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)

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)

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.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 (nt yet)

<placeholder>

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)

Did you two people miss this sentence? "Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits." Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 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)

Yes Minor4th, those discussions are repeated over and over. On one hand, you have people who make arguments like Horologium's - opinions, based on their own limited experiences. And on the other side you have people responding that no, actual sources exist. Under normal circumstances, that would lead to a resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, in this topic area, an answer like mine is almost certain to either receive a response like Minor4th's which dismisses what's said based on who said it, or you receive an IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. Or, less frequently but all too often, a rant that these sources are all biased, and that it's all a conspiracy, and the CRU emails proved that there was a conspiracy, and... Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I heard you. And if there's a peer reviewed source, use it -- but that doesn't mean other reliable sources are excluded to present balancing information.Minor4th 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you write this :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just as well nobody uses Wikiversity... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That article is hilarious. It's nice to have a good laugh in the middle of all this. Thanks for the pointer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• LOL - no I didn't write that and have never seen it before. :) Minor4th 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I've never edited in the GW space. I'm a software engineer not a scientist. I say what I said about peer-reviewed articles simply because it is what makes sense to me and is what is supported by the policy, at least as I read it. Actually, I believe that neither of us are wrong, at least not until a more concrete example is given to apply the different interpretations. I'm not arguing that the difference is not important, only that both arguments are correct. It is a continuous scale of gray between black and white, one end of the scale is most applicable to one argument. The other end is most applicable to the other argument. I'll guess that the real disagreement is where on that generic scale should one arguement be used over the other argument. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• This subsection is veering off-topic (by all means look at articles on other projects and even compare them to early versions of Wikipedia climate change articles as well, but please don't discuss that here). The comments that referred to the wording of parts of the proposed decision were useful here. Could further discussion of sourcing please relate back to the wording used in the proposed decision, or be copied to a section within the more organised structure below. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:02, 24 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)

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)

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)

P 3.1.7. Neutrality and conflicts of interest

• 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)

P 3.1.9 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)

P 3.1.10 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)

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)

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)

(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)

• 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)

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)

@ 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)

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 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)

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[6] 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)

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 [7]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)

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: [8], [9], [10] and this discussion [11] 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 [12]. 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)

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)

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)

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: [13]. Chris edited or reverted in BLP violations 3 times [14],[15] [16], and an additional instance with help from WMC [17]; Mark reverted 3 times, and claimed BLP exemption [18], [19], [20]. 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: [21].

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: [22], here:[23] and [24]. 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 [25]. 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 [26]. 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 [27]. 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: [28], You added a BLP violation as noted directly above, linking the SPS attack: [29], MN reverted the BLP violation: [30], WMC reinserted the BLP violation: [31], MN reverted the BLP violation: [32], You reinserted the BLP violation, claiming that it was not a BLP violation: [33], MN reverted the BLP violation again: [34], the page was full protected by SirFozzie [35], and MN was blocked by NuclearWarfare for edit warring on that page [36]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Marknutley 3.2.13 and 3.3.9 thru 3.3.11

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 [37] 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)

P 3.3.1 Discretionary sanctions

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Generally "the area of conflict" refers to the area defined as the locus of the case. This does include the article talk pages as well as discussions about the topic elsewhere (which could include user pages and project space). For example, an editor under a topic ban shouldn't contributed to a deletion discussion if the article would fall under that ban. If editors need to be directed not to interact with each other, this typically means that they've become disruptive in relation to each other outside the topic area as well. Most interaction bans are written so that the editors must avoid each other everywhere on Wikipedia, but it's possible someone could make an interaction ban more narrow if the disruption didn't happen outside of the topic area. CC articles that are not currently in conflict are still covered by the sanctions; if no disruption ever occurs there, all the better but since there's clearly the potential for disruption, admins will have the tools they need to resolve them. Shell ^babelfish 12:09, 24 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 [38] 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)

