular press is adequately dealt with in that article. For example, the Wall Street Journal published an article by a climate change skeptic that was not allowed in the Climategate article. It really belonged there. Many of the disagreements have surrounded sourcing in articles like that, and the science types sometimes go too far in pushing for exclusion of articles by "fringe" people. However, much of the talk I've seen concerning supposed abuse of UNDUE goes too far in the opposite direction. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I don't quite understand the relevance of the Australian election. People vote for politicians, who then make policy decisions. That's separate from what happens on Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize the current state of human knowledge. For that purpose, expert scientific sources are quite valuable in describing scientific topics. The former president of South Africa was unconvinced that HIV causes AIDS; he was elected, and he made policy decisions on the basis of that belief that impacted millions of people in a manner generally regarded as disastrous. But that doesn't affect how we present HIV/AIDS science on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

His point, I believe, is that the state of human knowledge is not determined by scientists, but by everyone. Scientists make errors, and others make errors, and it's via the free exchange of ideas—and the reflection of that free exchange in Wikipedia articles—that we hope progress is made. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SV and CLA, and would add that in the CC area there are several types of articles. Science articles, public policy articles, history articles, biography articles, fringe theory articles, and politics articles all exisit with in this topic area and the 'best' reliable sources for each type of article are not the same, and the weight of various viewpoints is different for each type of article as well. I think that, other than editor misbehavior this is the crux of the problems in this topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost by definition, an article that is controversial is a mix of fields. A big controversy will have multiple articles about it, with the opportunity to focus on particular fields. The articles that focus on the science should primarily reflect the science and rely on what the scientific consensus is for all but a small proportion of the content about the science. Articles that are only primarily about the science need to be a bit more capacious about covering widely held pseudo-scientific beliefs, and we need to show in the article what the more reliable science opinion is about those beliefs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) The state of scientific knowledge is determined by scientists and our articles that fall firmly within (and only within) science need to reflect that. A lot depends on the subject of the article and what field we define that subject as being a part of. the IPCC report isn't just science: It's also public policy, and therefore the reliable sourcing about that is going to necessarily include coverage of public-policy sources separate from the science. The South African president's crazy policy needs to be explained, with some background in the crazy science beliefs, in the appropriate article about that. Wikipedia policy does favor "reliable sources" and the best among them, but Nigeljr's "2–3% due weighting for contrary climatological views, overall" looks like an attempt to gain a political edge by using the scientific consensus as the only relevant measure of what a reliable source is in a document put together for governments, by government-appointed policymakers. Wikipedia is big enough that we have room to describe all major points of view on enormous issues. We should describe those views that have overwhelming consensus among the most knowledgable sources with enormous weight in our articles on the topics at hand, mention fringe views briefly and link to longer articles concerning them. Minority views get something in between, and that can't be mapped out in advance: Coverage of minority opinions needs to be fought out on individual pages, and I don't think there's a way around that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla's point seems to be inaccurate, according to the BBC which shows the main parties playing the issue down, and a potential swing to the greens. Watch that space.

More on topic is that the state of human knowledge is not determined by scientists, but the state of science is. For example, religion can claim to be human knowledge, but it can't legitimately claim to be science. Our articles should show the state of science for what it is, and also show other knowledge for what it is. In both cases giving due weight to majority and minority views in accordance with policy. Free exchange of ideas does not mean giving a false impression of the significance or acceptance of tiny minority or fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the subject -- the draft does a fine job describing the goal without getting into too much detail, the way this discussion has. The draft mentions both experts and commentators. It doesn't need to get into every detail, caveat and warning the way we just have. Just right. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one point here is that, even in articles that are about the politics, economics, or media coverage of GW, we cannot have statements (in the encyclopedia's own editorial voice) saying things like "Global warming, if indeed there is such a thing...", "Future global warming, or global cooling as is also predicted..." or "Based on predictions now discredited by Climategate/the Hockey Stick graph/etc." --Nigelj (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P11: Sourcing

See also: Earlier archived discussion

What is the principle on "Sourcing" trying to say? I've read the thing half a dozen times or more and still can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. The only interpretation I can come up with that makes any sense is "you guys are on your own in deciding what to do about sourcing." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Community policies and processes drive content. This is not a subject on which there is significant doubt as to the preponderance of reliable sources. The peer reviewed scientific literature, and competent reviews of the literature, mark the hold gold standard. Where published accounts of the science depart markedly from all such scientific accounts, they are perforce unreliable as sources of fact, but may well be useful sources for the political controversy as long as they are interpreted in the light of the known facts. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The WP definition of "reliable" does not mean "conforms with what an editor knows is right." Presumably any source which is "wrong" is "unreliable" to someone. This is, in fact, one of the root problems here - some editors "know" the truth, and feel that therefore thay have a right to deter anyone from adding anything which is "wrong." Collect (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem at hand has nothing to do with what you claim. The problem concerns the misuse of sources to push a POV that is at odds with reliable sources used by a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia. In order to use sources appropriately, one must understand how primary, secondary, and tertiary sources work and how to use them correctly. You yourself have demonstrated this misunderstanding when you claimed that newspaper articles were the best sources for an encyclopedia. Every basic research manual says the exact opposite, since newspapers often "oversimplify, or worse, misreport". (Turabian 27) Good editors know this and are aware of the problem, always reviewing newspaper sources with a critical eye, an eye that many here lack or have not yet learned. Thankfully, content guidelines like Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular_press acknowledge and explain the problem, while proposed guidelines like Wikipedia:SCIRS#Popular_press address it directly in relation to this dispute. Sadly, you oppose this as "guideline creep", and you claim that "current guidelines are fine". Other editors have tried to undermine proposed guidelines such as Wikipedia:Evaluating sources (now gutted of relevant content and demoted to an essay) claiming it isn't important to evaluate, only to identify. In actuality, evaluating sources is identifying reliable sources, and without understanding how to evaluate (MEDRS, SCIRS), we will continue to have problems with editors "identifying" sources as reliable. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interpersonal aside. I would note that my position oon backhanded implementation of [WP:SPOV]] is based on my reliance on established policies and rules, not on personal animus. [32] You have stated "Rules, guidelines, and policies do not exist to be "respected", and should be discarded when they no longer serve their purpose. " in your strange effort to place a [Climate change denial]] in a section of an article on a newspaper.[33] An edit based on a self-published blog which, it is clear here, is an unsupportable edit. [34]. I would humbly suggest that this is the wrong time and wrong place to assert that a blog is a good excuse for CC warring indeed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have a habit of avoiding refutations of your claims and always change the subject in reply, often repeating claims that I've already addressed, over and over, again and again. This is, in my opinion, disruptive behavior, and I've called you on it several times. To recap yet again, I've addressed your claim and your corresponding position and found it to be wanting. WP:IAR is a policy, not a "strange effort", and I suggest you review it. The newspaper you refer to, namely The Daily Telegraph, has been described by social scientists Catherine Butler and Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University as one of the "main sources of coverage that has denied the role of human contributions to climate change." Their research was published in the "scholarly work" Climate Change and the Media (2009). You know this, yet you keep making stuff up. Furthermore, the science reporting by The Daily Telegraph has been called into question by many sources as shown on the talk page, and in relation to this incident, at least three authorities on the subject: Owen Gaffney of NERC, (NERC funded the research reported by The Daily Telegraph) media critic and journalist Ben Goldacre (author of Bad Science), and researcher Ian Fairchild. As editor of NERC, Gaffney covers this topic in their online magazine, and Goldacre reports the same topic on his website. Fairchild is the primary author of the study reported by The Daily Telegraph. All of these are reliable sources, and the consensus on the reliable source noticeboard was for inclusion, with you responding to that consensus by changing the subject yet again and charging me with non-existent civility violations. At least you are consistent. It is my opinion that editors who refuse to address the topic and keep changing the subject and try to alter the discussion from a content dispute to one of behavior with false claims of incivility violations need to be told to stop. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's definition

The peer reviewed scientific literature, and competent reviews of the literature, mark the hold standard. Where published accounts of the science depart markedly from all such scientific accounts, they are perforce unreliable as sources of fact, but may well be useful sources for the political controversy as long as they are interpreted in the light of the known facts

should be set in stone as the basis for arriving at NPOV as regards CC/AGW articles, although I would change the last two words to "scientific consensus". Providing the primacy of the scientific consensus is established as the norm, then other viewpoints may easily be incorporated - per the due weight of their exposure within RS - within the article to provide the reader with an overview of the real world debate regarding CC/AGW. In short, articles should note that there is an overwhelming consensus within the CC scientific community for the existence of human causation global warming, and that a minority of scientists together with other (interested) parties dispute it. This belongs in the flagship articles. If, as has been postulated, that article space should directly reflect the ratio of opinion within the CC scientific as regards AGW (98% support against 2% opposition, I understand) then that should apply to articles regarding the science only. The claims and discussion regarding the denialist or sceptic viewpoint form a far larger ratio in the coverage of the subject in the wider world community, and a general interest encyclopedia needs to cover it accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Individual opinions are fine, and of course everybody's got one. But returning to my original question -- what on earth is Arbcom trying to say here? As written, the principle lumps together "academic sources and news sources," putting Science and Nature on the same footing as a news article in the Lower Slobbovia Picayune-Birdwhistle. Maybe that's not what the author of this principle meant to say, but in the end we have to go by what is actually written rather than what we think the arbs meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They are two examples of sources - if it helps, lose the examples altogether. I remember copyediting this. The original wording was "academic sources, news sources, etc." It is only singling out academic sources and news sources because those have been the ones most debated in disputes. The point is to treat any source on its own merits, not over-generalise. And your interpretation "you guys are on your own in deciding what to do about sourcing" is not quite correct. The principle encourages more use of the reliable sources noticeboard, which is saying that editors heavily editing climate change articles may lose perspective on sourcing issues and it helps to get outside opinions. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To address the one point that seems reasonably clear, we often did bring sourcing disputes to WP:RSN. As with most of the community's noticeboards it wasn't very helpful. What happened was that the same old people reiterated their same old arguments, garnering few if any outside opinions. I don't doubt that the suggestion was offered in good faith; WP:RSN probably sounds like a good idea to people who have no experience with it in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it helps if you present an agreed upon summary of the argument, rather than all go over there en masse to rehash the argument. If a rowdy crowd turns up somewhere, you shouldn't be surprised that some people choose not to get involved. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. How do you keep the rowdy crowd from showing up? One way would be for each "side" to appoint a representative to state their view and forbid other involved editors from commenting. That seems a little WP:BURO, but maybe something along those lines would work. Ideas, anyone? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. It's a useful suggestion, but how does the committee propose this be done, in practice? Take this example. After a brief discussion, Marknutley raised the question at RSN; he didn't get his way there, but continued to stick to his claim. How would this PD help with that issue, assuming that the editor in question was someone other than MN? And no, I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. Guettarda (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In theory, under the discretionary sanctions regime, if someone editing the CC area tendentiously ignored a well-attended sourcing consensus formed at a noticeboard, they could be warned for that, and repeated offenses of the same nature could lead to actual sanctions which would be logged at the case pages. Do you think ArbCom need to provide that sort of explicit guidance? Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If AE works anything like the RFE board, there's too much noise, too little signal. In my opinion, the disruption caused by the board dwarfed everything else, at least once the CRU email article sorted itself out. (And no, I don't think the sanctions sorted that article out either - what calmed it down was the accumulated evidence that almost all of the claims being made against the CRU scientists were bogus) But even assuming AE works better, it still doesn't solve the issue of how to get an issue before RSN, or BLPN, or one of the other boards. Should we ask is the New York Times a reliable source?, or should we ask should we use a 10-year-old adjective used in an article in the NYT, and based on the subject's website, to override a scholarly source? (Of course, there's neutral wording somewhere in between these two extremes. But there's no guarantee that the involved editors will ever reach it) What happens if people deadlock on the wording? Does the issue not advance to RSN? And if it somehow reaches there, what is there that would stop involved editors from commenting? Who decides who's involved or uninvolved? Depending on "a general sense of right and wrong" isn't going to work here. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Do you think ArbCom need to provide that sort of explicit guidance? Yes, absolutely. That would be very helpful, especially since the RS noticeboard specifically states at the top of that page: answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject. So if you want to carve out an exception in cases where a good number form a good consensus, I'm all for it. I don't know whether you'll need to define "good number" or "good consensus" or if you can, but I'd love to see it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a reply to LessHeard vanU's comment that included an extensive quotation of some words I wrote on sourcing yesterday.

Yes, "scientific consensus" might fit well instead of "known facts". But I was thinking in particular about certain revisionist sources that have started to appear recently, which don't just distort the scientific consensus but also misrepresent the facts in a rather worrying way. --TS 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Committee doesn't have the authority to tell us what is or isn't a reliable source. We have to decide on our own, using the policies, which I think are fairly clear. Newspapers, non-self-published books, academic journals, and mass-media magazines are reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Viriditas, Tony, Boris and LessHeard vanU all make good points. In describing the science we should be carefully assessing the best sources, preferably using peer-reviewed publications and similarly appropriate studies. I particularly agree that we need to describe minority scientific views proportionately as well as the historical, social, economic and political issues involving the the denialist or sceptic viewpoints, as much as possible using reliable third party sources rather than analysing primary sources of these viewpoints, and certainly not presenting them as having "equal weight" in terms of science.

  @ Cla, we should of course comply fully with WP:SOURCES policy, assessing which sources are best and most appropriate for the context. Whether any sources including "Newspapers, non-self-published books, academic journals, and mass-media magazines" are reliable sources depends on these factors, and on the reputation of the publication, the author and of the work itself for for fact-checking and accuracy. Of course other sources can be used, such as those accepted under WP:SPS, similarly subject to context and reputation. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

P14 to P17: Administrators

• Feel free to add new discussion subsections here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

P15: Administrator involvement - general

I'm confused as to why principle 15 includes the language "an administrator may be deemed too 'involved' to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue" and principle 16 contains "[o]f course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered 'involved' with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor" when enforcement clause 2 omits both sentiments. I'm sure I'm not only editor that's been annoyed -- or even felt threatened or anxious -- with the inconsistency of how much "involved" admins tend to get away with... nor do I think I'm the only admin who's been hesitant to do something because they're unwilling to put up with accusations of bias. With the multiple and oftentimes conflicting definitions of "involvement" on various policy and arbitration pages, clarity from the arbitrators on this would be appreciated. — east718 | talk | 07:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is simply structural - the enforcement items do not need to repeat all principles or findings or fact. However, I do agree that clarifying the definition of "involved" should be done - I'm working on a response that says, in essence, the finding that there is no clear definition of 'involved" is not the problem, the problem is that there are very clear definitions of 'involved'—two, at least, and they are in conflict. (Have to review to see if my recollection is correct.)A cursory review did not highlight the issue I thought I recalled, so I struck the comment.--SPhilbrickT 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting a typo: in the last sentence, "whether or she" should be "whether he or she". --Tryptofish (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. NW (Talk) 14:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - not sure if this belongs here or as part of a "Statement" above, however, I interpret the lack of any meaningful findings regarding admin involvement is basically a full-throated endorsement of the existing community consensus regarding which admins are involved (StS & PG) and which ones are not (Lars & LHvU). Reading between the non-existent lines, it would seem that "involvement" derives a greater weight from editing of actual content (something that an admin acting in an admin capacity should refrain from) than it does from dealing with recalcitrant users (which is what admins are supposed to do anyway). By not wading into this muck, I think the PD is fairly clear on this point. Ronnotel (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Ronnotel, and like that there are not a bunch of specific admin findings (indicating a better than ordinary behavior from admins in this area). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Ronnotel's assessment is correct, and it's the only logical interpretation given Arb's definition of "involved" -- I just don't think there will be peace unless names are named and perhaps even hypotheticals explored. There probably will not be peace in any event. I'd like to see a finding about hounding admins who are defined as "uninvolved" but who have been crippled in their enforcement endeavors. Minor4th 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

R13: Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement

The Arbitration Committee [...] encourages other experienced administrators to share in this work Self selection of administrators is one of the serious problems here, as was noted on the Workshop page. The proposed decision does not address it. What did you find lacking in my arguments about that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This is a meaningless finding, as it will have no practical effect. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was expecting a more concrete suggestion.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is at the heart of the problem. Arbcom have completely failled to grasp this. Polargeo (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Friendly correction, you need to delete "to grasp this." HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. It strikes me as unlikely that the arbs willfully or otherwise failed to understand your arguments. Rather, they specifically chose not to address it which can only mean they found nothing that needed their guidance. Ronnotel (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since this is a fairly universal concern thus far, does anyone have a concrete suggestion for a finding that would address the problem? Shell ^babelfish 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to directly address how administrator behavior has contributed to the battleground atmosphere. I agree with Wikidemon below, who said: "It would also be helpful to address the question of when the appearance of involvement (e.g. an ongoing dispute with an editor, a perception of bias against the editor, etc.) suggests that an administrator step aside, even if they feel they have been entirely fair, under the "best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved" provision [emphasis added]." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an example of where it would help to specify more than has been done so far, findings with respect to more of the involved parties. In addition to finding that some parties have done things that require sanctions, it would be desirable to say, explicitly and by name, that other parties have acted in ways that are appropriate under the applicable policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have the broad outlines of a proposal here. (more work done at Tour of Duty) My present concern is that it is quite an undertaking, as it applies not just to CC, but to the whole community. However, if there's any merit to the idea, I'd be happy to work with anyone to articulate it better.--SPhilbrickT 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your "tour of duty" idea is a very good one. There needs to be a mechanism to bring in fresh administrators. However, specifying such a mechanism is not enough; arbcom needs to deal with administrator behavior, forthrightly and by name. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time in AE, I think there's a LOT of administrators who would simply love to have more assistance in problematic areas. However, there's a problem. The ArbCom (and indeed the Community as well) lacks the ability to MAKE more administrators care about problematic areas. All of us (editors, administrators and ArbCom alike), are volunteers. 99% of us have better things to do with our on-Wiki time then try to dive headfirst in to the jagged rock filled pool that is areas that have long-term conflict such as CC. So, that means that administrators try to do what they can, get sucked in, chewed up, and spit out.. and the backup pool of waiting administrators wanting to help, is very very shallow, if not completely dry. So.. tell us how we fix that issue.. THAT is they key in all that. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Sphilbrick's suggestion. It's better than nothing, and the PD contains nothing on this at present. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about ArbCom backing them up better with timely motions and injunctions instead of issuing watered down case remedies after month long delays? That might help. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shell asked for a way of getting new arbitrators on board, not for a way to improve arbcom's shortcomings. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a way to get new arbitrators, we hold elections for them. Shell asked about new admins at the various enforcement areas. One way to encourage more admins to participate is to make it more palatable to participate, that is, to ensure that admins don't get ripped to shreds for doing their best. One way to do that is for ArbCom to stand behind admins doing so more vigorously. Certainly much more vigorously than they have done here. I hope that clarifies things for you. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify, it's not relevant, and I don't agree. I don't think admins have been "ripped to shreds," I don't think that admin actions should be "stood behind" when they are wrong, and I don't think that the kind of extreme rhetoric you're using is at all helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "sucked in, chewed up, and spit out" instead of "ripped to shreds"? Admin actions shouldn't be supported when they are wrong, but they certainly should be stood behind when they are correct. Sadly, that hasn't been the case much in this area. At least not if the actions are directed against editors aligned with the dominant faction, regardless of how much they were misbehaving. Scibaby socks, and newbie skeptic editor directed actions are fine, though. As LHvU relates at length, farther on. As for my comments being helpful or not, perhaps since milder words failed, more extreme ones are needed? I don't think much of what you've said here is particularly helpful. You seem to be repeating a party line without much independent thought. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "sucked in, chewed up, and spit out" instead of "ripped to shreds"? No, that's worse. How about toning down the extreme rhetoric? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Resp to Shell) Recruitment (and offers of mentoring?) of another sysop by each those admins already involved? As long as the initial pool is diverse enough, those picked will continue the trend of a wide range of opinion - especially when admins are picked on grounds of neutrality and effectiveness rather than perceptions of opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@Shell: Maybe there ought to be an Arbitration Committee dedicated to policy disputes.--*Kat* (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..LessHeard vanU, not a bad idea actually. Something similar has worked in getting more admins involved in copyvio areas, but Moonriddengirl is a strong leader there (and tireless if you ask me). If we try to put that on the Arbs plate though, how often is it really going to happen? Can you think of people currently involved in AE or that dive into similar areas that might be good at recruitment? This is probably a question to be dealt with outside the case though; I don't see us mandating recruitment :-) .

@Kat - As far as I can tell, the problem here was not so much a dispute about policy as a dispute about how a policy should be applied to content; that's always going to be a community thing rather than an Arb thing. The last time the Committee tried to set up a board of people to make rulings about policy as it applied to specific content, to put it nicely, it didn't go over well. Maybe rather than thinking about having someone set up to make these decisions, we can consider why dispute resolution is breaking down in these areas - what keeps new people from responding to RfCs or trying to help give a new perspective on these problems? These questions are probably something not well suited to an Arb case though. Shell ^babelfish 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway recruited me, although not an admin he had been involved in the Probation enforcement side. I suppose that some might think this reason enough not to try to expand the idea. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• In these particular CC sanctions, 2/0, Polarego and lately Dragons flight have offered their assistance, and although they fully qualify for the written definition of uninvolved (and the proposed definition) have been driven off for not meeting Lar's unwritten and unusual definition. Attacking and removing volunteer admins on unstated grounds is not the way to widen participation, a clear and independent way of resolving such disputes is needed. . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Polargeo has been found to be involved, although I'm not going to state that with certainty. I don't know about 2/0, but I don't think Dragon's Flight was run off. And although I attempted to revert Dragon's Flight modification of a sanction, it was not because I thought DF was involved -- it was because he cited a consensus that did not exist. If DF had simply been imposing sanctions on a violation of the general or discretionary sanctions, I would have supported that even without consensus. I think that's the way it's supposed to work -- I think admins should be able to impose sanctions without having to seek consensus. But as a practical matter, that will not regularly happen because of the hounding and backlash that accompanies any sanctions against certain bloc editors. I think it could happen and be quite effective if there were also an ArbCom ruling that any such sanctions cannot be reversed or modified except with the consent of the admin imposing the sanction or through an Arb request. Minor4th 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

P16: Administrator involvement - enforcement matters

This statement of who is involved seems to be much more expansive the current WP:GSCC. Perhaps that is intentional; however, I would suggest that 3.1.16 goes too far. In particular I would call attention to the part of 3.1.16 that reads: ... "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." This contrasts with GSCC, which reads in part: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions.

At face value, the GSCC is quite lax (probably significantly too lax, to be honest) since it focuses on current conflicts with the people directly involved. On the other hand, 3.1.16 seems to go far to the other extreme. Read as is, 3.1.16 might suggest that any admin who has ever had any conflict regarding climate change editing would be blocked from participation, regardless of how long ago the conflict was, who it involved, whether it is related the sanctions being proposed, whether it was resolved amicably or not, etc. I realize that the boundary between who is involved / uninvolved can get murky, but I think 3.1.16 as written goes too far and would serve to limit the opportunities for effective admin enforcement too much.

To use an intentionally exaggerated example, does an editorial disagreement three years ago over the greenhouse effect make one unfit to stop unrelated vandals from attacking paleoclimatology? I would say that 3.1.16 would benefit from some further qualifications to avoid it being pushed to silly extremes like that. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been noted several times that the written definition of involvement at GSCC is not the operative one, which is far more in line with the one ArbCom has given (although not exactly the same either). It is a failing of the uninvolved admins, collectively, that this has not been corrected even after being noted several times. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Several times, admins participating in good faith that they are uninvolved, and fully meet the written rules as set out above, have been accused of being too involved and have been driven away from participating. Particularly by Lar, who has made up his own rules, as shown here – "That's a scary graph. It illustrates nicely why I personally am an "alarmist". But you need to click through to see who contributed it. If that's not convincing enough, review [11] .. Dragons Flight is heavily involved in this topic area. Therefore, not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)" As ChrisO aptly responded, "How does contributing images make anyone "involved"? That's surely stretching the definition of "involvement" to an absurd extent. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)" The proposed definition that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." is much better, along with the caveats also included in that section. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that proposed definition. If someone can edit in this area (for any significant amount of contributions) without ever getting into a content dispute, great... they may well have the deft touch needed. As long as you haven't driven every other editor off, that is. In that case it may not prove much other than that they are good at talking in echo chambers. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And, looking over the comments by Dragons flight again, some reaonable leeway would be appropriate to encourage a wider pool of participants. The Proposed enforcement section on Uninvolved administrators has the procedure: "Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions." If applicants are encouraged, that will enable the arbs to widen the pool. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely 3.1.16 follows from 3.1.15, which references Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about - both Lar and LHvU have expressed strong feeling about content in the subject area over the course of this arbcom case. In fact, it's pretty clear from their workshop and workshop talk submissions that both editors have tried to influence content through their RFE rulings. This points to a clear conflict of interest. In addition, of course, the section goes on to say that involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Again, here, Lar's long history of disputes with editors involved in the topic area makes him clearly involved. Proposed principle 3.1.16 clearly follows from and does not supersede 3.1.15, which is policy and quite appropriately acknowledged first. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My and Lar's (and I feel I can speak for him, here) "strong feelings" was and is that NPOV was not being applied appropriately to CC related articles - which became more apparent with the advocacy of SPOV replacing NPOV by certain editors in the course of these deliberations - because of the potential of diluting the emphasis given to the scientific consensus within a given subject. Working within process to influence the editing of content to reflect the policies of the project, by stopping edit warring and misuse of procedures so that discussion which might lead to consensus became the preferred option, is possibly the best use of the flags an admin might hope to achieve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@ LessHeard vanU, your comments make it appear that you and Lar have been using the sanctions regime to influence content on your interpretation of the appropriate application of NPOV. While I'm sure that you've been doing your best in a thankless position, that's inconsistent with uninvolvement, and has given the "walled garden" of the CC sanctions regime an feeling of bias towards fringe views. Opening up procedures to a wider pool of uninvolved admins is overdue. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No. By acting on the evidence of violation of policy and applying sanctions, I hoped that it would become preferable to use WP dispute resolution procedures, the subject talkpage, and consensus to arrive at NPOV, as against edit warring and other policy violations in pursuit of a pov held by an editor. The uninvolved admins could only act on the cases that were brought, also. Once WP's policies and practices were followed and consensus for NPOV found, it didn't matter to me what shape it took - although I remain convinced that the scientific consensus on AGW would form the basis of that aspect of the discussion. You appear to mistake a strong belief in the use of process to find the NPOV as trying to determine that POV, where what I was doing was trying to stop the misuse of process or the use of other methods to make the editors own POV the article POV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in here, but I noticed you said "The uninvolved admins could only act on the cases that were brought". It makes me wonder if the topic area would be helped by more active admin involvement - actually watching discussions and article editing so that problems can be dealt with as they arise rather than waiting for something to reach the point of hitting an enforcement board. It does require coverage from quite a few admins for balance and it's a serious time commitment, but I've seen it work in other controversial areas to not only calm the situation, but to actually move article development forward. That's another solution that's outside of ArbCom's remit though - we can't draft folks and force them to keep an eye out. I strongly believe most of the answers to this problem are going to have to come from community involvement - no set of rules ArbCom can put out there is going to actually fix things. Shell ^babelfish 11:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there's no dispute that more administrative involvement, and fresh administrators, are needed. My personal view is that your committee needs to focus on that, which is why I think SPhilbrick's suggestion (tours of duty) need to be given consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Creative solutions like that are a great idea, but not something likely to be implemented by ArbCom. As an editor though, I'd be happy to support initiatives like Sphilbrick's suggestion and other ideas for getting more people involved. Shell ^babelfish 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) @ Shell One problem that definitely happens is if an administrator does as you suggest and acts independently from the sanction board they catch all kinds of heck for not getting a consensus of administrators prior to doing any kind of actions against an editor. This happened a couple of times with a couple of administrators who actually watched what was going on and acted on their own and didn't go to the sanction board first. I feel that this is very limiting to make all administrators get a consensus when they see policy being breached and warnings being ignored. Just my 2 cents, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hrm..is that a relatively new development? I worked in fringe science areas quite a bit and frequently applied sanctions where necessary without ever using the board. I kinda thought that was the entire point of discretionary sanctions - often when something gets bad enough to be brought to AE, it could have been stopped long before. If admins who work at AE have gotten the impression that they need to be consulted before any admin acts under discretionary sanctions, they are sadly mistaken. Shell ^babelfish 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that new, it's just unique to this topic area and the general sanctions board (unfortunately). Tony Sidaway does a good job explaining the situation below; search for "January 3". Bringing matters to AE would definitely help. NW (Talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Shell I kept an admin eye on Bishop Hill (blog) and had cause to protect it one time, unprotect it, revert a non consensus move and protect it again, and sanction the involved editors - and because I reverted to the consensus version and then protected it I have been accused in the evidence section of this case of abusing my flags for protecting it in my preferred version (all the while when a RfC on moving the article - which later carried - was going on). While there are mindsets that seek to ascribe motivations to admins actions as a means of challenging them or making them ineffective, it is best that admins who deal with AE (formerly Probation enforcement) do not get involved in policing individual articles. LessHeard vanUr (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@LessHeard. Your heavy handed actions were in my view not the enforcement of consensus in any way. The initiation of an RfC appeared to be a gaming tactic after consensus had clearly already been reached. You used your admin tools including blocks and protection before using discussion. This use of tools before discussion in all but extreme cases is to be deplored in any situation and leaves you wide open to the criticism you recieved. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Assumes facts not in evidence. Although there may be some truth to the idea that some folk initiated RfCs "as a gaming tactic". ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately working in any contentious area generally means having people yell at you for all manner of reasonable things. More fun is when you simultaneously are accused of doing two things which would have been impossible to do at the same time. I'm afraid the only solution I've ever found is going for a cup of tea. Of course you could always trick other admins into working in the area with you thus at least spreading around the yelling and giving you a sounding board who knows what's going on. You'd probably be accused of some form of collusion then :-) Shell ^babelfish 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What, something like, off the top of my head, getting consensus between admins active on an enforcement request page? Might work, at that - may slow down the process a bit, but I am sure that if everyone were to note how decisions were arrived at then it would be accepted... Plus, of course, when there are five or so admins arriving at the same conclusion then there will be less accusations against one or two of them of prejudice! I think that is a great idea, and one which all editors will subscribe to!</heavy ironic tone> LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a little point of order LessHeard had already blocked another admin without even attempting a warning and later protected the page against me. I had never edited the page or its talkpage before and clearly stated I was enforcing an obvious merge consensus (the article has since been merged exactlty along the lines I did the merge on). LessHeard could have disscussed my actions with me but chose not to. This was heavy handed and my comments do not as Lar claims rather flipantly "assume facts not in evidence" Lar also took a sideswipe at my starting an RfC on his conduct as a gaming tactic which I assure him it was not, I started the RfC/U because of genuine concerns about his actions that were not being addressed properly in the CC enforcement forum because of extreme partisanship within that forum. I am happy to accept that Lar thinks what he has done is right but I believe that through his many comments about factions and his tendeacy to be rather uneven in his treatment of editors, whilst acting as an uninvolved admin, he has done more to make CC enforcement a partisan place than any other individual editor. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I left this comment when I unprotected that article, and the delete/move/revert war (while a RfC on the issue was in place) I took action upon was within 24 hours of that. Further warnings, which are a courtesy only, are not needed in such circumstances. Not only did I topic ban you - which I later lifted - from editing the article while the RfC was ongoing, one of the three editors I blocked for warring was also an admin. Sometimes one assumes a level of knowledge of the participants, and acts accordingly. Please attempt to appear to understand and note all the circumstances when you make these comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of admin involvement

So...Is Lar involved or uninvolved?

So, I'm reading the proposed decision and based on what it says, it appears to me as if ArbCom is ruling that Lar is an uninvolved admin. However, we still have editors saying that Lar is not uninvolved.[35][36] Can we please have a statement in plain, simple English that says that Lar is an uninvolved admin (or if I've misunderstood the proposed decision, says Lar is not an uninvolved admin)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When last I checked, it was my view that Lar hadn't been involved in any disputes in the area, nor had he been involved in interpersonal disputes (as opposed to disagreements) with any of the principal editors. This seemed also to be the prevailing consensus. That could change over time should circumstances change.

I don't personally have much agreement with his view of the situation, and I find his approach to Wikipedia and particularly to this scientific subject utterly baffling, but his opinion on sanctions and their enforcement is valid for the purpose of the proposed remedies. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

nor had he been involved in interpersonal disputes (as opposed to disagreements) with any of the principal editors Good Lord. Are we participating in the same Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar is involved inasmuch as he tends to attack people in this area. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As I read the proposal, it is clear that Lar is not involved by the definitions used by the committee. Collect (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Lar's hostility to the science-oriented editors as a group, and his often-expressed wish to "level the playing field" are annoying and, in my opinion, tend to prolong silly disputes that would otherwise die for want of a credible sponsor. But the fact that he has an opinion on how the articles should be edited doesn't make him involved. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your last sentence but want to point out that I don't have "hostility to the science-oriented editors as a group". I am as much a "science-oriented editor" as anyone. I have concern about those editors that exhibit factional behavior. Something (the behavior) ArbCom identified as a problem in the principles, although they failed to go anywhere with it in findings or remedies. That concern is not "hostility". At least not hostility to persons. It is hostility to behavior. Hate the sin, love the sinner. As in this area should we all. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with him having an opinion on how the articles should be edited (though he hasn't clarified what that opinion is, instead speaking in generalities). It's the "hostility to editors as a group" that is the problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• AQFK - Lar is uninvolved
• TS - Lar is uninvolved
• SBHB - Lar is not uninvolved
• ScienceApologist - Lar is not uninvolved
• Collect - Lar is uninvolved
• ChrisO - Lar is not uninvolved

This short list explains AQFK's point.--SPhilbrickT 22:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume that his point is that not everybody agrees with the consensus view. That's okay. A finding could cause problems. Finding of involvement would only make sense if there was a need to make a remedy. Finding of non-involvement is of no concrete use. Parsimony. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An explicit finding of non involvement is needed, because no amount of indirect comment has sufficed to silence those in the AGW faction who wish to see me removed on pretext. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but my perception of Lar is very much shaped by what Boris has mentioned above - the "hostility to editors as a group". He has repeatedly denounced a number of editors for supposedly being the minions of WMC, whom he seems to regard as the Galactus of the climate change topic area. That breaks the first commandment of admin non-involvement - don't take sides. Back in the day when I was using my admin-fu to keep Serbs and Croats from tearing each other apart in Balkans articles, I earned the trust of both sides by not taking sides. I would have forfeited that trust in an instant by denouncing one side or the other. That's where Lar has gone wrong and that's why he can't be regarded as "uninvolved". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I misremembering, or didn't you lose your adminship over, in part, your handling of Balkan and other controversial topics? (IIRC you resigned but were found by ArbCom to have done so under controversial circumstances with a case in progress)... that tends to cast doubt on your advice to other admins. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, these comments are completely unhelpful and a great deal of the reason that editors are pushing so hard for you to stop acting in the area. You do yourself no service by reacting or being incivil. Shell ^babelfish 13:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try again, then. ChrisO has put himself forward as a model. I disagree he's a good model. He elsewhere disparaged Minor4th about sock related matters claiming they had no expertise but was unwilling to submit his actions to review by an experienced CU. He here is putting forward his "admin-fu" as if it's somehow to be admired, but he lost his adminship over his handling of various cases, including the one he touts. I submit he doesn't have the track record he's trying to portray, and that his advice ought to be discounted. If you think that's unhelpful? Not sure what to tell you. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's as complicated as that. ChrisO was simply recollecting that in a particular situation he tried to be impartial, and he posits that your not impartial. I agree with him. You're not. Unfortunately, the rules seem to allow administrators who are not impartial to act as "uninvolved", no matter how ridiculous it may seem.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While I share your reservations about Lar's approach, and in particular his antagonism to the science-rich style of editing that earns accolades for our coverage of climate science, merely being opinionated does not disqualify an administrator. But I hope Lar will heed voices of concern. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lar's response to the concerns raised in his steward confirmation has been to complain about having "lost my stewardship in a carefully orchestrated backroom long-knife deal," [37] I wouldn't get my hopes up that the will "heed voices of concern." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A chap is entitled to feel bitter about losing a bit of community trust. If Lar feels he has prima facie evidence that there was illegitimate activity he's well placed to ask for independent parties to investigate. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC

The community raised concerns, some legitimate, some not, which I took note of, but consensus among the community was in my view to reconfirm (Those AGW factionalists who participated were pretty uniform in their disparagement, but that's OK, they are entitled to hold uniform opinions if they wish). The stewards as a whole also had, in my view, consensus to reconfirm. Anyone can review the discussions, and see for themselves. But when the final analysis was done, it was done in secret, by a small subset of stewards. The transcript of that discussion has been requested many times, by many people, but has not been released, and probably never will be. Instead, participants in the discussion who were NOT part of the subset of stewards that were supposed to decide, but who apparently participated anyway, gave their interpretation of the transcript. So it was pretty backroom, and no evidence of what actually happened is available, conveniently. Illegitimate? I wouldn't go that far. Shady? Certainly. It's shaken my trust in the steward confirmation process as a whole, and in the integrity of the stewards, especially those stewards, not appointed to the final subset, who nevertheless participated. That's not quite the same as "bitter", though. Because I didn't lose community trust. I lost the trust of some secret unappointed subset of stewards that went against the consensus of the stewards as a whole in influencing the final determination. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Without going into details, which don't really belong here, the meta:Stewards/elections_2010/Statistics page shows you getting just less than 65% overall trust in your reconfirmation bid. The lowest level of overall trust of any reconfirmed steward this year was just over 67%. --TS 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Without going into details, which don't really belong here, the community part of the process is a negative consensus, unless there is consensus among the community not to confirm, the steward is confirmed, subject only to a positive consensus by other stewards requirement. Which existed. It was only when we got to the star chamber stage that things went awry. I only bring it up because others keep bringing it up... they are spinning what happened for their own purposes. I should have been reconfirmed per the policy. That's pretty clear. But I've tried my best to move beyond it. The wiki isn't fair, deal with it, has been my attitude. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the chart[38], it seems have been done on a strictly mathematical basis. Two other stewards with over 50% approval were also removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the steward discussion too? That's the one that counts. Again without going into details, you don't actually know what you're talking about. But as I say, the wiki isn't fair, and I've moved on. Except for still thinking I can correct misconceptions about what happened, I guess. Perhaps I should give up on that too, and let people who weren't there, weren't privy to the discussions, and most importantly, weren't stewards and thus weren't on the steward mailing list when it was discussed how things were going to be done, decide they know better than I what actually happened. It certainly would be more convenient. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't find it. You have to cut people a little slack here, as not everybody is familiar with Meta. I didn't even know there was such a thing, and yet I seem to have an account there. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And you won't be able to review the discussions on the steward mailing list in any case. My point is that no outsider can really know what actually happened. Even I don't, without the chat log from the star chamber, which isn't going to be produced, but I certainly have more data to draw conclusions from than any non steward will. Tony's suggestion of producing incontrovertible evidence and then asking that something be done, (who to ask?) is well intentioned, but unhelpful. The real point is that I was railroaded out, it can't be proven, but it's what happened, and no amount of analysis of the publicly available information can confirm or refute that. Railroading is just one of those things. Life is like that sometimes, and WMF wikis aren't moot courts, they aren't governments, they aren't systems of justice and above all, there is no promise they are fair. They're projects. The people who railroaded me did so for whatever reason, maybe they believed it was good for the projects even if unfair. I no longer really care, except when people try to use that discussion as an example of something it's not. Aside: You have an account there because you went there while logged in here, that's how SUL works. You'll have an account on ANY WMF wiki (with very limited exceptions) that you visit if you're logged in here or at any other WMF wiki you already have an account at. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see that mailing list discussion myself. I don't like that kind of opacity. I'm not thrilled with the opacity of the arbcom process either, from what I've seen so far. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really would like to see an answer to this question from ArbCom. This was one of the cases that supposedly, by being rolled into this one, would get dealt with. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From where I sit, it looks like a moot point. They are doing away with the old community general sanctions and imposing new Arbcom general sanctions in its place. The question of whether Lar WAS involved does not need to be answered, though they acknowledged the controversy and it being due to vague statements. The question of if he is involved in the future is probably inappropriate to put into a decision because that’s something that can change and arbcom findings are expected to be something people can look back to and continue to be accurate. I expect there are two better ways of getting this question answered. Either Lar can email arbcom privately about it and they can publish some kind of declaration on his talkpage or immediately after this decision is published an interested party can make a Request for Clarification on Lar's status as an (un)involved admin for the purposes of Arbcom enforcement on climate change.

