Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 2,002: Line 2,002:
******While I'm not going to provide an entire list of WMC avoiding answering questions I will provide some context here. At one point Lar asked WMC to stop calling him "old fruit," after that WMC made a post referring to Lar as such, but in a subtle enough way that he thought he could get away with it. Lar directly asked WMC if the "old fruit" he was referring to was himself (it was either him or Less) - WMC refused to answer the question. Again, this is just a small example of the pattern Lar is referring to. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
******While I'm not going to provide an entire list of WMC avoiding answering questions I will provide some context here. At one point Lar asked WMC to stop calling him "old fruit," after that WMC made a post referring to Lar as such, but in a subtle enough way that he thought he could get away with it. Lar directly asked WMC if the "old fruit" he was referring to was himself (it was either him or Less) - WMC refused to answer the question. Again, this is just a small example of the pattern Lar is referring to. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*******The relevancy to this section (i.e., battlefield behavior ''by Lar'')? [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*******The relevancy to this section (i.e., battlefield behavior ''by Lar'')? [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
********As I said I'm just providing some context. I suspect some of us wouldn't "harp" on these things so much if they weren't brazenly ignored while minor sins from minor players are exaggerated and hypocritically shouted from the rooftops by the same union of town criers that have circled the wagons for so long they haven't looked inward to see the filth oozing from the backsides of their mates and into the cesspit they now stand in. I suppose it must be like that old wives tale, of heating up a frog in a pot so slowly that it doesn't realize it is being boiled alive - some people don't realize how dirty they've become, or rather, they are so used to it now that it is second nature. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


====R17 and F17====
====R17 and F17====

Revision as of 04:37, 9 September 2010

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 purging the cache.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Page organisation

Structured discussion proposed

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

49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much, so maybe some grouping? But StS is right, one giant pile won't work. ++Lar: t/c06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you came up with a pretty good scheme and propose it be continued. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
One other consideration. A page dedicated to each individual section can be "watched". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

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

I've moved this to the bottom hoping people might actually take notice of it and take action. I'd prefer people contributing here to follow Carcharoth's suggestions. For a start, how about adding to section headings 'OT' and 'New suggestions for PD' where appropriate? Maybe hat some OT if it seems finished? I can see where there can be some merging (with subheadings) of sections also. And some summaries - you all do want to avoid TLDR don't you? On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are an Arb, I would gently put to you - so you might disseminate it among your colleagues - that a reason why there is the "volume and width" in the discussion on these pages is that hardly anyone thinks that the PD as written has covered the dispute sufficiently, nor made suggestions that are going to finally resolve this matter. My understanding is that ArbCom are not constrained to limit themselves to the topics, issues, and parties presented in an accepted Request, but I should suggest that it does not fulfill its function where there is genuine concern that the breadth of a problem is not being recognised. As previously, when the evidence section was closed down, the non-Arb participants do not know what the ArbCom consider germane and that which is pertinent. It is a bit rich to request that some material is in excess of what ArbCom require where there is no indication of where the line is being drawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this is aimed at Carcharoth, but it's under my comment. Carcharoth has said, up at the top of the discussion part of this page, "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions". I presume you've missed that. Archiving and hatting, marking of sections as OT, etc are all intended to allow full discussion while at the same time making it easier for arbitrators and others to read and digest the material. There is a 500 word limit for statements, but I don't think people are seeing that as a problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Doug said is correct. I would also point people to what was said here by Ncmvocalist: "as of the report date [23/08/2010], there were about 2680 words in statements while there was 17,236 words in unstructured discussion. As of this timestamp [26/08/2010], the figure for statements has less than doubled to >4000 words while the figure for discussion has more than tripled to >60,000 words." That is clearly unsustainable, so there has to be either a deadline by when to submit comments (this will force people to comment on the important bits), and/or a limit to the volume of contributions from any one individual (that isn't so much of a problem here). Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving approach

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

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

Probably should have left that to a clerk, since we have two. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we should do that but it would help if contributors suggested when it should be done. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion within statements