By the way, some of the negative material in The Deniers article was added by me, because it was reliably sourced, wasn't undue, and I try to follow WP:NPOV in contrast to some of the other editors involved in this topic area. Now that the voluntary topic bans are over for most of us, I'll go check the Solomon article about it saying "environmentalist" in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the voluntary bans are over? I asked about that below, and haven't gotten a definitive answer yet. I was under the impression that the voluntary bans aren't really voluntary, that they are enforceable by blocks, though I may be mistaken about that. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, feel free to end your voluntary ban, because you are not mentioned in the proposed decision. Done. I expect there will be no more edit-warring over this, based on how I read the proposed decision. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but take a look here [39]: I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation. I never noticed that before, and if I had I might not have signed on to the voluntary restriction, as it isn't really voluntary. I think we need a ruling on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:55, 24 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)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, epic fail on your part ;-) Presumably you're part of the pro-AGW block, as I'm rather against it and think we should be trying to stop it getting out of hand. Irrespective of how good or bad a sockpuppet's edits appear, policy requires us to revert them. It's then open to other editors to decide if they want to explicitly adopt the ideas as suggestions, as I'm sure you'll know. Much as I've Sympathy for the Devil. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the "obvious" solution for the sockpuppetry problem is to replace the current rangeblock system with something that only restricts IP ranges from editing certain blacklists of articles. Might not even take much coding to implement.... BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 24 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 [40] a BLP vio? Is it a pasto?
• is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [41] as BLP vios?
• The "ownership" stuff is pretty weird too. Why is [42] 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Guettarda is correct that arbitration case principles are guided by policy (or interpretations of existing policy) and cannot make new policy. It is worth checking the edit history of the page where the WP:UNDUE text exists, as it is possible the wording here was taken from a principle used in an older case, and the wording at WP:UNDUE changed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the (to me at least) relatively minor point about wording, it seems to me that the drafters got these issues exactly right. I note that, at several places in this talk, editors involved in the dispute are, yet again, arguing the same points that led to this case. I hope that the committee will not get sidetracked by such arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 24 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: [43] (BLP), [44] (BLP, sourcing), [45] (BLP, sourcing), [46] (BLP, sourcing), [47] (POV fork), [48] (PA), [49] (PA), [50] (PA), [51] (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), [52] (PA), [53] (assumption of bad faith), [54] (copyright violations), [55] (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 ([56], [57]) [May 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]
• Civility parole ([58]) [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 [59] 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 [60] 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 [61] I did not think so, nor did the editors who knew i was working on it. An accusation of editing against consensus [62] Erm, no. Only one editor at that time was against the use of these quotes to balance the insertion of this [63] The assumption of bad faith [64] Well i suppose this [65] 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)

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)

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)

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[66] contains a BLP sourcing issue? The cited source is a dead link[67] and there is no archive of it at the Wayback Machine.[68] 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A question of weight, and not very different from another case of undue weight to a properly sourced allegation, which Lar highlighted in evidence. Not all that easy to get the right balance. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stronger evidence please

I have concerns about the evidence presented. While I was not involved in editing climate change articles, from the small amount of time following them Mark in general appeared to be quite calm and polite, although I did see a 1 or 2 occasions where he lost his cool and was not civil; additionally from what I have seen he has contibuted productively in article development with at least one attempt to try and get an article to good article status.

Some problems with evidence. This poorly sourced BLP violation was among Mark's first 100 or so edits to wikipedia,[70], as was this one.[71] The sourcing here was not great,[72] and probably did constitute a BLP violation but again he was still fairly new to wikipedia. At his stage of editing I was using rat studies and single case reports for some of my edits.

This, however, was a BLP violation,[73] as the source was not reliable.

This alledged assumption of bad faith, was in response to this vandalism.[74] and this [75] Going to the talk page appeared to be an attempt to avoid an edit war over disruptive original research during mark's attempt to get the article to GA status. I am sorry but as those edits were by a well established and policy literate editor it is actually a good example of when WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied and a spade called a spade, i.e. it is vandalism. Mark was making an attempt to get that article to good article status, and if I were working on an article and that kind of disruption occurred I would find it difficult to keep my cool and I would find it difficult to put on the tin foil hat and assume good faith when it obviously is bad faith and disruptive vandalism. There was no assumption of bad faith, the allegation is accurate.

The personal attacks seem in most instances to be mild to moderate; I am not trying to justify these instances but I am trying to fathom how a site ban or topic ban is justified. Most of the PA's appear to be taken out of context; this incivil comment,[76] was in response to being threatened with a block. This incivil [77] was in response to being called ignorant. Here he is told he is talking crap and he responds by saying get a sense of humour.[78] Hardly examples of needing a topic ban or site wide ban. Site bans and topic bans are really only meant to be reserved for serious misconduct.WP:BAN