As a side note, It seems to me that attempting to get Arbcom to declare Lar was or was not involved is being used as a means and not an end. That may be why Arbcom is avoiding the question. You see, IF Lar was involved, it justifies X's behavior here and here or IF Lar was not involved that vindicates him here and here. Those don't end anything; they just lead to more arguments and forces rehashing of old arguments. Declaring (un)involvedness in a post-decision clarification about future actions would allow them to answer the question without forcing it to color their other findings. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are really two issues: is Lar involved and is Lar incivil? There is dispute concerning the first but I don't see how the second can be seriously disputed, as he's exhibited in this very discussion the problem that people have with him. Just the other day, I remarked that it was beyond dispute that Lar had been engaged in a feud with WMC. Lar responded by doing more than vigorously denying that, and said[39]: Raising this argument does you no favors, ScottyBerg, and I give you the same advice I gave Guettarda just now... you need to change your approach or you may find ArbCom coming down harder on you than they already are likely to. We do not let one party act the prat merely to disqualify another party by repeated baiting and jibing. Or at least we shouldn't. [Emphasis added] As you know, I'm not even "mentioned" in the evidence pages and workshops, except as a commenter (albeit as a sharp critic of Lar's behavior), while Lar's behavior and interactions with WMC were a subject of extensive evidence and commentary, as well as an RfC. When another editor gently pointed out that Lar had used a "veiled threat" and implied knowledge of the arbcom decision,. Lar responded [40] I have no pull whatever with ArbCom. None. Just clue. I just think I am able to predict what's going to happen, to some extent, better than the factionaries are. No threat was intended. Merely advice that it's better to change one's ways late than never. Which they ought to take. Even at this late hour. As you can see, he felt very confident that he was going to get a pass, and if he comes away from this decision feeling vindicated, I suspect that the battleground atmosphere on the CC pages is only going to increase.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't expect to get a pass. I expected at least an admonishment for losing my temper more than I should (which is not at all). It's been a long 8 months. But I also expected that ArbCom was not going to paper over most of the problematic behavior on all sides by mentioning that factionalism is bad, but then not identifying any, and then proffering two sacrificial lambs among the skeptics to offset sanctioning WMC. Obviously I was wrong about how much clue I had. Chalk it up to optimism. Life is like that. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All my experience of Lar's attitude suggests you are sadly right. He has been so utterly partisan in discussions, giving regular support to banned editors and even socks who just happen to agree with him, whilst on the other hand dismissing large numbers of editors as being part of a faction, that any concept of him playing the part of the high uninvolved admin in the future is likely to create a battleground atmosphere. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is confident they will get a pass by arbcom and other people will get banned. If they weren't then there would be no dispute to arbitrate. Most people sanctioned are shocked that arbcom could be so shortsighted and clearly didn't even read the incredibly articulate and undisputable evidence that everyone they hate should be banned and extra Findings of Fact specifically vindicating themselves be published. Seriously, it happens on these pages so often you could set your watch by it. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that's true. I'm not suggesting any foreknowledge on Lar's part, as clearly he had none, but questioning his behavior and putting it into context with past behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Battleground behavior involves an "us" against "them" mentality. Lar has been clear in these proceedings that "them" is the bad guys. "Them" have too much power. Lar needs to level the playing field against "them". "Them" is where the bad guys are. Arbcom hasn't gone far enough in coming down on "them". Lar seems to have been the person most active in demonstrating battlegound behavior in my reading of these proceedings. Meaning only from the point of view of my reading of these proceedings not necessarily outside these proceedings. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The PD states that uninvolved admins are admins who have never been involved in a content dispute in the topic before. Lar has never been involved in a content dispute in the CC articles, so he is uninvolved. Stephan Schulz and Polargeo have been involved in content disputes in the CC topic before, so they are involved. It would be more helpful for the PD to say their names and explain this, but it isn't absolutely necessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a bit of an odd definition. Lar seems to have largely ceased contributing in article space some time ago, which makes him unlikely to get into any content disputes per se (although he's expressed fairly clear positions on specific climate-change content disputes in user-talk space). The wording favors admins who don't contribute content, because once you start working in article space, you start getting involved in content disputes. I'm not really sure whether that's a step forward or backward. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is another issue. I, for example, have gotten into exactly one content dispute in the CC area (though i'm not sure if it is truly a dispute or not, since SBHB and I seem to be negotiating a compromise). Does this make me permanently unable to participate in AE for CC articles? Or, (more sensibly) should I recuse in anything arising from that incident or that article, but be allowed to participate in other parts of CC sanctions? The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • There's uninvolved, and there's unhelpful. You are now "involved" by the narrow formal definition being applied under the sanctions regime, but I think your participation would be helpful. Whether it's correspondingly possible to be both uninvolved and unhelpful is left as an exercise for the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Since it's possible to be involved and unhelpful, it seems obvious the metrics are orthogonal. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just commenting as a curious observer, I would have to say that my small time looking over a few of the issues shows User:Lar to exhibit the small pull of an agenda (though not necessarily in promotion of a particular POV), and the preferences seem to coincide with one of the major contentious "factions" that actively edits the CC articles. If "uninvolved" is defined as never having edited the CC articles, then I believe Lar is fine; however, there are broader understandings of "involved" that it seems would reasonably include Lar. At the heart of it, an admin being "uninvolved" is really about whether that person is able to be trusted to act in a largely disinterested manner -- to maintain a perception of open-mindedness and fairness. Apart from actually editing CC articles, the question may be whether User:Lar's interactions and his passion have impacted any of the requisite perceptions. If this is the appropriate question, then it seems that only ArbCom would be able to give an opinion that will be broadly respected. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

← One would think that a responsible administrator functioning in the interests of Wikipedia would, if "tainted" with a suggestion of involvement/impropriety/bias by any significant number of editors within a topic, recuse oneself from said topic. It's not like there aren't plenty of administrators. Surely the enormous amount of debate on whether or not Lar is "involved" is reason enough for Lar to opt for recusal? Is Lar able to offer something to the administration of this topic that any number of other administrators could not? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking in generalities, and without comment on this particular instance, the presence of a bunch of people complaining about administrative bias does not always mandate recusal. Where there's smoke, there isn't always fire - sometimes there's just someone blowing a lot of smoke. Accusations of admin bias are sensitive, but not specific, as predictors of actual bias. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And we have to be careful that "taint" isn't used to game the system by driving away administrators who make decisions that are unpopular. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed in both cases. Certainly it shouldn't mandate recusal, but surely in this instance it would better serve the process if this distraction were to be excised with Lar's recusal? There's been an awful lot of debate on this matter that has done absolutely nothing to move the process forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear that the awful lot of debate will be never-ending unless the Committee makes a clear statement on the matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: Empowering uninvolved administrator discretion

With the new definition of "involvement", even if Arb is not going to name names, we can all adequately determine who is and is not involved. It seemingly hinges solely on involvement in the content in this topic area. Just like the probation sanctions, the Arb findings and remedies encourage uninvolved administrators to act within their discretion -- this necessarily implies that consensus and action by committee is not necessary. While that is a good enforcement solution in theory, it breaks down in practice as we've seen in the probation phase. Admins are reluctant to impose sanctions using their discretion because there is too much backlash and hounding and harassing and accusations that accompany any such discretionary action. At present, it also seems that any admin's discretionary imposition of sanctions can be reversed by getting enough people to show up at ANI to make noise. If that remains the case, we will never see strong and bold admin enforcement of discretionary sanctions for the same reasons this concept broke down in probation. As Lar and LHVU have said -- they opted not to impose discretionary sanctions when they saw a need for them because they know that the sanctions wouldnt stick. They would be ignored or reversed at ANI by whichever group is more vocal and whichever faction is better at canvassing and wikilawyering. So they opted for the sanctions-by-committee model, which was effective in a few instances but could not go far enough in addressing the pervasive problems in this area.

What to do? To really give uninvolved admins the backing of Arb's proposed enforcement solution, admins need to feel confident that their discretionary imposition of sanctions cannot be ignored or reversed by a gang showing up at ANI. I propose that discretionary sanctions imposed under this Arb case cannot be overturned, reversed or modified unless 1. the admin imposing the sanction consents, or 2. the sanction is overturned by an Arb decision --either by appeal to Arb directly or through AE. Minor4th 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. BASC can probably handle this sort of thing. A huge part of the reason CC probation was ineffective is that a handful of editors and administrators on either side were able to confuse consensus. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "a gang that shows up at AN/I" and a community consensus to overturn an administrative action? I'm not a big fan of AN/I, but this proposal effectively puts administrative actions beyond any review or accountability. The Committee isn't equipped to make rapid judgments about the suitability of individual administrative decisions. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This does in effect put administrative actions at a higher threshhold for review in this area, and I think that is exactly what is needed. If the Committee is not equipped to make rapid judgments, then perhaps there should be a special review committee established that is equipped to respond.Minor4th 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recognise the history of enforcement which is described above. In the earliest days, the initial proponent of the probation ceased involvement when he was criticised by admins who imposed a discussion-first regime and who went on to chastise other admins who tried to implement the probation as it was written. That is the problem. The notion that the current probation regime developed in response to wikilawyering does not agree with the known facts.

Furthermore, the discussion-based regime stopped effective, timely action being taken because of the time-eating, enthusiasm-sapping bureaucracy. And, predictably, it fostered wikilawyering and battleground behavior.

The drafters seem to have recognised these problems and are imposing a new regime encouraging admin discretion, and forbidding any admin reversing a sanction without a full investigation. This may not be perfect but it's a vast improvement. --TS 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about how the discussion-first regime came into being, but the reason behind the reliance on the discussion-first regime is as I've described. In any event, the problem is not solved with this proposed decision because it is exactly the same as it was in the probation enforcement.Minor4th 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony nails it. The sanctions board was intended to create a streamlined procedure but was transmogrified into the exact opposite. The PD largely remedies this. I'm a little concerned that the wording gives a first-mover advantage but it's definitely an improvement over the absolute mess that the sanctions board turned into. Having Arbcom as the only avenue of appeal is a bad idea for many reasons, not the least being that it wastes the arbitrators' time on routine matters when they should be giving their attention to deciding cases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The streamlined process would have been fine for shooting random skeptics and claimed scibaby socks but it would not work to actually do anything about the actual problematic editors. 2/0 proved that when he reversed a 1 hour block of WMC with no prior consultation of the blocking admin. Seeking consensus for sanctions is not a perfect process but it has the merit of producing sanctions that stick, almost every time. Ambulance-chasing isn't what is needed here. Nor is having whatever fold (drama fans and concerned citizens, we usually get a mixture) turn up at AN/I decide. Perhaps a regime in which single uninvolved admins act, but their actions are subject to appeal or review, and any N uninvolved admins can turn them over if needed, might work? N being a small integer larger than 2. This allows for appeal/review but unloads ArbCom from being the direct appeal. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The streamlined process was fine when it was skeptics/scibaby socks, the wikilawyering, etc. started when I took my first actions; 24 hour blocks for three editors for edit warring over WP:TPOC violations, two account holders removing without comment an ip's questions within a discussion - the two editors were among those who subscribed to the scientific consensus; I was very quickly "critiqued" by some editors who subsequently became rather familiar to me, who wanted me to reverse my actions with regard to the two account holders. The reasoning was that these were editors in good standing, with clean block records, who were frustrated at reviewing the same questions posed by ip editors, and wished to clean up the article talkpage. I demurred, stating that as long term contributors the accounts should be aware of WP:TPOC and the necessity of treating other editors civilly. I then started a discussion under which it was agreed that non valid commentary might be archived, per the guideline page, which I hope TS remembers - there was apparent difficulty in some editors comprehending the need to treat skeptic or denialist commentary with anything other than deletion.
These reactions, which I considered per AGF, resulted in me when reviewing the next few cases of seeking the views of the other admins (and TS) active on the enforcement pages to ensure that my understanding of the terms was correct. Initially this worked well, as parties could see that there was consensus between the admins that the probation was being applied properly. It started to become overly bureaucratic, however, when sanctions against editors - often already under restrictions previously noted - who subscribed to the scientific consensus were applied and the familiar choir descended to castigate any admin who supported the imposition. Claims that article space was being given over to "worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue" and the like abounded, comments similar to "scientifically illiterate" were used to justify policy violating edits by other opposing editors, and a great deal of admin time was taken over by providing good faith explanations why policy considerations over-ruled allegations of inaccuracy, invalid consensus, and "the truth" as reasons for actions that contravened proper procedure. Actions against editors who contributed toward a skeptic or denialist viewpoint, however, remained relatively swift and straightforward for quite some time, and it was only in the latter stages when admin actions were questioned as vigorously in these instance (although it should be noted that they were sometimes questioned, but usually for the "leniency" shown - even though I thought admins were generally quite scrupulous in trying to act equitably in all instances, but I suppose that was part of the problem in some editors minds ). I would comment that in all the sanctions I enacted under the probation, only once that I can recall did an editor who agreed with the scientific consensus concede I was acting under the probation remit while several inclined to editing toward a skeptic/denialist viewpoint acknowledge their transgression - and even this was noted as being a "cosy relationship"!! Toward the end of the effective Probation enforcement era, the process now being moribund and obselete, the claims of bias, prejudice, incompetence, and the like became so vociferous that these allegations themselves became material for requests and then RfC's - exampled by the commentary and subsequent RfC's directed at Lar, and the Requests for Arbitration which finally lead to this case - that attention by those few admins still prepared to undertake reviews and actions relating to requests became sparse.
This is a long screed, I realise, and likely not one that every admin (and very certainly a number of editors who frequented it) who worked Probation enforcement will agree with, but one that I hope provides a lesson. Probation enforcement did not fail because it became process heavy and slow, it failed because certain editors were not prepared to be held to Wikipedia policy and guideline since they felt that they were both the torchbearers and the defenders of The Truth, and that their own understanding of NPOV was the only criteria by which content may be included in CC all related articles, and that fair and neutral application of the Probation was a hinderance to that goal. If this attitude, that what the scientific community concurs is the only viable POV and all related articles are to be edited strictly in accordance to it, is permitted to continue to drive the debate regarding NPOV and the allowance of other RS'ed viewpoints then any admin enforced process will fail. If the politics of ensuring that only the scientific consensus may be described (and, although far less likely, an overstating of the denialist or skeptic viewpoint) in a general interest encyclopedia is not countered, then enforcement will be similarly bogged down with wikilawyering. If the detrimental consequences of confluences of editors acting in unison to frustrate the influence of a differing viewpoint or opinion are not addressed, then enforcement will have a very high workload and subsequent admin burnout or turnover. If all editors contributing to CC/AGW related articles are not required to seek consensus, to apply policy scrupously, to seek all avenues of dispute resolution, to AGF of every other editor, to not denigrate opinions and viewpoints not held by them, and to model the best example possible of a Wikipedia editor, on the pain of swift and substantial sanctions, then these articles and related spaces will continue to be a battlefield (and never mind the mischief provided by the vandals and trolls). Those admins who will take on these responsibilities have my support and sympathy - but once this case finishes I am going to find some other places on WP in which to expend my energies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who called you in. You made a perfectly reasonable call. I'll never understand firstly why you caved, and secondly why you expect all other admins to behave in such a craven timid manner. --TS 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Craven? Is that what you actually meant to say? I think that term's kind of melodramatic. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TS, you misunderstand Lar. He expect other admins to "be a mensch", by which he means that they should do what he tells them to. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of mischaracterization is particularly unhelpful, except as a demonstration of why some of your contributions, while "civil" on paper, are nevertheless problematic. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lar, from the context I thought it was pretty clear what you meant by the remark, and also regrettably thought it typical of your manners. You're welcome to give an alternative explanation. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I AGF'ed the reaction (after declining to reverse my sanctions), sought to find a way to resolve the specific issue, and proceeded to try and make admin decisions clearly in line with the policies because I then believed that people were interested in ensuring that neutrality and NPOV were reflected within the articles. Even when I realised that there were individuals, working co-operatively with like minded editors, that were only interested in promoting their preferred pov, I thought that evident unanimity - or at least consensus - between admins would end the wikilawyering. I was wrong, I now realise, because there are individuals who are not interested in creating encyclopedic articles, but in simply advocating their viewpoint. Regardless of the direction I took Probation enforcement into, or not, it wasn't going to work while there were groups of zealots prepared to war over every source and inserted comment and we were always going to end up here (with possibly a greater number of burned out admins). Unless this culture of en masse warring to/against a pov and pressuring admins into treating some editors differently to others is stopped, no admin will able to act effectively at their discretion. How easy is it going to be for a "substantial number" of editors to raise questions on involvement or bias in respect of any one admin, if it is recognised as being an effective means of removing an editor whose actions are inconveniencing some like minded editors. Yup, I got it wrong - I thought we were trying to write an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply LHVU. What you have described is what I have observed as well. So who's left to enforce in this area if LHVU is moving on? The problems described by LHVU must be addressed, and this Arb decision does not even touch it. Even the discretionary sanctions, which TS says have the teeth that were missing in the probation era, will remain a nice theory but will not be put into practice for the reasons LHVU describes. As he said, there must be an effective mechanism for imposing swift and substantial sanctions against editors who do not srupulously follow policy and just giving admins permission is not enough.Minor4th 00:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I would add that we still need a determination/appeal process for involvement. Else we are going to forever be bogged down in quibbles about it. Something that is definitive unless appealed to ArbCom or something. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MastCell has identified what I also see as a potential problem with this. If there is a glacier left in the world, surely it is ArbCom. ;) If the planet has to rotate twice so that all Arbs can have a look, comment, then decide, an unjust 48-hour block is in effect allowed to stand. I continue to favour maintenance of the current community enforcement board, which allows more admins to get involved and only take a bit of the heat and delivers consensus decisions that are very hard to overturn; but with the addition of AE discretionary sanctions if an admin wants to act unilaterally, which already have the clause "not to be overturned without clear community consensus". Having a gang of supporters show up at AN/I just shouldn't be counted as part of determining consensus. I think both processes can co-exist. However if the community board is to be dissolved, I would agree that something like this will be needed to help the admin acting alone to emerge relatively unbloodied at the end of the process. Maybe a "rapid-reaction" Arb committee of three would serve the process? Franamax (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax and Mastcell. I'm going to sound naive saying this, but one of the biggest dashes of cold water I've gotten on Wikipedia has been a realization that administrators are just ordinary users, without any special qualifications, and no more or less prone to bias and error. Administrators on both sides are involved deeply in this particular case, and fairness concerns have subverted the entire process, hence the reversals that one sees. Finding a new pool of administrators, sort of like a new pool of jurors, is the answer. Empowering those administrators, and making them effectively unaccountable, is definitely not the answer. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although a couple of you have said this Arb proposal gives more empowerment to admins to act in their discretion, and therefore is an improvement over the probation model -- that is not the case. It's exactly the same. Uninvolved admins were also given the discretion to act on their own and pursuant to their own discretion in imposition and enforcement of probation sanctions, but it didnt happen! The language was exactly the same - admin action couldnt be overturned except by consent of the admin imposing the sanction, appeal to Arb or clear community consensus at ANI. The fact remains, uninvolved admins did not feel they had a clear mandate to impose sanctions without caucusing first and by the time discussion concluded, whatever the infraction was had likely been supplanted with 5 different infractions or it was written off as stale and here we are at Arb because that model did not work to curb problem behavior. It only got worse, and we all know that the ban of three people is not going to make a dent in bringing peace and acceptable editing practices to this topic area. Why does anyone think admins are going to feel any more empowered under the Arb regime when its no different than the old regime? Something more is needed. Minor4th 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing your melodramatic "note to all" flag. This is a public discussion to all comments are, perforce, notes to all.

You're perfectly right to say that the probation as written expressly allowed for admin discretion. However it wasn't executed in that way. If the newly proposed discretionary system is executed in a way that isn't consistent with the wording intentions of the Committee, you can count on me to be back asking the Committee for guidance. And you know what? The guidance of the Committee is binding on such matters. The point is that removing responsibility from the community domain, which has failed, to the Arbitration domain, gives the issue more teeth. These are the teeth we, the community of climate change editors, have patiently waited for. Would that we had them four years ago. --TS 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be melodramatic, that was kind of crappy of you. On the rest, I hope you're right about this having more force but I don't see how this would give admins any more comfort in taking discretionary actions. Minor4th 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The community's attempt to encourage further admin involvement in the matter was thwarted by admins themselves. That's the way I see it. There isn't a less crappy way of putting it. Admins have to step up to the plate and bat. If they won't, and worse, if they try to stop other admins doing so, things get worse, and we end up with an arbitration case. And of course everybody blames the arbitrators for spending months trying to sort out something that could have been handled better by swift, decisive admin action to stop a battleground environment forming. Admins will still have to bear the burden of this case going forward. --TS 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TS: I do not think that narrative fits the facts. LHvU's explanation of how things unfolded fits the facts far better. But I'm not averse to trying new things, and I'm about to propose that at the existing GS/CC/RE enforcement board, we switch to an act first consensus later model instead of consensus first and only then act. We need something more structured to review and approve or overturn decisions than AN/I, and I'm still scratching my head on that one but I'm thinking something that involves the other uninvolved admins either approving or overturning, if there is a challenge, might work. A corollary to that is that we fix the uninvolved definition to match ArbCom's proposal (no content conflict in the topic area), and use it going forward instead of the defacto one we use now (no edits in the topic area). Would you be supportive of these changes? Do you have concrete suggestions about how to structure review/approval? ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of anything being dealt with at CC enforcement and I particularly dislike the idea of an admin who has shown partisanship setting the standards so that he may continue with what he has expressed several times before as a clear content agenda. The best thing to reduce conflict in enforcement would be for Lar to stop acting as uninvolved in CC altogether. I cannot see Lar being given an act first negotiate later clearence as anything but a bad thing. Another huge problem with this is that Lar would then have to answer only to admins at CC enforcement. A place where he is the established dominant admin (alpha male) and has set the standards and policed those standards himself. I understand why Lar would not wish to answer to AN/I or AN in relation to many of his previous judgements. Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, the arbitrators are capable of making up their own minds whose narrative fits the facts.

• Here is the current version of the probation, which is identical in wording to the version implemented on January 3.
• Here, just in case you might not understand its intent, its author Ryan Postlethwaite himself elaborates in a comment on January 4: "Enforcement requests pages are to alert administrators to behaviour where enforcement may be needed. If any administrator sees problematic behaviour then they are free to act."
• Here is Ryan's statement of January 5 after a discussion-first regime was imposed: "In that case, I'm outta here - I'm not investing any more time when you're already making threats of shopping me to ArbCom. The whole point of discretionary sanctions was to give admins more leeway - what your advocating is exactly the same as we had before. Anyway, I know when it's time to leave."

At that point, just a day or two after the probation had started, the discretionary element of the probation had been killed, not by events but by administrators themselves. It's still "on paper" in the wording of the probation, but any attempt to implement it as a discretionary system is actively opposed by some of the admins. Obviously it would not be possible for admins similarly to castrate the proposed discretionary sanctions in the current draft, which states the discretionary element in even plainer language, "on his or her own discretion". That is a good thing. --TS 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TS: I still think LHvU's account fits what actually happened better. But never mind. Would you comment on my proposal, please? I plan to raise it soon. You may want to address Polargeo's concerns about act first seek consensus later. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion passing the proposed discretionary sanctions as written would be sufficient. Attempts to attenuate or subvert the discretionary latitude could be brought to the attention of the Committee, as could genuine cases of abuse of admin discretion. --TS 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of the proposal, this would move requests to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (not ANI as Minor4th was suggesting) which would be more streamlined and open to a wider number of uninvolved admins. Also, more community scrutiny at the same board or by the committee in any dispute about sanctions being imposed. If sanctions are needed, this looks a much better system. . dave souza, talk 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also it's a "warn->sanction->enforce" system entirely based on discretion. There would be no requirement for exhaustive discussion while abuse continues, although of course the admin would be expected to explain himself if the decision is appealed, and the sanctions could be modified or repealed by the consensus of uninvolved admins following extensive discussion. I see no downside to this and I wish we'd had it in January, as Ryan Postlethwaite intended. --TS 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and think that's what I've just been outlining at #P 3.3.1 Discretionary sanctions above – your comments on that would be appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar's proposal to change the implementation of the probation - not actionable by arbcom

Apologies, I've not been clear enough, I guess. I am suggesting adopting as much as possible of the proposed decision now, and applying it at the GS/CC/RE board, prior to the PD passing (which might not be for some while, who knows). I think this will give some experience with how well the PD regime will work, and a chance to tune it. As well as getting folk used to the PD way of doing (if we assume it's going to pass). This also addresses TS's criticism of the current regime being too consensus driven. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC) See Finding 3, Climate change probation and Proposed remedy 2, Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded. My objection to the current probation isn't that it's "too consensus-driven", it's that it hampers the use of administrator discretion. Under the proposed discretionary sanctions, admin actions could still be undone by the consensus of uninvolved admins, just as normal admin actions can be undone. What the current regime does is prevent admins using their discretion in the area, which makes things even worse than they were before. If Proposed Remedy 1 passes, the probation will be defunct. If it doesn't pass, then I'll consider your proposal. In the meantime I'm not interested in seeing the results of any half-cocked demonstrations, without the teeth that can only be provided by arbcom backing. --TS 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) So in other words the current regime is flawed but you have no interest in making it better, just in complaining about it? Again, I'm suggesting that we try to apply as much of the PD as possible early. I think it is your objection that is "half cocked". ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC) In case you hadn't noticed, the arbitrators are doing something about it. I'm happy to leave the job up to them because they've got far more experience in this area and they have vaster powers than you or I. And to reiterate, if the proposal doesn't pass then I'll discuss your proposal. --TS 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Option analysis <-Here's how I understand the three options. First, the existing model at Climate Change Requests for Enforcement, second, the ArbCom proposal, and third, Lars proposal GS/CC/RE model Warn First Propose sanction at GS/CC/RE Community discussion of issue Uninvolved admin discussion of proposed sanction Sanction imposed if consensus of uninvolved admins reached Appeal to: original sanctioning admin, ANI, or ArbCom AE Model Warn first Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate) Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction Appeal to: original sanctioning admin, AE, or ArbCom Lar model Warn first Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate) Someone brings it to notice board if they are not themselves the uninvolved admin Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction, record or update notice board Appeal to: original sanctioning admin (either at notice board or at talk) Failing that: Overturn by consensus of uninvolved admins (nb, no consensus implies retain sanction) at notice board Failing that: Appeal to AE or ArbCom In defense of Lar, he may not have fully articulated his approach, or I may have missed some details. I think his key step is replacing the need to reach consensus to sanction with a negative consensus mode, the difference being that failure to reach consensus in the GS/CC/RE model means no sanction, while in Lars model, it means the sanction stands. I support that, but hope there was an implicit mutatis mutandis for the warn and appeal steps.--SPhilbrickT 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC) If my guess is correct, and Lar intends the warn and appeal steps to be included, I see Lar's proposal as identical to the AE model, except that it gives one more venue for appeal of sanction, specifically, a consensus of uninvolved admins can overturn it, rather than needing Arb involvement. I think this sounds like a workable model (and I'll use this opportunity to note that I under-appreciated the significance of the AE proposal when I first read it).--SPhilbrickT 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for helping me flesh this out better. I don't want to edit your words... But the AE steps one and two would be my steps one and two as well, and the AE step 4 would be my step 3.5 (appeal to the sanctioning admin) and 5 (that is, if the appeal to a consensus of uninvolveds failed to resolve the matter, AE, the AC, (or, sigh, ANI, except, let's not) would be involved after) ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC) The Lar proposal is, I think, essentially the same as the WP:AE proposal by arbcom, but its implementation would be subject to much the same foot-dragging among admins that compromised the original discretionary regime. --TS 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) That's not necessarily so in any case and characterizing seeking consensus as foot-dragging just isn't helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) No, the AE model eschews steps 2 and 3 of the GS/CC/RE model; those are not trivial steps, as they required collection of diffs and evidence of warning and fair amount of busy work, then step 3 involved grandstanding and hand wringing before you even got to step 4. And step 4 at GS/CC/RE required multiple uninvolved admins to weight in - on the rare case that didn't happen, hands got slapped. The AE/Lar model allows unilateral admin action at this point. Please don't let the larger number of steps fool you, both the AE and Lar model are significantly streamlined compared to the GS/CC/RE model (This shouldn't be construed as criticism of the GS/CC/RE model, it was largely a "let's transplant ANI to its own page, with comparable process." However, that process was cumbersome, and we editors haven't learned to play nice, so admins are being given much more power to break heads. I see the Lar proposal as simply adding a reasonable safeguard to the process.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC) As this has veered wildly away from any proposed remedy that might be actionable by the committee, I've decided to disengage and have asked Lar to make his proposal on the talk page of the probation where such discussion belongs. --TS 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on "uninvolved admins"

Hello. I have participated for a while as an uninvolved admin in the CC probation. Recently, I made four edits to CC articles (two of which were tagging unreferenced BLPs as such). One of them appears to have been somewhat controversial. Here is the discussion that has begun as a result. Does this qualify as a "content dispute" that forever bars me from participating as an uninvolved admin on all CC articles? If so, then c'est la vie. If not, then I think that part of the PD should be clarified. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even justify the harassment you are getting on your talk page due to your block of WMC by asking such a question. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "involvement" and bias

The following is intended as a general comment about the involvement provisions of the PD.

I think we often forget that "involvement" is really a proxy for something else: bias. That bias might be conscious (e.g. acting to foster a personal agenda) or unconscious (e.g. being too close to an issue to judge it fairly).

We as a community have several definition of involvement. For the most part these focus on things that one can see directly, such as editing disputes. However, it is certainly true that someone could be biased without being involved by most of the definitions we throw around. For example, an admin might have developed very strong opinions on a subject without having ever edited about it. Or an admin might have formed very strong opinions about certain individuals even without having had direct conflicts with them.

Now all admins are human, and subject to human failings and opinions. The expectation is that a fair admin will be able to set aside any pre-existing opinions and focus on the issues directly. That is easier to do if the admin is new to the issues and parties involved (and hence truly uninvolved), but Wikipedia doesn't have enough people to get a fresh set of eyes every time an issue comes up. And with many of the long historical conflicts someone who is truly new to the issue may make poor judgments due to a lack of understanding the context.

There have been many arguments about whether particular individuals such as Lar, Stephan Schulz, myself, and others are "involved". In most cases, the reason for the argument is that definitions of involvement (and individual interpretations of those definitions) vary.

Personally, I don't think the answer to this is really to create more definitions of "involvement". Rather I would say that we need some appeals process that is empowered to remove admins from administrative involvement with particular topics / people if they appear to be biased or unhelpful. Arbcom could make those decisions directly (though I don't think they want to) or they could empower some other forum (e.g. AE, ANI, etc.) to make those decisions.