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

Fixed. Shell babelfish 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I recollect correctly (which, admittedly, I might not, given the amount of activity!), the removed comments began as part of a properly threaded discussion lower in this talk, but got moved up to an individual "statement" section later. Out of fairness to the editors who made some of those comments, it might be appropriate to restore them somewhere below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made the orginal post in the statements section but I had placed it at the bottom of the talkpage as a new section...it was archived...however, I prefer it now as it stands as I have nothing to add and don't want to create a meltdown again...--MONGO 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that my original request was for the discussion to be relocated and not for it to be removed altogether, but in the end it's whatever the arbs think best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those who commented, I was happy when it was archived, so speaking only for myself, I'm happy leaving them in the ether.--SPhilbrickT 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied my reply to my userspace and I added a small comment in my own statement section, giving a link to that text on my userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page too large

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

The statements are not the original statements. They are new statements (analogous to the request statements), intended to allow people more formal (word-limited) statements that can consist of summaries of people's thoughts on this matter. I agree that the normal discussion section is getting out of control, and we are looking at ways to bring this under control. If the page continues to grow without limit, we will likely close it temporarily to allow a summary to be written, but we would prefer the case participants to be able to manage and organise this discussion page themselves, with the assistance and guidance of arbitrators and clerks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point, a couple of sections above. You need to be more actively engaged in the discussion here, at least to the extent of responding to substantive issues raised with the PD itself, instead of sitting back and bemoaning the amount of material presented. More active engagement will lessen, not increase, the volume. For example, what changes, if any, have you contemplated making to the PD so far? ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think anything a user wishes to say as a priority regarding the PD can be put in the word-limited statement as Carcharoth suggests and these should certainly be studied by all arbs. Many UK PhD theses are limited to 40 000 words and often candidates assume the external examiners read only about 50% of these words. We simply cannot and should not expect arbs to follow the lot so if there is something burning you wish to mention about the PD this should go into your statement. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this issue was raised the page has grown to over a megabyte! I think that means it's something like 200,000 words. Anyone dropping in from Mars (or returning after a brief break) would find it almost unmanageable. I have no ready solution as I don't think discussion should be cut off or redirected, but it is a problem. Ironically, I think that most discussion is on-topic. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the PD process is almost over, I can't imagine it getting that much larger. Some hatting might help, although this won't reduce the gross tonnage. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

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

No doubt well intended, but you really should leave such things to the clerks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also archiving, hatting, and any other sort of thing. TS: you're not a clerk. Please leave this sort of activity to the clerks. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're all mandated to hat and to add and alter topic headings. On clerking and archiving, see this comment by me on arbitration clerk Doug Weller's talk page. --TS 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving is best left to the clerks and arbitrators, but organising the existing page structure is needed and Tony did a good job of it. I am going to go over the page in the next few hours and see what else can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

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

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

I agree. Perhaps we can maintain a table of contents on this page with links to the other pages, so that you can still have an overview of all discussions on a single page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages, unless done carefully, are harder to keep track of if you are trying to follow the entire set of discussions. I would ask that no-one create subpages unilaterally. I am going to be going through this page today to try and make it a bit more ordered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of comments on subpages. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

We could call these pages the Workshop, and maybe create a separate subpage for each editor's proposals. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We considered workshopping (I was actually initially in favour of this) but overall opinion among arbitrators that commented was to go straight to a proposed decision and see what comments that got. My approach in future would be to actually set a schedule to work through each broad section of the decision, to refine it, and then move on to the next broad section. It takes longer, but is more orderly and easier to follow, and avoids a deluge of comment on everything all at once. Incidentally, this section is in the wrong place and I'm going to move it up to the right place. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
End copied section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion locations