The one thing that did give me pause for thought was the diffs Chris has submitted regarding off-wiki canvassing. While Mark says this was when he was new to wikipedia and did not know the rules and guidelines I still feel he should have known this was wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You've provided a stirring defense of Mark, so I feel churlish taken issue with your final point. I suggest that people who have spent a lot of time with WP sometimes forget that WP rules aren't always obvious. I'm happy to say that in many cases they make sense - but it is understandable that a new editor would make some mistakes (as you have noted), but even in the case where you thought he should know better. Who should win an edit battle between Jerry Pournelle and the fry cook at McDonald's, when the article is the biography of Pournelle. Yep, the fry cook. Of course, but I trust you know why some people find that not exactly obvious. What happens in real life if you are arguing with someone that alcohol has deleterious effects on the brain, and you are losing the argument? You might call up some friends who happen to be experts and get them to help you out. Perfectly reasonable, out there, but not in here. My sole point is that the prohibition for off-wiki canvassing is well-intentioned, and a policy I support, but not exactly obvious. --SPhilbrickT 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, the evidence is strong enough for an admonishment, mark has done wrong, just no evidence has been presented to justify a topic or site ban. All I did was put the diffs into context. The flaw to ArbCom is it takes an enormous amount of time to look at evidence in context, for a case this size too much time for a volunteer, so all I did was put the diffs into context and stated in my view correctly that the evidence only shows mild to moderate misconduct and in several cases no violation of rules; infact it could be argued that with some of the diffs used by ArbCom that it is they (ArbCom) who are assuming bad faith and not Mark, but then that would be assuming bad faith, argh, time to bang head on wall. :P Ah you have been looking at my discussions on alcohol articles, well not to go off-topic too long but tis difficult because people keep coming to talk pages saying it is biased but it is not me, it is the medical literature, I have yet to read a medical paper which says something positive about binge drinking for example but they get angry with me instead of the medical literature, argh, ugh. :-@ Similar to what I say in content disputes, if I am wrong about Mark, "show me the diffs" (rather than papers/references) and I will consider changing my mind. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My point with regard to the issue I raised was that Mark clearly did know that he was violating the rules. Read what he said: "i can only make 3 edits a day to an article, they can team up and undo it without breaking the 3edit rule ... anyone want to go and undo changes to this article other than by mark nutley" [79]. In other words he knew that he was prohibited from making more than 3 reverts but he tried to solicit others to break the rule for him. He was not so ignorant, in other words, that he was unaware of the 3 revert rule. That's why I raised this issue. I anticipated that he would plead ignorance about the ban on meatpuppetry, but his own words show that he was aware of the 3RR; he didn't want to transgress it himself, but he wanted others to transgress it on his behalf by using "their" reverts to support him. That's wilful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between knowing about the 3r rule which was posted on my talk page after i had done two reverts. I had no idea what meatpuppetry or offwiki canvassing was at the time. Had i actually know do you think i would have posted under my real name on a blog? mark nutley (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] You make a good point Chris and I agree with you that he did know he was trying to circumvent rules via off-wiki canvassing and it does concern me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes mark, perhaps you did not know about off-wiki canvassing but you did know about the 3 revert rule, so even if per WP:AGF you didn't realise it was against policy to recruit people to join content disputes, I still feel that you must have known what you were doing was at least inappropriate (regarding off-wiki canvassing) and you definitely knew you were trying to circumvent 3rr by your own words. Knowledge of rules or guidelines set aside, I am sure you know right from wrong and at least knew you were being sneaky in doing that?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::Sadly no, i assumed tag teaming was the norm :) But i also admit it was wrong and it has only happened the once. In fact look at it this way, i could have had that post removed, i have not, why do you think that is? Because i know i made a mistake and i`m not ashamed to admit it nor for people to know about it. To err is human, and last time i looked i was kinda human :) mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mark, it is human to make mistakes and it is reassuring that you acknowledge that it was wrong and have not repeated it. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. I think that this is a case where common sense comes into direct conflict with Wikipedia rules. As I understand it, admins are not allowed to rule on content issues but are allowed to rule on conduct issues. But how is a newbie editor supposed to understand this distinction? Place yourself in the newbie's shoes. Here we have a group of editors who routinely violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Is it reasonable to assume that a newbie would understand that it's a greater sin to violate WP:CANVASS than it is to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Hell, I've been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and I still don't quite get it. As best as I understand, the reason why admins can't rule on content is because of legal considerations. But how is a newbie supposed to understand that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment regarding other editor's behaviour being worse than Mark's is better placed in the "limited scope" talk page section that I created. Mark has acknowledged it was wrong and it appears to be a one off, that is all that matters. :) Whether it was very wrong or slightly wrong is an argument that could go on and on. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:42, 24 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.[80][81] 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)

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," [82] 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)

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[83]: 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 [84] 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)

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)

Topic bans, fairness or rational please

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)