I don't know whether all, some, or even none of the admins currently involved in GSCC would pass a review for fairness / bias, but I strongly believe we need a way to address the issue. This is doubly true since the issue of "involvement" (as we generally define it) can never paint a complete picture about whether or not an individual admin's actions have been fair and helpful to resolving the problems. Dragons flight (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. A less mechanical evaluation is subject to gaming but might actually be better. The GS/CC/RE board did formally evaluate involvement more than once but may have been seen as too inward looking to evaluate that by some folk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of your point - that it isn't really involvement we care about—indeed, involvement is often a plus. But we do care about bias, and like temperature records pre-instrument, it is difficult or impossible to directly measure what we want to measure, so we measure something that can be objectively measured, and argue or accept that it is a reasonable proxy for what we truly care about. Remembering this is important, but to the extent that you suggest we directly look at bias, I fear that is an impossible task. Very few people will take kindly to being labeled as biased (ignoring the trite "I'm biased in favor of the truth or verifiability" or whatever), and oddly, I predict that those most biased will squawk the loudest. However, while I think anyone might take umbrage at being called "biased" it isn't a mark of shame to admit that yes, you have been very involved in content disagreements. For that reason, I think we should continue to use involvement as the metric, but it will help to recall why we want to measure involvement, and that may guide us to more appropriate definition of involvement.--SPhilbrickT 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Involvement" is not really the issue, bias/partiality is. That's what arbcom needs to deal with, both in generalities and in specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceiving, though... at first glance, the time you spend hanging around WMC's page joking with the other regulars might be taken as evidence of partiality... It takes more digging than just a quick glance through contribs to determine whether an editor is biased or not. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about administrative involvement. No one has suggested that ScottyBerg is an uninvolved admin on climate-change enforcement requests. So I'm not sure his chatter on William's talk page is relevant to this discussion, except perhaps as a way to tweak him. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can address this a matter of "bias" without taking on board the absurd notion that the scientific consensus is no better than the opinion of Joe Sixpack. Obviously most intervening admins will tend to go with the scientific consensus and to see any attempt to distort that consensus or downplay it as an attempt at POV-pushing. Why would they do that? Because that's what it is. Should some partisan admins show up who consistently favor misrepresentations of the science, I think we could deal with them under the sanctions or, more realistically, take them to arbcom and have them excluded from adminning subjects in which they are acting as partisans. So it's not a big deal. TS 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, intervening admins should not be making editorial judgments such as "going with scientific consensus". It is the editors of a page that need to be making editorial judgments, and the admins need to identify the editors consistently going against or disrupting genuine and well-formed consensus established by other editors, rather then admins establishing consensus. Admins need to identify an existing consensus, not argue for it themselves, and need to remind editors to follow Wikipedia policies, and tell them how to try and get a new consensus established if they think that is needed. As others have said on this talk page, it is possible to focus on editor behaviour when admining a dispute, and not get dragged into content discussions that are best carried out by the editors discussing an article or topic. If specific examples of how an admin should have approached various disputes would help, that is one possibility that could be explored here. Building up a manual of best practice to guide new admins coming into the topic area. It might seem bureaucratic, but it might be needed and might help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an outline of best practices would be helpful. At the moment the only rule is "admins can never act regarding articles that they have edited." This is not adequate guidance for the general case, much less for resolving conflicts in a contentious area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your basis for the contention that the rule is ""admins can never act regarding articles that they have edited.". My understanding is that admins can act, unless they have edited AND those edits have been part of a conflict. While some additional clarity is in order, in particular, the situation discussed by The Word smith, I don't believe the existing or proposed rules lead to your summarization. --SPhilbrickT 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I was wrong -- it's not necessary even to have edited an article. According to one of the admins engaged in the probation, simply having uploaded an image containing an ordinary plot of scientific data related to the topic is sufficient to qualify one as involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point on adminning practice, but a lot of the problem with the global warming articles is endless timewasting and accusations of bad faith coming from people who want to insert their personal theory into the articles. There's a behavioral element, but as a rule the obstinate refusal to accept that a strong and well established scientific consensus exists is an ever-present and quite wearying component of the battleground behavior. In practice the recognition that the problem arises from tendentious behavior on the talk page and in the articles is an essential part of good adminning in the area. --TS 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TS, there are those who have some difficulty in placing RS (as determined by every other applicable standard) regarding skeptic/denialist commentary into CC related article space - and you are suggesting that there is anything more than outright rejection for WP:OR? The removal of trolling and contrarian (how quickly these shorthands become adopted?) advocacy is as swift as ever it was. You appear to be mistaking good faith attempts to "widen" the discussion via sources for timewasting, which resolves to to misapprehending NPOV as being guided by the consensus on only one aspect (the science) of a multi faceted subject (science, politics, economics, etc.), and almost wilful disregard that WP cannot evaluate the the content of RS for propriety. From my reading of policy NPOV is self hamstringing in determining what the truth may be, because it requires that any and all pov's underpinned by sufficient RS should be noted; and whatever "the truth" is, it can only be one of them. Insofar that the "best" RS'd viewpoint should have prominence, it must be hoped that it is the one that has the consensus or majority support in any topic - but it is not an option for WP to promote or demote a RS to ensure that that happens. That is one of the drawbacks to be found within the open and third party referencing editing model that Wikipedia is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with well sourced additions. I've no idea why you would get the idea that I had. The reason some editors are trying very hard to insert poor sources into Wikipedia's science articles is because there are no reliable sources for the fake "facts" they want to insinuate into the encyclopedia. But I don't see that problem going away, nor do I see the attempts to compromise the verifiability policy as likely to succeed. --TS 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (principles)

As a general comment, I agree with some of the other editors in this talk that the proposed principles, as a group, are very thoughtful and helpful, and I commend the drafters for doing this so well. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Finding of fact" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the finding of fact numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please do not discuss remedies here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

F1: Locus of dispute

Recent article ratings and creations

Originally titled 'Articles rating prior to all this and new ones that have become?'. Moved here as a request for an extended summary of the topic area and its recent history. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my understanding is that the articles in the area of Climate change were of great pride and great ratings. I don't know the articles myself and I assume others are in the same place as I am so here's a request/question? How about listing all the CC articles that were written as GA or above or presented on the main page that have now gotten demoted or should be since all of this broke out? I think it would also be helpful if all the new articles written in the area of CC be listed, say since the first of the year, esp. BLP's? I think maybe looking at all the articles under dispute now or prior, during this 8 month period should show clearly what has changed during this time. If someone(s) who is active in this area would be kind enough to put together a list like what I'm suggesting, then maybe everyone can see the activities more clearly, esp. those who do not edit in this area. We can than get a clear view of the editing practices. I mean there are claims of coatrack, BLP vios, and everything under the sun. Wouldn't it be easier to see all of this by having a list of articles, both new and old, to compare? Just a suggestion that may help everyone look easier at what has happened with a listing to make the comparisons. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Do any of the ratings value the WP rules and policies as factors? Such as WP:NPOV? Do they examine editor interaction? Do they examine any factors other than "This is what we know is correct and WP follows it"? Collect (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The ones I've seen looked at the articles to see if they contained major errors. The factual accuracy is of course primary in any third-party evaluation of an encyclopedia article on a scientific subject. --TS 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If they followed NPOV, would the quality of the articles be actually diminished? Seems that "factual accuracy" is another phrase for "SPOV"? Collect (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F2: Nature and extent of dispute

Everything here is true and good, but there is one major point that I believe has been missed. The PD notes that the climate change topic area has become "polarizing and embittered" but does not explore this in sufficient depth. The core problem is that the topic area is entirely dominated by extremist editors. On both sides of the dispute, there are a number of editors who are entirely convinced of their own correctness, entirely unable to see (or admit) any merit in their opponent's viewpoints, entirely prepared to push wikipedia rules and conventions to breaking point and beyond, and entirely prepared to thoughtlessly back each other up. Most of them have become experts in pushing the boundaries just as far as possible, but no further. The end results are long-term campaigns of intimidation waged by both sides that nevertheless are very difficult to prove using contextless diffs. This conflict has been going on for so long and has been of such intensity that it has frightened off nearly all moderate editors. Because this PD fails to recognize that this is the situation, it naturally fails to deal with it. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points. There are some editors on all sides who don't reflexively support the bad actors in their own camp and sometimes even criticize them, but there's a large proportion who act in just the way you describe. I think the draft encourages admins working through Arbitration Enforcement to crack down on editors who do step over the line (and a lot of those who don't normally step over the line occasionally do -- sometimes they can't help themselves and sometimes the line is vague, so an admin with a stricter view might catch them). I suspect the draft-writers think this course is the least drama-inducing way to deal with the problem. I think we're going to see constant appeals from AE actions to AN/I and an explosion of drama. I don't know whether that will result in blocks and other sanctions being upheld or reversed or weakened. I don't know whether enough wise admins will be active in this so that their actions will be more likely to be upheld. ArbCom, being the most insulated from the consensus that a partisan faction can help form, should sanction more editors where we've already provided good evidence about their bad behavior and prevent a lot of time-wasting drama that this draft (if implemented) would cause over the next several months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this wording. "Strongly held competing views" implies an equivalence between the consensus driven, reasoned scientific opinion on climate change on one side and the shrill, minority dissent from the denial fringe. There is no such equivalence. This implication is flat out wrong. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

F4: Disputes regarding administrator involvement

The committee made a good start with a proposed finding that there has been a dispute regarding the status of Lar and Stephan Schulz. I see proposed principle 15 and 16 addressing the policy. I see proposed enforcement 2 defining the term "uninvolved". This wording is slightly, but not materially different than the current wording. I do not see a clear position from the committee regarding the dispute. Based upon the proposed definition of uninvolved administrator, should Lar or Stephan or both be considered involved or uninvolved. Without guidance from the committee, I suspect editors on both sides of that dispute will simply reiterate their positions.--SPhilbrickT 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was thrusting at in my section above. In my opinion, the lack of any meaningful definition of admin involvement contributed more to the degeneration of the CC community sanction more than any other factor. Requesting clarification on the status of Lar and Stephan is reasonable, as is requesting that a rules lawyer-proof definition of "uninvolved" be handed down. I agree with SPhilbrick that without firm guidelines set, editors on both sides will just dig in their heels and admins will attempt to get away with anything possible against their "opponents" that wouldn't lead to an immediate revocation of the bit. Also agree with Wikidemon below that some judgment about Lar, Stephan, and others is required, even if it's simply an "Admins X, Y, and Z have acted unimpeachably" for the reasons outlined below. — east718 | talk | 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no regard paid to the serious nature of admins involvement in the cc area. Simply a weak wishy washy statement that as I read it allows Lar to continue as uninvolved without stating this and does not allow Stephan Schulz to act as uninvolved despite the equal statement in the arbcom ase. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed decision makes no mention of the Lar RfC[41] in which numerous editors expressed reservations about Lar's conduct. Some parts of the PD can be construed as applying to him, but without specific guidance it is, like much of this PD, simply of no value whatever. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The Committee mentions the dispute but does not seem to resolve the issue. Is this because the Committee feels that no administrator acted in a way that violates the principle, or is there some other reason why the Committee does not wish to rule on past events here? It would also be helpful to address the question of when the appearance of involvement (e.g. an ongoing dispute with an editor, a perception of bias against the editor, etc.) suggests that an administrator step aside, even if they feel they have been entirely fair, under the "best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved" provision [emphasis added]. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree this issue needs clarification and the Committee should name names and give better guidelines for determining "involvement" -- it should also be kept in mind that there is a scarcity of admin participation in enforcement in this area, and every admin that has been participating is under a cloud of allegations of being "involved." If every one is eliminated as being involved because one faction or the other baits an admin's involvement, there will be no one to enforce anything in this topic area. Minor4th 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the committee gave a careful reading to the Workshop and Evidence pages, much less background material like the Lar RfC. (Whether they'll even read the comments here is open to question.) So it's likely not so much failing to address as simply being unaware. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any direct indication that the committee "gave a careful reading" to the 400K/month my talk page gets either. Much of that content is your faction caviling, bemoaning, quibbling, arguing, berating, and baiting me. Occasionally I rise to the bait, but I nevertheless remain uninvolved despite your many efforts, and despite the chilling effect that 8 months of your abuse has had on my enjoyment of this project. I suspect there are not many admins that would put up with you lot for as long as I have. I don't think the committee is unaware of the problems your faction causes. I just think they are unwilling to deal with them unless prodded harder. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Lar just said, especially the description of the longstanding abuse of him on his talk page. Except the unless prodded harder. I'm not sure, but I doubt much said here makes much difference. (I comment here in the off chance that it might.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Lar gave wide latitude on his talk page for people to let off steam and engage in frank discussion? Going from that to asking us to enter his talk page into evidence seems wrong somehow. Lar could have asked people to leave his talk page at any time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're making his invitation look like a blanket approval of anything that was said. Lar doesn't have the power to revoke WP:NPA and other policies. Nor can attacks on Lar on his talk page be entirely excused by an invitation to "let off steam and engage in frank discussion" because there's a reasonable limit to that, although any evidence of personal attacks from that talk page would have to be seen in light of the invitation, and the attacks would have to be pretty egregious. At a time when Lar was getting hit from many editors at once, it's unreasonable to say "Lar could have asked people to leave his talk page at any time." That response of yours, Carcharoth, lacks a certain empathy. Lar is not required to have made the best decisions at all times in order to have been made the victim. Nor is having an open attitude toward talk page comments from people antagonistic to him, or wading into the climate-change swamp as an admin the equivalent of someone victimized at 2 a.m. while trying to buy crack on a street corner known for drug dealing. In other words, avoid blaming the victim and don't give a free pass to the many victimizers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. I think the reality is more complex, to say the least. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not what JWB said. We are none of us perfect, and that includes me, so it's certainly not uniform but really, anyone that is looking for factional behavior need look no farther than my talk page. I got piled on, time and time again. Sometimes maybe I had it coming, but many times, I didn't. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this: I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. MastCell, don't caricature what I'm saying. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also welcome a clarification of which admins were, or are, and to what degree, considered involved either by previous content editing of CC related articles or by a relationship with an editor that was beyond that of being involved in an administrative capacity. I would gently remind everyone that a couple of admins who have long been involved in the probation enforcement, but have not been mentioned either in the PD or this talkpage have edited CC articles previously; and whose uninvolvement should be verified. I would further desire a confirmation that accusations of involvement need to be swiftly resolved by uninvolved third parties in good standing, and further aspersions - especially by those who potentially benefit by the withdrawal of a conflicted admin - be dealt with as a matter of enforcement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal attempts to create a chilling effect -- one dare not criticize an admin's actions for fear of sanction. This is not to say that arbcom wouldn't implement it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong allegations need strong evidence; the chilling effect of claiming bias or involvement upon admins should also not be discounted. Those admins found routinely abusing their flags can be desysopped and blocked, even - even simple incompetence is grounds for removing either the buttons or the admin from the contested area. Editors found to be using unfounded aspersions, particularly in respect of admins who may have acted with them previously, may likewise be sanctioned. As far as evidence is concerned, put up or shut up might be the rule - and accept the findings of a third party. Misunderstandings is fine, competence needs addressing, and abuse of process will result in actions being taken - for all involved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly unclear why the simple case asking for a ruling about StS and Lar hasn't been dealt with explicitly. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not speaking for the Committee, but personally - I see the complaints about Lar and to a lesser degree Stephan Schulz as being less about them being "involved" in the classic sense and more about dissatisfaction with their decisions by certain parties. However, I also know that despite perfectly good intentions, dealing with a contentious area for too long can lead to burnout and cause admins to prejudge cases based on past history. That's certainly not the fault of the admins who are often hounded and generally treated poorly when trying to work in these areas and likely have good cause for their biases. The problem could probably be fixed by tossing out all the editors and admins working in the area and getting a whole new group of people involved while the others take a much needed break - obviously, not likely to happen. So when dealing with an imperfect solution here, perhaps moving things to WP:AE rather than off on it's own board will mean a wider range of admins reviewing situations that come up. Shell ^babelfish 11:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Shell, if that's the way you see it, then you really haven't gotten it. Not even kinda. Lar's response to a comment of Dave souza's was to bring up Dave's vote in Lar's Steward reconfirmation. Lar's response to my comment on his mass deletion of unsourced BLPs was to attack me as a member of an "ID and AGW cabal". Lar's constantly seeks to attack and belittle what he calls the "AGW cabal" or "science club" or one of a host of demeaning names. He comments on people's "lack of social skills". It just goes on and on. He characterises just about everything through a filter of "factionalism", and has repeatedly attacks one "side" in the dispute. And, in case you've forgotten, in the RFC on Lar's behaviour in this case a plurality of editors, including most uninvolved editors, endorsed the opinion that Lar was involved. He has a long-standing dispute in which he and a member of one 'faction', as he sees it (Cla68) attempted to smear a group of editors who happen to be in the other 'faction'. And it's not like I'm dredging up ancient history here - my first interaction with Lar in, I don't know, forever, back in January - he brought up that issue. And recently he and Cla68 have raised it again. He also attacked WMC before the case began. Guettarda (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, Lar's civility, or lack thereof, is a problem (which has nothing to do with whether or not he's "involved"). It certainly doesn't help to calm a heated situation, but frankly, he's been attacked in a similar manner and I don't see you taking those people to task. As for your view that the RfC clearly indicated that Lar was involved, I don't see that at all - in fact, I see a lot of comments about him being uninvolved, that opinions are acceptable in admins and that the RfC was a tool being used by a certain faction in order to remove Lar. Shell ^babelfish 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar's civility, or lack thereof, is a problem. That is correct, and it needs to be dealt with by arbcom, if you intend to cool down the battleground atmosphere. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, he's been attacked in a similar manner and I don't see you taking those people to task. I respectfully suggest that whether or not Guettarda has come to Lar's defense on previous occasions is totally irrelevant. The significance of his jibe at Dave [42]was that Lar's comment was not in the "heat of battle" but came in response to a remark from Dave that was unprovocative and not directed at Lar. That kind of conduct was, I think, the underlying problem that people had with him in his RfC. I remember once discussing this directly with Lar but it was a while ago and I forget what the forum was. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to take sides here, but as an observation, it doesn't take a plurality of editors to believe someone is involved before their involvement becomes a problem. The bar is higher than that. Ideally, people subject to an adverse ruling will respect the ruling. They may not like it, they may even think it was wrong, but for them to calm down and go about their business they should think it was fair rather than a set-up. If it is a sham in their eyes, it is not unreasonable for them to challenge and defy the ruling, lobby for the the censure or removal of the person making it, and seek out a faction of like-minded others. If even, say, 25% of all editors looking clearly and sincerely at an administrator's involvement would say that administrator is too close to the situation to be neutral, that 25% lack of legitimacy is enough to undermine the process. An administrator who is in fact neutral can keep respect through courtesy, staying dignified, honoring formalities, acknowledging if not agreeing with contrary opinions, and avoiding things like threats and scolding. An administrator whose neutrality is questioned should have the good graces to back down, unless as is often the case the questioning itself is just a ploy to discredit the administrator. Unfortunately, sometimes the ploy works. In Wikipedia as in life, sometimes smear campaigns do succeed in discrediting a person to the point where they cannot function in their position. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. If an administrator has vocally and repeatedly denounced a number of editors, even going so far as calling them terrorists, then he can hardly be surprised if his impartiality is subsequently called into question. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think the answer to SPhilbrick's question at the top of this thread needs to be spelled out explicitly. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Shell: There is a significant difference between claiming that Lar is involved and claiming that Stephan and Bozmo are - the latter two have significant (almost exclusively in Stephan's case) contributions in the climate change area and have long-term/close relations with major members of the AGW group, while Lar has minimal (zero?) involvement in climate change articles. Additionally, Lar has argued against members of both sides, against people who share his own beliefs and those who don't - this behavior has not been demonstrated in any meaningful manner by some other admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think the arbitrators should read Lar's talk page. I think a lot of this would be addressed by taking the time to read it. Lar has requested it as has others. I just think it would be good to see what everyone is talking about going back to where ever this all got started, Jan.? Just a suggestion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

To add one more voice to the throng here, here's one from me: we've got to get something more than this, Arbs. This is the worst admin-fight I've ever seen in large part because we couldn't get any agreement as to who was and wasn't involved, and so those involved just repeated their positions ad infinitum. (I'm pretty sure it honestly did go roughly like this: A: "You are involved, stop using your tools like I've told you to sixteen times." B: "No, I am not. Leave me alone." Futility.) If you fail to give some better guidance about who is and isn't involved here, we're going to be back here in two months tops. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

F5: Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

See also: Earlier archived discussion

FOF #5: "...a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated."

That percentage, especially the latter end, seems very high to me. Could a checkuser please comment on whether it is actually accurate? Most of the accounts blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive are still blocked, which is why this statement seems iffy.

The statement also doesn't mention a number of accounts that have been blocked recently that are very probably but not definitively sockpuppets of GoRight – TheNeutralityDoctor and Climate surfer 23, among others. Could perhaps a sentence or two be added about those accounts and the acceptable use of open proxies (especially for new and immediately controversial accounts)? NW (Talk) 11:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Even at the low end of the range, this is an abysmal state of affairs. Just in case it gets missed, 100 good blocks and 20 bad blocks may sound like "merely" a 20% error rate, but it means a single editor has been correctly blocked 100 times, while 20 distinct individuals have been shut out of WP. That's not a 20% error rate, that's a error factor of 20. --SPhilbrickT 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe your math is in error here. I think you meant to say 80 good blocks. In other words, 1 in 5 blocks is incorrect, but if you look at the larger picture and then out of 100 blocks you'll get 20 editors blocked incorrectly and a 80 sockpuppets run by a few individuals blocked correctly. This is even more pertinent since many of the socks blocked aren't actually being blocked for being disruptive. This kind of matches what I've been reading in the comments at WUWT on this case - many of them have talked about being instantly blocked or reverted but I suspect they don't have the time or inclination to find out why and get the situation rectified. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe NW could also clarify just what he wants ArbCom to include in their proposed decision about these two accounts that he has identified as not definitively belonging to a particular individual. Weakopedia (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If the FOF is true, which I doubt, it should be trivial to list a few of the accounts incorrectly blocked. As NW indicates, the accounts remain blocked, which is not consistent with their having been cleared by CU. Unless this finding refers to the largescale range blocks which were once applied. If so, the finding is badly confusing, and needs to be re-written William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many were blocked sans CU. After SPI (where they had been peremptorily blocked by the complainant or others based solely on "the usual), many were not then unblocked, even when no CU occurred on them, or results were "inconclusive." I would have thought the number was about 20%, but with CUs averring that it may be as high as 40%, I will not gainsay their experience. Even 10% would be unacceptable anywhere else. Collect (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is the remedy intended to change anything? The three areas of adjustment are to raise the threshold (fewer false positives, more false negatives), to work harder at being more precise, or to change the methods or criteria for sock investigations. Simply urging people to do good work while making as few mistakes as possible doesn't offer guidance on how to do so. Also, I'm not sure the "expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts" statement is correct, or that the "without more" caveat makes it so. Expressing the same idiosyncratic opinions, and undue attention to the same obscure facts, of a known puppeteer, can be very strong evidence of sockpuppetry. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that Scibaby has been the justification for the practice of reverting and blocking a new user after one or two edits that are not controversial and usually completely neutral? Then threats are made to block any editor who attempts to restore anything remotely similar to the reverted content. See this series: [43], [44], [45] and this discussion [46] Minor4th 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors who's been involved in policing Scibaby socks, I'd like to make a few observations:

1) Scibaby socks are fairly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. There's a number of obvious signs which I have written up and circulated to a number of people, though obviously I'm not going to spell them out here. Reports and blocks are not being made haphazardly.

2) I very much doubt that the error rate is as high as 40%. Scibaby socks never use talk pages and never use their own talk pages. They never contest blocks. If there were more errors there would be more contested blocks.

3) People need to remember that checkuser is just one tool for identifying socks. Scibaby is technically proficient at hiding his real IP address. Behavioral evidence is at least as important. If checkuser fails to confirm that a particular account is linked to Scibaby, that does not mean that the user is not Scibaby. Identifying and blocking socks is not a mechanical task - it requires judgement and experience. Editors who have only a few months' experience on Wikipedia and none at all of tackling socks are not in a good position to lecture on this subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It continues [47]. So I have a question here --given the findings of such a high number of false positives, and given the fact that Arb said this is disruptive, but also it's disruptive to have socks running amock, how in the world is anyone supposed to have any guidance and how would something like this be enforced? Minor4th 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You said that such socks aren't active on their talk page. You reported me after an argument on my talk page. The process for appeal is too poorly laid out for the average user to understand, I'm sure most of them give up. It took me a month to clear my name after your accusation. Few would go through such a hassle. The entire Scibaby issue is a pure witch hunt and you are the grand inquisitor. As one of the users falsley blocked as a puppet of Scibaby by admin Moreschi after being accused I have to take great offense to some of the statements made by ChrisO and others in defense of that witch hunt. I think that people like ChrisO and those who follow his line of reasoning on alleged Scibaby socks could greatly benifit by reading List_of_fallacies. The idea that because only X people appealed that all the rest were socks is a logical fallacy of the highest order and shouldn't be given any credence by anyone. The appeals process is not easy and not well defined. It took a lot of reading through and I wrote the appeal on my talk page which was the only thing I could find at the time and nothing happened. After a few weeks I had to go off wikipedia to find a better solution and I did. I wrote an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee this was about a month after I had been blocked. Most peoople would have quit. I won my appeal. There is no way as I explained in my appeal that my host showed up as a sock by a checkuser. Carcharoth then posted on my talk page that I hadn't actually been banned as a sock of Scibaby. I never believed him and still don't. His response seemed more backtracking to explain away how I was confirmed by a checkuser. The whole affair left me with a great loss of trust in admin. All and all it took a month and a lot of work to clear my name. Something most casual users would never do. No ChrisO just because they dont appeal doesn't confirm anything. It only confirms that wiki's appeal process is FUBAR for the average user and most casual users and new users which you clearly taget wont go through with it. As for checkusers. Well I'm sure the program works well. But the people doing the check if they are even really doing the check I'm not too sure of.Bigred58 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the bit where you named me - I posted to your talk page back in December 2009 in response to your appeal that was submitted to ArbCom by e-mail. I should note here that it was me dealing with the appeal, correcting the malformed unblock template on your talk page, and passing your appeal on to a checkuser, that led to your unblocking. In that post to your talk page, I tried to explain that your block was carried out as part of a response to edits made to the Climategate article. Your account had been tagged as a Scibaby sock when you were named at an SPI page, which is why I said the block (which had taken place earlier) was unrelated to the tagging. The block was more a response (incorrect in my view) to the deluge of editing that hit the Climategate article. You are correct that the tagging of an already blocked account (not the block itself) was a misidentification of that account as a Scibaby sock. As far as the atmosphere surrounding the article at the time goes, that can be seen in the response of the blocking administrator (currently inactive) to the message I left him about this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting the subsequent discussion on hold for now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please send me your list of signs for review. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Not to you, I think. Uninvolved admins, yes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I am an uninvolved admin, a CU in good standing (not currently active as such) and an CU ombudsman. If I'm not qualified, by your lights, to review that list, I think that says far more about you than it does me. I suggest you reconsider your decision. Who have you sent it to? ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC) imo, ChrisO, that is bullshit and a reason that the scibaby person will get more free passes from univolved CU's and others. If you want help controlling the problem, give it to someone you think is an enabler of the problem. When it gets worse, you can then get lar banned for being scibaby and destroying the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC) @Chris, Sorry to pile on, but I find your comment unhelpful. Arbcomm appears entirely unconvinced that Lars is a problem that needs addressing. Time to let this one go. Ronnotel (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I should add for the sake of clarity that the list is in no way dispositive or intended to guide people. It's something I wrote up for my own use and passed to a couple of others to get their views. As it happens, they had spotted the same indicators that I had. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Chris, could you send me your list? I'd like to compare it to my own. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Chris, you need to just keep your secret list to yourself and not bring it up again if you're not going to share with people in this discussion, and particularly with an uninvolved admin -- anyone can say they have secret evidence about anything, but that is not persuasive. That kind of McCarthyism should not even make its way on to these pages. And also keep to yourself your snide comments about my experience and whether I'm qualified to comment on this -- I'm commenting and will continue to do so on this issue and any others as I choose. Minor4th 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Your experience is highly relevant - in this particular area, you don't have any. You don't know how the process works, you don't know the limitations of checkuser and you don't know how to spot sockpuppets. I'm not saying that disqualifies you from commenting but it does mean that you need to accept that others do have experience that you lack, and you need to be cognisant of that in your comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC) OK, well then... I suspect that as a sitting CU, since 2007, I have more experience about how CU works, its limitations, and its strengths, than you do. I expect your list to be sent to me via email for my review, or else I expect you to stop mentioning it, and to stop using it. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC) How about everyone stops arguing about this and the list gets sent to ArbCom for review? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Did the list get sent to ArbCom? Do I need to use up one of my questions to find out? :) ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I will ask ChrisO to send us the list. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

F6: Edit warring on Climate Change related articles

Very important: William M. Connolley and Marknutley, were involved in seven of eight edit wars. It's the repeated misconduct that shows tougher sanctions are needed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and decreasing sanctions for those involved in six out of eight (if any), five out of eight (ibid), four out of eight, and three out of eight. Involvement in two out of eight should draw perhaps a warning, and anyone else not already commenting here a link to these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At least one of those instances, Mark Nutley was reverting BLP violations and was blocked for edit warring when ChrisO and William Connolley kept reinserting content that violates BLP policy. NW protected the page and blocked Mark, but not Chris or WMC. Walk the diffs: [48]. Chris edited or reverted in BLP violations 3 times [49],[50] [51], and an additional instance with help from WMC [52]; Mark reverted 3 times, and claimed BLP exemption [53], [54], [55]. This was after there was a rough consensus on the talk page that the source Chris was using was improper in a BLP because it was authored by an adversary of the BLP and originated from a blog post, see talk page: [56].

This is at least one instance that I do not think Mark should be tagged for edit warring, and it's inexplicable why Mark was blocked and Chris was not even warned when Chris had as many reverts and was inserting BLP content against consensus. I believe Chris is as much or more of a problem with the edit warring as any of the two who are actually being sanctioned. There may be others as LHVU suggested who should be sanctioned in addition. Minor4th 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed material that was sourced to a self-published blog. The unacceptability of such material has been upheld in this proposed arbitration decision. Marknutley repeatedly violated BLP by using blog-sourced content. His use of blogs in BLPs has been highlighted in this proposed decision as disruptive editing. I made no use of any blog or other self-published source as a source in any of the diffs that you posted. That is in full accordance with this proposed decision and existing policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that Mark was the one removing BLP material sourced to a self-published attack site, and you were the one who kept reinserting it. You repeatedly revert warred to include an attack presentation by John Abraham against the BLP Christopher Monckton and sourced it to John Abrams' self-published slideshow (link omitted for BLP reasons), as seen here: [57], here:[58] and [59]. What do you suppose an appropriate sanction should be for your violations? Interestingly, NW blocked mark and said nothing to you. Strange. In any event, this incident should not count in Mark's tally. And I think attention should be paid to how many of those edit wars Chris was involved in. Minor4th 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I think you have a lot to answer for here... you seem to be revising history. You claim Mark violated BLP but in fact the diffs show that you were the one repeatedly violating BLP, and not just innocently, but explicitly against the rough talk page consensus.... Why this distortion? You were trying to push a self published source into a BLP... the article got protected because of your edit warring, and the day it came off protection, it was re-protected, again because of your edit warring. Why exactly is that acceptable behavior? Why is this BLP at the noticeboard so often ? Why are you not being sanctioned for that? Why do you think that gaming the system is appropriate? It is no wonder that some call you an "agenda driven editor". ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please tone down the aggression here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These are valid questions. They're blunt, it's true, but they desperately need answering. I stand by them. Perhaps if you all had done your jobs more thoroughly you would have included ChrisO in your findings? ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the questions don't need answering, but the insistent tone is not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The month long delay to get to this watered down PD wasn't helpful either. Them's the breaks I guess. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, you are misrepresenting my edits. Look at [60]. Only two sources are used - two Guardian articles, one of which documents Abraham's work, the other of which documents Monckton's reply. The sources are clearly visible at the end of the relevant sentences. Within the sentences, Abraham's work is linked as an inline link - not a source - and Monckton's reply is also linked as an inline link - again, not a source. I inline-linked both to provide quick links to the competing works that were being documented from reliable sources, so that the reader could click through to either or both. I gave fair and equal treatment to both works but used neither as a source for any statement. Now let's look at the Marknutley edit that I reverted [61]. Here you can see that he is clearly using a self-published blog post by a third party as a source for a statement attributed to a living person. This was very clearly a BLP violation and a violation of Marknutley's own restrictions on sourcing. To reiterate, I inline-linked to two competing works, using neither as a source and relying solely on a major UK newspaper as the source for the statements in question; Marknutley by contrast used a self-published blog post as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you review the talk page you will see that there was in fact no edit-warring going on at the time it was re-protected - see [62]. Even the protecting admin (SirFozzie) did not assert that there was any edit-warring going on. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you ask "why is it at the BLP noticeboard so often?" - well, perhaps because editors such as myself are making an effort to get wider input into these articles, rather than just drawing on the same few editors all the time. You seem to be under the impression that something has gone horribly wrong if the BLP noticeboard is being used to get feedback. On the contrary, that's what the BLP noticeboard is for. I really don't think this aggressive assumption of bad faith and baseless claims of wrongdoing are helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO -- you're misrepresenting your own edits. Is it your position that self published attack blogs can be used to smear a BLP, so long as they are linked directly within the text of a BLP article rather than using a proper citation and endnote? You can't really be making that argument.

Looking at the talk page is not going to tell you whether there was edit warring going on when it was protected (twice). Look at the page history. Here's what led to the protection the first time: You first removed content about Monckton's rebuttal and called it a clear BLP violation: [63], You added a BLP violation as noted directly above, linking the SPS attack: [64], MN reverted the BLP violation: [65], WMC reinserted the BLP violation: [66], MN reverted the BLP violation: [67], You reinserted the BLP violation, claiming that it was not a BLP violation: [68], MN reverted the BLP violation again: [69], the page was full protected by SirFozzie [70], and MN was blocked by NuclearWarfare for edit warring on that page [71]. Mark shouldnt have been blocked -- he was doing what policy tells us to do. You were edit warring to continually reinsert BLP violations. Minor4th 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

F7 to F10 (William M. Connolley)

Remedies discussion moved to own section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Earlier archived discussion

Comments by William M. Connolley

Section originally titled "odd", retitled for ease of reference. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with the current PD. A couple of samples (please don't assume that my listing only these in any way indicates that I think the rest is sane) are:

• why is [72] a BLP vio? Is it a pasto?
• is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [73] as BLP vios?
• The "ownership" stuff is pretty weird too. Why is [74] ownership?

William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why continue to argue? It may be odd; however, acceptance will help you here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that accepting obvious falsehoods is a good idea? Still, at least you have something to say. Everyone else is shuffling their feet and pretending not to notice William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I accept that Preponderance of the evidence demonstrates your disruptive behavior. The PD is objectively verifying this finding, by and among involved and uninvoled folks, and it will be validated by the final decision. Can you accept that you may make good contributions and yet still harm Wikipedia when you harm others? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting two things here: (1) WMC is perfectly right to ask questions like this, and I will aim to answer at some point including what he has said in his statement; (2) ZuluPapa5 should not be making comments like the one he makes above, or the one that I removed recently (his response to WMC's statement). I had intended to place ZuluPapa5's response to WMC's statement here, but am only linking to my removal of them instead, as his comments there (and in some other places) were not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, seems like I must apologize. Tell me, what would be helpful here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that looking at the biographies of living people would be helpful towards judging BLP violations. The few I looked at from 2010 I put a search in for WMC that shows that there are some who agreed and some who disagreed with him but not necessarily that he is in violation unless you listen to those who are involved with WMC or have admitted to having negative feelings towards him prior to the discussion. Please see this search page. It goes back through the years. I think it's only fair to take a look at what the board has to say about this and also who it was that brought the cases there. Ok, Carcharoth I stuck myself in possible harms way, we'll see now won't we. I won't say anymore until I see what I get from making this comment ok? HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F7: William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

• WMC's revert parole imposed in 2005 is mentioned in proposed FOF #7. However, no mention of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2#Removal of the revert parole imposed on William M. Connolley, where the revert parole was found to be unnecessary and was revoked, is made. Could that be fixed please? NW (Talk) 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• The two RFCs in FOF #7 are presented in a context that seem like they are evidence of WMC's misconduct, but they actually largely supported WMC's actions. Could that please be clarified? NW (Talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

F9: William M. Connolley has shown Ownership

The links all refer to the scientific opinion on climate change talk page where there was some negative interacton with ZuluPapa5. This does not show any ownership on the part of William. Ownership on this page would have brought William in conflict with most of the other long term expert editors on climate science articles. There is no evidence for such a conflict.

I see some parallels between ZuluPapa5's behavior and the way Brews Ohare has behaved. If you keep on raising the same type of arguments you will exhaust the patience of some editors. Suppose that there were no other problems on the CC pages apart from ZuluPapa5's involvement and that he would have been handled in a less heavy handed way (i.e. without William removing his talk age comments). Then that would have meant that he would have had to be dealt via the Adminstative channels, ultimately ending in an ArbCom case. This is simply because there are no rules on Wikipedia that make statements like: "you can't start yet another thread about subject X". In practice this means that if you don't decide to stop yourself, you will be stopped, sooner or later. In case of ZuluPapa5 it was sooner, in case of Brews it was later (via a topic ban after a lengthy ArbCom case). Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the diff selection. Some of the diffs are troubling - in particular, the removal of others' talk-page comments. On the other hand, difficulty working with ZuluPapa5 and GoRight is not equivalent to "unwillingness to work in a consensus environment." MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

imo, editing the talk page comments of others is such a huge breach of good discussion and working towards consensus that I would almost not mind a site ban for it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not hold discussions with an editor who regularly refactors the comments of others, which includes inserting his own views into other editors' statements. Since WMC and I do not have much in the way of overlap, it isn't a problem, but it's pointless to try and discuss something with someone who will not simply answer your statement in a separate paragraph. It's infuriating, regardless of whether it is on a user talk page, a wiikipedia talk page, or an article talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget here that by consensus of the local editors since 2007, it was allowed to remove or archive talk page comments. This was not according to the normal wiki-rules, but then the situation on the global warming related pages was also not quite normal. This was primarily to deal wih the many IP comments who would e.g. write that Global Warming thery was debunked. Such comments were then archived while a reference to the Global Warming FAQ was given.

One can of course criticize such an initiative by the editors, but it did work. Certainly if you compare this to the situation after mid 2009 when the sceptics wanted to overturn the old rules and wanted the usual Wiki-rules to be strictly enforced, things spiralled out of control with the General Sanctions and the constant Enforcement Requests. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I said nothing about removing or archiving comments. I am speaking specifically of the behavior for which WMC was blocked--wherein he inserted his own comments into another editor's statements, which is several degrees more hostile than simply removing or archiving someone else's comments. Further, we're not discussing IP nonsense; we are talking about an admin posting a warning, or named editors discussing editing of an article. I have a good deal of leniency on user talk pages, but that is taking it too far, and my tolerance only extends to user talk pages. Were he to archive or delete one of my comments on an article talk page or a project talk page, I'd revert him, characterizing his edit as vandalism. Of course, I have well over ten thousand edits and four years of editing history, which is not the same as some random IP spewing BS. Horologium (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC correctly newer editors who have edit warred their comments back into talk pages have either been warned for 3rr or blocked - despite claiming vandalism when WMC and KDP delete them.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic subthread, but Literaturegeek is correct. Please don't use editors outside the topic area as examples like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) As I am not a physicist I have no interest whatsoever in the speed of light but I have noticed a repeated tendency by several editors to use Brews name as a comparison to insult to other editors. Brews apparently edits using his real name, and the internet is a potentially permanent archive of content; this should be kept in mind. I just think it is grossly inappropriate and a form of bullying to be besmearching him publicly all over wikipedia as several editors appear to be doing, using his name as some sort of insult. I am sorry but that is how I feel. I almost spoke out about this when I saw his name being dragged into an RfC which he had nothing to do with.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC) No insult is meant to anyone. I've defended Brews on several occasions, while recognizing that his editing style sometimes causes problems. But the fact of the matter is that ArbCom has just decided to ban Brews again from all physics topics because of his editing style, particularly the way he argues on talk pages. So, ArbCom is very familiar with his case. They also know that Brews is a retired engineering professor and they regret very much that he is unable to contribute to those topics he would be qualified to conribute to. But then what do we make of ZuluPapa5 when he argues over and over again about e.g. the IPCC? Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) It is ok, I understand where you are coming from, I don't mean to single you out as others misuse Brews name and I would have said the same to them. Infact to be fair, now that I think of it, I have compared other editors before so perhaps I am being hypocritical, although they did not edit using their real names but still I shouldn't have done that, so I can't be casting that first stone. :) I understand how frustrating controversial articles can be as well, so easy to make mistakes. If you feel an editor is violating editorial norms, policies or guidelines and want to submit evidence, then cite relevant policies, guidelines etc that they are violating and describe their problematic conduct with diffs to admins, I think is the way to go, rather than comparison to other uninvolved editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

F11: Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

Space left for comments on the actual finding. Comments on the remedy moved to its own section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

F12: Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

Section originally titled "TGL Defense". Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm just going to go at it, if I miss anything then feel free to ask (preferably arbs only so this section doesn't become a mess too).