Discussion on arbitrator talk page

As this is a meta-discussion about discussion location, am moving it to the section at the top of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy discussion concerning an aspect of this PD is underway on an arbitrator's talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#Omission I don't think that it's appropriate for aggrieved parties to bring their concerns directly to the arbitrator, and commence a lengthy discussion away from the rest of us, for the purpose of swaying an arbitrator to withdraw/modify his proposals. This discussion should be moved back here, and I ask the clerk (or whomever) to please caution people to start all PD-related discussions here. Rlevse just happened to be on my watch list. If there are any other "side discussions" they should be disclosed and moved here. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have questions specifically for Rlevse. Rather than generating lots of noise and heat, I wanted to address Rlevse directly, and would appreciate of other editors would let me have a conversation with my colleague. One bit of the conversation is relevant to a wide audience, so I have cross posted it below for discussion. Thank you.Jehochman Talk 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Jehochman and Lar to propose alterations to a PD involving themselves directly to an arbiter is wrong, was wrong and should be done here rather than the arbiter's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is more or less useless. The volume of comments here is such that things are lost and un-noticed. I posted my concerns here, and have heard no responses from arbitrators whatsoever. This leads me to believe that they are not even reading my remarks. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's unfair and a bit high-handed for an editor, particularly an administrator, to say "this page is useless" and commence a side discussion with one arbitrator for the purpose of swaying him to change/delete a proposal. As I said on his talk page, I think you have an arguable case. You are alienating people who might otherwise side with you, and you are acting unfairly to editors who may not agree with your position. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check some of the other arbitrators' talk pages such as User talk:Carcharoth and User talk:Newyorkbrad, I think you'll find other conversations. This is not atypical at all. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple situation: you've commenced what has morphed into a lengthy, multi-section discussion in which your pushing for changes favorable to you. It belongs here. If that's happening elsewhere, that needs to stop as well. Lack of transparency is a major problem with the way arbcom operates. Let's not make it worse, OK? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and Cacharoth's and Newyorkbrad's talk pages don't have anything even remotely resembling the discussion you've commenced on Rlevse's page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse is wise enough to stop or relocate a conversation that doesn't belong on his talk page. Why don't you give him a chance to respond. And could you please be a little less combative? Jehochman Talk 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how more gentle I could be in pointing out that you've started a discussion in the wrong forum. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Jehochman, stop the tangential debate and use this page like everyone else is. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to move the discussion, which includes other people's comments not just mine. It's up to Rlevse or a clerk to do that if they feel it would be appropriate. I just want my concerns to be addressed. I don't care where that happens. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could everybody just shut the hell up? Enough already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, and with due consideration involving the advantages and disadvantages of User Short Brigade Harvester Boris' reasonable suggestion, I endorse it wholeheartedly and without reservation, and, not to extend my remarks any more than necessary, propose that, with regard to this particular thread, we implement Comrade Boris' superlative proposal without any further delay so as not to lengthen this already lengthy, languid page any longer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing and drafting new proposals

Again, this is a meta discussion about the correct approach to discussing new evidence and proposals, rather than discussing the proposals themselves. Am retitling this and moving it to the meta section at the top of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Coordinated attempts to get editors included in the PD running on talkpages