Limited scope

The scope of the findings of fact seems quite limited, there was more than 3 editors involved in disruptive conduct on these article pages. What about other editors who were involved in edit warring, some of which occurred during the arbcom case. How come there are no findings of fact? What was the rational on singling out just these three editors? Does ArbCom feel this is enough to stop tag team edit warring and other issues? What reassurance can ArbCom that these articles are no longer going to cause so much disruption to the encyclopedia? I know I am being quite negative here, I do not intend to be, I do on balance think that this arbcom case will result in an improved atmosphere for the encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also a bit concerned that the PD focuses on just two of the 'combatants' (and that's how they behave, so deal with the characterization) when there are quite a few more whose behavior is similar if not to the degree. Perhaps the committee thinks that newly fully involved admins at AE will simply topic ban the lot of them at the next disruption? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is exactly what the thinking is behind the draft. And when I go to the AE page, I find that enforcement decisions made by individual administrators can be appealed to A/N or AN/E. Where a good-sized phalanx of editors who shield their allies will march to clamor for overturning or lessening sanctions. I think this is basically what was going on before WP:GSCC was set up. So we return full circle, only this time with enforcing admins being able to cite this ArbCom decision. That won't slow down the phalanx. It remains to be seen how other editors and admins at A/N and AN/I will react. We know we can expect a lot more drama and tempers getting even higher. It won't be good for the climate change pages, for editors or for Wikipedia. If ArbCom admonished or even blocked more editors, it would strengthen the hands of the enforcing admins when the inevitable appeals start. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following the CC drama for long, but I'm not sure how I see the proposed decisions shutting down the POV WP:BATTLEGROUND that seems to exist throughout the CC article-space. I somewhat expected something decidedly tougher, like long-term 1RR restrictions at a minimum or .. hell, with this amount of unproductive behavior maybe even only 1 revert per week, or other such wider-ranging sanctions being implemented. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed in my statement, the proposed decision does too little, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere will almost certainly resume by the editors whose misconduct has gone unaddressed by this proposed decision. However, I do not agree with an 'across the board' 1RR restriction because this equally affects those editors who engage in WP:ADVOCACY with those who follow WP:NPOV. Instead, I favor sanctioning only those editors who repeatedly engage in WP:ADVOCACY and which side of the AGW divide they happen to be on is completely irreverent. Our goal as a project should be to write informative articles for our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing redux

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. [85] 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.[86] An edit based on a self-published blog which, it is clear here, is an unsupportable edit. [87]. 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)

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.) [88]. 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 [89] 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)

Proposed Proposed Finding of Fact: The effect of confluences of editors within articles and article talkpages

"It has been shown that almost all editors who contributed regularly to CC related articles were indicated as being in either of one of two generally viewpoint orientated groupings; those who agreed with the scientific consensus, or those who subscribed to a denialist or sceptic viewpoint - sometimes regardless of the editors own expressed viewpoint. The dynamics of these confluences of editors was the reactionary manner of their interactions; a viewpoint or edit offered by a contributor considered part of one confluence would invariably be removed/questioned/tagged by an account from the other grouping, with only minimal observance to the discussion aspect of WP:BRD. Sometimes edit wars over the inclusion or exclusion of a reference would erupt with many editors reverting in accordance with their perceived viewpoint sympathies, although no or few editors would violate WP:3RR. Discussions on the talkpage in regard to disputed edits would also quickly fall into a similar stand off between groups of editors advocating one stance and deprecating its opposite. A battleground mentality was quickly adopted and fostered by this appearance of fractionalism, and further that any input by a nominally independent editor was quickly assigned to one of the confluences and lauded/disregarded accordingly. The existence of these strongly held communal views on a viewpoint does not excuse editors from complying with all of Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms." Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This accusation about "almost all editors who contributed regularly to CC related articles" seems to me both inaccurate and very badly thought out. It does seem to have been the motivation behind Lar and to a lesser extent yourself going about, for example 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)." All editors should behave properly, and what I've seen is some editors getting out of line, and other editors, including those who share their views, encouraging proper behaviour. Your approach seems to promote the battleground mentality that has been a clear feature of the CC request for sanctions pages, but has by no means been universal. . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dave Souza. Anybody who edits so as to reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change runs the risk of being identified, absurdly, as a member of a "pro-AGW faction". Let's try to avoid that kind of unhelpful language. Those who are skeptical of the science are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but their edits should also reflect the known science. Most of the problems arising over the past few years come from editors who mistake their own personal opinion for "truth" that trumps the science, and heavy-handedness in response to the resulting point-of-view pushing. The content hasn't suffered much but it's often been a close run thing.