1) Barack Obama topic ban: Yep, I was topic banned from the articles and I've stayed away long after my topic ban expired. I think that is to my credit. As for the ban itself, I definitely reacted poorly to being immediately accused of sockpuppetry and the changing guidelines for content inclusion based on what what being said and trolled those people a bit.

2) Edit warring: Yep, I have edit warred a bit in the topic area (not much though esp. when compared to others) and IIRC after I received a 1rr restriction for it, along with Mark and WMC, I promised to myself to stopped edit warring completely in the area. Again, I think this shows my willingness to correct my behavior.

3) Agenda-driven editing: This one makes no sense to me. Yes I have an opinion, but no it doesn't drive me. My edits don't generally support this notion. Hell, I even told Jenochman that he shouldn't topic ban WMC in the manner that he did - a blind partisan would not have done that.

4) Global Warming topic ban: To describe this as a contentious ban is an understatement. 2over0's habit of targeting one side of the debate with unilateral sanctions and flimsy evidence is legendary. In his "evidence" he gives as an example that I used the term "AGW adovocate" - this certainly seems to be a neutral term - certainly not deliberately offensive like the "denier" term which is constantly thrown around. In fact, most of the diffs are quite mild when looked at, often the result of baiting (which is never sanctioned of course and so it continues). Hell, in an RfE request I said i could provide more examples of tagteaming by WMC/KDP and he used that as evidence against me - it is ridiculous. And yes, IIRC there were some examples of genuinely poor behavior on my part, I'm certainly not perfect, but I find it odd that one such example was from something I'd already said I wouldn't do again.

Ironically enough this topic ban proves how many of the charges against me are clearly incorrect. If I was really such an agenda-driven editor then I would've immediately gone to ANI or the enforcement board to get it overturned. What would WMC or several others have done if Lar had plopped a dozen diffs on their talk page and topic banned them for 6 months?

It would not have been pretty.

As with the Barack Obama topic ban I intend to stay out of this mess once this is all over and go back to the articles I'd started editing before I got into this set of articles (plants). There is however one article I want to write in the climate change area, a science article that the experts have somehow missed for nearly a decade, but that is basically it.

Also, as of right now, my proposal to get rid of my topic ban extension has met with unanimous and bipartisan support in the editor (not admin) section with 10 editors from both sides directly supporting the proposal to get rid of the topic ban extension. Again, if I was really as horrible as the occasional bad-tempered diff on my part portrays then I doubt there would be such support.

5) Diffs in the proposal: They are certainly not "representative" in my opinion. They happen to be the worst things in my history. I'll note that this is in contrast to the examples on WMC's page which are pretty light compared to the evidence available where he posted on his talk page a document containing the telephone number and address of a BLP subject he'd just been topic banned from while not only implying that he was committing tax fraud but also linking to his own blog where he said he was insane.

a) [75] This diff is labelled as "PA, Soapboxing." Okay, this is ridiculous - what is the PA? That I said in response to,

"One (Murdoch owned) source? Please remember why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)"

"Yes Dave, you've made it clear how you feel about "tories" (is that the plural form?), but honestly, it doesn't really matter what you think of who owns certain news outlets." (me)

Well, Dave had a habit of constantly bringing up the "Torygraph" or various other colorful "tory-isms." It is a habit WMC shared as well. This is pretty weak if this is considered a PA compared to, I don't know, someone calling multiple admins stupid after getting unblocked and then going to the admin that blocked him to poke at him with a friend.

As for soapboxing, no not really, the worst thing is that I called a specific mistake of the IPCC's a "PR tool" since it had been constantly repeated by several individuals. In fact, the newspaper I linked in there shows one of the guys involved said, "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will [influence] policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." He was talking about the use of non-peer reviewed literature being included in the IPCC report to influence politicians - calling that a "PR tool" is hardly soapboxing.

b)[76] Labeled as soapboxing.

I guess it is sort of soapboxing, pretty mild, as an atheist though I was a bit annoyed at being compared with both creationists and flat earthers [77]. Perhaps the person baiting me with that comment should be sanctioned as well? The topic area is full of such little things.

c) [78] Yep a poor reaction on my part, but not typical - the same can't be said of others in the area. The "allegations of criminal conduct" were pretty well-known though and should probably have been mentioned in the article if there was an appropriate source (I can't recall if I provided one). Again, when compared to the words others have made on their own talk pages this, while bad, isn't nearly as bad as calling someone "stupid and malicious" - I suppose that's a judgment call though.

d) [79] Labeled as a PA.

Yep, I smacked Hipocrite, a proven sockpuppeteer, back for accusing me of running a blog that tells people to sock. It is a flat out lie and he knew it. Ban the people doing the baiting - not the people reacting to it.

e) [80] Labeled as soapboxing.

Ok, first off, yes I did soapbox a bit during the Arbitration process (far more than I ever did when editing articles in the area), perhaps this was due to a bit of intellectual blueballs from the topic ban, but it was also because I wanted to show that skeptics aren't anti-science religious Nazi's like we've been portrayed.

In this specific instance, I let myself get sucked into a debate about global warming when I really just wanted to counter WMC's point, which was that the articles shouldn't be dumbed down, when, in fact, they clearly are dumbed down to stay on message.

d) [81] Labeled as a PA.

Harsh, but certainly not overly so and clearly supported by the facts.

e) [82] Labeled as a PA.

Who am I attacking? Ratel? He was banned for sockpuppetry and is probably still socking the area.

I certainly was stating an uncomfortable fact though, that "Scibaby" can be identified after only a single edit on behavioral evidence, but when socks look like someone else (in this case WMC) that too is also blamed on skeptics.

Is this statement really that ridiculous considering how they've basically been bragging on WMC's talk page about the vandalism on the PD page?

f) [83] Labeled as proof that I'm trying to push my agenda.

In it I say that I think NPOV will favor my side? This is so damning? It isn't like I'm trying to invent new policies (e.g. SPOV) or alter existing ones to favor my personal POV. This is really weak tea here.

g) [84] Labeled that I'm trying to push my agenda?

No, obviously not, a bit of soapboxing due to my tendency to ramble on though.

h) [85] Labeled as proof of trying to push my agenda.

No, this is again me responding to soapboxing with soapboxing. In this case WMC is trying to push the convenient bogeyman myths about skeptics, which, in his words were, "they have no theory of their own; all they know is they disagree with the science." Again, such mischaracterizations, while helpful to propagate for his side, are angering for those on my side. The best way I could think of countering such inflammatory nonsense was to demonstrate that yes, skeptics do have their own science-based thoughts on the subject.

Double jeopardy issues aside I don't think the case was made for a 6 month ban from wikipedia, especially since I'm staying out of this crap and going back almost exclusively to work on botany articles if my topic ban is overturned. Do some skeptics have to be banned for some reason? It seems to me that this will only encourage those on the opposite side if they can get two skeptics banned for every one of them - baiting is already rampant, and this will simply encourage it. In my case I'm clearly not the main problem, I haven't edited in the area for 6-7 months and in that time the problems certainly didn't disappear and nor did they just show up when I first started editing in the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Long discussion of the above defense

Given that you plan to focus on botany articles, I would support replacing the six-month siteban with a long-term topic ban from climate-related articles. In the end it's up to the arbs, of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I would support no site ban and no topic ban at all, reduce the topic ban to time served and issue a warning to be careful going forward. This is a far more coherent defense than previously presented by TGL. ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) TGL, I recently asked you a question about some of your comments, which you declined to answer, so I am trying again. You recently wrote that: "Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses." To me, this suggests a disturbing disdain for the integrity of the academic community as a whole, implying that that studies published by reputable peer-reviewed journals are regularly rigged to find pre-determined results. You have also written, on the subject of the membership of the National Academy of Science that: "Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it." This comment was made in the context of suggesting that Mastcell does not understand the distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, and implied the same was true of the NAS membership. The NAS is the elite body of US scientists, and to suggest that they would not know the difference between hypothesis and theory, or that they are credulous fools unable to analyse results or information sources for themselves is disrespectful and shows a highly distorted picture of the scientific and academic communities. Now, my question is this: in light of your comments, how am I or any other neutral editor supposed to assume that you are editing neutrally on scientific topics and not pushing an agenda? EdChem (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "I or any other neutral editor" ... assumes facts not in evidence. We all like to think we are neutral. Some of us are. But more importantly TGL is not the real problem here by any means and the sanctions placed on him were disproportionate. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) He may not be the "real" problem here, but the examples above demonstrate a tendency to think in extremes, and this black and white thinking is shared by most of the climate change deniers. The "vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" nonsense is the foundation for almost every article on Conservapedia, and I suggest this is not a coincidence. Recently, Conservapedia went so far as to claim that the theory of relativity was a liberal plot. There's a limit to how much nonsense should be allowed. If someone wants to claim that the world is flat, then fine, civil discourse allows us to take them by the hand and conceptually walk them in a straight line until we're back where we started, disproving their theory. We can do this on virtually every issue. It only becomes a problem when such an editor is unwilling to change their beliefs after being shown otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Viriditas, a big part of the problem here is editors who treat all deviations from "consensus science" like flat earth. It's absurd to imply that the scientific consensus in support of AGW theories is as black-and-white as flat-vs-round. But science editors continue to use such analogies everywhere, and it gives the appearance of dogmatic, "my-way-or-the-highway" thinking. AGW is supported by consensus, but round-earth is as close as we get to scientific fact, and when you treat consensus science exactly the same as scientific fact, you turn science into ideology. Fundamentally, that is what many of us object to here, how the some "science editors" are as dogmatic in their approach as ideologically-driven religious/ethnic/political partisans. ATren (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, Atren, a huge part of the problem is editors who fervently believe that a few ambiguous emails showing only minor misconduct, as determined by five inquiries, makes 97% of scientists in the field hoaxers to be disbelieved, with all credence being given to half a dozen contrarian scientists and a large number of bloggers. It's a genuine cultural phenomenon and we should cover it, but we shouldn't give it undue weight in showing what the science is. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I'm curious about something. TGL, one of your arguments against a ban is that you want to be free to edit botany articles. That's a good thing, and I endorsed modification of the PD in your favor on that basis. You are not now under a general siteban so that you have been free to contribute in non-climate topics such as botany. Yet in the past four months you have made precisely seven (7) edits to article space, precisely zero (0) of which have been related to botany.[86] If you are interested in editing botany articles, why have you not done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC) TGL can answer for themselves but, sometimes if one feels wronged enough, one doesn't want a project to benefit from one's contributions in any way until things are improved. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) So, does one feel wronged enough to withdraw the benefit of one's contributions, and confine one's action to soapboxing? Seems a rather odd argument, but guess it could explain tendentious and disruptive persistence. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Emotions are not exactly rational. My motivation for article contribution since that topic ban is about zero since 2over0 topic banned me. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been driven away from article editing or completely from wikipedia. This is why I've said that I will start editing again if the topic ban is lifted since I'd feel better about contributing again.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC) TGL, looking at the diff you cite above at a), you did seem to be making the thread a bit personal, but I'm inclined to agree that it's not a personal attack. You did seem to be soapboxing a bit on the basis of a rather questionable source, one later forced to issue a retraction on a related story. So, agree it's not a personal attack. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) As someone who submitted evidence involving Thegoodlocust, and proposed a siteban, one of the deciding factors was not only the total lack of positive contributions in the history, but the apparent lack of interest in anything besides partisan argumentation going forward. When Thegoodlocust requested a reversal of his topic-ban extension at the enforcement board, I asked a simple question about what sort of activity we could expect if the ban were lifted. I found the answer rather unsatisfactory, brought the subject up again in this thread, and it still doesn't seem to be answered. I get that Thegoodlocust thinks 2/0 is horribly biased, and that he has technical arguments about specific diffs, but that seems like focusing on a few trees and missing the forest. Even with the help of sympathetic, experienced Wikipedians, Thegoodlocust is still unable to articulate any real interest in contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia. The near-totality of his appeal is based on disputing technical aspects and criteria of the sanctions, but that misses the point. Sometimes this project just isn't a good fit for what someone brings to the table or wants to accomplish, and I think we're at that point here. MastCell Talk 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Well, one of the reasons I didn't answer you in that case (and EdChem above) is that I wanted to avoid a horrible argumentative mess. This seems to be unavoidable in this section now since apparently everyone has questions for me. Regarding why I didn't answer you, I didn't feel it was germane to the discussion on the scope of CC sanctions and wanted to keep things focused. At his request though I emailed NW and answered his questions privately in a similar manner to what I've said above but in more detail about the articles I want to write. As I said above, I'm going to stay out of anything controversial at this point and since I've never had problems in other scientific articles like in the botany area then this seems like a good place. Anyway people see what they want to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) @EdChem: My first college degree was in psychology (and I took it for several years in high school as well) and as with everyone this experience colors my outlook on life. Regarding scientific studies I always read them very carefully to determine how well they were set up, where they could have gone wrong and how the results could've been misinterpreted. This is what I do, sometimes I even email scientists (usually in health oriented studies) and talk to them about my concerns. My "skepticism" is not something reserved only for global warming but for everything I read and everything I hear. This is simply who I am. Recognizing that academia has a specific culture and how this may affect results through well-documented psychological principals is just a demonstration of my inherent skepticism. And no, I don't have a great deal of respect for what 10% of any group thinks. 10% of the US probably thinks Elvis is still alive. 10% of Mensa probably believes in alien abduction. The credentials of a small section of a population is not convincing to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) @Viriditas: No, I don't think in extremes. I first think in possibilities and then I think of the likely possibility. I think you are reading far too much into that or it didn't sound like I wanted it to. And yes, I refer to liberal groups as liberal and conservative groups as conservative, is there a problem with this? I also refer to academia as atheistic due to the high numbers of atheists in academia - is this wrong? Anyway according to this Pew poll: Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. When I say that most people in academia and the media are liberal I'm not talking out of my ass - I'm just stating the facts as I know them. If this was on an article talk page then this may be a problem, but like the vast majority of people here this is the kind of thing that gets said on friendly talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Now can we please not go off on any more tangents like I requested at the very beginning? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) It may come as a shock to you, but most of the world's scientists are not Americans. Your statistics have no bearing on the affiliation of scientists outside the US, which has the local peculiarity of having only two main parties, one of which is rabidly anti-intellectual and anti-science (so why should any scientist support it?). These conditions do not apply elsewhere, where there is usually a cross-party consensus in favour of science. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC) This kind of response is exactly why I didn't want to begin engaging other people. This is irrelevant (and misleading). If you want to talk about something like this then go to my talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Note: This is now the third time I've asked to stay on topic and not get distracted by irrelevances. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC) The nonsense I was talking about refers to your argument not the data showing political affiliation. You said: "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant.". You have all but said that climate change science should not be trusted because some scientists are liberal/democrat/atheist/chocolate cake eaters/puppy owners/barefoot on beaches during sunsets walkers/believers in the theory that Cobb was still dreaming/find Snooki attractive with both eyes slightly squinting, etc. Because of all this, the science as a whole cannot be trusted. Did I miss anything? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) You missed cat owners. Speaking as someone who think the statement "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" is true, (but doesn't find it alarming) and as someone who puts a lot of faith in science, my observation is that the statement doesn't create any particular mistrust in science (no more than all good skeptics should have), but it does mean I watch carefully when the discussion switches from "what is the science?" to "what should policymakers do?" There's a lot on hand-wringing in this discussion about poor science, but I really don't think that's where the main debate is. The main debate is what public policy should be followed, and IMO, many proposals are not well-grounded in solid cost benefit analysis.--SPhilbrickT 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'm aware that is the standard reply, but it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Scientists and the media are generally centrist, and anything left of right is classified as liberal by the anti-science fringe. Public policy discussions are systematically derailed by repeated attacks on the underlying science, and these attacks are led by celebrities, writers, politicians, and religious figures, all of whom are not scientists. On the rare occasion that an actual scientist does show up, it is revealed that they represent a special interest, not the public interest. Since Nixon, public policy has been shaped by denying, altering, and misrepresenting science in favor of political expediency, and when I was a child in high school, we were actually taught to accept this as the gold standard, which is frightening. The history of science under Reagan and the Bush years (father and son) needs no explanation. Simply search for "politicization of science" and you'll have enough to read for the next decade. The key to all of this is an objective media that informs the public and gives them accurate (the very word that keeps getting removed from every source policy and guideline) information. The role of science is to provide and present this accurate knowledge that can be disseminated to the public and used to make good policy decisions. This process cannot work when the media twists the data, and when politicians use the media to promote their policies based on distorted science. This warped and broken process threatens the very fabric and foundations of democracy and civilized society. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. I'll wikilink confirmation bias and groupthink so you can better understand my position. I think you are reading far too much into what I said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I get the sense that instead of contributing to an encyclopedia, you are helping to further the goals of the American culture war. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I think this collapsed discussion also illustrates the problems in the topic area. Despite my best efforts to disengage and keep the discussion focused I'm met with a lot of soapboxing and baiting (esp. towards the end). I don't mind there being a prohibition on soapboxing, but letting one side run rampant with it is not the way to do things.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, this best illustrates the problem. 7.79% of your 2,324 contributions have been to articles, with the majority of them consisting of contentious edits to Barack Obama and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Facebook is that way... Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC) This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can either choose not to correct you and let the mischaracterizations stand or I can look like a whacko in defending myself. It is a catch-22. In this case my lack of articles edits is explained - I've severely cut back on editing due to my feelings on the topic ban and largely haven't edited articles for 7 months because of it. Your assertion that my edits to the IPCC and Barack Obama article were contentiousness is largely false. The IPCC edits, last time I checked remained in the article because they were correct and well-sourced - the "bruhaha" over them was simply due to the nature of the facts. Also, last time I checked about a third of my article edits were to science based articles outside of climate change - again, mostly in the area of botany. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 9 edits to Morning glory, 7 edits to Equisetum, 3 edits to Arbutus, 2 edits to Holodiscus discolor, 1 edit to Salvia divinorum and maybe one or two others. How about helping bring Amaranthus brownii to at least good article status? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I said "science articles mostly in the botany area," not solely botany (still more than the IPCC article edits though as you can tell). Of course, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove other than the fact that every time I get sucked into one of these conversations my ratio of article to non-article space goes down. I got sucked into a huge number of these things when adding what should've been simple info into the IPCC article. Since you insist on going down this route though, show me some of my contentious IPCC article edits - perhaps I can be enlightened that way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Forgive me, I thought this was Wikipedia, where editors collaborate to improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC) That didn't seem to be a substantive response to what TGL requested. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC) No response was necessary. "Contentious edits" is accurate, and supported by his own comments. And, I didn't receive a substantive response to my request for assistance with an article. What kind of assurance do we have that TGL is going to work on actual articles? As a test example, I asked for help with one and was completely ignored. The edit history is clear: 2,324 contributions and almost no article work. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry Viriditas, while we may be able to work with each other on something like botany I have no interest in Hawaiian plants. Typically I only care about plants in the pacific northwest or ones with entheogenic properties. Anyway I've already said what I'm going to do, you can choose not to believe me if you like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Could I see some action rather than promises in this regard? Which specific article are you going to work on? I recommended Amaranthus brownii because it was close to complete, and all the relevant sources were linked for research purposes. So please, share with me the name of the article you plan on improving. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I privately told NW what articles I would like to create and work on. I have no intention of telling anyone else. Honestly, this line of questioning is pointless. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) @Lar Regarding this edit. With TGLs experience and knowledge of how controversial this was he certainly should have obtained consensus before making such extreme criticisms of the IPCC based on one newspaper story. Also whatever the rights and wrongs of this addition to the IPCC article he repeatedly edit warred against multiple editors to keep his addition in. Now I know all of these editors with all of their multiple reasons are the “faction” to you so maybe he was right and deserves your support against the evil faction, I actually am not judging the content but were the edits contentious? Certainly they were. I hope this is a substantive response to TGL Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Well Polargeo, I do recall someone being upset that I used the word "glaring," but I then pointed out to them that it was a direct quote from the glaciologist in charge of that section of the report. Keep in mind that this was in the criticism section. As you can see though, especially in the later section as the story evolved w/ more sources available, it was impeccably sourced. Did some people not want well-sourced criticism in the IPCC article? Absolutely. It had been a common meme that the IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature, when, in fact, it used pamphlets from greenpeace and other poor sources to make some of its more alarming (and inaccurate) claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

F13: Marknutley disruptive behavior

Remedy discussion moved to own section. Repetition of text of finding removed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Earlier archived discussion

Who wrote this? The first diff was my first edit on WP and i`m surprised that is being used here. The second diff is used as a bad sourcing issue? Rajendra K. Pachauri [87] It`s to The Telegraph not a bad source. Third diff, Keith Briffa yes one of those sources is bad but the second is the Herald Sun not a bad source. The fourth [88] Meg Whitman was a straight revert while on RC patrol i did not actually insert that content. Of all the BLP sourcing presented here only 2 are actually bad, and one of those was from my first ever edit. The POV Fork [89] I did not think so, nor did the editors who knew i was working on it. An accusation of editing against consensus [90] Erm, no. Only one editor at that time was against the use of these quotes to balance the insertion of this [91] The assumption of bad faith [92] Well i suppose this [93] was a good faith edit then?

So i`d like to know whom actually put this evidence together? mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

doesn't matter who put it together. what matters is getting the diff's corrected/removed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt, whom do i ask to get them corrected/removed? mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

well...posting it here is a good start. at the top there is a note about the arbiters who were drafting the first bit of the proposed decision, and it appears that the actual posting was by newyorkbrad. So, I might also drop a note on the talk pages of those editors with your concerns. Additionally, LituratureGeek has summarized the problems with some of the diffs, and that will help also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i think LiteratureGeek has made a far better case of it than i could have :) So thanks to you both mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic discussion about drafting of the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Risker who posted it, but Newyorkbrad who placed some of the first preliminary votes. I don't know who drafted it though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) For the past couple of months a number of editors have assumed that the long delay has been caused by Risker and Rlevse working to win Newyorkbrad over to their desired outcome, so that the drafting arbs could present a united front. The fact that Risker posted the decision and NYB immediately cast votes in favor of parts of it gives credence to that assumption. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC) That's laughably wrong, but more to the point, such speculation is not helpful. I appreciate you withdrawing the comment you made earlier (the one WMC asked you to withdraw), but trying to get inside the minds of arbitrators isn't really that helpful. We need space to discuss things, without people feverishly speculating as to what is going on behind those closed doors. And even more to the point, this type of speculation does nothing to help finalise the proposed decision, nor bring the case to a conclusion. You might want to see the point I made at the top of the page about keeping discussion focused on constructive criticism and comments on the proposed decision, rather than trying to wind up arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) If you say that is the case I accept it; please consider my comment withdrawn, and please accept my apologies to you and your colleagues. I do think it's worth pointing out that this same conclusion was reached independently by a number of editors. The point is that when people are kept in the dark (or think they are being kept in the dark) for a long time they will eventually begin to speculate as to what is going on. That's just human nature; psychologists tell us that people don't like uncertainty or feeling that they have no control over or information about their circumstances. If Arbcom were to take this into account in future complex cases (perhaps arranging for a liaison to keep the participants informed?) it might help to forestall such speculation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thank-you for the apology, which I hope the other arbitrators will read among all the other text here. I agree that communication could have been better in this case. I will suggest the idea of a case liaison for future cases. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) While you are apologizing can you please strike out, "The PD is exactly as many of the Cabal members expected -- it's well known that Risker and Rlevse despise you, and the long delay was because they had to win over Brad to get sufficiently humiliating sanctions." from WMC's talk page? Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, conspiracy theories about the "ruling class" of wikipedia! Alas the proposed decision was passed soon after a motion to close the race and intelligence case so the delay was most likely due to the race and intelligence case, get one case out of the way before moving on to the next one. :) There is no conspiracy I think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC) It should go without saying, that casting aspersions on the motivations of the arbitrators does not count as constructive criticism. If you disagree with their opinions, then please discuss the opinion, not the arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley POV fork: Diff doesn't seem to support allegation

I was working on some of my proposals when I happened to stumble upon this in the proposed decision about Marknutley: "[94] (POV fork)". I thought this was a bit strange because I don't recall Marknutley creating any POV forks. Anyway, I looked at the article, and while it certainly seems like POV fork, there's something I don't understand. Marknutley did not create this article. In fact, the article was created by Theblog on July 8, 2007,[95] at least 2 years before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. Is this the right diff? If so, is ArbCom saying that editing someone else's POV fork is an actionable offense? If so, WMC[96] and KDP[97] edited the article well before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. In fact, I've edited the article myself. On February 15, 2010, I deleted a blank line[98] and a moved a period.[99] Is this the right diff or am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK It looks like you may have been confused by the redirect. MarkNutley appears to have created the article Criticism of the IPCC which is now a redirect to the article created in 2007. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed extension of finding

Retitled and moved as this relates to finding 13. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Earlier archived discussion

This is practically a case study in what has gone wrong with this topic area.

The protection for Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley expired today. It had been protected by SirFozzie, theoretically until the conclusion of the case - but protection has expired before the case has concluded. Minor4th has declared on the talk page that he wants to make radical changes to the article unilaterally, without prior discussion or consensus. [100] I, by contrast, have urged editors to discuss issues first and obtain consensus for major changes,[101] [102], and I have posted a request for input on some material that I feel should be removed - if there is consensus to do so.[103] For my pains I have been attacked by both Minor4th and Marknutley [104]. And now we find Marknutley deleting reliably sourced commentary from a columnist in the UK Guardian, with the comment: remove monbiots comments on science what does a Zoologist know of climate science. [105]

Read that edit summary by Marknutley again: remove monbiots comments on science what does a Zoologist know of climate science

He's not even pretending to follow Wikipedia policy any more. It seems that he's decided that if he's going to be banned he might as well get as much disruptive editing in as he can before the axe falls. Whatever else this Arbcom decision does, it needs to stop this kind of blatantly abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I did not say I was going to make radical changes to the article unilaterally -- I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations. I also did not attack ChrisO in the least bit. And incidentally, after ChrisO reverted mark nutley, I have since removed that content again since it is an editorial smearing the BLP and is only one of many BLP violations in this article. I have asked BLP editors at the noticeboard to please take a look and help edit with "new" eyes. Minor4th 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC

Interesting, so when you say The Hockey Stick Illusion publishd by Stacey International a highly reputable publisher written by Andrew Montford who has a BSc in chemistry is not a reliable source for matters relating to science what you mean is you don`t like him? Monbiot is ok for matters of science but not Montford? Is this what your saying here? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A BSc in chemistry? Words fail me. --TS 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned tony but it does make one slightly more capable of commenting on science than a degree in zoology don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, let me spell this out for you: your personal opinion on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in WP:V. You have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. Your edit is a shockingly bad example of completely overt POV-pushing. We do not need that kind of behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris let me spell this out for you, your personal opinions on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in wp:v you have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. [106] Your edits are shockingly bad mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, do you know what zoology is? Do you not realize that it is science, just as much as chemistry is? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, a first degree doesn't make anyone more qualified to comment on science, no matter what the subject. I wouldn't want to compare the two subjects, frankly, but the notion that chemistry is more "scientific" than zoology doesn't seem a very sensible stance.

Getting back to the main question, it seems that Monbiot was commenting on the commentary by an Professor John Abraham on lectures given by Monckton. Monckton has posed as an expert on climate science but his claims have been widely debunked. If our biography does not mention that then we have failed the reader. --TS 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I did not say I wanted to make radical changes unilaterally. I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations and explained exactly what that includes per policy. I also posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard asking outside BLP editors to please look at the article and help edit, paying particular attention to removing blatant BLP violations. Minor4th 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And Mark, you do realise that the calumnies against Pachauri have been withdrawn with apologies by the Telegraph? ----TS 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I also did not attack Chris. That's really absurd. Minor4th 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Was it withdrawn at the time of this [107] revert? No? Thne your argument is pointless mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We knew at the time that they were unreliable. This was discussed. We do not blindly include any old tripe just because a newspaper has printed it. --TS 23:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your POV is showing tony, tell me. What is the difference between one old tripe and another then? wp:v you see. There is no difference between my removal of content and chris0`s other than monbiot is not qualified to comment on matters of science mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

By your criteria we would have to delete most journalistic sources as well, as the vast majority of journalistic commentary on any specific issue is by people who do not have qualifications in the fields on which they are writing. Tony is no doubt referring to the two Telegraph writers' long-standing reputation for false reporting, which has now cost their paper upwards of £100,000. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That`s not my criteria it is yours. And as we are on the subject of not removing stuff expalain this [108] mark nutley (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

They haven't been withdrawn. It's a legalistic non-apology:

Dr Pachauri - Apology

On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused. [109]Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting rather off-topic, but I should point out that the story was indeed withdrawn - it has been deleted from the Telegraph website and news archives - and the paper has paid over £100,000 in costs. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Further off-topic discussion

Thank you for doing that. I have refrained from commenting on the PD findings against individual editors until now, but this incident is, to my mind, a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the editing environment here. Editors need to have at least some minimal respect for basic content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since ChrisO makes some accusations against Minor4th, Minor4th's response shouldn't be included in this collapsed section. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[moving my comment to the section that is not marked "off-topic"] Minor4th 03:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the record: last month, when WMC and ChrisO tried to force a highly critical unpublished presentation into Monckton, it was Marknutley who stood up to them and alerted others. ATren (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And got blocked for it. Minor4th 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of the bias that is present. GregJackP Boomer! 06:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F15: User:Lar and User:Jehochman wheel war

Is that a wheelwar? It was certainly a revert war between two admins, without discussion, but it did not involve use of flags. The closing of CC/AE/RE has never been really codified - when it was a unilateral admin action, if noted, it just got filed by the individual, and when it became the consensus model it was done either by the admin who enacted sanctions or logged the restrictions, or by another - usually an admin - who noted what the consensus was and if any actions were taken. At worse there was a misunderstanding between two admins about what the practice was, and conducted via edit summary rather than talkpages. It is hard to admonish them, because it is impossible to define what procedure either violated if any. It isn't, either, as if it was part of a pattern between the two - regardless of the robust discussions the two have over many matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Furthermore, this incident happened 6 months ago, and was resolved between Lar and myself at the time.(Last two lines of this discussion) I don't see the value in rehashing it now. For what it's worth, my original close may have been hasty, as Lar suggested, so I waited about 22 hours before closing a second time. I purposefully waiting for outside input and consensus building. A very large number of editors placed comments during that time.

My second close noted, "Closed, no sanction by default, due to lack of consensus and inability of this page to consider an editor's entire history. Try WP:RFC or WP:RFAR instead" in the hat section, and "further discussion has not yielded a consensus to sanction, refer to next level of WP:DR process" in the edit summary. [110] In the prior edit I also explained, "This page has become useless. It is time to request arbitration. Rather than edit warring and disrupting the GW pages, the parties are now engaged in strategies to bait and sanction each other. It is time for a thorough review of everybody's behavior. Enforcement should not be arbitrary based on which admin responds to the complaint. Lar, you wanted to sanction. I did not. The default should be no sanction. No other admin has come forward suggesting to place a sanction, and by now any short term sanction would be punitive. This short noticeboard thread cannot fairly evaluate the long contribution history of WMC. If he is persistently incivil, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR are much more appropriate venues to address the problem, and establish consensus. " This was not wheel warring by any stretch of the imagination.

In my explanation to Lar, I said, "After you reopened the first time, I waited for multiple additional comments to be added to the thread. These further reinforced the consensus that WMC did not need to be sanctioned. Thus, I closed the thread a second time. It is not edit warring to wait for further comments and then take action based on a strengthening consensus. It is stressful for a user to be put in the stocks. We don't leave people in that state needlessly while we have a discussion about how best to refactor rude remarks in general. The thread should have remained closed, and you could have forked off the productive discussion about refactoring methods to an appropriate talk page."[111] Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As LHvU and JEH, except it wasn't even an edit war without discussion, there was plenty of discussion between us at the time. I think Rlevse just wanted to find something to wag his finger at me about. I suggest instead that the finger wagging relate to the fact that after 8 months of unremitting harassment by WMC's faction, I do let myself get baited into speaking sharply from time to time, instead of this non-issue. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

While Lar and I have had good faith disagreements about how to proceed with some matters, we remain collegial and there is absolutely no danger of us wheel warring. This proposal would only feed ammunition to those who want to undermine the work of admins who volunteer to enforce general sanctions (or arbitration sanctions) in difficult areas. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wheel war or revert war, it was certainly bad form on both your parts. It may not have involved the use of flags but they were admin actions as far as I'm concerned. I'll change it to revert war though. And Lar if you I'm going looking for things to "wag my finger" about at people in this or any case you're WAY off the mark. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it was a revert war because there was intervening discussion. Moreover, we resolved matters by ourselves at the time. ArbCom should show a little restraint and deference. If users work out their disagreements by themselves, just leave it alone! Opening up long ago resolved issues can stoke new disputes, which does not benefit anybody. ArbCom only needs to rule on active disputes. Lar and I already agreed not to repeat that situation. Lo and behold, six months later we haven't. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall arguing somewhere that it was a wheel war because it involved admin privileges, whether or not it involved use of technical tools. Take your lumps, guys. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I subscribe to User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy. If some other admin undoes my action, I don't in general get too sussed about it, especially if there is discussion. My default good faith assumption is that other admins feel the same way. JEH did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. many hours later, after much more discussion, (resetting any "counters") JEH again did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. Neither of us at this remove thinks it is. That ought to tell you all something. ArbCom needs to focus on far more important matters than this, and putting this in highlights all the larger stuff they let slide. I have no problem with taking lumps for things I did wrong. This wasn't one of them. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been closely watching this discussion, and I'm inclined to agree with Less, Jeh, and Lar. Looking at all of the diffs, it looks like a revert war where Lar and Jeh did not at first discuss it with each other, and then they did discuss it with each other. The initial lack of discussion is, I agree, not good, but it strikes me as being out of proportion to much of the other history cited in the PD. More importantly, it is raised in the absence of any clarification about "involvement", which many editors in this talk have been asking the Committee to address better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman on this -- including this as a finding and an admonishment will only undermine the tenuous enforcement efficacy admins have in this area. This finding is ill-advised and an overreaction by Arb IMO. This series of reverts was accompanied by a great deal of discussion, and the admins have worked it out between themselves and do not seem likely to repeat this type of episode, so no admonishment or finding is necessary and in fact would cause more harm. Minor4th 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Minor4th's observations about possible harm to future enforcement are very well-taken. Now that further additions have been made to the PD, it seems all the more the case to me that this part is relatively unhelpful, particularly in comparison to what is in F17. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F16: Lar RfC/U

As written, this appears to be innuendo. The actual RfC/U did not achieve consensus that there was anything requiring arbitration. Either there needs to be some sort of conclusion about there being a problem, or the section does not add anything to the rest of the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The RfC did not come to a consensus in anything; that it exampled some polarisations of opinion is the best that might be said for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I really do not think we want to set up a precedent where the simple fact that an RfC/U has taken place is regarded by ArbCom as incriminating evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not innuendo. A substantial number of editors felt that Lar's behavior was problematic. The arbitrators would be remiss if they ignored these very serious concerns. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

F17: Lar comments, actions, and mindset

Lar, I have a set of questions related to this finding that I'd like to see answered here. They are broadly similar to the ones I've posed to Stephan Schulz below. (1) What steps do you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor? (2) Do you have any comments to make on the diffs presented in this finding? (3) Do you think administrators should have the trust of the editors in areas they are helping to administrate? As I said when asking Stephan these questions, could I ask that others please not answer for Lar. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I am aware of this request and will answer shortly, when I've had a chance to compose my thoughts. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F18: Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions

Moved here from general discussion section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Redwood National Park. Skimming over the PD page page, I saw my name mentioned. I'd like to point out that I have performed very few admin actions on CC articles, and, as far as I can know, no contentious ones. In particular, I have only blocked CU confirmed socks. I'd urge the committee to check in detail if any of my admin actions is problematic, and if not, if and why I should stop doing them. N.B.: What has been contentious has been my participation in the admin discussion at the probation enforcement board (which, however, followed the letter of the rules and was, if I say so, neutral, constructive and valuable ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what actions have you taken to disable (in particular WMC) incivility? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, that would be best covered in a general discussion section covering WMC's incivility, not specific admins. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The point here is that your extensive editing in this topic area makes it difficult (or easier, YMMV) to judge involvement. Whenever an admin arrives at an article, they have to make a choice between acting as an administrator or an editor. If they are unsure about acting as an administrator, they need to either ask another administrator to deal with it, or articulate why they are taking administrative actions, and also address any concerns raised. Stephan, I know you are on holiday, but if you get the chance, could I ask you to say what steps you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor. Second question is why you followed the letter, rather than the spirit of the rules at the probation enforcement board? Last question: when you realised your participation in the admin sections was controversial, why did you continue to participate there? I'll ask Lar the same questions, and could I ask that others please not answer for Stephan. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed remedy" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the remedy numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please discuss the associated findings in their own sections above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

R1: Discretionary sanctions

See also: Earlier archived discussion

See also: Current detailed discussion of implementation issues

I am worried by the unqualified use of the words warned and warning in this section. I have found that in the midst of content disputes, some editors will employ the strategy of forking the discussion from the article talk page to individual users' talk pages, using more personal language and ad hominem tactics. I hope that such remarks, which can be along the lines of 'taking you outside for a quiet word', are not considered 'warnings' in the terms of the proposed discretionary sanctions. I suggest the wording be changed to "despite receiving a formal warning from an uninvolved administrator". For those new to Wikipedia or to the topic area, it is not always clear who is such an administrator, as they do not always clearly identify themselves as such on their own user pages. --Nigelj (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj raises a very good point. Thus, "a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions" implies a warning for current behaviour, which should be given by an uninvolved administrator. So, presumably the sequence would be; report to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and the uninvolved admin deciding would impose that warning with clear advice on improving behaviour, then if the problem happened again a second report to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement would, at the discretion of an uninvolved admin, result in a sanction. Looks worthwhile as giving a clear warning and opportunity to mend ways before a sanction is imposed. Is it worth spelling out that editors should be able to appeal the warning in the same way that sanctions would be appealed? Overall, the move to the central noticeboard looks good. . dave souza, talk 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to look at the implementation of already-existing discretionary sanctions, which are all listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --TS 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I commend the drafters on the proposal to move to a discretionary sanctions regime. Should the proposal pass in its current form, this would tend to alleviate my serious concerns about the implementation of the current probation, which has been perversely interpreted so as to actively discourage the use of administrator discretion. The wording used here unequivocally authorises the uninvolved administrator to act on his own considered judgement, in an area where the effect of chronic administrator inaction has been very damaging.

