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)

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)

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)

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.

Reliable Sources

Although I am an uninvolved party I have followed this case out of personal interest. From what I have read on various pages, one of the major problems that has not been addressed in the proposed decisions is that the WP:V is being applied too stringently. That sources that are normally satisfactory (i.e. New York Times) are being excluded by parties who say they aren't good enough.--*Kat* (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:V says that the best sources are scientifically peer reviewed articles. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." For scientific information like in the GW articles, the New York Time article may not be a good source, especially if it contradicts a peer-reviewed publication. This is a fact that has apparently been assumed by arbcom as well, since it is not part of their ruling. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed climate articles don't discuss the political side of the issue, which is a major part of the story. They also don't use common neologisms (such as "climategate"), an omission which has been used as a tool to eliminate particular points of view from articles which only tangentially deal with the science. Horologium (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable sources for the political sides of issues are usually academic publications, newspapers and popular books can be valuable but have to be treated with care for various reasons. One being that they often promote a particular political slant, as for instance in their treatment of loaded neologisms such as "climategate". Since much of the political debate involves claims about the validity of science, to that extent we have to ensure that due and proportionate weight is given to scientific views when discussing the science. It's also important to show the political debate in context, for example party politics and economic interests. Particular points of view should be included if they're significant, and shown proportionately in full accordance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed climate articles don't discuss the political side of the issue - true, but scholarly works in the history of science and the social sciences do. Spencer Weart and Naomi Oreskes' works are two notable examples in the history of science, while Aaron McCright, Maxwell Boykoff and Anthony Leiserowitz are among the social scientists who have looked at the issue. (See, for example, my evidence submission) Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

^^^Here's a perfect example illustrating how these proposed decisions did not go nearly far enough. This type discussion is played out repeatedly ad infinitum on nearly every article in the CC topic area. Without even looking at the usernames, you can see by the arguments that the second, fourth and fifth comments are from the AGW bloc. And while their argument is civil and appears well-reasoned on its face, the effect is that the bloc will argue this point tenaciously so that reliable sources other than peer reviewed articles will be excluded, leaving the articles skewed and unbalanced. I would also point out that peer review in the climate change context is not exactly independent review as it may be in other areas -- although not Arb's remit to pass on that. Now, I would bet money that the above editors did not coordinate their responses or make some secret agreement to support each other if this issue is brought up -- no need, as the talking points have been very finely honed for years and are nearly reflexive among members of this loosely formed bloc.

This needs to be dealt with. I don't know how, but we are seeing very early that even with the proposed decisions, the problems that have made a mess of the CC area will continue. I don't see any clear cut enforcement mechanism when several editors show up and argue the same wrong interpretation of policy, likely because they all have a good faith belief in what they're saying. Minor4th 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reverse of that is also true - one side (or bloc, as you call it) does not an arguement make. There are two distinct bloc/factions/groups/editing parties/whatever you want to call them that each have distinct goals and POV's. Ravensfire (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific and academic accuracy is not a 'POV'. "Significant alternate viewpoints" per 3.1.9 do include 'party politics and economic interests' as above. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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/c 06:58, 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)

Enforcement 2

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)

Proposed principles

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of proposed principles with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. That way, anyone can find a discussion here that is specifically related to a section there. Please use the numbering from the table of contents when you create a subsection title here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

P 3.1.4. 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)

P 3.1.6. 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)

Administrators: 3.1.14 to 3.1.17 and 3.3.13 to 3.3.15

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

P 3.1.15 Administrator involvement - general

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)

P 3.3.13 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)

(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)

P 3.1.16 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)

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)

Proposed findings of fact / Proposed remedies

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Findings of fact" or "Proposed remedies" with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please use the numbering from the table of contents when you create a subsection title here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

P 3.2.4 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[5] 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 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)

P 3.2.5 Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

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)

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: [6], [7], [8] and this discussion [9] 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)

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)

P 3.2.6 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)

William M. Connolley: 3.2.7. to 3.2.10 and 3.3.3. to 3.3.6.

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Polargeo: 3.2.11 and 3.3.7

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)

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)

P 3.3.12 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)

Discretion Sanctions (proposed remedy 1)

The Discretion Sanctions (proposed remedy 1) could use some tightening up.

They refer to "editor working on an article within the area of conflict" I assume contributing to the article talk page counts. I don't know whether this includes discussion at a user talk page, or a user subpage. I think it should, but possibly dispensation for discussions on your own talk pages, or user subpages. If a sanction enjoins editor A from interacting with editor B, does this mean everywhere, including non CC articles? What about CC articles that are not in conflict?--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: 3.3.14 to 3.3.15

Please don't comment here. Please put comments or new subsections above at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Administrators: 3.1.14 to 3.1.17 and 3.3.13 to 3.3.15.