We can hope that as the science gains more clarity the pov-pushers will become less of a problem. Meanwhile we need a good sanctions regime in which to deal with the problems and to encourage administrators to use their initiative. The death of the admin-hampering probation, if it makes it into the final decision, cannot come too soon. Admins must be encouraged to take action. --TS 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with LHVU, EVERYONE is put into a box on one side or the other. And many operate purely within this box/battleground structure, and rarely try to get out of it. to TS's point about admins encouraged to take action... will you be one to Topic Ban an editor who consistently blocks information from reliable news sources from a CC article that is substantially about news related matters, not the science and data of CC? and will you then defend that topic ban at AN/I when 5 editors and admins will decry that you are over reaching and that this one instance of bad behavior will stop and be then end of it? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't think one can describe news articles as intrinsically reliable in this subject. For instance the BBC has apologised to the CRU for falsely claiming that the scientists distorted the science, and the Telegraph has withdrawn a story falsely accusing the head of the IPCC of corruption. We knew at the time that these stories were unreliable because they were not based in fact and thus not verifiable. This is unacceptable sourcing on a science subject, and unacceptable sourcing on a BLP. I would have commended any editor objecting to the abuse of Wikipedia by insertion of those obvious falsehoods as fact into Wikipedia. I would have pushed for the exclusion from the climate change field anybody with a habit of trying to insert poorly sourced factual claims into the articles. The use of such sources as illustration of points of view, or of distortions by the news media (where a secondary source such as the Press Complaints Commission confirms it) is acceptable. --TS 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another point worth making here in relation to yours, Tony, which is that there were obvious warning signs about the Telegraph story - notably the fact that it was written by Christopher Booker, a person with a long history of making false claims about scientific matters (cf. [90]). I'm pretty sure Booker's record of falsehoods was brought up on the Pachauri article talk page as a reason why the story should not be trusted without additional confirmation. The lesson, I think, is that editors need take a more considered approach - very often (as we saw with the CRU controversy) sensational media claims turn out to be baseless. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 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) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this proposal and the one below are just not necessary. If there has been edit warring, then it should be addressed. If there is battleground behavior, it should be addressed, and the same goes for incivility. Labeling of people has been a part of the problem, not part of the solution, and has actually contributed to the battleground mentality. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should get away from labeling. It's antagonistic and drives editors apart; we should be promoting cooperation, not conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Proposed Finding of Fact: The effect of confluences of editors within Probation enforcement requests

"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)

Voluntary editing agreements

One loose end: are the voluntary editing arrangements over? Unclear whether they expire at issuance of PD. See [91]. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think wise editors will extended their editing break until this decision is implemented. At that point our "good" editors will experience much relief, because their complaints will be heard and acted upon promptly, and not subject to stonewalling by the civil POV pushing that has frequently caused gridlock WP:GS/CC/RE. Those who engage in civil POV pushing are likely to get a rude awakening at WP:AE. That board is quite experienced at handling all forms of nonsense, and will be quick to issue sanctions.

Those who complain that this decision does not go far enough should wait and see what happens at WP:AE. Like other persistent conflicts, such as WP:ARB9/11, we will generate a lengthy sanctions log. Even if your favorite disruptive editor has not been singled out in this decision, they will most likely be dealt with at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing ArbCom's opinion on the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Jehochman that AE is better at quick action against POV pushers of all stripes, AE does not stand up well in AN/I appeals with lots of established users. And if anything can be shown in this dispute is that parties who do not like to follow the 5 Pillars, will appeal each and every single enforcement restriction put on. So, the log will be double length, with sanctions and repeals/modifications. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually think AE is a good idea, in theory, by theoretically exposing disputes to larger number of administrators. The problem was that the old enforcement board was overused in trivial disputes, so that may happen at AE too.

We're getting off-topic. On the voluntary restriction, I'd feel better about it if ALL editors and administrators currently involved in the pages backed off completely, just to see what happens. Since there hasn't been full compliance, I'd favor lifting these voluntary restrictions. Besides, if they really are voluntary, we shouldn't even be having this discussion and people should drift back as they wish. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just noticed that there's some language in the so-called "voluntary" agreement that threatens a block if people start editing again. See [92]: I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation. [Emphasis added]. Is this correct? Because if it is, we don't really have a "voluntary" agreement here. If it isn't, or if the agreement is no longer in effect, we need to know. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted the voluntary ban to be until the PD was posted, and then it would end for those editors not mentioned in the PD. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did too, but I don't like that language. It's coercive, and I don't recall noticing it when I signed on. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 24 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)

Overall effect of the proposed remedies

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)

Proposed Proposed Remedy: Regarding confluences of editors

"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.[93][94][95][96] 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.[97] which I reverted.[98] 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.[99] 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)

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[100]. 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)

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)

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)

←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)

• 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)

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)

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)