The detailed clarification of the various meanings of "involved" is based on standard boilerplate from countless similar cases. This is also most welcome.

A determination of this sort is long overdue and I hope the voting phase will proceed quickly. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is the failure of the probation as it has been implemented. I think it was intended to give admins authority to act swiftly and within their own discretion, but it morphed into almost complete inaction by admins and to the point that nothing could be done except by committee. The result was actually less enforcement in the problem area, rather than greater enforcement. I'd like to see it go even farther and empower individual admins in enforcing sanctions. Agree also that the definition of "uninvolved" should be expanded rather than limited so as to give a greater number of admins the authority to act and enforce sanctions. Minor4th 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins are already empowered to enforce sanctions on their own judgement. Perhaps emphasis of the fact is merited. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Doing things by committee/consensus has only hampered matters. It's fine if an action goes up for review afterwards, but the rule of thumb really should be "act first, discuss in length later", as it is for basically every other contentious topic on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While true in principle, it can often fail in practice. If every time an admin exercises their own judgment it leads to a drama-fest (or even wheel warring), then most admins quickly become paralyzed against taking action. Given how contentious climate change is, it is not uncommon to see unilateral sanctions only add more fuel to the fire. Acting via committee and GSCC, probably does reduce the post-enforcement drama. On the other hand, acting via committee can also lead to paralysis via committee, so it doesn't necessarily improve the overall level of enforcement. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stick, not quick - Tony and I have disagreed about this from the get go. He is still wrong. The current sanctions regime may be slower than is optimal but it has the advantage of producing sanctions that (with the notable exception of the one DF just unilaterally undid, which is in the process of being discussed and rectified) stick. I fear that in this highly contenious area in which one faction has many admins on side, there will be ambulance chasing, and a shoot first and ask questions not at all mentality... whoever gets there first imposes whatever ill considered haphazard sanction they can type in quickly, followed by drama. Inconsistency and knee jerk reaction, followed by interminable second guessing, is not what we need here. Precedent and building on what went before in measured ways to come up with sanctions that have consensus and that stick, is. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I modified a sanction based on discussion at ANI. I did act outside of the normal process of GSCC, but it was not unilateral in the sense of acting without discussion or the consideration of others. Nor did I effectively "undo" the sanction since even as modified, it would still apply to most of the editing WMC does. Dragons flight (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the problems is that when I tried use the same logic to remove my 3-month topic ban extension that was used to unblock WMC (i.e. that user talk pages were outside the remit of CC sanctions) I've ran into trouble. In particular Bozmo is taking the opposite position on how the rules are interpreted (yet again) and saying it is because the situations are different. I totally agree with him, the situations are different, in my case I wasn't being disruptive.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There are arguments for both ways of doing things. What interests me here is how exactly the Arbitration Committee is empowered to terminate a process established by the community. They can certainly add their own enforcement mechanism, but I would think they could only recommend the community drop the current sanctions board. Or did I miss the bit where GS/CC/RE was found to be disruptive? Franamax (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The very point of arbitration is to have a trusted body fix problems arising from the normal operation of community processes. The committee is authorised to review, modify and reverse community actions and has even made policy in the face of the common misconception that it cannot do so. It is proposed that the probation has been problematic. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd certainly agree that "the probation has been problematic", I've banged my head on the stairway myself. But can you point to the precedent to "reverse community actions" as it applies to a community process? The community sanctions noticeboard (sorry I don't have the link to hand, it was about 4 years ago) died by community will, not ArbCom fiat as I recall. This is new territory. If the remedy passes and someone posts a new CC/RFE, what will happen? Do they get blocked? If uninvolved admins choose to comment there and act, will they get blocked too? I'm not aware of ArbCom ruling away a consensus process, do you have an example? For counterpoint, I would raise the AC attempts to establish the "experts on sources" and "future directions" committees, both of which were epic fails when the community looked at them. (Again, sorry I don't have the names and links) Possibly you mean the unsourced-BLP-deletion thing, but even there I believe AC let the community handle the process, much as I disagree with the basic premise involved. Where has the committee ever dissolved a community process?

Don't get me wrong here Tony, I agree there are problems with the current noticeboard, one of them being the notion that it would prevent admins from taking unilateraL action. Those problems should be fixed in situ, by the community. The AC can certainly add normal arbitration enforcement to the process, but I question their ability to abolish what the community has set up on its own. I don't see the chain of principles and FoF's that would lead to such a conclusion. There is a FoF that GS/CC/RFE is novel (and a subtext that is was modelled on previous AC remedies) but nothing more is apparent. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The committee is not limited by precedent. The pedophilia userbox war is an example of a case in which the committee made new policy and wiped out the previously normal practice of undoing controversial administrative actions. Whenever the Committee desysops someone it undoes a community action previously tested and passed with consensus. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are missing the significance of the discretionary sanctions and their associated enforcement clause. Here the drafters are going out of their way to say that an admin can use his own discretion, and it isn't necessary to seek consensus before imposing a sanction or enforcing an existing sanction. The pattern envisaged here is clearly "problem -> warning and advice -> continuing problem -> sanction -> further disruption -> enforcement of sanction." Both the sanction and the enforcement steps are subject to appeal, but not to prior discussion. This encourages admins to act on their own considered judgement, whereas the probation has been interpreted in a manner that penalizes admins for doing so. We'll see whether this makes it to the final decision, but I think this is a very good step to take. --TS 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So we are about to add a new chapter to the "Big Book of Climate Change Drama" called "Discretionary Sanctions". Well, it might be an interesting change from the present scheme, but the characters involved will be the same, the arguments will be very familiar, and the same old subplot about whether or not someone can be an "uninvolved admin" if they've ever sanctioned a pro-AGW editor in the past will continue to rumble on, scaring off other administrators who might like to get involved as it goes. In all seriousness, we don't need to try a new scheme to deal with those extremist climate change editors, who can't follow normal wikipedia processes and have to have special arrangements made for them. We have to be rid of those extremist editors. Thparkth (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

R3.1 to R5 (William M. Connolley)

Moved here from section on findings. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that William M. Connolley will behave without some strong action by ArbCom that sanctions him enough to get the message across that his actions have been unacceptable? It's his repetition of bad behavior that I find important -- it indicates that the lesser measures taken so far have not been strict enough. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd sincerely like to see it. Any arbitrator considering these sanctions needs to consider the ongoing repetitions, even after admins imposed sanctions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the proposed sanctions for WMC are strong. I'm surprised how few people are named. --SPhilbrickT 12:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The failure to deal with all but the few most prominent cases is unfortunate, but I think it's an inherent limitation of large omnibus Arbcom cases. At best, the few remedies here can be models for post-arbitration enforcement. At worst it renders the case ineffective, and perhaps an interruption in ongoing attempts by the community. Either way, there is not always evidence that anyone will listen to Arbcom - it's up to them. If they still don't get the message, the case provides a solid basis for future blocks and bans. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not clear which (if any) of the WMC remedies are alternatives. None of them necessarily contradict each other. If a ban and a topic ban are both imposed simultaneously, do they run concurrently? Finally, regarding the restrictions on WMC's own talk page:
  • 3.3.2 ("William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)") applies to the topic of climate change. It includes the provision "this editing restriction specifically includes modification of talk page edits...", which logically applies only on the topic of climate change. Because of the potential ambiguity (are all talk page comments covered, or just those on the topic of climate change?) this may not in fact resolve the present dispute over whether WMC can add bracketed comments to other people's posts on his talk page, if only the subject is something other than climate change. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 3.3.6 ("William M. Connolley restricted") applies to CIVIL, NPA, AGF, and BLP violations, not to all behavior. The restriction on modifying talk page edits, likewise, would only apply to talk page edits that violate these policies. Again, the ambiguity may leave the present dispute unresolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If the intent is to prohibit WMC from making any talk page modifications, including on his own page, under any circumstance, then it would be clearer to carve that out as a distinct separate remedy. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Both of the above sections state that "in the case of posts to William M. Connolley's user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response." Does that imply by omission that he is not free to do anything else with them? Is he free to remove them with response, i.e. with an edit summary? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley banned [3.1] and William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change) [3.2] are alternatives that cannot both pass. William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP) [4] and William M. Connolley restricted [5] are separate proposals that may pass in addition to one of the ones from 3. Any and all restrictions that pass would run concurrently. NW (Talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they could indeed both pass, and if so there would need to be clarification as to whether they ran consecutively or concurrently, and if consecutively, which first. We have seen both alternatives pass in previous cases. This note applies to others where there are alternatives, such as MN, I think, as well.++Lar: t/c 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that in some instances both of x.1 and x.2 have passed, I believe that in those particular cases, Arbitrators have specifically instructed the clerks to pass both. The standard is generally "only one passes", I believe. As for the consecutive v. concurrent matter, I think the same applies. I believe it is always concurrent unless the Arbitrators vote on it being consecutive. But perhaps I am wrong. It would be nice if a more senior clerk or arbitrator could comment on this matter. NW (Talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're asking for a more clearly written decision than we have now. Can't say I disagree with that one iota. That said, personally, I think an outright ban, followed consecutively by a topic ban, would be a good outcome (since that's what I put in my workshop proposal, after all... the behavioral issues warrant it) and that the arbs should clarify that if both pass, that is what will happen. Or whatever it is they meant. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In "3.3.5 William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)" he is prohibited from editing articles but no mention is made of talk pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As WP:BLP applies equally to article talk pages as the article page I suspect that the prohibition applies to the talkpage - but I would also prefer this was made clear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am concerned that the severity of the proposed sanctions, although likely appropriate within themselves, is not reflected by any acknowledgement of the environment in which WMC was able to operate to such disruptive effect; good editors with shared opinions with WMC regarding the most appropriate application of NPOV were generally ineffective in curbing his excesses, and disinclined to speak out forcefully when it became apparent that WMC had cultivated an outlook that disregarded the opinion of any that disagreed with his. I do not think that such editors should be censured, but perhaps reminded that the purpose of the encyclopedia is the creation of neutral, well sourced, and accurate content, and not a social club where personal respect and collegiality are of higher premium. As for those editors who regarded efforts by admins and other parties to stop WMC from his disruptive and aggressive actions as evidence of bias, or of complicity in sockpuppetry, or of personal animosity, or of collusion with those opposed to WMC for any other reason, or of power tripping, or of enabling opinion counter to that held by WMC, I feel that they hold a greater responsibility for the enabling of his behaviours, and should be considered as needing sanctions or admonishment in their part in the creation of a poisonous and stressful editing environment. It may suffice that it is noted that the sanctions proposed by ArbCom are more severe than that proposed within Probation enforcement even by Lar, although they may wish to contend that this is the result also of off wiki collusion and prejudice - in fact, I hope they do. Lastly, and I say this with foreboding, making WMC a totem for the failure of many like opined parties to abide by the policies and practices of Wikipedia may result in WMC becoming exampled as martyr for those who are unable to comprehend the proper application of NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• To add to that of LHVU, I think that the poisonous atmosphere and outside influences that WMC had to endure could probably be helped by looking at the history of the article about him at William Connolley. Again, just a suggestion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The six month general ban for WMC seems punitive in intent. I believe the topic ban from climate change articles is adequate to avoid future harm. Thparkth (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I see no reason to believe that William M. Connolley will act well outside the CC topic. He treats people poorly whether or not they're in agreement with him on CC matters. I think recently he was rough with BozMo and SirFozzie. I would expect that to continue. A six-month block might let the message sink in, and it's easier to police than some kind of civility probation where others might be tempted to goad him. Probations are another burden on admins, and William M. Connolley has been too much of an admin burden already. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

R3.2: William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)

See also: Topic bans, fairness or rational please

R5: William M. Connolley restricted

Civility parole

To paraphrase Santayana, those who don't remember the past are condemned to keep proposing civility paroles. Whatever else happens, please don't implement this remedy. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Recipe for chaos. After all, the major disruption since ~January has not occurred in either article space or talk space. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

R6: Polargeo admonished

I don't think the lightness of an admonishment fits the seriousness of the repeated personal attacks. His bad behavior continued during the ArbCom case, as noted at 3.2.11 (last link), but other bad behavior cropped up just days ago, as noted on the General Discussion page set up for this ArbCom case. I don't see how he can still be trusted with admin tools, given his conduct. Further, I see a double standard here: lighter treatment of administrators than for other editors. It should be the other way around. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This shows the pressure of being an admin when you have someone you have never had a previous conflict or any dealings with suddenly popping up at an arbcom case and out to get you, such as JohnWBarber being out to get me in this case. He requests I am desysopped, banned and blocked and combs through every diff I have ever made in a very heated area and still manages to find as little as he has done. This, for want of better expression nastiness, is fairly sickenning to me and I don't understand it. And just so you are aware of how difficult it is for me to be open if I had made this statement a week or two ago it would be a diff chalked up by JWB as a personal attack against him. Polargeo (talk)

I concur with JWB, concerns that I voiced with Polargeo's actions in regard to Probation enforcement - and which I hoped would lead to self reassessment when they were aired - have crystallised into a opinion that he is not suitable to be allowed the responsibilities of adminship. His reaction to my strongly advising him to cease his repetitive posts to User talk:Lar, where he continued to note his conviction of Lar's involvement and subsequent unsuitability to opine in an admin capacity, was to describe me as a bully. He has also suggested that the reason for Lar and my agreement, and also a third party, over a topic relating to CC matters was the result of off wiki collusion. In both these cases these were comments made in regard to those made by others, and not to the mentioned parties. Finally, as is evident in the comments on these pages, Polargeo is disregarding the findings of fact and remedies suggested in the PD, but is continuing to insist upon his understanding of the situation. Admins are required to be able to discern consensus, by reference to the policies etc., and to not substitute their own opinions and conclusions. I believe Polargeo simply does not "get it", and should be asked to stand again for adminship if they want access to those flags. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard is entitled to the belief that I do not get it, I happen to believe he does not get it, but this appears to be about minor quibbling and personal opinions and is not going to help anyone. To suggest that I should stand again for adminship because I don't get LessHeard's viewpoint shows his partisanship in this case. He has consistantly been the most ardent admin supporter of Lar throughout so it really does not surprise me. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am evidencing why I feel your contributions to the area, and specifically the focus on Lar's involvement, continue to be disruptive and call into question your suitability for the role of admin (because sysops should strive to be "adminlike" even when they are not acting in that capacity). If you feel that the problems with my adminning - or my "not getting" concerns raised about it (and what they are specifically) - should be addressed then this is the venue for it. I will not believe it a personal attack if you do, even though I will almost definitely contest it. You may also, if you wish, explain why you think your actions at the Probation enforcement page and Lars' userpage where within the sysop remit, to counter my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just utterly tired of this battleground nonsense. If you had a list of diffs you wanted to present why were they not presented during CC enforcement where I was instructed not to comment as uninvolved, or on this arbcase evidence page or are you going to re-present diffs that have already been presented and put a new spin on them in an attempt to "win" your argument? Also I imagine you now feel emboldend because arbcom have ignored the RfC/U I started on Lar so you now think your viewpoint has been upheld and it is time to stick the knife in because of what you consider to be my poor misguided viewpoint which I tried to honestly represent both here and at the RfC. This is very unpleasant indeed. Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret the stress this matter gives you and, for what it is worth, I believe that you have always been sincere in your interpretation of the issues, but I believe you are wrong and that you have consequently acted in a manner which has brought further disruption to this area and the project. This, I believe, is what you believe is also the situation in my case, and the basis of your comments on my actions. While very much not happy to be described as such, I recognise that this is the nature of these kinds of dispute. If we can agree that we are both working toward what we hope is for the benefit of the encyclopedia, then we acknowledge that there is nothing personal in our comments regardless of the harshness of some of the commentary. Hopefully, then, it is slightly less stressful for both of us. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The matter only gives me stress because I am the one named in the sanctions and on the workshop two people called for me to be desysopped. I have issues with your actions and viewpoints and I sometimes think they are influenced by misguided interpretation but I certainly do not have any personal issues with you at present. Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can also sympathise with being named, as I have previously been admonished as part of the remedies in an arbcom case - and when I was an admin, and not a new editor. It comes, I am afraid, with being a bit too passionate about the project. At least, that is how I justify it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You refer to his "sickening nastiness" and you wonder why people accuse you of personal attacks? Really?! Weakopedia (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Yes JWB has launched the nastiest attack on me I have ever experienced on wikipedia. I had never had any contact with him before this attack. Therefore to me he personifies the worst of the most undignified traits possible. Marginally hidden behind an aura of civility that is less than skin deep. I am fed up with people assessing single diffs with no context and am dismayed to find the same thing happening in this arbcase. Polargeo (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC) So basically you have, once again, responded to the behaviour of others with personal attacks. Ideally, being an admin, you should know better, but since you don't it will take an arbcom ruling to make you behave. That's a shame. There will always be personal attacks, this being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - if you find it impossible to react without making personal attacks of your own then you should consider a different hobby. Weakopedia (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Weakopedia, you've put to separate words together as though it's a direct quote, and misrepresent Polargeo's expression of how he feels about actions as though they're a personal attack on the person. Not good. It's legitimate to describe actions, particularly in the circumstances of this discussion, and while less graphic language would be welcome, you should take care not to misrepresent the words or intentions of others. As should everyone. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Haha! He said "This, for want of better expression nastiness, is fairly sickenning", and I said he said sickening nastiness which really couldn't be a more accurate summation - a summary which I presented to Polargeo and which he agreed with. Because I just repeated what he said. Are you really being serious here? And besides, I was talking to him, and he answered, and you weren't invited, and you are the one who is misrepresenting his words, so why don't you think before commenting. Weakopedia (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC) A note to JohnWBarber and Polargeo: from posts on this page (especially the ones at the start of this section) it looks like you are both engaged in an interpersonal dispute. Please try and resolve this elsewhere and please don't make it part of this case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC) That seems a bit off, Carcharoth. Nobody (other than you perhaps?) seems to be accusing JohnWBarber of pursuing an outside dispute. Indeed, Polargeo describes him as "someone [Polargeo has] never had a previous conflict or any dealings" with. Theoretically the input of such uninvovled editors is particularly welcomed. 87.113.64.128 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Yep JWB popped up and using the flimsiest of diffs and no evidence of my abuse or even my use of admin tools requested that I be desysopped, banned from CC for a year (with no evidence of any problematic edits on CC articles) and also blocked for three months. Crediting his attack against me as the rational conclusion of an uninvolved editor is not really supportable. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Well his conclusions may be irrational (I don't know) but that's a risk whenever you seek opinions from people. It's dismissing it as part of some outside dispute that I think is problematical. If the arbitrators just don't feel his evidence and conclusions merit any sanctions then they just need to say so and leave it at that. 87.113.64.128 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I now understand where I interacted with JohnWBarber before this case, it was on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Lar#GIGO. That is where he gets his grudge against me from. So no he genuinely is not uninvolved. I am truly amazed that an editor I had even forgotten I had any interaction with then turned that single thread against me into a single minded attempt to get me desysopped during an arbcase though. Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I believe Carcharoth already asked you to take this elsewhere; if you have any further on topic comments feel free to make them. Any further comments along this vein will be removed. Shell babelfish 12:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I would be only too happy not to comment here but I have been directly defending myself against the continuing comments and additions of others. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here's one response to the personal attacks Polargeo has made on this page (in this section and elsewhere) and the inaccurate statement of Carcharoth, above: I am not "engaged in an interpersonal dispute" with Polargeo other than one vandalizing edit Polargeo made on an article I had just started and which I reverted with an edit summary telling him to "go away". Other than that, my entire (pretty brief) interaction with him has been on CC dispute resolution pages. I complained against him because I'm appalled by his personal attacks on other people. Other than objecting to being attacked here and having my work vandalized in retaliation for my complaints about his conduct, I don't have a "personal" dispute with him. The discussion he refers to in his 10:48, 24 August post, above (our only previous interaction) was about the conduct of others and obviously didn't spark me to make any complaints, and it's just as irrelevant as it looks. Polargeo can't back up any of his disparaging statements about me with any evidence whatever (one definition of a personal attack). Since no one else seems to believe them, that doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me is that ArbCom members didn't tell him to stop sooner and didn't identify his comments against me as personal attacks. That makes them look like they're perhaps justified. Since the draft already proposed that Polargeo be "strongly admonished" for his previous personal attacks, any consideration of the personal attacks on this page should lead ArbCom to strongly consider an even stricter sanction. Carcharanth's comment, implying that I'm just as much or even about as much at fault in some 'interpersonal dispute" somehow unrelated to this case, in effect protects Polargeo and, frankly, insults me. There's evidence all over this page that Polargeo can't tell the difference between criticism and personal attacks, even after the draft was posted. It isn't hard to predict that this conduct will continue unless ArbCom takes further measures to impress on him the necessary message. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

R7: Thegoodlocust banned

Proposed Alternate Remedy: Supervised Editing for TheGoodLocust

Moved here from general discussion section. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Brandon has indicated that he was would be willing to supervise my editing and suggested that I propose this as an alternate remedy.

I was actually asking him for the request to reduce my topic ban extension, which, the admin consensus on the enforcement board seems to be that it would be removed if I was supervised for a bit.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great solution. Worth a try.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

R8.1 to R9 (Marknutley)

General discussion of Marknutley remedies moved here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley is an extremely frustrating editor, with both a temper and an inability to allow perceived bias' to remain unchallenged - often by aping the disputed behaviour. He does, however, acknowledge his failings, and has tried to moderate them (although with limited success). He also has not taken sanctions as personal slights - I have blocked him 4 times for a total of 96 hours (against twice totaling 72 hours for William M. Connolley) - and remains open to discussion and warning over his conduct. It is disappointing that he has however consciously disregarded restrictions and prohibitions when he feels that they are being taken advantage of by others, or he simply strongly wishes to insert some content into an area he should not. It is only that latter indiscipline that convinces me that the proposed remedies have merit, even though I suspect that the result will be that Marknutley will withdraw from WP. I would prefer that it is noted that Marknutley did make some efforts to comply with policy, in such that he agreed to restrictions and the use of a mentor, in the final wording of remedies effecting him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think i`ll quit? Of the 28 articles i have created 14 are not about climate change [112] mark nutley (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark has produced some quality articles, The Gore Effect being one that comes to mind. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he has made a good number of articles considering that he has edited for less than a year. In that respect I regret having advised him when he first got here not to get caught up in the climate mess, but, on the other hand, if he gets banned then perhaps it would've been good advice to take. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

R8.2: Marknutley topic banned (Climate Change)

See also: Topic bans, fairness or rational please

R10: Use of blogs

You've painted with too broad a brush. Self-published blogs should only be used rarely, but blogs with independent editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy may be used as reliable sources. The format of a publication is not material, for paper does not have magical powers to impart accuracy. We've had substantial discussions about this issue over the years. Jehochman ^Talk 10:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Conditionally agree. My own notes, as I read the clause: "Is this a contraction or simply a reiteration of the usual rules?" I read Jehochman as expressing concern it is the former. That was my initial impression, but I hope I'm wrong. Clarification would help.--SPhilbrickT 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is another useless principle. It's well known that blogs are only to be rarely used. So what? What about the blogs mentioned in this case, that have been a subject of so much squabbling? Should Blog X have been used in Article Y? I really don't get this ducking of issues. It's totally unhelpful for Arbcom to render Delphic pronouncements that everybody already knows, when what's needed is to settle this dispute. It's like an umpire not calling balls and strikes, but instead making an announcement over the PA system: "All ball players are advised that balls that don't go through the strike zone...." etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The concern with ruling on specific cases aside, the Committee may at least wish to reference the "news blog" exception. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I realize they're not supposed to rule on content disputes, but I was expecting more of an effort to provide useful guidance. If that sounds naive, so be it. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They may wish to make a distinction between using News Blogs in BLP's and otherwise, as well. Minor4th 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No distinction is necessary - that's already stated in policy. As I read it the principle is basically just a reiteration of policy - don't forget that ArbCom doesn't have the power to make policy, only to reiterate it where necessary. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a restating of policy for those in the topic area who seem to have forgotten it. It's also a good indicator that should an editor's use of blogs as sources continue to be problematic, they may be sanctioned. Shell ^babelfish 12:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If this passes, if anyone tries to use RealClimate, Climate Audit, DeSmogBlog, or Watts Up With That as a reliable source, except in very limited circumstances, they can be reported to the enforcement board. Those are self-published blogs. Hopefully, this will end the sometimes edit-warring that occurred with editors trying to used these blogs, especially RealClimate, in CC articles. Remember, however, that newspaper blogs are reliable sources according to our policies. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't like use of blogs, especially for BLPs. However, I'm not certain that all the blogs you mention are not allowed to be used under the current policy. Arbcom should issue clearer guidance on the actual blogs used in the CC articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Judith Curry "Real Climate" has damaged their brand, are directly involved in Climategate, and are "too partisan in a scientific way." [113] This website obviously should not be used as the main source in the climate articles like it has been. If it wasn't heavily promoted by a founding member of the website and his friends then this would certainly not be the case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're citing one blog comment by someone who's not an expert in particular relevant fields to disparage a blog which often, but not always, complies with WP:SPS and is thus usable as a source. Rather self-contradictory. . . dave souza, talk 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm citing a "blog" published by the Houston Chronicle (a newspaper), written by their science writer which interviews a non-skeptic climatologist whose emails haven't shown some pretty nasty things and whose papers haven't been debunked by professional statisticians on multiple occasions and in peer-reviewed statistical journals. Any questions? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per NEWSBLOG, that's only valid for the opinions of those concerned. Judy Curry isn't an expert on paleoclimatology, and her opinion has less weight that those of experts in the relevant fields. Her views on hurricanes carry more weight. You're picking one opinion, much favoured by deniers contrarians, and trying to denigrate the views of experts who have published in the field. Unsurprising, really. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>You can try to distract in any way you can or bait me by using the offensive "deniers" term, but the fact is that she is a non-skeptic climatologist whose opinion of the Real Climate group is less than stellar. She is certainly not the only one, but that is irrelevant since I've said my piece on the subject. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and what "peer-reviewed statistical journals"? Could it be that you're talking about the draft paper submitted to, but not yet published by, Wegman's vanity spinoff journal? You should read beyond the denialist contrarian blogosphere. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quit baiting, I'm not going to engage with you. I've already demonstrated how you inaccurately describe things TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No wish to offend, a nicer term? . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is preferable. I don't appreciate the sound of it, but it doesn't have the association with Holocaust denial. Thanks. As for TS's and your post below, sufficed to say I strongly disagree with those characterizations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point remains that one scientist's opinion and an unpublished non peer-reviewed paper don't affect the suitability of some, but not all, RealClimate articles, which are subject to the limited circumstances of use prescribed in WP:SPS, hence meeting the standard proposed. Similarly, the other blogs noted can be used with care where they comply with the limited circumstances allowed in WP:V, though they're less likely to include views of published scientists who are recognised experts in the field. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to those who have invoked Judith Curry as evidence of the unreliability of RealClimate, I think it would be interesting to try a run-off between Curry and the scientists who form the RealClimate collective. I'm sure she would be the first to acknowledge that those scientists are qualified to speak on their expertise, as indeed is she. We've got references to ClimateAudit material where it's produced by reputable scientists on their expertise (Storch and Zorita in that instance), and we'd also cite blogs that contained statements by Curry on her expertise. Judith Curry's opinion on RealClimate is a matter of personal preference, and seems to have nothing to do with the expertise of those who run the blog, which as far as I am aware is without parallel in the history of climate science. --TS 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

R13 and R14: Administrators

Please don't comment here. For now, please put comments or new subsections above at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#P14 to P17: Administrators. Not sure yet whether unifying the administrator-related discussions is helpful or not. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Modified from original by JohnWBarber.

ex-R16: Determining if admins are involved

I'm disappointed to see this, in the sense that I would much rather see the Committee make a decision now about who was or was not involved in what has happened already. The draft seems to imply an answer to that, but fails to come right out and say it. Numerous editors have been asking in this talk for the Committee to address this. What is written here seems to me to be kicking it down the road. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been removed. Further discussion would be better in the "new proposals" section. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move, though the phrase "as simple as WP:AN and WP:RFC" gave me a chuckle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

R16: User:Lar's 18 May block of User:William M. Connolley affirmed, User:2over0 strongly admonished

• 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This admin has been one of the strongest voices of reason at WP:GS/CC. I think it is a travesty to propose findings against them over a disputed unblock. ArbCom needs to stop punishing or alienating the few admins willing to work in our most hostile disputes, and instead find ways to encourage better practices and provide needed support. If you don't like the way things have been handled, say so, and say how they should be different going forward. We've been working on a very difficult dispute with little to no guidance. Who's involved? Who's not? You can help sort that out. Should admins be able to reverse others' actions? If discussion is needed before reversal, how much?

I'm not sure what you could possibly be "strongly admonishing" 2over0 for. Did they not live up to your expectations of absolutely perfect performance in every respect so you're trying to run them out on a rail. That's not very civil, collegial, or loyal. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The finding should probably be considered an example of not good practice. I would support such a finding without necessarily supporting any associated admonishment. It would depend largely on what 2over0 has to say on the matter. I think he is on the list of case participants that I asked the clerks to notify about this case. Now that Rlevse has added new findings, he should be ensuring that people named in such findings are being notified, or ensuring that clerks carry out such notifications promptly (I would have done so, but was out for much of today). Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2over0 hasn't edited for the past week. Perhaps he is on vacation? I'll drop a note on his talk page and send him an email after I move this section to the appropriate place. NW (Talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe 2over0 was one of the most partisan admins on the RFE board in its early days. In particular, their impassioned, diff-by-diff defense of WMC (which happened sometime in January or February) stood in stark contrast to their much more harsh treatment of those perceived to be editing from the skeptical side. I will provide evidence if requested. Having said that, I don't believe 2/0 acts in bad faith -- I believe that their admiration for WMC and sympathy to his views caused them to make poor decisions in this area. Also note that 2/0 largely stepped back from direct enforcement on the RFE board in response to concerns (the unblock of WMC being a notable exception), and stepping back was a commendable move. ATren (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Last I saw he has wiped himself free of this section of the project. I'm not even sure he is watching this now. Maybe someone should ping him that he is being mentioned. Personally I feel that 2/0 tries to be as fair and respect everyone. I think even naming him is wrong but again this is my personal experience with him as an editor and then an administrator. I forgot to take a look to see how active he's been and he hasn't been around for at least a week. His activities at the project seem to come in short spurts with breaks I think due to RL. I am sorry but I have to state now that I adamately feel that namining him in anyway about his case since he has not been active in it for quite some time is really wrong. Please reconsider besmirching a good editor who is also an administrator. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I found 2/0 to be a collegiate and helpful colleague within the enforcement request pages, and who usually was well within the consensus derived from discussions and willing to enforce the said consensus. I was dismayed at his undoing of the Lar/WMC block, but regarded it as being swayed by the unrelenting campaign questioning Lars status and do not think that this one action needs to used to taint his sysop record. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2over0 asked me to post this for him:

Thank you for letting me know, as I am no longer even trying to monitor that case; doubly so since I saw the initial posting of the proposed decision and found it approximately as expected (moving the sanctions board to WP:AE I particularly like). As I recall, I had been talking with both William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) and Lar (talk · contribs) earlier that day. I went to lunch with thoughts of trying to use my limited social skills to de-escalate that situation that was then brewing, and came back to find that Lar had enacted a one hour block that was due to expire in about half an hour. As a matter of adminning philosophy, I dislike very short blocks, though I believe that Lar has described that block as not being for the purpose of "cooling down". I was presented then with the question of whether to let the block stand but request review or overturn it and request review, but no time to bring anyone else up to speed to seek advice; waiting to see how other people might deal with the perceived issue would of course also have been an option. This left me with precious little time to review the propriety of a block issued by an admin who: had been involved in a heated discussion with the user in question earlier that day (impression is mine only - obviously I cannot know the actual moods and motives in question); was at that time the subject of an RfC initiated by the user in question pertaining to a closely related question and receiving more than sufficient independent comments to be considered not spurious; and who was himself the editor being reverted. I believe that Lar subscribes to NoSeptember's admin policy, as do I; I respect him for that, as we are all in this together. I do wish that others had been willing to trust my statement that I would shortly request community review of both the block and unblock, but here is the ensuing mess (if this finding passes, that discussion should probably be entered in the evidence if it is not already). I think that the best response I have seen is LessHeard vanU's reply here discussing the politics of how the situation would be perceived by involved editors down the line. Short version of the preceding link: regardless of the propriety of the original block, the material difference to the blocked editor was 16 minutes. I do not recall if I voiced the sentiment at a more useful venue, but I did post about two months later that good intentions do not always lead to good results.

An unrelated point that I should mention here: I have been getting a couple of harassing emails and posts at non-Wikipedia venues from someone(s) representing as climate contrarians over the last month or so (though I suspect that it may in fact be alternative medicine related). I think most of them are iPhones, except one from Austin, TX and another from Los Angeles. If anyone else has received anything similar, we should probably compare notes (my email is enabled). If anyone has experience delving the dark underbelly of the internet and could tell me if it is being coordinated somewhere, I would like to know that as well.

I will be traveling until mid-September, but I should be active here again within a week or two after that.

— 2over0

NW (Talk) 12:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is another instance where the Committee will need to be careful about not making it harder for administrators to work in the future. I remember Rlevse recently saying that RfAs have become too picky, too prone to point to one mistake by a candidate and to blow it out of proportion.[114] Logically, that should also apply to administrators just as it does to administrator candidates. On balance, it is probably a good thing for the Committee to go through all AE actions and to go on record for every case where there was less than good practices. However, strongly admonishing seems to me to go too far. I would suggest that the Committee pay close attention to the difference between one-time misjudgments, and patterns of long-term repeated disruptive behaviors. It's the latter that this case really needs to repair. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish and LHvU. While I think 2/0 erred in this case, and the drama that ensued was much worse than if the block had been allowed to stand, and while I think he does have some partisan bent, I think 2/0 does try hard in general to be even handed. So a strong admonishment? No, how about just a "that was wrong, I hope you realise it now". Affirming the block I placed as correct, on the other hand, is helpful. To the theme brought out here, perhaps ArbCom ought to do more affirming and positive reinforcement of behavior they want to see more of, instead of eschewing handing out praise, and less negative reinforcement of behaviors that are not nearly the most problematic. Management studies show that positive reinforcement makes for a far happier and efficient work environment (even in a volunteer project) than negative. All negative is viewed as draconian even if it's not. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. This has been extremely demoralizing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

R17: Lar is an uninvolved administrator but advised

Lar does not edit the Climate Change articles but the situation is such that feelings and emotions on both sides of this issue have deteriorated to the point that it has become detrimental to the overall effort of the encyclopedia in this topic area. Consequently Lar is advised to take a break from this topic area for awhile. The Committee notes Lar has taken admin actions against editors on both sides of this issue and commends him for being willing to work in a contentious area.