Proposed enforcement

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please use the numbering from the table of contents when you create a subsection title here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

P 3.4.1 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)

Jehochman and Franamax

No misconduct of administrators as administrators is described in the proposals. No admonishment of admins for bad admin-related conduct, either. I'm disappointed. My evidence against Franamax and Jehochman quite clearly showed that they violated WP:NPA and WP:ADMIN. Franamax showed some sign that he recognized his behavior was problematical. Jehochman did not. A statement by ArbCom recognizing the problem would alert those admins and others that they need to back up what they say with evidence when challenged about their characterizations of editors or they're committing a personal attack. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber's crusade against admins

I view the overblowing of a minor gripe against Jehochman and Franamax as further evidence of JWB's personal campaign against admins as he has shown towards myself. This shows a certain amount of bitterness which should not be allowed to be cultivated in this case. I think even those who benefit from the position of JWB should display some principles and be rational. Polargeo (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Why is [10] a WMC BLP vio (the 5th diff in the supposed list of them)? It removed a contentious label. I haven't examined the others. The Solomon article currently doesn't say "environmentalist" for what that's worth. It is a pretty bad article either way in my opinion. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does say environmentalist, so I can only guess that you haven't looked. Why don't you try again. Weakopedia (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, it's in the infobox but not in the paragraph. Still a poor article, and the one about his book The Deniers makes Wikipedia look terrible. More to the point, where is the BLP vio? At most I can see a possible POV issue in WMC's edit, but that's different. 67.117.145.46 (talk) (oops, address reset) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that's meant to substantiate the finding that WMC "has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements." Arbcom should have made a general finding that such editing is never acceptable. I'm not sure the current rules are too explicit on that, which is why a strong statement of general principle needs to be made. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps explain; clearer wording in the proposed finding would be helpful. In general though, I think the overall approach of this PD is not doing Wikipedia any good. Of course it's partly the fault of a broken underlying policy structure, plus mission creep on the project's part away from writing an encyclopedia, neither of which arbcom can fix. 67.117.145.46 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of something or the other

I prefer the earlier draft of the PD. The substance was essentially the same, but it was more concise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This proposed decision is the wettest non-decision I could have ever envisaged and is unlikely to solve any issues whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to find the upside in this. My take: maybe this proposed decision is all the endgame of some elaborate plan, brilliantly concocted and implemented by the arbitrators. In order to to restore some peace to the area of conflict, they decided to do everything possible to craft a decision that does nothing, yet pisses off both sides in the hopes that it will manifest itself in some form of mutually beneficial cooperation -- surely nobody on either side or in the middle would want to get involved in such a charlie foxtrot situation ever again. (Didn't a bunch of editors subject themselves to a voluntary "no fault" topic ban for five days for similar reasons?) If successful, this would be pure genius and pretty much render all past community-ArbCom grievances obsolete. All involved parties get along and work out their differences in a civil manner, and the arbitrators could play the "No, We Weren't Trying To Dick You All Over, We Were Just Trying To Bring The Best Out Of You" card now and in all future cases that drag on longer than they should. Everybody wins. I'm going to refer to this as the "If This Is True, I've Really Seen It All" plan, but it should probably be called the "Yeah Right, It's Just Optimism Bias On East's Part" plan. — east718 | talk | 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The only thing that surprised me even a little was the overt sympathy for Scibaby (not just anyone who might have been mistakenly blocked, but Scibaby himself). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think everything in the sockpuppetry/Scibaby section is pretty much accurate. My quibble is that it correctly diagnoses the problem, but doesn't lead to any constructive suggestions about how to better handle the situation. Given Wikipedia's emphasis on personality politics, I think the finding will be spun as evidence of the moral failings of editors who have tried to deal with Scibaby, rather than an opportunity for a supportive and constructive dialog about how we can do better in handling sockpuppetry on these articles. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it grossly overestimates the false positive rate, but I agree with you that it will be used by certain editors as a stick with which to beat up those dealing with a sockpuppeteer who, by a strange coincidence, happens to be promoting their POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: That's not completely true. A few weeks ago, I reviewed some of the changes allegedly made by SciBaby and some of them were completely valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. I rather think that if Scibaby was an environmental activist rather than an anti-science activist, there would be a lot fewer voices complaining about efforts to deal with his sockpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was making a point that some of his alleged edits were good, not about whether the ban is valid. SciBaby was before my time so I have no idea if he was a genuine disruption or if he was tag-teamed and gamed into oblivion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested the ban isn't valid. He was a chronic sockpuppeteer well before he got banned. It's why he got banned. There is no excuse whatsoever for his actions since his ban and I am, frankly, disappointed at the apparent sympathy being shown towards him from some quarters. He's the worst sockpuppeteer I've ever come across and I think I'm right in saying the most prolific sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia's history. That deserves condemnation, not sympathy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: I don't know if he's getting "sympathy" as you put it, but if so, perhaps its the still unaddressed misconduct of the pro-AGW block that triggers this reaction. If I may offer an analogy, Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." BTW, I hereby invoke Godwin's law and proclaim the Great Wikipedia Climate Change War to be over. Going forward, no one is allowed to argue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd

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 [11] a BLP vio? Is it a pasto?
• is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [12] as BLP vios?
• The "ownership" stuff is pretty weird too. Why is [13] ownership?