The current wording (above) could use some rephrasing. Perhaps this could work instead?

While Lar does not edit Climate Change articles and therefore meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator, feelings and emotions in the topic area have deteriorated to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. Consequently, Lar is advised to take a break from the area. The Committee notes Lar has taken administrative actions against editors on both sides of this issue[diffs would be useful, because this isn't mentioned in an FOF above] and commends him for being willing to work in a contentious area.

NW (Talk) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer necessary per Rlevse's changes. NW (Talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For reasons that should be obvious to those singing along at home, I don't think admonishing, warning, advising or in any other way singling out any admin in this case in this way sends the right message. We need more admins to watch this area, full stop. Lar's approach to the topic is covered in a finding, and he could be admonished for conduct unbecoming I suppose. But advising him to stay away is wrong. I'd ask him to avoid interactions with William M. Connolley and one or two others, sure, and I'd definitely keep any eye on any actions he might take on his own account to discourage other admins from using their discretion. But I don't think we should single out him or any other admin and say they're not welcome. --TS 02:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful that it is recognised that Lar was uninvolved, and acted within the sysop remit, but I also have qualms over the rest of the proposed wordings, in that it is also rather lopsided, as it notes that his response to the persistent, pointy (Polargeo and William M. Connolley - the latter a former admin - commenting in the "uninvolved admin" section in order to deprecate Lar's presence there, for instance) and likely agenda driven campaign to question his status may disallow him from participating for a period in adminning in CC related spaces, while the architects and acolytes involved in this nefarious policy remain uncommented upon. Further, I foresee some difficulty in Lar being able to function as a sysop in regard to those editors who made up the chorus on this issue, in that future actions against them may (should I say likely?) result in the remedy's language being quoted as an indication that there is bias or prejudice present. Unlike Tony, I think that a strong hint to Lar to absent himself from these areas and, per Tony, interacting in regard to certain editors might suffice, providing that those editors are named, and sanctioned or cautioned for their bad faith and improper conduct, and, if found to be party to a sustained effort to discredit Lar in an effort to deprecate his influence within the Enforcement pages, banned for a period. It takes two (or more) parties to get into a conflict, and if it is noted that the result of such a campaign is to penalise the target for reacting to a prolonged assault, and no or little sanctioning of the others involved, then it is likely to be a tactic that is repeated in whatever format enforcement takes. Even more than Tony's concerns, this will dissuade sysops from volunteering to police the enforcement pages.
nb. I like Lar, and agree with the majority of his opinion regarding how to properly admin the project... but being his cheerleader is becoming quite tiresome. Were that a few new commentators were to opine in regard to these particular instances! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to simply say Lar is uninvolved, to thank him for his service in a tough area, and then to advise him in private that for the practical reason that his continued admin work in this area is causing various editors to continue to make a lot of distracting noise, it would be a good idea to leave and let other admins take up the burden. I object to and Lar has also begun to show bias to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. I don't think it's true and if it were true, I don't think the best way of dealing with it in this case is, in effect, admonishing him publicly in a way that editors will use to defend their own bad behavior. This is also not the way to thank someone who has been doing one of the toughest jobs on Wikipedia, bar none. If ArbCom says begun to show bias it allows certain editors to continue thinking they've been treated unfairly, and allows them to continue to avoid some necessary reflection on their own conduct. ArbCom hasn't admonished Jehochman and Franamax for showing worse bias -- far worse bias. The level of any possible bias on Lar's part is, I believe, too small for ArbCom consideration and no more than a very scrupulous admin would have (that is, the irreducable amount of human error that we all have). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, this section is worded with great kindness, as it makes no mention of his incivility. Lar's open bias in favor of the skeptic side is really not disputable, and was epitomized by his infamous "leveling the playing field" comments, and his incessant and obnoxious use of "cabal" and "faction" to label people in a one-sided and insulting fashion. This finding fails to record his incivility, which has been in evidence in recent weeks, despite this arbitration, and on this very page. See [115]See his "pwned" snipe at Carcharoth.[116]. Mind you, this is Lar on his best behavior, with his Sunday suit on, trying his best not be to be antagonistic. Just today, he showed his open bias for skeptical editors by his unreserved backing of Cla68 in his disruptive editing "experiment."[117] This arbitration decision would have no credibility whatsoever if it fails to deal with this problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This proposed finding is flat out wrong and is harmful to the topic area and the encyclopedia overall. There are hardly any admins enforcing in this area. Without Lar are we down to one truly uninvolved admin -- LHVU? Oh yeah, LHVU said he was moving on to other areas too. So, no uninvolved admins in this topic area -- a topic area so contentious that Arb can't even get its collective grasp around it. On the one hand you're asking for participation from other uninvolved admins, and on the other hand you're admonishing an uninvolved admin to step away from the topic area because the disruptive editors against whom sanctions have been imposed have made so much noise in a concerted effort to drive away one of the few admins willing to enforce policy against them. Lar has not shown bias for skeptical editors -- that evaluation fails entirely to address the real and underlying issue: it's just a matter of observable fact that the "skeptical" editors are not nearly as disruptive as the warmist POV editors! Naturally, the editors who are skirting the rules and pushing past the limits of policy want to get rid of an admin who might enforce against them, and it happens to be the case that the ones who are skirting the rules and pushing past the limits of policy are overwhelmingly from the warmist/alarmist bloc of editors (and their cheerleaders, of course). That is the reason for all of the disruption regarding Lar. Address the problem, not the attempts to remediate the problem! Cautioning Lar to step away from this topic area is a nail in the coffin of having any kind of enforceable policy in this topic area in the foreseeable future. Frankly, I don't know why Lar puts up with it, but he should be thanked for his service and encouraged to continue -- those who have so vocally campaigned for his removal are the ones who should be cautioned to step away. Minor4th 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, Less, John, and Minor. I think that pointing out the specific instances of battlefield language is appropriate for the findings, more appropriate than is the purported wheel war. I also am under the impression that Lar has said that he accepts that this would be appropriate. I think there is a big problem with the choice of the word "bias". It isn't bias. It's shortness of temper, and the wording needs to be corrected to reflect that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I am pleased that the most recent additions have addressed explicitly the issue of who was and who was not "involved". Thank you for addressing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is not shortness of temper. If it was, there would be no problem. We'd be seeing a constant stream of apologies from Lar whenever he labeled someone or engaged in the kind of behavior I've cited above. This is an administrator who can't or won't behave properly even when the eyes of arbcom are on him. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at the RfC/U. It looks to me like there is no shortage of shortness of temper, which is why this case ended up here. I think a great number of the involved editors displayed shortness of temper; the task of the Committee is to distinguish between that, and behavior that went beyond it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. What was complained about at the RfC was bias and systematic incivility, not temper. See the statement at the RfC/U[118] by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, [119], which received the greatest number of endorsements. He began by acknowledging that Lar was not involved, and then said:

A sample -- by no means complete -- of the points that raise concern over Lar's behavior in this regard includes where he:

• Derides a group of editors in the enforcement area as "socially inept." [11]

• Advocates a specific content position while engaged on the enforcement talk page.[12]

• Makes no secret of his desire to "level the playing field"[13][14] by tilting it more favorably toward one group of editors and less favorably to another. As such he comes to the sanctions not as an impartial arbiter, but as one with a preconceived agenda.

• Promotes a battleground mentality by lumping editors together as "the cadre,"[15] the "science club,"[16] and a "cabal."[17]

• While engaged on the enforcement page itself, sarcastically berates an editor for having opposed his reconfirmation as steward.[18][19]

Note that "shortness of temper" is not complained about, but a pattern of bias is. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

R17 and F17

There is an inconsistency between R17 and the diffs given in F17 on which the remedy presumably is based. Below is the current text of R17 with the problematic wording italicized:

User:Lar does not edit Climate Change articles and therefore nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator. However, feelings and emotions in the topic area have deteriorated extensively and Lar has also begun to show bias to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. Consequently, Lar is advised to take a break from the area. The Committee commends him for being willing to work in a contentious area.

The diffs in F17 are from December 2009 through May 2010 (specifically 23 Dec, 2 Feb (4x), 22 Feb, 2 Mar, 11 Apr and 22 May (3x)). The alert reader will note that most of the cited diffs are at least six months old. But the (italicized) wording of R17 suggests that this was only a recent development. Could the arbs please consider reconciling this inconsistency between their finding and their remedy? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant R17. Fixed above. If you meant something else, please re-edit to show that. I'll ask Rlevse if he could look at this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't had my third cup of coffee yet -- that's my excuse, and I'm sticking with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (remedies)

Topic bans, fairness or rational please

As this discusses remedies for both WMC and Marknutley, I am leaving it here and linking to it from above. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that the topic ban for WMC, only topic bans him from article content and for mark from both article as well as talk page. The reason that I am concerned is it reads as if ArbCom has a bias for treating one editor one way and another editor another way. Of course there may be a valid rational for this. I feel that ArbCom should either explain the rational on the proposed decision page for this or else apply topic bans equally.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose only the drafters know exactly why. I imagine they consider that Dr. Connolley's talk page statements within his domain of expertise, when he returns to Wikipedia, may be of considerable use in constructing and maintaining encyclopedia articles on the subject. He's certainly not our only climate change expert, but he has been very productive. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall Napoleon the pig, alas. Collect (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tasty, I did think that may be why the drafting arb(s) did that which is problematic as it reads as if to say such and such an editor is more valuable than another editor which is very partisan sounding if that is the case and not the usual ArbCom style.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the arbitrators, though I imagine they have as diverse a range of views on the value of the two respective editors as the community does. This proposed decision will be discussed and edited over the next few weeks so I would look out for some revision of the proposals, which may at least clarify the reasoning of the drafters and the response of the other arbitrators.

On the substance of your comment, I don't think one is necessarily partisan if one has a different evaluation of the output of an acknowledged domain expert on one hand and a relatively new editor who has a history of misreading sources on the other. --TS 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that topic bans for all editors should include the article talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my statement, the article talk pages are perhaps the place where WMC does the most damage via incivility and baiting. His education in math is not sufficient justification to allow this to continue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is why there is an accompanying civility restriction. My support of the topic ban will be conditional on the civility restriction passing, and if the current topic ban doesn't pass, I will propose one without talk page editing (i.e. a full topic ban). Tony is correct that WMC's expertise is one consideration here, but there are also considerations of off-wiki actions here. Too much of the editing of Wikipedia climate change articles is driven by blogosphere activity. No Wikipedia editors should be editing artciles based on what people are blogging about said articles. That only increases the phenomenon where off-wiki disputes are dragged on-wiki, dragging down the editing environment here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can pretty much guarantee that any civility restriction will be gamed in some way. Loopholes will be found. This has pretty much been WMC's record when it comes to every restriction - push the boundaries and find a legalistic opening. There are certainly many ways to drive editors away. I'm not sure if any of you read through the giant IPCC mess back in November, but they pushed a lot of logical fallacies, circular reasoning and invented policy to drag out the conversation for months - and ended up being shown completely wrong with the IPCC itself admitted that it was at fault. I'm not sure if that is technically incivil, but frustrating other editors away through obstructionism has the same effect. I can think of at least one PhD in Physics who doesn't edit the CC area much anymore(likely due to his interactions with WMC). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I don't think skeptic blogs generally talk about wikipedia articles too much. I do follow the most trafficked one and while there are occasional wikipedia-related articles they don't usually relate to the articles themselves so much as the CC-specific culture and WMC/KDP - I don't recall there ever being an article saying or implying to go to wikipedia to modify a specific article (in fact the Bishop Hill blog tells people to NOT edit wikipedia if they aren't already involved). Again, these articles are pretty rare, most articles on WUWT discuss the news, have guest posts from people on both side of the issue, discuss scientific papers, politics and other non-cc science/weather phenomena. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall effect of the proposed remedies

See also: Scorched earth approach

The climate change space is utterly dominated by extremist editors who are unable to compromise. The proposed remedies do nothing to address this problem. In fact, the arbcom process has become just another battleground in the great climate change war. The bans and blocks proposed will do little to reduce the power of the two factions, and nothing at all to encourage more neutral, moderate editors back into the article space. In short, nothing will change, except perhaps the names of a few people involved. I believe that this situation can only be addressed by taking radical action. It is not enough to ask for diffs and issue a few blocks based on specific events. The problem is much deeper than that - it is structural. And so the structure must be changed.

In my opinion the only possible effective remedy would be to hand out large numbers of topic bans. For each editor currently involved in the climate change space, arbcom should examine their edits over three months to determine the answer to two simple questions.

1. Does this person have a clear position on the climate change issue?

2. Does this person seem to place their own beliefs and agenda about climate change above wikipedia's principles, particularly NPOV and civility?

If the answer to both is "yes", then they should be indefinitely banned from the climate change topic area. Advocates for causes are not needed. There are plenty of other areas they can edit in, if they genuinely want to contribute to the project.

I realize that this will be an unpopular suggestion with many other commenters on this page. Many of them would be among those banned if I had my way. I realize this is unlikely to be adopted as a remedy. All the same, extremist editors are the problem, and mass-banning is the solution. The kind of minor tweaking proposed by arbcom so far is merely painting over the rust, and ignoring the deeper structural problem below. If firm action is not taken this case will return to arbitration all too soon. Thparkth (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. I've been arguing for months that both warring factions need to be topic-banned from the CC topic space. The proposed remedies do far too little. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom has occasionally experimented with mass topic-bans, most notably in the last Israel-Palestine case, but the results have been poor. It certainly has not ended conflicts there. Such remedies fail because they do not take into account the fact that conflicts on-wiki are not simply caused by disagreements between specific individual editors - they are driven by wider off-wiki disputes which produce an endless stream of new participants eager to take up the cudgels on Wikipedia. A mass topic-ban is, at best, an extremely short-term remedy that does nothing to manage a dispute of this nature. I think the key to resolving issues such as this is to establish a regime to manage them in the long term. That means having a strong arbitration enforcement regime, backed up by strong statements of principles. I'm pleased to see that the ArbCom has adopted exactly that approach in this proposed decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the results have been poor from the Palestine/Israel mass topic ban. That area of Wikipedia quieted down significantly once those problemmatic editors were removed from the topic. I've noticed some of the previous behavior there start to resurface again lately, but the threat of more topic bans does seem to be keeping it under control. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that # 2 is a problem, but I don't know why #1 is there. If an editor is guilty of #2, why would you take different action if you discern that their position on the subject is clear? --SPhilbrickT 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, #1 is meaningless in terms of WP policies and sanctions. #2 boils down to 'placing anything above wikipedia's principles', when editing the encyclopedia, is wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what criteria arbcom used in the Israel-Palestine case but criteria #1 and #2 presented above are so useless (mainly because of how on earth could they be interpreted) that it is not even funny. Polargeo (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

#1 is there simply to restrict the scope to climate change. But you're right, it's unnecessary and redundant. Thparkth (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And #2 is wishy washy in the extreme, how would you implement it? I actually find the principle slightly distasteful and on the general idea "law interpreted by the few is above morality" (what about Ghandi?). In fact IAR defends this line of thought but that is another matter and has nothing to do with any opinions I might have on this issue. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are dozens of simple ways in which this could be implemented, and I'm not particularly interested in arguing the minutia of it. Thparkth (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• My concern about this proposal is that it oversimplifies the problems in the CC articles, and omits a crucial factor: the impact of whatever is done here on the actual quality of the articles. What is being ignored here is that the caliber of the CC articles, with the exception of a few on the fringes (about blogs, for instance), tend to be of very high, especially insofar as they deal with the technical aspects of climate change. This proposal begins by saying The climate change space is utterly dominated by extremist editors who are unable to compromise. The proposed remedies do nothing to address this problem. The "scientist editors," by which I mean those who have credibly identified themselves as scientists, are indeed extreme in their dedication to scientific fact. This proposal makes it seem as if we are seeing a duel between two "narratives" of potentially equal validity, such as between Arabs and Israelis. If Arbcom puts on blinders, and out of misguided "even-handedness" acts in a fashion that makes Wikipedia inhospitable to experts, this will have a ripple effect that will drive away valued editors. The fact is that editors with special technical knowledge are to be treasured. I have no special technical knowledge, except maybe in the history of the Third Avenue El. Editors like myself are a dime a dozen. We need to welcome editors that have such knowledge, and not put them on a par with politically motivated editors seeking to advance a fringe point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the enforcement numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

E1: Enforcement by block

This is lighter than the restrictions mentioned at WP:GSCC, which gave more guidance to administrators. I think you should copy those suggestions in the decision. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• To me, it comes across like, here are some users who have long histories of being warned and sanctioned before, and what we are doing here is giving them a little time to think about it before coming back, and then we'll have AE do the serious work. I worry that the Committee may be leaving too much to be dealt with later, through enforcement, rather than simply issuing stronger sanctions now. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (enforcement)

Discussion of possible minor modification to ArbCom proposal

A discussion of the Arbcom Proposed Enforcement process, along with a suggested minor modification, is occurring at the GS/CC/RE talk page. It is hoped that some arbitrators will weigh in whether:

1. It is useful for the community to work out a precise process reflecting the ArbCom broad vision,
2. The proposed additional step to the ArbCom process would be viewed positively, negatively, or a detail to be worked out by the community.--SPhilbrickT 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion

Archived discussion links

• Chilling_effect...
• Limited scope
• Jehochman and Franamax (no comments)
• JohnWBarber's crusade against admins (no comments)

A listing of archived discussions (including those that got no comments) to ensure they are read along with the unarchived discussions. Others are listed in the relevant sections on this page. One thread is not listed as that is genuinely resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

General thrust of the decision

Off-topic thread moved here from general discussion page and header added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I presented extremely compelling evidence but much of it appears not to have factored into the Arbitration Committee's proposed decision. The problem we face is far greater than the three editors sanctioned or even the six editors that I've presented evidence against. Does anyone seriously believe that sanctioning a mere three editors will result in an editing environment based on mutual respect and cooperation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To deal fully with the editing behaviour in the topic area in question would take a much longer arbitration case. The general approach is to sanction the most egregious conduct, and let admins utilise discretionary sanctions to sort out the rest. That will only work, though, if clueful and uninvolved admins get involved (different meaning of involved there) following the close of the case. The lack of admins willing to get involved is a problem that does need to be addressed, but we can't force admins to work in this area. There is also a danger of ArbCom micromanaging an area. The ultimate aim is not to have ArbCom wading in periodically to apply sanctions, but for the editing environment to be normalised so that ArbCom is not needed. If that is not possible, then we may have to look at things again in a future case, but what is likely to happen then is that practically everyone gets topic banned for even the slightest indiscretion (including many of the current case participants), so before that happens we see if the people left after this case can manage to work together or not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had enough warnings. We need to make real progress towards a better editing environment.

A topic area probation, countless AN/Is and RS/Ns, multiple RfCs, and a case opened for Arbitration, and still we have at least six cases of heavy edit warring by upwards of thirty editors party to this case, of which only two are being sanctioned in Arbitration, Wikipedia's forum of last resort. One of those two editors, WMC, edits so ridiculously that he is either ignored or reverted with little to no fuss, and is viewed as a handicap even by those who believe his heart is in the right place. Wikipedia doesn't need help with WMC, it needs help with a group of climate change editors.

I see little progress made at this point and will not edit the climate change topic area until that changes. This process has so far been very disillusioning.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The point I made is covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, under the title Arbitration aims to "break the back" of the dispute. From that section: "[arbitrators] will want to get the case to the point that if it recurs it will be easier to address". FWIW, I agree that more findings and sanctions are needed, but it will take time to add them to the existing proposed decision, so the choice is between doing that now, over the next few months, or in a later case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While it may be helpful to remove WMC from the rather large faction causing the most trouble here, I don't think it will break the back of it... you need to name a few more names and hand out a few more topic bans. You all had a month to do what is needful, so spare us the "take up time" argument, please. If it took you a month to write that PD you all need serious help. If it took you a month of wrangling to water down a better PD to that one, WE all need serious help. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, have you ever written a proposed decision for an arbitration case? I thought the same as you until the dynamics of the process became clearer from experience. The most useful advice incoming arbs are given is this: when writing a proposed decision, drop everything else and concentrate on writing the decision. Some arbs are quicker and/or better at writing a decision than others, and real-life gets in the way as well, and sometimes new evidence has to be added. Meanwhile, the rest of the committee has other arbitration matters to deal with. Without exception, those participating in a case see their case as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ARBCOM HAVE TO DEAL WITH (tm). But it really is not. Regardless of the actual import of a case, the amount of pressure put on ArbCom to complete a case increases with the number of participants in the case and the volume of evidence and proposals submitted. There are some that recognise this, but some just never seem to get this. But enough of that. Back to the topic here: General thrust of the decision. If you could say again what your opinion is here, without the side-commentary, we might make some progress. i.e. my comment on the time it might take to expand the PD was meant to inform the subsequent discussion, not be an excuse to divert the discussion to one about how long we took to get this far. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First, no, since I'm not an arbitrator obviously I haven't written an en:wp arbitration decision. Was that a rhetorical question or were you confused on that point? However, I've some not inconsiderable experience elsewhere that suggests a good part of the problem is in how you go about getting to the decision, that is, your process. Second, oddly, at the time of Lar-SV I didn't think it (my case) was the most important case before ArbCom. There were other more important ones running, as I recall. But you all managed to drag a relatively simple case out for months anyway. Third, since you asked, here's my opinion, again, on the general thrust of this case. (Apologies to those who read it already.) [120]. I'm assuming that you didn't actually read it? ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you know I know you are not an arbitrator and I know you know that I wasn't an arbitrator at the time of the Lar-SV case, so let's get those two points out of the way first. And you also know I read what you said, so try and work with people here, instead of scoring debating points. The crux of what you said is: "you need to name a few more names and hand out a few more topic bans". That is a start, but go a bit further. Help us out here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. First a minor point: Answer the "is Lar, is StS" question explicitly. Nothing less will shut certain parties up. More importantly: In the principles you (collective you) acknowledge how damaging factional behavior is. THANK YOU! But, despite the evidence presented by many parties that factions exist and are active in this area, and who some of the principal factional participants are, you issue no finding that factions are active here, much less name names. (why articulate the principle if you don't use it? For grins? Because someone watered something down?) You can refer to workshop for details on who I think (or who others think) some of the key factional participants are in case it is in any way unclear. Given the lack of those findings, it's not surprising that you focus on a mere 3... 1 AGW factional editor and two skeptics, but you missed the mark there, it won't be enough to break the powerful AGW faction of their pernicious behavior (merely being right about the science is no excuse for their antics). You need to, as several others have advocated, name names, and sanction the names you name for their persistent factional behavior. Note particularly that this faction derides me (and anyone else) for even pointing out that a faction exists. Which is rather unhelpful, so you ought to point that out too. Is that enough of a hint or do you need more? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(@Lar): In some respects, this is the fruit of months and months of personality politics. About 80% of the evidence and workshop consisted of argumentation about the threat posed to Wikipedia by one William Connolley. A logical conclusion of this obsession with a single editor is the belief that sanctioning him will be sufficient to kickstart progress. ArbCom seems to have reached this conclusion. Put another way, you can't spend the past 8 months building William up into some sort of outsized nemesis, and then (having achieved the desired result) turn around and depict him as one small cog in a POV-pushing machine. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my workshop proposals tackled more faction members than just WMC. As did those of some others. But you may have a point... WMC is merely the biggest cog, not the only cog, in the AGW faction. As Heyitspeter ably explains, above. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Mastcell: It is not the case that "80% of the evidence and workshop consisted of argumentation about the threat posed to Wikipedia by one William Connolley." Refresh your memory? WMC is mentioned in several of the sections of evidence, and his username is occasionally employed to refer to a bloc of editors (viz. "WMC and his group"). That's the extent. I think this will be my second and last comment to this page. I only want to make clear that WMC is not viewed or framed as the principal threat to wikipedia by editors that have submitted evidence to this case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help finding all these throwaway references to "the AGW faction" rather amusing. Are we supposed to refer to editors who accept evolution as "the evolution faction" or those who accept that Obama is an American as "the Obama-is-an-American" faction? Since when have editors who accept an overwhelming-majority viewpoint in a field constituted a "faction"? This isn't a simple case of factionalism, like pro-Palestinians vs. pro-Israelis. On the one hand we have editors doing what encyclopedists should do by documenting overwhelming-majority viewpoints. On the other hand we have political activists who are waging a politically motivated war on science and expertise. You only have to look at the comments section of any media article on climate change to see that there's a roaming hate mob of anti-science activists. Their activities range from making disproved unscientific arguments to denouncing scientists as corrupt frauds to sending death threats and leaving dead animals on scientists' doorsteps. There is nothing remotely comparable on the pro-science side. That dynamic is what's fuelling the disputes on Wikipedia. The proposed decision alludes vaguely to real-world conflicts but it's disappointing that it doesn't acknowledge the fact that the disputes in this topic area are being driven by an off-wiki campaign against science. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very true that we see the use of rhetorical devices (which somebody better versed than I may know the names of) where small groups characterise the scientific and political establishment as a 'faction' (so with no more legitimacy than themselves), established facts as 'beliefs' (as in 'AGW believers'), scientific observations as 'theories', and make ad hominem attacks against key opponents of their campaign. The use of these tactics is well documented and should explicitly be noted in articles where it is relevant, but should not be allowed to alter the NPOV of the rest of the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - very well put. This is essentially the same approach as that taken by creationists but adopted on a much wider scale in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The "AGW faction" refers to those editors, you two (ChrisO and Nigelj) included, who engage in factional behavior in general, and who happen to agree with the mainstream scientific point of view. It does not include those editors, myself included, who do not engage in factional behavior, and who happen to agree with the mainstream point of view. You are trying to paint this as some grand crusade on your part on behalf of "science", and that is false. You do the topic a disservice with your tactics. Follow our policies, present the information in strict accordance with NPOV, let the reader decide for themself, and stop trying to use terror tactics to control the topic area, driving the majority of good editors away. A good place to start, among many, would be to stop pumping up alarmist bios and dumping on skeptic bios. Yes, I'm talking to you, ChrisO. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some very specific accusations in that comment, directed in part at me, personally and by name. For the record, I do not "engage in factional behavior in general"; I am not "trying to paint this as some grand crusade on [my] part on behalf of "science""; I do not feel that I "do the topic a disservice"; I do "[f]ollow our policies" and encourage others to do so too; I do not "use terror tactics to control the topic area" or for any other purpose; and I have seen no evidence that I have been "driving the majority of good editors away". I am not used to being spoken to like that in Wikipedia (or in real life) and am tempted to leave such a level of debate to those who enjoy it. I can see no benefit in having to defend myself against (or ignore) such unwarranted attacks after trying to contribute positively here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has a valid point on several levels. The term "faction" may well be viewed as pejorative. More importantly, a substantial portion (my guess is a large majority) of people identifying as skeptics agree that the earth is warmer than it was a century ago, and that mankind has contributed. So the "pro-AGW" aspect isn't accurate. Some have tried to use the term "scientific camp" or some variation, but this fails miserably, because there's use of science (and misuse of science ) and lack of science in all camps. I've seen the term "warmist" used, but it isn't intended to be positive. Perhaps we need better neutral terms.--SPhilbrickT 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Faction" is the term used in WP:BATTLE. I'm open to whatever descriptive term everyone agrees is accurate but I'm not open to not identifying, to ignoring, this factional behavior. It is the root of the problem in this topic area. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Sphilbrick on this, there's a complex range of views on the topic, and while editors may be influenced by simplistic reporting, we should be looking for positive ways of encouraging cooperation. Not trying to lump editors together as the "AGW faction", "the evolution faction" or "the Obama-is-an-American" faction, then making the unwarranted assumption that anyone agreeing with another editor is colluding in a great conspiracy. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. Someone give this man a gold star. (unless you prefer to be rewarded with virtual cookies?) Shell ^babelfish 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. (Though I suspect he'd prefer a wee dram.) Getting back to the point of this exercise, should there not be a principle or finding on these lines? Right now the PD does exactly the opposite with its statement about "blocs of editors," implicitly endorsing the accusations of conspiracy (or factionalism, or whatever it is). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as we would like editors not to create a battleground mentality, I think it would be rather short-sighted to pretend that it didn't happen - that finding is fairly specific about this having been problematic. The next finding, about Wikipedia not being a battleground covers the other bit of "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view". Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Shell, you're misrepresenting the draft and misrepresenting what critics of the AGW faction are saying when they call it the AGW faction. Lar has very explicitly stated that the objectionable element is not the viewpoint on the outside-Wikipedia issue (which he shares and which I share) but the behavior. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy that that behavior is frowned on, and here we are in a proper dispute-resolution forum. And there is the criticism of factional behavior right in the draft. That same principle [121] in the draft zeroes in on just the distinction that Lar made (and that I've made in the past): in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. That principle then states that mere sharing of an opinion is not faction behavior, the point you make, and then adds At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. Those pillars include NPOV and interacting well with others, two fundamental elements of this case. So when editors here object to the idea that they've formed a faction contrary to Wikipedia policy, they're simply defending themselves on a point that's a part of this case. To call it WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to bring up an accusation that others are contravening WP:BATTLEGROUND kind of defeats the purpose of having that behavior policy: It can't be an effective policy if it can't be brought up. The question is whether, aside from simple agreement on an issue, editors have worked together in ways that obstructed the good order and good purposes of the encyclopedia. Personal attacks, edit warring and NPOV violations are not matters of science but behavior, and all of these things were done in groups that stayed cohesive over time, not just individually, contrary to WP:NOTFACTIONS policy. Now can we please put to bed this idea that all we have here is an ideological dispute and it's rude to say that there's a faction here. This is the place where we are meant to bring up this kind of question. If you want to say that the evidence doesn't convince you, fine. But don't say it's wrong to bring it up unless you're prepared to say the evidence is not even reasonable. But then your dispute will be with the writers of the draft. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things. Which brings up a question: if the committee means to say "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view" would it be too much for the PD to actually state "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view"? I don't see anything in the "battleground" finding (principle) that even remotely implies such a principle. It's just a broad reference to off-wiki conflicts, which each editor is going to interpret in their own way (e.g., it refers to personal tiffs or whatever). I'm also going to gently suggest that this exemplifies a larger problem with the PD, and indeed with the proceedings overall: the committee knows what they mean, but doesn't always state things in clear and direct terms so participants are left trying to make their own inferences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said in the discussion above. One of the major "attack modes" in CC talk page discussions, at least in the limited time I've observed, has been the constant use of labels to identify people on the other side of debates. For a while it was "cabal." That fell out of favor within the past month or two, and was succeeded by "faction." The committee's repudiation of such labeling is reassuring, but its failure to explicitly censure editors using such labels to promote a battleground mentality is one of the shortcomings of the PD. The game seems to be, if you don't like what somebody says, you say "this is so typical of your faction." It's part of the background noise of incivility that, I'm afraid, this PD has failed to address. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled as to why acknowledging the elephant in the room is a Bad Thing®. It seems to me that the elephant is the issue, not the acknowledgment of the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is a considerable number of scientifically literate editors who, agreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus, also tend to agree with one another's edits, does not make it appropriate to say there is a cabal. Rather, the claim that there is such a cabal, based on such flimsy evidence, suggests a different kind of problem: namely a battleground mentality founded upon scientific illiteracy or contrarianism. Such a phenomenon has been noted in the outside world for some time. On Wikipedia, I and others have used the term "anti-science" to describe the general point of view, though perhaps that's a little uncharitable.

Of course I acknowledge that the response to anti-science pov-pushing has often been heavy-handed. Nevertheless this pov-pushing exists and is a problem for Wikipedia, and it has visibly worsened over the past eight months or so. --TS 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway: Both sides are guilty of the behavior that you're complaining about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there has been bad behavior that is not limited to the scientifically illiterate or contrarian editors. The underlying problem, however, is failure of strong admin action in response to anti-science pov-pushing. We need to get admins back confidently identifying the more egregious pov-pushers and neutralize them using warnings, advice and if necessary sanctions and blocks. --TS 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway: That's a rather bizarre take on the situation. Apart from Marknutley, I believe that most of the skeptical editors have already been banned or blocked months ago. The biggest problem now is the remaining faction. But I do agree that we need strong admin action against the remaining activist editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about skeptics. There is an ongoing problem of people attempting to push unsourced and poorly sourced factual claims into articles on global warming. Compare, for instance, the material that some editors managed to insert into the article on the CRU hacking, to the version that has emerged in the wake of the investigations. The wiser editors awaited the results, but damage was done to the credibility of the encyclopedia in the meantime by the continued attempts to insert wild claims of scientific fraud into the article. Some of those attempts were successful for a time. This wasn't entirely our fault ("we" being here the collective editors of Wikipedia) because the press reporting was in a terrible mess. But that isn't really an excuse. We're supposed to carefully examine and evaluate sources for reliability, and we often failed in that during the period of "climategate" hysteria. --TS 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway: Again, for the most part, that issue was taken care of around January. Since then, the main problem with our Climategate has been the 'pro-AGW viewpoint' faction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@TS and AQFK - all sides will point away from themselves when assessing the bulk of the blame. I suspect this is true, not just here, not just for every edit-war on WP, but real-world conflicts as well. I don't see how asserting it one more time advances the debate. For that matter, I struggling to figure out what exactly are we supposed to be debating. I thought we were supposed to be reacting to the PD, and offering concrete steps to remedy short-comings, yet I feel we are simply devolving into a reprise of the same ol' arguments. What, exactly, are we supposed to be doing? This feels quite unstructured.

Well the point is that climate science is very controversial to those who don't examine the science. As an encyclopedia we have a duty to reflect the reliable sources, which happen (as is usual in such circumstances) to be a huge consensus of scientists. --TS 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been arguing since November. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing of BLPs

One observation I wanted to make here is that one of main problems I've observed with the editing of biographies of living people (BLPs), though it applies to other articles as well, is that people too often edit such articles piecemeal. Some new bit of information comes up, or someone thinks some bit of information would be good to put in or take out of a BLP (for whatever reason), and the article bloats in one particular area, and not enough thought is given to the overall state of the article. Rather than edit parts of the article, or argue over a sentence here or a paragraph there, the aim when editing BLPs (or any articles containing BLP material) should be to (before hitting save) to put the small-scale considerations to one side, and to step back and consider the article as a whole. Whenever you edit a BLP and hit save, it is not the state of the bit of the article that you edited that should be of greatest concern, but the overall state of the article. If there is imbalance, distortion, irrelevance, or incorrect tone, then by saving the article without correcting that, you are contributing to the problem. Probably the best state of mind in which to edit a BLP is a slightly disinterested state, but still thinking "if I was this person, would I be happy with the overall state of this article?". If, on the other hand, you are editing a BLP and thinking "how can I get this bit of information I just found in a news story to fit in the article", or "how can I get this snippet of information from this book or journal paper to fit in the article", or "how can I get this vital bit of climate change information into this article", and you do so without looking at the rest of the article or even trying to expand the rest of the article, and you then walk away from the article having successfully added the snippet of information you wanted to add, then you probably shouldn't be editing that BLP (by failing to consider overall balance, you may be distorting the article or even pushing a point of view). In other words, those heavily editing a topic area can lose perspective on BLPs within that topic area, and it helps to ask others (who may have a more objective viewpoint) to assess whether the balance, tone and comprehensiveness of the BLP is as good as it could be. This concern is one reason why I support the current emphasis on BLPs in the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the concern about BLPs is understated. My personal opinion, oft-stated, is that we should be more zealous about being fair on BLPs of people we despise than of BLPs of people we admire. All too often, the game is played of adding trivial nastiness to BLPs to demean the person - if we err, let if be on the side of presenting the person as dispassionately as humanly possible. Collect (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we err, let it be to amplify the good and diminish the bad - nobody complains about being made better than is the case, and when RS provides correction then there is no recourse to the subject for demanding retraction or apology. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But but but that would mean admiting that one's opponents are not ogres! How can this be?!? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: I believe that problem is worse that you describe. In my brief experience within this topic space, very few editors seem to be genuinely interested in writing a real biography. Instead, BLPs are being used as coat racks to re-argue the case for/against AGW or are being used to score points for/against their ideological opponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is infinitely worse than Carcharoth describes because Carcharoth is approaching this from the assumption that everyone editing a BLP has an interest in it being a good and fair BLP article or that the BLP editors actually want the article to be objective or well-written or balanced. That is far from the truth. And on this score, it is the consensus bloc that is so highly disruptive -- including whatever smears, no matter how poorly sourced, in BLP's of skeptics and adamently refusing to include impeccably sourced, even slightly negative information in BLP articles about consensus supporters. It is quite deliberate and agenda-driven, so comments about how to write a better BLP are not helpful in this context. Compare Christopher Monckton and Michael Mann. Minor4th 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that everyone editing a BLP has an interest in it being a good and fair BLP article, but I'm describing how things should be. I should also point out that those looking through a BLP editing history to find evidence to use can also lose perspective on what the correct editing approach should be. They may strive to find BLP violations where none exist, or miss BLP violations because they are made by an editor whose edits they don't check. There is a way to demonstrate commitment to the principles of BLP editing, and that is to assemble a good set of sources and edit the whole article, rather than just part of it. Or if not able to do that immediately, to at least commit to doing that at some future point. Currently, the approach in this proposed decision is to topic ban from BLPs in the topic area those who have demonstrated poor BLP editing, and that will be a sanction we would expect to be used under discretionary sanctions as well. But is there a need to go further? To require that those editing BLPs in this topic area have demonstrated competence to edit BLPs? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to go further. ChrisO edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during this very ArbCom case. ChrisO's misconduct is not that drastically different than MN's or WMC's. Why is he not being sanctioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AQFN, you yourself have referred to scientists as "criminals" in the absence or any trial or even formal charges. Glass houses and all that. But the larger issue is that this is endemic to the project, and the GW/CC BLPs comprise only one small corner. What we really need to do is to delete all marginally notable BLPs, wholesale, mercilessly and without let or hindrance, and to have a much higher standard of notability (including default-to-delete). Putting band-aids on specific topic areas, while well-intended and of some immediate benefit, also gives us an excuse to put off real system-wide solutions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SBHB: If your argument is that two wrongs make a right, then it is an epic fail. First, for the obvious reasons. Second, I've never edit-warred to include BLP violations in any BLP. If you have a diff to prove otherwise, please post it. Your forthcoming inability to provide these diffs will speak volumes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this bluntly: when you and Minor4th claim that I "edit warred to include BLP violations", the two of you are lying. I've explained above that I removed unequivocal BLP violations by Marknutley, which strangely enough you don't seem to have any concerns about, and I did not at any stage use any self-published material as sources. As for your "evidence", this would be the same "evidence" that you omitted to notify me about as required by policy - or even notify me about the case - until after the evidence phase had closed, by which time I couldn't respond to it? That was a nice bit of tactical backstabbing right there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, you edit-warred to include an obscure professor's unpublished presentation in Christopher Monckton, a presentation that openly questioned his intelligence, honesty, and motives. Come on, now, quit rewriting history. ATren (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC yet again) @AQFN: Read what I said. I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right, but that painting the BLP problem (and it is a problem) as a one-sided issue is incorrect. All have sinned and fallen short. Let's work together to fix the problem instead of using it as one more way to score points against the other side. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Really?! Are you seriously accusing me of lying? Marknutley edit-warred to remove BLP violations from a BLP. You edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP. What you did was far worse than Marknutley. BTW, contrary to your claim, I have presented evidence against Marknutley. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB, The point is, ChrisO's BLP abuse of Monckton alone is as bad as anything Marknutley did, and he's been very active on other BLPs during this case when others stepped back. Not only that, MN was the one who revealed the Monckton mess, and he's been active in raising red flags in other skeptic BLPs. So in my view, he's at worst a mirror-image of ChrisO, and if MN is banned ChrisO should be too. Get rid of all the partisan editors who lack good editorial judgement in this area. I would gladly include myself in that if all the major partisan players (particularly the BLP abusers) were banned with me. ATren (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since I take BLP issues very seriously, when I noticed slow edit warring to keep reintroducing detailed accusations into a bio I checked the sources and found that unsourced information was being added, in the form of statements that misrepresented the sources. Rather than delete the paragraph and continue the edit war, I carefully rewrote the paragraph on the basis of the cited sources,[122] and described my reasoning on the article talk page.[123] My edit was largely undone by Minor4th,[124] with an incorrect claim in the edit summary "remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; ..." – the quotes and description of Cuccinelli came from the cited source.[125] Rather than continue editing the article, I let others argue for improvements, and later added a description of the issues to the BLP noticeboard.[126] A similar though more subtle issue arose on another BLP, where a columnist's comments on environmental issues have been portrayed in a questionable source as being "a shocking proposal to save the earth from climate change". In this instance I added my analysis to an existing BLP discussion where a version of the inclusion was being defended by A Quest For Knowledge,[127] but did not edit the article. While AQFK was rightly objecting to worse information being added to the bio, in my view this still seemed to be coatracking climate change into a bio with, in my view, inadequate sourcing. I've now amended the bio entry.[128] . . dave souza, talk 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dave souza -- I just want to clarify something here because I take BLP issues very seriously too and you mentioned my edit. My edit summary was (→Virginia Attorney General investigation: remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; remove "several", attribute properly; clarify data inquiry in the fraud investigation) -- I think the only part of your edit that was changed was the quotes you attributed to "an interview" without citing the interview. The Diane Francis issue is very strange -- this is a view that she has written a column about and given interviews about with Fox News -- it is a notable view of hers and sourced with her own words. I can't see how that is coatracking.Minor4th 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit restored a statement that "Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann" – that's not supported by the source, which provides the quotes concerned, and fully supports the version you changed from. You reintroduced a statement by Mann taken out of context in a misleading way, and paraphrased a statement by Cuccinelli's spokesman in a way that changed its meaning, to the detriment of the subject of the bio. The current version of that section is much improved, though there's now an over-emphasis on this current news story in the lead of the bio – a ruling is expected in a week.[129] The Diane Francis issue is clear – she noted climate change talks, and said that more pressing environmental issues were arising from overpopulation which could be tackled by draconian population control. Fox News spun that as her promoting population control to deal with global warming, and AQFK removed another slur, but still presented it as spun by Fox, coatracking it as a global warming issue. More care in reading sources is required. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there's an essay in here somewhere - say, Wikipedia:PIECEMEAL - that goes to the point that any individual contribution, however salient, must not be allowed to degrade the overall quality of the article. Anyone else agree? Ronnotel (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I confess that my immediate reaction is that it will turn into a club for other than its intended purpose. Suppose you add something that doesn't promote another editor's POV. They can revert it is if it an attack, but it isn't. They can revert it if it is unsourced, but it isn't. They can attack the sourcing if the sourcing is sketchy, but the sourcing is impeccable. WP:PIECEMEAL gives them a new tool to (mis)use. "Oh yes, I agree your addition is well-sourced, and it is salient, but in my judgment, it degrades the overall quality of the article, so sorry, it has to be removed, per policy." No doubt the removal will be challenged, but we are back to an edit war, except there is one more arrow in the quiver of those who want to maintain a particular POV.--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's immediate dislike WP:An article is the sum of its parts. Please improve. Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes balance is very very important in all articles but particularly in BLPs. The simple claim "this article is just a stub so anything I add should be welcome as long as it is sourced" is poor. Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Scorched earth approach

This section was originally titled 'SirFozzie's Statement' and was moved here under a new header. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Overall effect of the proposed remedies

SirFozzie describes what I've often called Kindergarten like behavior. The problem I have with his proposals is that instead of fixing this and turning this place back into the University it should be, he proposes to solve the problems by actually accepting that this is indeed Kindergarten which then needs to be managed by rules appropriate for Kindergarten. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse SirFozzie's statement 100%, including his banning of everyone who has edit-warred, which no doubt includes me. This idea of wide scale banning has been thrown around (AQFK has been a big proponent of it) and after seeing what's been going on since the case started, I think it's absolutely necessary. But the important thing is to keep the policy in place, so if new users arrive with the same battleground mentality, they get banned as well. Otherwise this will likely start up again in a few months. ATren (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish there were a solution other than this that would work, but in all the virtual trees we've killed discussing this problem we have not found one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have proposed a remedy along the lines of what SirFozzie proposes, but which takes it even further: any participation whatsoever in this topic area over the last two years earns a ban, broadly construed. This will remove all judgement from the equation. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. ATren (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also proposed remedies that actually tackle the real problems. Under my proposals, we could unblock GoRight, there would be no need to impose any topic bans a priori to anyone as is proposed by ArbCom now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with SirFozzie's statement. His criterion for issuing topic bans would be practical and appropriate, and I believe the approach would be effective. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, all those who have expressed support for SirFozzie's proposal, and who agree that they themselves have edit warred a bit in the topic area, don't have to wait for the final decision. All they have to do is stop editing in the topic area now, for good. --TS 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

quite true. Though many of the worst edit warring offenders feel that they are on the side of righteousness and therefore it's not edit warring. But we live in hope. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but improving the area by voluntary stand-off can work one editor at a time, too. I figured out a while ago that, since I have pretty mainstream views on matters of science, I have little or no incentive to perform edits for myself, and everything to gain from simply remarking on problem areas on talk pages. The problems are invariably fixed almost as soon as I point them out. The discretionary sanctions should take care of problem editors. --TS 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have stopped. But it hasn't solved the problems -- BLPs are still being abused. So it has to be everyone involved that is banned, or the problems will persist. ATren (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem of group psychology. There has to be a willingness on the part of good faith editors to disengage from article editing. Those who aren't prepared to do so, and continue to cause problems, will tend to stand out and can be excluded by an involuntary topic ban. --TS 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And in the meantime what happens to the articles, Tony? It seems to me that you are relying on others to make the edits you would like, and then leaving them to take the flak. NPOV and BLP compliance doesn't happen by magic; someone actively has to work on it to make it happen, and to stop abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd rely on other good faith editors to perform the edits. These would be editors who know the science but haven't been involved up to now. The neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, verifiability, etc are all quite well known policies and can be applied just as well by somebody else as by me. --TS 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to voice my agreement here - there are such editors out there. Many of them are scared off at present by the hostility in the climate change area - the graveyard of good faith. I don't believe there would be any shortage of fresh blood if the atmosphere was changed. Thparkth (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is contradictory, I'm afraid. On the one hand you say that you'd rely on good faith editors. On the other hand, you say that good faith editors should withdraw. Is that not simply another way of saying that articles should be abandoned to the depredations of bad faith editors? - letting the bad drive out the good? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be diplomatic. Those editors (and administrators) who in good faith want the editing environment to improve should, I propose, recognise that it's time to hand over to a new team. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Invite previously uninvolved good faith editors, since those involved up to now (whether "good faith editors" or "bad faith editors") have demonstrated an inability to foster an atmosphere of collegial editing. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have it exactly. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also want to say that it's a good time to bow out. Our global warming articles are widely recognised as some of our best science coverage. There's a lot to be proud of. --TS 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Isn't that quality due to the work of the existing editors? And how long do you think the articles would stay that way if they quit en masse? Good articles are good because people have worked hard to get them to that state in the face of relentless opposition and provocations. The editing environment has not simply been poisoned by existing editors failing to work together - it's been poisoned by the external situation, where we have bloggers and columnists ranting about conspiracies and directing people to Wikipedia to "put the record straight". Nothing we do here is going to change that. The driver for the dispute is not editorial relationships on Wikipedia, it's the external environment. Any new editors who enter this topic area are going to face exactly the same pressures and adversarial relationships as the current editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then having new editors will reproduce the old situation, with the exception that we'll be ready for it this time with the discretionary sanctions. And if that doesn't work, you'll be able to say "I told you so." --TS 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that, Tony, so I didn't bother adding it myself... Seriously, I'd like to second Chris here. One potted history of why we're here is that a lot of people got overexcited by what they called 'Climategate', thought that global warming was dead and descended on Wikipedia to bury it. Then they got stroppy when they found that a tireless group of scientific literates weren't happy with that reading of the reported facts, and so they wanted something done about it (e.g. disable WMC, GS/CC/RE etc). Tempers flared, and patience wore thin, among the scientific experts too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic argument about the evidence for climate change and bias in the world outside Wikipedia

People have collective amnesia and very short memories. "Climategate" and the actions and behavior of the editors involved is not new and these attacks on science have been going on since the 1980s. It is a large part of what is called the The Republican War on Science and it involves the same people and players. (NASA 2009) Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for these special interests. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's been going on for decades, especially in the US. It's only recently people have been able to 'join the dots', Oreskes says. 'Climategate' was just a recent moment when it went global or viral or whatever the right internet word is. I do think it's no coincidence that we're here at ArbCom nine months later, when there is no more juice to be had from sucking on the Climategate pips, now that the reviews are in, though. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)\ Do you guys have any idea how strong your POV comes across in these comments? I find it amazing that you don't even recognize how biased you all are. If editors expressed the same kinds of sentiments for the "other side" you'd be up in arms. It is editors like you who are turning Wikipedia into Conservapedia's mirror image. ATren (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC) What was said was neither POV nor bias, but an historical fact supported by reliable sources whose accuracy is not in dispute by any recognized authority. Reality is not a liberal bias. I recommend you check the two sources that were raised. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Historical fact? The book you cited is written by a contributor to The American Prospect, which is described as "American political magazine dedicated to liberalism." Now consider if someone promoted something written by an AEI fellow and claimed it was "historical fact" -- are you honestly saying you wouldn't consider that editor blinded by his own POV? You're insistence that such material is unquestioned fact actually proves my point. ATren (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC) You appear to be confused. I was neither citing the book nor it's conclusions. If you had bothered to read my comments, you would have noticed I was citing a NASA report published by the U.S. government which mentioned the book and the history of opposition to and attacks upon climate science. Your response indicates you are reacting instead of analyzing. The historical facts are not in dispute by anyone. This is a part of the historical record and is documented by massive amounts of data, transcripts, news reports, studies, and books. Reality is not a liberal bias. I suggest you read the NASA source before blindly replying again. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) A NASA report? It seems to be authored by NASA's "Chief Historian." I wonder if his duties are related to outreach to the Muslim community(NASA is so cosmopolitan these days)? Perhaps he knows NASA's James Hansen, who is in charge of the surface temperature data? Hansen, of course, has been arrested for protesting at a coal plant and thinks executives of fossil fuel companies should be charged for "high crimes against humanity and nature" for spreading doubt about global warming. Sorry, but planting the "NASA" logo on something doesn't give it automatic credibility - and yes yes, we've all heard the "reality doesn't have a liberal bias" line before, I used to enjoy the Daily Show myself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Republican and conservative groups have been targeting and attacking climate science for three decades. This is a historical fact and evidence supporting it has never been challenged. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Three decades? Yep, that's almost about when the CIA released their report warning about climate change (I can throw out government initials too) - I bet "conservative and republican groups" were attacking the CIA for their report warning about global cooling then too.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) All you and ATren can offer are distractions and red herrings because there is nothing to dispute. The war against climate science and climate scientists is so well documented that one would have to deny history itself to ignore it. To remind you yet again, the source is found here. By your own inability to address it, or to point out any flaws in it, you have all but admitted that I am correct. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Ah is that what you call healthy skepticism? I was taught not to swallow hook, line and sinker everything I read - especially the things I want to believe. You are welcome to think there is a "great war against science" if you like - even if this relies on your belief that government agencies aren't politically motivated and directed entities (I guess NASA's Muslim outreach mission must be non-political). I'm sure you can find several individuals publishing similar thoughts, just like I could find books claiming all sorts of ridiculous things. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC) There are a great number of footnotes, studies, papers, reports, transcripts, and scholarly books on the subject and the NASA source is described by the GPO as a scholarly source. There is no dispute here, and since you can't directly address the evidence, I will assume that any further reply from you on this topic is another form of distraction. That there is a "war against climate science" is not a subject of debate. It is fully substantiated by more than enough evidence and is part of the historical record. The source I offered you gives you more than enough pointers on the subject. Educate yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, I read the section and wasn't impressed. Many of his assertions were uncited, what he did cite was often not relevant and it was clear that his conclusions had already come first and that all he was doing is putting a few "diffs" together to justify his pre-determined belief. And no, I'm obviously not going to debate the tiny points with you, if you want to claim victory on this basis in your mind then I'm certainly not going to stop you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC) It's not a section, it's a series of three pages from pp. 281-284. All of the major claims are fastidiously sourced, so I don't believe you when you say that "many of his assertions were uncited". That is demonstrably false as the footnotes show. You really need to actually read the material in question and directly respond to it. I don't think you can, because there's not a single thing about the historical record you can actually dispute, but I'm sure you'll keep returning here to waste my time. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC) The NASA book you cite is actually a conference proceedings, and the essay you present as absolute historical fact is written by Erik M. Conway, who has also authored a book (with Naomi Oreskes) called "Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt". His "fastidious sourcing" includes George Soros and Paul Krugman. Your continued insistence that this is "the truth" simply amplifies my original point that you (and others) are blinded by your own POV on these topics. ATren (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Your only response appears to attack the messenger, while ignoring the message. We are discussing the message, namely the "war against climate change" that has been going on now for thirty years and is well documented. What part of it do you dispute? Please point to specific instances and particular sources. You can't, because it's all part of the historical record, and is beyond dispute. All you can do is attack the authors. How sad. Again, point to specific examples in this "war" that you dispute, or remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC) You're missing the point entirely! I'm not disputing Conway's opinions, nor am I saying they don't contain elements of truth. All I'm saying is he is a partisan source and his opinions should be treated as such. You are treating this essay from a partisan source to assert as fact that "Republicans are anti-science". This is no different than someone claiming, as unquestioned fact, that environmentalists are "waging war on our way of life" based on the opinion of a conservative columnist. Do you not recognize this? ATren (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) You are the one missing the point. What "opinion" should be treated as partisan? You can't point to one, because the source is talking about documented, historical facts supported by non-partisan sources. So, again point to an opinion we should treat as partisan. Are you denying that there has been a campaign by conservatives and Republicans since the 1980s targeting climate science and climate scientists? Then you'll have to directly refute the evidence in the source. Do so. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC) The main problem here is that you haven't made any argument Viriditas. You've pointed to an essay, declared it historical fact and then asserted victory when we didn't go through the essay and refute your unstated points. If there are any key facts, not assertions for your claim then present them instead of complaining that Atren and I aren't addressing the specific points that you have never made. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm more flabbergasted that they keep referring to a study that used a "Real Climate" founder to evaluate wikipedia's coverage of the climate change articles and act like that is really an independent and unbiased review. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nigel, I did notice the "Climategate" nonsense. That was a situation where, for me, complete disengagement from editing worked. I waited for the reports to come out, and as it was obvious what they would say it only required a bit of patience on my part. In Spring I looked at the article a few times and made a few talk page edits. Some problems that had crept in were fixed by the editing fairies. Why? I'm not an especially persuasive writer, I'm incredibly arrogant and I don't care much about detail. But my proposal were based firmly in policy and so they were implemented with barely a murmur. --TS 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Tony, I'm all for wait-and-see and a light touch as well as using talk pages sparingly to promote a healthy respect for policies or for drawing attention to significant publications. What I'm not sure about is the voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of all those who understand the matter, who can lay their finger on just the right paper or academic quote, who know the chief authors and their arguments backwards and forwards, and who keep these articles sane. It's easy enough to reproduce some intelligent-sounding snippet from a conspiracy-theory blog or right-wing editorial, but it can be much harder to show exactly how and where each of such factoids contradicts the published science. If this decision were to take out all current editors, those who know very little about climate science would be easily replaced, but the real experts would take some matching, as the PD recognises with "William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians". --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are speaking from the assumption that getting rid of knowledgeable editors would a bad thing. This would require debate to achieve consensus, as some have explicitly stated otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that there are different, conflicting, dynamics operating here. On the one hand, you have science-literate editors working away steadily over a long period, not being driven by external factors. They're the ones who've got our CC articles up to their present, overall very good state. On the other hand you have politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors - whether the "Climategate" nonsense, or the false accusations against Rajendra Pachauri, or some new publication that they naively think disproves the whole of climate science. They turn up in swarms with a rabidly oppositional attitude, denouncing mainstream science and scientists as "fraudulent" or "criminals". You can see exactly this kind of thing in the comments section of any newspaper article on climate science. The entire approach of such editors is completely antithetical to Wikipedia's basic principles. That is what is driving the conflict here. Now, maybe discretionary sanctions will help with that, but the only reason right now that articles are not turning into Conservapedia-style travesties is because good editors are working hard to uphold policy. The sanctions will not change the dynamic of oppositional politically activist newcomers versus established science-literate editors; it's that dynamic that underlies the conflict here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, when you and your ilk fought -- fought -- to deny any mention that the CRU unit administrators faced possible legal liability for violating the UK's FOI law, something impeccably sourced, something supported by independent observers at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, you weren't supporting science, you were supporting a political grouping. No more, no less. Your fighting was partisan in the extreme. It was WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by a group. It was POV from top to bottom. You have no excuse for it. You should stop hiding behind the curtain of "Science" and start admitting your partisanship. Now. I'll slap the links here in a minute. They completely demolish your posturing. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, well, just follow the links. Just follow the links. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ONE: (the passage you and your faction couldn't stand being in the article)[130] TWO: (must be read to be believed) [131]THREE: (ChrisO's request at RS/N demolished)[132] I believe this is already in evidence, I'm not bringing up anything new. Had the Workshop page not been closed, I'd have been discussing it there. Well, here you are: ChrisO can't claim to be merely an Acolyte of Science And Reason. His behavior was partisan and it is impossible to say he was attempting to make the page impartial. You don't get there by denying that emails declaring "Let's conspire to keep documents from becoming public" were not even indicative of potential FOI law violations. It was, by the way, one thing that came out of the sympathetic investigations: FOI law was, in fact, violated, although the CRU emailers were themselves not blamed for it. I think all of these links are on the the evidence page in my section on KimDPetersen, ChrisO's close ally in their faction's blocking of NPOV coverage of that. Reading ChrisO's holier-than-thou pontificating in light of that episode is really just too much. And don't anybody tell me I'm arguing a content issue: I'm arguing a freaking WP:BATTLEGROUND issue to which ArbCom has not given adequate attention. (ec with below)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) And here's another from the same archive page. I meant to link to this one earlier. [133] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. I do think you're exaggerating but let's see what you have to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors Oh. How. True. Anyone who goes through my links should reread ChrisO's comment that I just responded to above. The Science Halo will never look quite as shiny again. I think it's a great illustration of just what's been going on in CC article and GSCC pages for months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, JWB, the hypocrisy of some editors here is astounding. ATren (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We should have recognised (some of us did) that the information commission officer had spoken out of turn. In the end he was reprimanded for it. Insofar as we carried the erroneous reports (the emphasis was erroneous) we failed. We failed even though many of us knew that the newspaper reports were nonsense. That's the downside of my disengagement. I didn't monitor the talk page much. --TS 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The episode illustrates why WP:RECENTISM is such a valuable essay to bear in mind when writing an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another point of order here. Carrying erroneous reports is done all the time in Wikipedia. The key is correcting things when it is reliably known that such reports are erroneous. It is important to distinguish between: (1) suggesting that Wikipedia remain silent or non-committal on an issue until the full facts are known or conclusions and reports are published (that is acceptable); and (2) engaging in original research and using investigative journalism techniques, or synthesis of disparate sources, to conclude that a source is wrong (that is almost always not acceptable). In most cases, Wikipedia editors should remember that it is not their job to get ahead of the story, but rather to decide what it is possible to report about the current state of the story using the best and most reliable sources. In that sense, carrying an report (later found to be erroneous) from a reliable source is not a failing on Wikipedia's part, but a failing on the part of the supposedly reliable source. Wikipedia editors can only be expected to go so far in assessing the content of certain types of sources (particularly the ones where you don't know the primary sources used). This can be contrasted with assessing the reliability of a source. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to pass judgment on whether a source is correct or not. Other sources do that for us. Note the difference here between assessing reliability and correctness (two subtly different, though related, matters). Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. This is of course not an issue that's confined to this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All that matters here is that because of extreme partisanship, Wikipedia could not say that there "may" be "liability" for an FOIA violation, despite the air-tight reliability of the sourcing. It is that simple now. It was that simple then. The fact of potential liability was never shown to be wrong until authorities simply made it obsolete by ruling that the emailers were not the ones at fault. That couldn't be known until the authorities ruled. And until they ruled, the fact of potential liability on FOIA was a very important part of the subject of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This Wikipedia episode illustrates successful partisanship by ChrisO and ChrisO's faction. Period. Point proven. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, and I don't have a "faction". Accusations of serious wrongdoings are always problematic to deal with. The difficulty here is one of perceptions of where to draw the line - some editors favour taking a conservative, wait-and-see approach to issues that may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, others want to rush in and document the latest media sensation in detail. WP:RECENTISM was written with the latter type of editor in mind. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Problematic to say FOIA may have been violated: If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) LINK for anyone who wants to make sure of the accuracy of the quote: [134] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for weighing in. I'm pretty serious about the potential benefits of withdrawal from editing but at the same I don't think SirFozzie's proposal is a runner. I think the main thrust of the arbitration should and probably will be a very strong, uncompromisingly stated, discretionary sanctions regime.

I also think that the arbitrators should probably look closely at the conduct of administrators, particularly those who may be technically uninvolved, don't take any admin actions in the area, but have nevertheless dominated the probation to the extent that it has been transformed from a discretionary regime to one that cannot operate without their support. I think this is a case where such administrators might benefit from counselling about appropriate behavior. Harm can drip from a honeyed tongue. --TS 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not a party to the case I've been following its latter stages with interest. As far as I can see, the main effect of the PD will be to replace the failed probation regime by remanding enforcement to WP:AE, which will bring in many more uninvolved admins. In fact, I'd suggest that all the admins involved in the probation regime should voluntarily desist from participation on WP:AE threads concerning climate change - let's make a fresh start and get fresh faces in, without all the disputes and baggage of the probation regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent suggestion. New editors, new admins. But of course the whole idea of discretionary sanctions is that they're discretionary. You don't have to participate in a WP:AE thread to cast a sanction. A certain amount of disengagement would be seemly, I think. --TS 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, there is a point of order that needs to be made here. You say that you are "not a party to the case". This case does not have a list of parties (see the note that Newyorkbrad posted at the start of the case). Rather, any such lists are an informal and incomplete list of those participating in the case (the list is used for notification purposes). Anyone (whether participating in the case or not) for whom evidence is posted and/or for whom a finding is posted by an arbitrator (either now or later) may end up being sanctioned. The only condition is that the editor(s) involved be notified of that finding to be allowed to present a defence. I'll quote in full what was said at the start of the case:

"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."

I'm emphasising this because it is quite possible that more editors will have findings added about them, so people should avoid saying things like "I am not a party to the case", because that is meaningless in this particular arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not notified of the case at any point, nor was I even aware of its existence until after the evidence page had closed. Hence my limited involvement in these discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You are mentioned a fair number of times on the evidence page. You should have been notified by a clerk. I've asked the clerks as a matter of urgency to make sure that all those mentioned on the evidence page that were not on their notification list are notified. And to also carry out any notifications needed. 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was mentioned on the evidence page but those mentioning me saw fit not to tell to me - which of course meant that I wasn't able to post any response, which I'm sure was quite intentional. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC on steroids) @Carcharoth: The practice of not naming parties and simply handing down findings/sanctions is a little unsettling (though of course the identity of at least one party at risk was obvious). Recognizing that arbcom is not a law court and so on, we might take into account that the western cultural tradition that largely guides Wikipedia's functioning has tended to deprecate the imposition of findings and sanctions without prior notice, using proceedings that are "held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why such notifications are carried out (unless those for whom sanctions are proposed are already aware of the case). All those named in the proposed decision have posted to this talk page since the proposed decision was posted. If (as several people have requested) more findings are added, then any new editors named in those findings will be notified (as both Brad and I said). Given that, I don't see the problem here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Informing people after the fact doesn't quite address the concern I raised, but I won't argue it further. Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether Fozzie's proposal would work, but the evidence of this talk thread is that the arguments might just keep on going, on other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we're not yet calling one another names. This is a good sign. --TS 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When cancer has metastasized it is too late for the scalpel. I doubt there is the stomach for multiple surgeries and it is likely that such actions would miss some of the infection. It may indeed be time for the chemo and the rads - healthy tissue is going to get hurt either way, but at least the latter options have a better chance at success. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is well meant, but it disenfranchises those good editors who have taken part in efforts to reverse some of the more extreme edits to be found in CC subject edit histories - and especially those who have access to excellent sources because of their standing within the field of science. [redacted for readibility - see edit history for the full post] The problem [R4R] is that the scientific consensus is only one viewpoint and the viewpoints of the denialist/skeptic [R4R] are many and varied[R4R]. Expertise is required to debunk poor(ly understood) science and hokum, and it is also needed to note where arguments are made in good faith upon sources that are not invalid. My appeals to understand the precepts of NPOV, as it applies to WP articles, made to those who preferred the application of SPOV or considered that the scientific consensus was the NPOV, was so that RS and commentary in regard to skeptic/denialist opinion could be better weighted and accommodated within the article space, so that the reader was provided with all notable aspects of the subject, rather than the dismissal of editors and content whose opinions differed. [R4R] I think that among the ranks of those who [R4R agree with] the scientific consensus regarding AGW are those who can work with those who, in good faith, contest the sources and content currently within CC article space. These are smart people, as are many who edit to the contrarian viewpoint(s), and should be able to adapt to a regime that more closely examples the preferred Wikipedia editing model. Get rid of the bad influences, and give them that chance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Certain passages "Redacted for Readability", per request. If commenting, please read the entire post from the edit history - hopefully reviewers of the comments will do likewise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Sir Fozzie's statement. I believe his topic ban would include me also, because I was blocked once for edit-warring in this subject area. That's ok, I'm willing and able to be accountable for my actions. I believe the draconian measure he advocates would restore order to the AGW topic area, because editors who want to edit would be forced to be very careful not to violate WP's policies. I think the result would be a marked increase in efforts to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise among the involved editors, knowing that just one edit war or one personal attack could get them topic banned. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Sir Fozzie's statement. Lots of good editors with whom I agree and disagree have been in edit wars on the global warming topic area. There are many reasons for this: background knowledge, sources of information, and BLP concerns are all in there. There are several editors who do not do useful things, sometimes agressively so, and they should be banned. But I believe that SirFozzie misses the issues in this area, especially surrounding the wide variety of potential sources and large gray areas in opinion, and that his remedy would affect the long-term editors who have had the time to get into an argument or two. I also strongly support Count I: this is not a kindergarden, and I don't want to see the law laid down by someone like Sir F who (sorry - nothing personal) practically ignores article space. I think that added rules like this will also just make people try to game the system more. I am in strong agreement with LHVU on feeling "disenfranchised" if this passes. Awickert (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur that Sir Fozzie's suggestion is too draconian and extreme.--MONGO 02:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we conduct an experiment to see if Sir Fozzie's proposal is really that extreme? Please read this article from The Guardian. The article goes into some detail on the Climategate emails in which Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones, among several others, discuss taking hostile action against two an academic journal which had published a paper which they did not approve of. Notice that the related article, the Soon and Baliunas controversy, does not currently contain any information on this aspect of the controversy. Now, over the next several days, unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to go and add a section on the email controversy to that article, of two or three paragraphs. I may use The Hockey Stick Illusion, which contains the texts of the emails in question, as a back up source. Hopefully, the regulars in this topic, even though at least one of them has a personal relationship with Mann and Jones, will help out with what I try to do. If they do, then perhaps there is hope that the editors in this topic are willing and able to change the way they approach editing in this topic area. Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I had to do four paragraphs to present the whole story, but I believe I represented it fairly and accurately. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is at least the second time you have edited a climate change article during the case and made some announcement on the case pages that you are conducting an "experiment". Please stop doing this. It is disruptive and it is a borderline breaching/baiting experiment. If you and others want to edit such articles during the case, fine, but don't comment here in parallel and turn it into some kind of performance art or demonstration for the benefit of arbitrators. It is not helpful. Point out examples of editing that have taken place during the case, and do any editing you think is needed, but point out any concerns after such editing has taken place. Don't pre-announce it as some sort of experiment and then use the results here to make your point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the first trial was so unexpectedly successful at showing what it is like to try to edit a CC article that I couldn't resist doing it again after seeing the opposition above and below to Sir Fozzie's and ATren's proposals. If there is no equivalent response to this experiment, then I think that in itself provides evidence for other conclusions to be drawn, besides the fact that you didn't think that either one was helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Carcharoth: Were they good edits? Supported by sources? Did they improve the article? If so then Cla68 certainly was justified in making them, whatever his motivation. We don't care so much about motive as we do outcome. That it happens that these edits nicely illustrate the problem is something you should be thanking Cla for instead of berating him. What proposals have you put forth to address this issue? ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Give it time. I certainly won't disregard what happened there and earlier, but I want to stop this idea of carrying out "experiments" before it spreads. If everyone did this, there would be chaos. So please, no more experiments. Just normal editing and no editorialising here if you happen to be editing elsewhere. It is very disconcerting for editors not aware of the discussion here to find that someone has been engaging them in an experiment, and it arguably raises ethical concerns if people are deliberately using Wikipedia articles and editors to conduct experiments without the consent of those editors. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• An interesting experiment. At a first glance I noticed that Cla68 had added potentially damaging content of one of the most famous emails with some commentary, but without showing the response giving the views of the scientists concerned as reported in the source. Given the damaging BLP issue of this omission, I've added brief coverage of it.[135] I've not checked all of the section, and note that again Cla68 is pushing the use of the questionable The Hockey Stick Illusion but have done nothing about that for now. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How is citing to a published book "pushing" anything, and how is it questionable? Minor4th 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Minor4th, WP:SOURCES requires more than that the book be published, and attempts by Cla and others to use this source for fact rather than the author's fringe opinion have been extensively discussed, as at WP:RSN where he did not get the support of uninvolved editors. The book itself includes blatant misinformation, for example Chapter 1 makes a great deal of the assertion that the IPCC First Assessment Report of 2001 showed a Medieval warm period warmer than today, and claims that scientists then conspired to pretend that it was only regional, but the report itself states that it may not have been global.p. 199. It's easy to be misled by the book, have you read it sceptically? . . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not read the book and don't know what it says. I just wondered what your reason for implying it was unreliable. Typically when book goes through the editorial and publishing process, there's a good deal of fact checking because publishing houses are particularly concerned with liability from defamation and so forth. Unless it's a vanity piece or self published, I think published books are generally considered reliable sources. It might be necessary to attribute content to the author, and definitely that is the case if it's an expression of an opinion. I'll look at your link to the RS noticeboard. Minor4th 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree withSirFozzie's proposal. I would equally support the "clean slate" proposal, so long as very strict enforcement follows the wiping of the slate. I think either of these solutions would work quite nicely, and I think it will take something that drastic to bring this topic area in line. Note that I support SF's proposal even though his topic ban would most likely include me. If that's what it takes to support Wikipedia and remedy this 5+ year problem, I'd accept being swept into the topic ban. Minor4th 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wipe the slate clean

Similar proposal copied here from elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: "All editors and admins who have been involved in conflicts in this topic area over the last 2 years, whether on the talk pages of relevant articles or the enforcement board or in any user talk page discussion regarding this topic, broadly construed, is indefinitely banned from the topic area from this point forward. The list of editors shall be compiled based solely on an investigation of page histories, with no judgement as to the merit of their participation." ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Based loosely on SirFozzie's statement. ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe ATren and SirFozzie don't realize the importance of having editors around who know what they are talking about because they don't really edit articles here, but having no one with a clue is a surefire way to disaster. We would be left with with no one who knows much of anything on how to make the topic area work, be factually accurate, and expand. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are some knowledgeable CC topic regulars, such as Awickert above and Pete Tillman, for example, who as far as I know have behaved in a manner that is generally beyond reproach and could continue improving these articles. As for the rest, and that might include me, tell them to find another topic to edit and to try harder to cooperate, collaborate, compromise while doing so. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• (This rationale might be read in conjunction with my one re SirFozzie, and both considered complementary in both cases) This proposal makes no difference between personalities and behaviours, and there is only a couple of instances were personality and behaviour are synonymous. Address the behaviours, robustly sanction inappropriate behaviour, ensure as far as possible that they cannot be repeated, and the majority of personalities will return to modelling appropriate Wikipedia editing behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  Three points in response: (1) if you ban everyone, it's not a punitive measure for any individual, but simply an acknowledgement that this is simply too big for individual sanctions, (2) it's clear to me that individual sanctions (as currently proposed) don't go far enough in removing the problematic editors -- I can name 3 or 4 such editors off the top of my head who are not sanctioned at all in the current PD and will continue to disrupt (3) I believe that those who would be unfairly "punished" by this remedy wouldn't look at is as punishment at all -- I think they'd be content that the problematic editors have been removed and they'd have no problem being asked to leave with them, especially if the sanction is clearly worded as not punitive and not indicative of any wrongdoing. I personally would be relieved if I could leave this mess alone, secure in the knowledge that neutral, dispassionate editors can take over without fear of getting trampled on. ATren (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  Two points in response: (1) I would not be satisfied being asked to not edit a topic area that I have been involved in because some other people have questionable behavior. I would be indignant, and actually, pissed enough to make a huge stink over it. It is like when the whole class doesn't get to go out for recess because of the one student who put the whoopee cushion on the teacher's chair. I want to be able to edit climate change and friends, and I am not giving that up. (2) Sadly, "neutral, dispassionate editors" don't come out of nowhere. Even if we leave behind the current bitterness, I don't see how such a topic of controversy and angst is going to collect nothing but saints. Awickert (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  (1) There are plenty of topics to edit. Being asked to stay away from one topic for the good of the project is something we all should be willing to do. (2) I estimate that I've seen comments by at least a dozen good editors to the effect of "Oh, climate change? There's no way I'm wading into that mess". The fact is that the current group of editors (all sides) has created a toxic environment that has driven good editors away, and I believe removal of the whole lot will draw those good editors back. ATren (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, I disagree. I will edit anything I choose, thank you very much. Staying away from one topic "for the good of the project" may be easy for you, but that's because you by default don't much edit articles in any topic. And I don't think that removing everyone in a single topic area is good for the project, because of the loss of the knowledge base, so in my mind it is not me being selfish (because I disagree with the premise). I will not, under any circumstances, accept this as a viable solution. I, and many others, have edited climate change articles by adding information, fighting vandalism, and trying to make them better and more comprehensive. Furthermore, parts of my profession are related to climate. I will not edit in an environment where I can't write about climate when I come across it in the course of improving articles. If this is implemented, I'm afraid that you and I will have to slug this out through any and every appeal process that WP has. Never have I seen anyone be topic-banned for doing nothing wrong. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  No need to worry. Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is. The best thing you can do with "proposals" such as this is simply to ignore them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm fairly sure that you are right and this will never pass. But I still worry that it will. Ah, well. At very least, I have made my line in the sand obvious. So I suppose that it is time to step back, since I don't think I will have anything new to say. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Boris: "Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is." - what exactly is it that you think they will see? ATren (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clean slate accompanied by very strict enforcement following wiping the slate. I would equally support SirFozzie's scorched earth proposal. I think either of these solutions would work well, and I think it will take something this drastic to bring this topic area in line Minor4th 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  Same goes for you as for ATren. I won't accept a ruling that prevents me from making improvements to WP, and especially not from someone who spends very little time actually writing articles. You may be a very nice person (so nothing personal), but I'm sorry, I don't like to be told I can't do something that I feel that I have the privilege to do, and especially not if I feel that I have something good to offer. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. Like Boris said, Arb is going to ignore this anyway. Minor4th 06:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am calm, mental health is a big check. But I will not be calm if ArbComm implements this, and I feel very strongly about this. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• What an awesome way to create massive disruption؟ Topic ban hundreds or thousands of editors and try to keep track of who can edit where, all the while arguing about which articles are included, and which aren't. You could reduce unemployment significantly by hiring enough clerks to keep track of this and provide evenhanded enforcement؟ Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• This, of course, rewards the socks (what do they lose? Another throwaway account) and removes everybody who has build valuable expertise in the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Which socks? The real socks or the 20-40% of falsely accused socks? You know, the ones that ArbCom said were inappropriately blocked when they weren't socks, but the activist crowd cried "Scibaby" on their first edit? Or the activist socks that no one will check-user? GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is bigger than individuals. New blood may be exactly what is needed. It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out. The proposal accomplishes that and only deals with editors who have been involved in conflicts, so it is a rational approach to fix the problem in this area. (per clerk comment, who advised that this is not really an appropriate place to !vote, I have removed my !vote - I do like the idea for the reasons stated in my original comment and I do still support the proposal.) GregJackP Boomer! 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not supported by findings of fact. Asking folks to expand and extend their voluntary restrictions might help. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it is supported by findings, such as the inappropriate accusations of socking, the bloc editing, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

These incidents are specifically attributable to certain editors, which might warrant a case. Why should all be sanctioned now? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all are being sanctioned, just those that have been involved in conflicts. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then you have not read this section of the discussion. You reference the main one, which is why ZP5 and you have your wires crossed. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to GregJackP's original statement: you incorrect "It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out." I seem to be one of its strongest opponents, and have never been "in trouble" here. I don't think that I am alone. Please be careful with mass accusations. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• This kind of proposal might work for political subjects, but not for scientific issues such as this. It would irreparably harm the quality of these articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why? Because "scientists" are exempt? If they want to be treated as experts, treated differently from any other editor, they need to go to Sanger's project or Britannica. "Scientists" shouldn't get a pass on COI, like WMC has on Climategate. He is directly involved, being mentioned in a number of the e-mails, being a former employee of the CRU, etc, but he is allowed to edit the article in complete violation of WP:COI. If they have been involved in a conflict, they shouldn't expect special treatment. GregJackP Boomer! 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because this proposal would remove the editors who have been most responsible for the CC articles being first-rate and scientifically valid. Those editors are not you and not me. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New proposals

Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.