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

Comment on "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)

Discretionary sanctions

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)

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)

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)

Proposed principles: Neutrality and conflicts of interest

I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but part of the wording in this section is at odds with our policy on neutral point of view. Specifically, it states, "all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source (emphasis mine). This is not what WP:WEIGHT states. Rather, weight should be assigned according to the proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. This proposed principle needs to be changed to accurately reflect with NPOV actually says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that this introduces a vague new formulation, rather than clarifying particular application of NPOV to this topic area as proposed in the workshop. The policy is properly stated in the lead of WP:NPOV as "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." [emphasis in the policy] That's a better statement of what NPOV actually says. The detail of "proportionately" is set out in WP:WEIGHT which has its own section in the proposed principles, and which does not say "weight should be assigned according to the proportion to its prominence in reliable sources". The section goes into a careful formulation which should be read as a whole. It requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and properly reflect the relative levels of support for views. Note the link to WP:SOURCES which requires us to assess the quality of sources, not just quantity. Something similar to your formulation appears as "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." There remains the question of assessing reliable sources. That's been an area of debate in this topic area, but it would appear that the arbiters are not minded to clarify that issue, so we abide by policy on NPOV and WEIGHT which is of course unaffected by this arbitration. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been scratching my head over this one too. As far as I can see "in proportion to the weight of the source" doesn't even make sense as English. Clarification is desperately needed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it's a drafting error, not an intentional effort to change policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom rulings can't change policy. It's worth fixing, yes, but presumably it's a "you know what I'm talking about" kind of error. Sloppy, sure, but that's barely worth noting. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A Question

Who wrote this?

Marknutley disruptive behavior 13) Marknutley (talk · contribs) has committed a long series of disruptive behavior, including biography of living person (BLP) violations, creation of point-of-view forks (POV forks), copyright violations, incivility, incorrect interpretation and misuse of source material including improper use of blogs and primary sources, edit-warring, personal attacks (PA), and attempts to override consensus content decisions. (Selection of representative examples: [14] (BLP), [15] (BLP, sourcing), [16] (BLP, sourcing), [17] (BLP, sourcing), [18] (POV fork), [19] (PA), [20] (PA), [21] (PA), [22] (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), [23] (PA), [24] (assumption of bad faith), [25] (copyright violations), [26] (synthesis))

Since the initiation of the Climate Change general sanctions, he has been subject to multiple sanctions related to his behaviour in this topic area:

• Multiple blocks for edit-warring, copyright violation, and violation of 1-RR restrictions [December 2009 to July 2010]
• Sourcing parole ([27], [28]) [May 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]
• Civility parole ([29]) [June 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]

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 [30] 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 [31] 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 [32] I did not think so, nor did the editors who knew i was working on it. An accusation of editing against consensus [33] Erm, no. Only one editor at that time was against the use of these quotes to balance the insertion of this [34] The assumption of bad faith [35] Well i suppose this [36] 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)

Off Topic Stuff

Mark, there is one other matter I'd like to ask you about. Back in December, you were edit warring on Rajendra K. Pachauri and you posted this on an external blog, which apparently resulted in this and this edit from IP editors in support of your earlier edits. Would you care to comment on this apparent bid to violate 3RR which regrettably nobody appears to have spotted during the evidence phase? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is back from when i first started to edit wikipedia, i did not know the rules then about off wiki canvassing mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof - looks to me like harping on "first edits" is something which should be left to the past by now. Collect (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that this edit[37] contains a BLP sourcing issue? The cited source is a dead link[38] and there is no archive of it at the Wayback Machine.[39] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason you can't find it is that the Telegraph withdrew it, deleted it from their website and printed a public apology because the story was a pack of lies. So, yes, a BLP sourcing issue, to say the least. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Cite? BTW, if Marknutley had made this edit prior to a retraction, it's not really a BLP issue (unless you invoke the clause of WP:BLP that refers to reliable sources in the plural form) and certainly not anything a newbie editor would understand. ChrisO, I note that only a few weeks ago, you were edit-warring to include BLP violations in a BLP. Can you please explain why a newbie editor should have a better understanding of WP:BLP than you, who has years worth of editing experience? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[40]. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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.[41][42] 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)