Climate science and culture wars

In the 1970s, climate scientists informed public policy, working closely with politicians from both sides of the aisle. However, beginning in the 1980s, climate science and its scientists became targets of persistent and repeated attacks from the political right, involving organizations and individuals operating outside the relevant sphere of science. This campaign has been described as one component of a larger American culture war surrounding the politicization of science, public policy influence, and climate change mitigation. Proponents of this culture war often promote climate change denial, a minority POV in stark opposition to the accepted, scientific consensus on climate change and the data that informs its discourse. Wikipedia does not take sides in such disputes, but seeks to best represent the scientific opinion on climate change and any significant, corresponding minority views, scientific or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

And, ah, skeptics have been targets, too. Right? (See evidence page for copious details.) And some of these campaigns have come from the pro-AGW side as well, haven't they? If the proposing editor can't acknowledge that, then the proposing editor is part of the culture war that the proposed language is denouncing. Why is it so difficult for people denouncing partisanship to avoid partisanship even while they're denouncing it? And why aren't these proposals signed by editors who make them? Please put your signature to your proposals, OK? I'm not wild about the specific language above, but I support the intent, so long as the intent covers all sides. The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All climate scientists are skeptics by definition, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that deniers have been attacked? Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of all the things you could have focused on in my comment, that is what you focus on? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be outside the remit of ArbCom - as it asked not only to abrogate NPOV in favor of SPOV, but to make a specific content ruling. Collect (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true. It seeks recognition of the fact that behaviorial problems on this topic are due to partisan editors bringing a real world conflict spanning three decades to this website and turning Wikipedia into a battleground as a result. Nothing about content at all, but a direct acknowledgment of the agenda driven, POV pushing behavior and its cause. Denial of climate change, attacks on climate science and scientists, and the resulting POV pushing on this topic are all intimately related and connected. There's no need to dance around the causes and conditions, the historical record is clear and without dispute. There is a political war being fought against science and its proponents, and this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. It is its very core. Failure to recognize this is ignorance of the worst kind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. What a perfect distillation of the AGW faction's defense in this ArbCom case: Since We Defend the Truth, Our Battling Is Justified. How many essays have been written based on clear policy that refute this position? We could start with WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:TRUTH. I suspect that even if this argument convinces some arbitrators, they're going to be embarassed to be openly agreeing with it or even admitting to themselves that it carries weight with them. You might want to think about ways of disguising it to make it palatable to them. It seems nobody has been able to do that so far. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas' analysis here, and do not think the (official) PD addresses this issue directly enough. Some details and refs have been mentioned above, but I'll repeat some of them here for conveneience, due to archiving, hatting and rearranging:

• The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism (included by N)
• William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (included by N)
• NASA 2009 (included by V)
• The Republican War on Science (included by V)
• Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway (mentioned by N)

--Nigelj (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is where skeptics are supposed to insert their list of links to WP articles and Web pages and whatnot accusing the other side of doing the exact same thing. As I said before, The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. Thank you for illustrating my point. Why you and Viriditas would try to hijack an ArbCom case about behavior in order to make a content point to push your faction's political views and think it would help your case is beyond me, but thank you for showing your colors. I guess the idea that it's justified to violate behavioral policies to further a POV most of us agree with is a sort of desperate defense that will probably convince a few arbitrators. Will derailing discussions about behavior in order to discuss content result in distracting some arbitrators? Hard to say when arbitrators don't say much. Kinda sad. Principles aren't supposed to work that way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The results of painstaking work over several decades by thousands of scientists worldwide, accepted as real and significant by all the world's national and international scientific bodies, and most of its governments, are not one 'faction's political views' that can just be shouted down by any political group that doesn't like them. This case is not just about behaviour, but also about NPOV, sourcing, due weight, fringe, and all the other fundamentals of Wikipedia's work. No one is saying that anti-science political views should not be well covered in the CC articles, but they should be covered as what they are, not as some equal-and-opposite alternate reality. --Nigelj (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For an even earlier history of the present denial movement, specifically from the 1980s through the 1990s, see Chapter 8: Denial and Environmental Destruction, a psychological and historical analysis by Michael A. Milburn and Sheree D. Conrad in The Politics of Denial (1998; MIT Press). The authors note as early as the late 1990s that "environmental issues have become a major focus of conservative denial...What is fascinating and disturbing...is how conservative ideologues start with a particular viewpoint and then ignore the evidence, and the vast consensus of scientists, that contradict it." Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• A note here on background findings. As can be seen by the extensive changes, extensions and copyediting done by Viriditas on this and other proposed findings, if background findings try to go into too much detail, they end up reading like introductions to Wikipedia articles on the subject (and should arguably require rigorous sourcing for what is said in them). The Arbitration Committee should not be in the business of writing article-like content for its background findings, and should only paint with the lightest and broadest of brushes to define the scope and locus of the problems here. Background findings should only be a preamble to focusing on on-wiki conduct. Real-world background should never be used to justify poor conduct as an editor, as Viriditas seems to be attempting to do below with the two proposed Harassment and Baiting findings. Such findings can be used to justify sanctions on Wikipedia editors engaging in such baiting and harassment, but if Wikipedia editors are deciding to descend to the same level and 'fight back', they will also be sanctioned. If an off-wiki conflict is brought onto Wikipedia, the answer is not to continue and escalate the conflict here. This is covered already in the existing proposed principles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please clarifly what the current proposed decision says about the background of this case? I don't see anything. I also fail to see anything substantive as to the locus of the dispute. It's one thing to describe the general problem, but it's quite another to ignore it. As for your interpretation that I am justifying poor conduct, that is something that never actually occurred to me, so I will defer to your judgment. From where I stand, the background I describe only illustrates the problem, it does not justify the actions of any individual or group. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of climate scientists is well documented

There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I would suggest that making comparisons with the harassment of abortion providers may cause offence to some. Best to stick to just the topic under discussion, even if this comparison has been made by others it is not necessary to go into this level of detail for an arbitration case. Could people also please sign these proposals that are being added here. I think Viriditas added the above, but people shouldn't have to dig through the page history to work this out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bit about abortion and added my sig. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. What does the alleged harassment of these others have to do with this case? Are any of those you named Wikipedia editors? And what do parties like me, AQFK, SlimVirgin, Cla68, Lar, etc, have to do with that harassment? ATren (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I'm in the process of answering that question with another followup proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. Should have it posted in the next 2-3 hours if I get the chance. In this new proposal, I will show, with good evidence, that the documented pattern of harassment of climate scientists off-wiki is directly connected to the harassment of climate scientists on-wiki, as well as the promotion of climate change denial over and above the scientific consensus. Contrary to your claim of irrelevancy, this is completely relevant and topical. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

First update complete. See below: "Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki". There's a lot more where that came from. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever asked WMC if he is a scientist? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address the discussion and stop trying to distract away from it. Mathematics is the foundation of science, and science projects in the public and private sector are composed of teams of members in interdisciplinary roles, such as mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, etc. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Connolley was a computer programmer whose role was simply to write code in support of the climate research being conducted by others at BAS. He does not claim to be a scientist himself. His background is in Numerical Analysis which is a theoretical domain within mathematics with no direct relationship to climate science at all. --209.204.76.33 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd how his article puts him in the category of "Climatologists," (source?) but really not that odd considering the group that has been writing his article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no." And no, despite the protests, it is relevant if you are going to keep on bringing this sort of thing up in order to excuse poor behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't get it the first time. If you have nothing to say about this topic, please refrain from responding with distractions and red herrings. There is no excuse for poor behavior. That there is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists is not in dispute. That these climate scientists also work on teams composed of mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, and other contributors, is also not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that something is a red herring does not make it a red herring. The best argument to make that it is a red herring is that the entire topic is a red herring - despite your continued assertions of facts clearly not in evidence. Why didn't you just answer the question? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia via leaders in the climate change denial movement, such as Solomon and many others. The facts are clearly in evidence and not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is a documented history of (i.e. Climategate) of some scientists trying to marginalize journals or scientists that dare to publish papers that cast doubt on AGW. I could put forth all sorts of proposals like that if I like (and actually provide real evidence), but it should be irrelevant to the task at hand. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to disrupt, distract, and change the subject of this discussion. Please confine your comments to only the topic of the documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia. If you can't comment on that topic, simply remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but I think these proposals of yours are marginal on the best of days. As I said, I or any number of editors could be adding proposals that are irrelevant in any meaningful sense. I think you are wasting a bunch of time on these things (and not just yours). Even if I went through and posted the diffs of the people who have shown up over the course of the last decade to defend this group of people, showing a clear pattern of the defense tactics, it would basically be irrelevant to the situation at hand. What matters is the behavior of the parties involved - not the same Chewbacca defenses thrown out by the same defensive line year after year.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that what I've written must be very important, after all, look at how many off-topic replies you've made attempting to distract away from it. To remind you once again, the topic at hand concerns the history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this campaign has spread to Wikipedia. Please directly address it. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You think I'm trying to distract from it? Oh on the contrary, I think it should be considered very carefully for what it really is - and once again I keep on thinking back to the projection article. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are trying to distract, that's basically all you do on Wikipedia, after all you don't write articles, remember? Since you might have missed it the first time, I'll copy the words you can't address:

There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Completely relevant to this case as I show below, as the same people and groups making these attacks on climate scientists, are also making them against Wikipedia and editors who edit climate science articles, and this is part of a larger campaign of POV pushing involving a minority, and some would rightly say "fringe" POV. Furthermore, the tactics being used on Wikipedia are virtually identical to the tactics being used off-wiki, namely, the filing of frivolous reports in order to harass editors. The close similarity of off and on-wiki attack strategies is an amazing coincidence, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with external groups

It is apparent that some Wikipedia editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external groups in order to further the so-called "culture war", rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project. Editors are expected to respond to this in a professional manner. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki

Global warming "skeptic" Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers (2008) and writer for the Canadian conservative newspaper The National Post has written columns promoting climate change denial[136] and is known for criticizing Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. For several years, Solomon has specifically targeted William M. Connolley in his column.[137][138][139] Solomon has also actively edited Wikipedia. Journalist James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, whom The Guardian refers to as a "climate change denier",[140], referenced Solomon's work when he himself personally attacked Connolley and Wikipedia during the "Climategate" controversy.[141] Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

If you are going to bring Solomon's off-wiki postings and writings into this, then Connolley's off-wiki postings will also have to be considered. Also, any edits Connolley has done to the Solomon article need to be considered in light of this off-wiki dispute between the two of them. This is the whole point of the principle Wikipedia is not a battleground. Just as an example, someone who either is or is claiming to be KimDabelsteinPetersen, posted at the comments page to one of the links you provided. Wikipedia editors who let themselves get dragged out into the arguments out there, or bring them back here, are doing Wikipedia a dis-service. Editors need to be able to leave their off-wiki conflicts at the door when they edit here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators have determined that "this dispute revolves around Wikipedia's coverage of climate change", not Connolley. In that light, Solomon's writings about Wikipedia and contributions to this site are germane to this case. It is also evident from his writing and those of his critics (for example, Hoggan & Littlemore 2009), that Solomon's "battle" against global warming (as a proponent for climate change denial) exists independently of any interpersonal conflict he may have with Connolley. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not someone who pretended to be me, that commented on the Solomon articles - it was most definitively me. I have commented on two of Solomons articles [142] [143] (these links are presented on my User page btw). My comments had only one purpose, and that was to describe to the journalist what happened, and how Wikipedia works, I do not consider myself involved in a conflict with Mr. Solomon. (although he seems to have a different opinion :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Has WMC criticized any Wikipedia editors in his blog, or only other climate change scientists and journalists he doesn't agree with, like Solomon? I don't read his blog except when it becomes a part of Wikipedia, like here. ChrisO has declined to say what exactly he was expecting WMC to use his blog for here and why ChrisO felt that WMC might be willing or able to do whatever he was asking. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and baiting of William M. Connolley on-wiki

William M. Connolley is the former climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey. On Wikipedia, Connolley is the primary editor responsible for the featured article on global warming, with 1080 edits as of 2010.[144] Connolley has been the target of a persistent baiting campaign by editors who promote the minority view of climate change denial. Such editors often game Wikipedia policies and guidelines to harass and bait Connolley when he responds to their edits. Many of these accounts focus solely on adding contentious climate change denial POV, and show bad faith that thwarts the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous probation requests intended to harass William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley is the primary target for editors promoting a minority, climate change denial POV. According to the climate change probation archives for the month of January 2010 alone, Connolley was the subject of five separate requests for enforcement.[145][146][147][148][149] All were closed as no action. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, the 3rd diff was not closed no-action; WMC got a civility warning and a sanction from editing others' comments. And the 4th diff was closed no-action, but with a note that some of the issues were handled in the other request (the civility parole). ATren (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The 4th diff is the request (only one?) that I filed against WMC. I believe it was the first one filed completely up to format and with extensive and described evidence. 2over0 closed it unilaterally and refused to reopen it despite being asked by other admins and editors. In fact, that set of diffs is a fine example of how 2over0 has played defense for WMC and prevented sanctions that might've corrected his behavior. It also shows how devoted Bozmo has been to defending WMC. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok Vriditas, now list all the probation requests that were initiated by WMC and also were closed without sanction against anyone, and then list all the requests against WMC that resulted in sanction. WMC has chosen his own path and all you are doing is empowering his bad habits. These endless cries of they started it first are rather boring - if none of you can reasonably claim to be taking the higher ground then you are all in the gutter. Weakopedia (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Popular press articles have been misused in climate change articles to further the "culture war" and detract from the science, often emphasizing a minority or fringe POV. This results in an unencyclopedic approach, focused on recentism and popular opinion at odds with scientific consensus. News reports, editorials, and opinion pieces are often inappropriate for reporting scientific results or theories, but are useful when discussing the context of science topics, including the social, economic, and political context, and may provide an important source of criticism. News articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the certainty of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea.

ChrisO previously restricted for BLP violations

In the Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology arbitration case (December 2008 - May 2009), ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[150] and September 2007[151], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[152] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[153] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[154]; declined a CSD[155]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[156] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[157][158] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[159][160][161][162][163]. ChrisO has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[164] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.

ChrisO disruptive, antagonistic behavior and BLP violations

ChrisO (talk · contribs) has committed a long series of disruptive behavior, including incivility, edit-warring, mass deletions of content during GA and AfD discussions, personal attacks (PA) and edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of the ArbCom case.(Selection of representative examples: [165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172] incivility, failure to assume good faith and personal attacks, [173][174][175][176][177][178] interfering with GA/AfD nominations, and [179][180] edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of this ArbCom case.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears ChrisO was not informed of this case until after the evidence phase was closed. While there have been broad hints that proposing additional remedies involving specific editors is acceptable at this time, I think it is too late to be adding a name that has not been formally notified. This is not to say that I find ChrisO's editing satisfactory—many of the diffs are quite troubling on their face. However, rather than go through a complete presentation of evidence and rebuttal at this stage, I'm comfortable that the proposed enforcement process, with a significant increase in the ability of admins to sanction editors who are editing inappropriately, will ensure that ChrisO will contribute positively or face sanctions if prior practice is repeated.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has made many BLP violations and edited disruptively and has been persistently uncivil and unable to edit collaboratively on BLP's especially. Minor4th 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (1)

I haven't gone through all these links and don't yet have an opinion, but there's an interesting contrast I see in two edits. One, from the Christopher Monckton article [181] in which there is a link to an unpublished criticism of Monckton which includes disparaging statements about him, according to Atren (who says here [182] Monckton's critic, in his unpublished statement, starts the presentation by discussing Monckton's qualifications in a way that would imply that Abraham thought Monckton to be unqualified.) Now, compare that with ChrisO's BLP justification for removing information from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, which I linked to above -- edit summary (emphasis added): rm accusations from self-published source per WP:BLP [183] (which, by the way, was factually incorrect -- the information was from from a WP:NEWSBLOG). So what we seem to have is the same double standard that's in KimDPetersen's edit history: When the subject is a disbeliever in AGW, the BLP standard is low and negative information must be included; when the subject is a supporter of AGW, the BLP standard is high and information must be kept out. This looks like partisan editing. That it is done in groups (KimDPetersen, for instance, was involved in both discussions) indicates that we have factions involved, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This makes it worse. But I'd like to know what ChrisO has to say about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB, see this diff for an analysis of what personal criticisms were contained in the unpublished presentation that ChrisO was forcing into Monckton's BLP. ATren (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you what ChrisO would say about it because he's already said it [184] -- He'll say it's not a BLP violation if the offensive link is included inline in the text of the article rather than as a "source" at the end of a sentence. No kidding. He says it's ok to use self published attack pieces from non-notable associate professors, as long as you link the attack directly in article text. He would also tell you that NuclearWarfare and BozMo said it's ok, so it must be ok since they're admins. See this discussion for his inability to account for his actions: [185] Partisan editing? Nah. Minor4th 06:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a tendentious pile-on. At least you are finally stepping back from your earlier false claim that I was using the Abraham presentation - and thank you for noting NuclearWarfare and Bozmo's concurrence - as a source. I've explained my position here. I've not bothered responding further because I'm fully aware that I would be talking to a brick wall - your mind is made up, quite obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And my response to your "explanation" is here [186], which you did not bother responding to, but you are apparently taking the position that it's ok to smear a BLP as long as you cite self published attack blog inline rather than as a "source" in the references. Quite amazing, that. Minor4th 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment here: Despite your assertions to the contrary - my view of what is and isn't reliable is exactly the same regardless of what article i'm editing, you simply have failed to follow my arguments. For exactly this situation, i've jotted down my view here, do please go through my edit-history again, and verify each case against these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. But you opposed inclusion of information from a NEWSBLOG reporting on potential legal liability [187] and at another point supported an attack on Fred Singer because the attackers were so-called "experts". Here's what the source you fought to keep in the Singer article said about the subject of that BLP: S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries [...] served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment. (See the evidence page for diffs.) What counts is that you're violating Wikipedia's consistent BLP policy, not that you can come up with some kind of standards that disallow fair reporting or allow an attack under cover of "expertise". Now I see you're supporting the same thing with Monckton. ArbCom needs to be concerned about your actions, Kim. Your pattern of misbehavior should not be left to some AE admin to try to figure out in a future complaint. ArbCom should at least issue a finding that you're wrong and tell you you should stop. Especially when you're doing this in conjunction with others. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the typical pattern is that those most deserving or likely to get sanctioned suddenly get very quiet and well-behaved, while they are defended by those who've taken on that role for years. It has been an extremely effective tactic because it works on impressions rather than facts - make the defendants look meek and mild while the prosecutors look argumentative and hostile for calling out the defense attorneys on their misrepresentations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

I'll point out a couple of things in response to AQFK's claims in his so-called findings of fact:

1) Accusing me of "interfering with GA/AFD nominations" is nonsense - how is voting to delete "interference"? [188] And how does a single edit to an unrelated article [189] have anything to do with this? As I recall, someone elsewhere had highlighted what they thought was coatracking in that article; I agreed and edited it in response. It was certainly not related to any GA discussions. I agree that I overstepped the mark in editing Bishop Hill (blog) and was briefly blocked for it by LHvU; I've taken care not to violate 3RR since.

2) "Edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP" is equally nonsensical. This was in relation to a discussion here on the article talk page. The piece in question was a critique by a published scientist, on his university's website, with the full support of his university. Other editors had sought to include it, using it as a source. This was rightly removed for BLP reasons, as it was a self-published source. [190] I tried to find a compromise here in which only reliable sources were used. I've already explained the reasoning behind inline-linking it along with Monckton's response here.

I was also not in any way "edit warring". I reverted Marknutley once [191] and then took it to the talk page. As the discussion on the talk page shows, I reached an amicable agreement with other editors in which neither Abraham's critique nor Monckton's response would be linked, but the issue would be covered by reliable sources from both sides of the Atlantic. Note that Marknutley was repeatedly removing the entire section, not simply the inline links, under a false claim of "BLP violation". His objection was to the inclusion of any mention of the Abraham-Monckton debate, not simply to the inline links, regardless of the reliable sourcing. [192]

It's completely false to claim that I have been responsible for BLP violations on this article - on the contrary, I've repeatedly acted to take out BLP violations (defamatory content, self-published sources, unsourced claims etc) that affected Monckton's own reputation and that of others. - see e.g. [193], [194], [195], [196], [197] etc. Monckton is a controversial figure and the article has repeatedly been affected by BLP-violating edits. The fact that the article is in pretty good shape is due in no small part to my own vigilance. BrownHairedGirl, an uninvolved admin who works mostly on British political biographies, commented "Even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers." I think that speaks for itself. [198] -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, this is the problem with editors inserting proposals without attaching their signatures and timestamps immediately beneath each separate paragraph. I did not write any of the proposed findings of fact or related proposed sanctions against you. I think that was ATren. I just started the "Discussion" sections underneath some of them. Since I didn't write them and haven't even had time to look over all the diffs, I don't at this time support them, as I stated. In order to avoid more confusion, I may go back and check exactly who did propose each one and attach a note identifying the authors of each one, although I wish a clerk or arbitrator would do it. It needs to be done. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. The attibrution should have been to AQFK - I've amended the above accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO please just answer this simple question: why did you edit war to add a link to Abraham's unpublished presentation when it is obviously a blatant BLP vio to do so? You knew that the presentation was unpublished and so controversial that it was the subject of potential litigation between the parties, yet you edit warred to put the link back. Why? ATren (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Abraham's presentation is available on his university website and has been referenced in several of George Monbiot's articles in the Guardian [199] [200] [201] [202]. I'm not sure I'd call it "unpublished". Moreover it addresses the arguments made by Monckton in a presentation, and does not say anything negative about Monckton except, of course, that his arguments aren't based on the facts. --TS 15:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I'm happy to be of assistance to you: I believe that if you think just a little harder, the meaning of "unpublished" in relation to WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources will pop into your head in an instant. If not, go ahead and follow the link to the policy section I've provided for you. No, no, don't bother to thank me -- it really only took a moment. (I've actually been confused by it, too, in the past.) I don't think an opinion writer's citing Abraham's comments will launder them enough to insert in a BLP. Some assertions of Abraham's have been quoted in regular news accounts and are fair game for the article (and they're in the article as of yesterday when I checked). None of that justifies linking to the self-published source. That would be a violation of WP:BLP. You say it does not say anything negative about Monckton I'm not so sure, there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece (see [203]). Some of those quotes seem to skirt the line between criticism and attack. Monckton seems to have threatened a lawsuit. That tends to make the BLP violation look a bit serious. In any event, WP:BLP seems to be silent on the actual content of the self-published pieces -- it just issues a blanket ban on them. ChrisO violated the policy. The same exact policy that he cited to keep out of an article a careful statement by a reporter from Science magazine that said there may be legal liability if the UK's FOI Act was not followed. Do you think there might be a pattern of partisanship to ChrisO's editing that is not in Wikipedia's best interests? (edited after a few minutes)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB: You are aware that "there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece" is incorrect - right? (those are quoted from Monckton's claims - not Abraham). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Unless your contesting Monckton's quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is to be accurate instead of inaccurate. And there are several good reasons for considering Moncktons replies as questionable. [amongst them that a cursory view of the actual material show that quite a few of his claims are incorrect] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the discussion is that Wikipedia is not to be used as a weapon against notable people we dislike. I'm not interested here in Monckton's replies but the professor's statements -- but even that is ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published criticism, attacks or anything else self-published in a BLP (except by the subject). We need to crack down on editors who repeatedly violate BLP. I've submitted some evidence that you do and evidence has been submitted that ChrisO does. That you support each other in violating it is an additional reason for ArbCom to be concerned about you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@TS: Are you seriously questioning whether that presentation is unpublished? Really? ATren (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. really. It's certainly published otherwise I wouldn't have been able to watch it, and as the university has refused, through an exchange of attorney's letters, to remove it, it takes responsibility for the content which was produced by one of its faculty and is published on its website. The Professor is certainly a reliable source for a critique of Monckton's claims, and it has been reviewed by the Guardian, so I don't see much of a problem here. This isn't just something on some random blog. --TS 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The university didn't hire the professor to engage in political controversies and isn't regularly in the business of "publishing" controversial texts in the sense that a book publisher, magazine, webzine or newspaper would be, much less an academic periodical. It's role here is closer to a web hosting service. Do you have evidence that the professor consulted with someone acting in the role of "editor" at any stage? It seems to me that the university stepped in after the fact in a situation they're not used to dealing- with. That's one of the problems with self-publication: care and responsibility is a learned behavior, usually accompanied with some kind of supervision. This situation doesn't have the marks of that, particularly as we get away from expert analysis of specific claims and toward criticism of a personality. Instead of reverting, we settle this kind of question on the talk page -- otherwise we're violating WP:BLP, as everyone reading this already knows. -- 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, first, what "edit warring"? Did you miss the bit where I pointed out above that I reverted once? I was under a self-imposed 1RR at the time; on what planet does reverting once constitute an "edit war"? Second, it was far from clear that the inline link was a BLP violation. There was a vigorous discussion about it here and in this CC enforcement page discussion both Bozmo and NuclearWarfare rejected the claim that it was a BLP violation. In the end I and the other editors found a solution that met everyone's concerns. The process worked as it was supposed to. It's gratuitously misleading to claim some kind of violation here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to that noticeboard discussion. It is bizarre. It was brought up that WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states (emphasis added) Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, The idea that the "criticism" must be criticism of the person and not the person's actions or statements is what is gratuitously misleading because it will always skirt the edges of a BLP violation and BLP is about creating wide-enough margins so the edges can't be skirted (from the first paragraph: Editors must take particular care [...] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity). We are extra cautious with BLPs. That discussion did not mention that the self-published source itself went either to the edge of criticism of the person or overstepped it. After all, it's easy to do. ChrisO, you and the editors who supported you, including KimDPetersen and William M. Connolley, were reckless. That NuclearWarfare and Bozmo didn't reject your arguments at WP:GSCCRE is something ArbCom should be concerned about. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: I tried to use the proposed decision as an example. The diffs are a selection of representative examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: you joined an edit war and you knew the content was a contentious BLP issue due to the fact that the presentation was unpublished (it was all over the talk page and RFE) and you added it back in anyway [204]. Then, after reverts by MN, WMC, and MN -- the last one citing BLP -- you reverted it back in again! [205]. How is that not edit warring? Your continued attempts to change history are not working, ChrisO. You edit warred to add an unpublished smear to a BLP. Period. ATren (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO topic-banned (Climate Change)

User:ChrisO is banned from all Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for long-term violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BLP for six months. (proposed by A Quest for Knowledge)

I agree with a topic ban ChrisO for tendentious editing, edit warring, and persistent BLP abuse. Minor4th 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum -- I have made a proposal to Chris regarding collaborative editing on the Monckton article to the point of jointly proposing a revised article to be added through the edit protection. I have said that if he will work in good faith with me on this, then I will withdraw my support for his being topic banned. If he agrees and tries to work with me, I think that is a show of good faith and good intent. Minor4th 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO topic-banned (BLP)

User:ChrisO is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change for one year. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since these are repeat violations, I think the ban time periods should be doubled. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Vindictive and completely unnecessary. I've been working hard to keep BLP violations out, as my comments above demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of what Chris says about working hard to keep BLP violations out, he is a repeat and pernicious offender as far as adding BLP violations to CC skeptics. Monckton is absolutely atrocious. Minor4th 03:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. If it is one that is a skeptic, ChrisO has used very questionable material while insisting on perfect material for AGW activists. ChrisO has consistently pushed a POV in the BLPs. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly surprised to find that Chris hadn't been named an involved party (y'all know what I mean) and that the PD did not make any mention of him.

Because Chris had no idea there was a case going on or that any of his edits might be considered problematic by anyone. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar: Even if true (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure why that would matter. A BLP violation is a BLP violation is a BLP violation. Not sure how the existence of an ArbCom case some how makes it OK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Lar was being sarcastic -- of course Chris is aware of his own BLP violations and knows that it's sanctionable. There's no way he didn't know about the arb case, and in one of his comments above he said he has been following the case. Minor4th 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I honestly thought that ignorance (on the part of an editor with 7 years experience who has had multiple experiences with ArbCom already) of this minor case of little or no importance that just happens to be about one of his current primary topic areas of interest is an excuse. I thought it was, but perhaps you guys are right. As for Chris saying he's been following the case, that doesn't mean he's aware that he might be a party does it? ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it means he knows he can get away with saying he's not a party to it because he knows there are no named parties (which, in essence, means everyone is a party). Minor4th 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO topic-banned from CC articles

Sample of problem edits:

• Mean spirit comments toward JohnWBarber.
• Edit war on BLP necessitating protection of the article. [206], [207], [208]. When article protection ends ChrisO gets into more conflicts and reprotection is needed to end the dispute between him and other users. [209].
• Particularly troubling is disruptive comments on BLP that make cleaning up the BLP more difficult.

• Examples of comments on talk pages and edit summaries that show incivility of the type that will keep impartial users from coming to edit CC articles with him. "spelling this out for the hard of thinking", "pig-headed obstinacy", "reply to nut markley", "Booker is a crank, put simply" (edit summary), "Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from."
  • Recommend a topic ban from CC articles since ChrisO has a history of problematic edits in this and other contentious topics. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Another: BLP vio on a talk page: "Watts' anti-science bloviations... crank blog". I asked him to refactor, he refused, so I redacted the smears, then he added back a revised version that said "blog that promotes crank conspiracy theories" ATren (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

• Polargeo topic banned from CC articles:
  • redirect, unprotected an article in the area where he was directly involved and makes contentious edits.
  • Also agree with diffs in Fof 11.
  • Recommend a ban from CC topic area since he repeatedly adds heat to discussion and has trouble separating his work as an admin and editor. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary restrictions

Editing Wikipedia in general often involves accepting that you can't get your way. So, it makes sense to look for solutions in terms of voluntary editing restrictions. Jehochman took such an initiative before the start of this ArbCom case. If we look at the issues under discussion at this ArbCom case, we can see that the vast majority of the problems occur in the BLP area. I think it is possible for all the involved editors here to agree to a collective 1 RR restriction.

This means that if someone (whether from the group of involved editors or not) makes a particular edit on some issue, then only one revert of that edit may be made by the group. So, if e.g. Cla68 reverts ChrisO then no one else is allowed to revert back. Disagreements about the edit can from then on only be discussed. One can also post a RFC, one can discuss on the RS board, the BLP noticeboard etc., but no further reverts should be made by the group until there is a clear consensus on how to proceed. Such a consensus will in practice mean that there will be a few who agree to disagree and won't oppose whatever the other editors have agreed on.

I think that this can calm down the area, we may see hitherto univolved editors stepping in who will edit the BLP articles like real biographies are written (Carcharoth has made some comments about this) instead of narrowly focussing on the climate change issues. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you are well-meaning but this will be incredibly gamed. The BLP violations in the articles will never be removed or it'll become such a hassle with the RfC's that most editors won't bother. Any criticism of the Hockey Stick team (Real Climate was founded to defend that graph) will be reverted and endlessly "discussed" until less ideological editors give up and move on. Consensus is a farce when a specific subset of editors is selected and even more so when long term sockpuppets are rarely checkusered and caught.

Ban the people gaming the rules and ignoring/inventing policy in order to get their preferred version of articles. This has been demonstrated in the evidence. More rules just mean the wikilawyers have more toys to play with - kick them out of the playground. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But note that agreeing to a voluntary restriction requires a change of mindset. People who agree with this should decide to take a step back and be less protective about the BLP articles. BLP violations can be addressed at the BLP noticeboards, so it amounts to putting one's faith in the judgement of other editors.

Perhaps ArbCom could think of suggesting this also as a plea bargain for some editors who are now considered for topic bans. So, for them, agreeing to this would mean that any topic ban would be suspended as long as they stick to this and act in good faith (i.e. they don't game this). Note that the people who have not be named in the PD can, after the connclusion of the ArbCom case, also be brought at AE and be sanctioned. So, it may help to stay out of trouble to stick to a voluntary restriction like this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a Prisoner's dilemma situation. It requires trust on all sides, where all sides are extremely motivated (save the world/save scientific truth/avoid being taxed back to the dark ages/save NPOV from the SIFs), and view others as evil. We need more than advocating voluntary bans and self-restraint. However, the voluntary ban/restriction in a plea bargain sounds useful: perhaps all new sources should be discussed on talk pages for 24 hours for the climate area? Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Habits are formed by practice. The voluntary topic ban has been very useful in calming the area and in teaching editors how to retire from a dispute for a time. Those who have agreed to, and honored, voluntary bans should not need external bans; they have demonstrated the ability to control themselves. If these editors get out of line in the future, it should be sufficient for an uninvolved editor to ask them to take a break.
• The idea of 1RR may be useful. I'd be willing to see that placed selectively on particularly divisive articles by any uninvolved administrator. In addition, we ought to form a list where editors in the area can subscribe to a personal 1RR restriction for themselves. If this is honored, again, it is evidence of self-control, which suggests that external controls are unnecessary.
• The idea of rotating administrators out would be a good one. Perhaps we should set a voluntary target of 60 days maximum in the "hot zone". After that the administrators leave and do other things for at least 60 days. As long as people abide by voluntary suggestions, there is no need to employ an actual rule. Simply ask and explain that this is what we are trying as a means of resolving a very difficult dispute.
• To implement these suggestions we may want to create a WikiProject where we can keep central lists. One that I have been involved in for a long time, and it seems to have worked, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)