I wish to highlight some jockying going on to get an editor mentioned in the PD. JohnWBarber calls certain editors to help him with evidence [1], [2], [3]. Two of them then respond on his talkpage to help him collect the evidence and put his case together (see User talk:JohnWBarber#Response) ((NB page at this stage on making this comment)). This just feels wrong to me. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was anyone not already involved in the basic issue CANVASSED? Or is this an aside? Collect (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were the one most interested in "confluences" or "blocs" of editors but maybe you are not interested when they are on your side. Anyway there are confluences or factions coordinating to try and influence the PD. Please do not try to steer the subject to CANVASS, that is a complete strawman. Polargeo (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I was posing a question about the nature of the problem. I feel strongly about what CANVASS is, and is not. I did not see that you were asserting this as a matter of some sort of evidence of a bloc of some sort. Collect (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try and highlight what I feel is wrong. This is a group of editors combing through the diffs of an editor they disagree with and desperately trying to put a case against him, please read the talkpage I linked to. They are generally looking for any instance he has been rude to them as their main evidence. It really feels like Norwegian folklore. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you are objecting to editors openly asking for help in collecting diffs? If so, why not just say it here like, "So-and-so has asked other editors on their talk pages to help him collect diffs for this ArbCom case. I object to this." Then, leave it like that. If the arbitrators or clerk agree with you, I imagine they'll say something like, "So-and-so, please don't openly ask other editors to help you collect diffs." If the arbs remain silent, then I suggest getting back to writing articles and not worrying too much more about it. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need arbs or clerks to agree with anything Cla. I am just giving them a heads up on the way certain groups of editors have approached this process. This is very similar to when ATren was giving you diffs to post in your statement on the Lar RfC/U, I notice ATren has also been asked for diffs here. Seems to be a tactic of if together we can somehow dig up and throw enough mud maybe it will stick to our opponent and hence we will win those content battles that we cannot win through rational argument. No real consideration of the quality or cohesiveness of the mud though. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then Polargeo, how about this: in another thread on this page we have ChrisO admitting he's shared a "list" of factors that will help identify Scibaby, which he has shared with several editors privately and admitted to doing so. Where is your objection to that? What we're doing is diff collection (something which is pretty much uncontroversial and non-judgemental since anyone can evaluate the diffs for themselves); what they're doing is some kind of McCarthyesque back room dealing to determine which editors to ban from the project! The fact that you object so strongly here, without a word there, speaks volumes. ATren (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had nothing to do with Scibaby socks so why I should have commented about something that has nothing to do with me I don't know. Group diff collecting with a goal to get users whose edits you disagree with sanctioned in a sort of lets dig up as much mud as we possibly can and then present it all out of context is in my opinion one of the most dishonest and underhand things I have seen in the CC area. Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Personally, if it was me instead of JWB, I would have posted a message on my own talk page rather than other editors' talk pages. But I'm not sure it would have mattered much (at least for me) as my response would have been the same. BTW, it's misleading to say that a group of editors are currently trying to comb through the diffs. TGL declined his request as did I. Instead, I referred him to the evidence I collected and posted on July 6th[4] and I am content to leave it at that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, but TGL did also give some pointers to assist JWB and you still gave him advice on tayloring the evidence so it still does look bad to me. Polargeo (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, I did find his presentation confusing and suggested he add years to the months and days.[5] Obviously, I should be hung, drawn and quartered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey: There is no "they".[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the strategy meeting taking place of JWB's talk page, I'd have to say you're wrong about that. I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polargeo, how did you and WMC collect the diffs for the RfC you posted on Lar? If you coordinated your efforts somehow, then what exactly is your objection here? Cla68 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a terrible lack of good faith. You still do not accept that I had no communication with WMC on that whatsoever and it was entirely my own work based on my observation of Lar's behaviour, I had no idea WMC was going to be the first to endorse it. This just goes to highlight how honest independent editors are being accused of being a cabal/bloc/collective etc. by those who really do act with cohesion and collusion to achieve their goals. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, if you had asked WMC to help you with collecting the diffs, either by email or on his WP talk page, are you sure that you would have been doing something wrong? Cla68 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think asking for diffs is fundamentally wrong but I do think trying to stitch up a long term editor by several editors who oppose that editor searching through the editors' history to uncover every bit of mud they can find is behaviour which crosses a line. Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Were you going to seek out and complain about all CC related instances of that behavior? ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar, firstly this case applies to the PD so unlike other cases is actually appropriate here on this talkpage. If you are referring to yourself I never tried get you banned or called for you to hand in your bit. I have simply tried to get you to stop acting as an admin in situations where I thought it was conterproductive and I have independently presented diffs in open forums such as the RfC/U not coordinated diff collection on my own talkpage. On a wider note yes you are right this sort of nonsense needs to be stopped no matter who does it. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You link to three posts to three pages, where only one person seems to have responded with "I don't know, I'm probably not the person to ask..." followed by some vague handwaving to the existing evidence page. You, on the other hand, post to Scjessey's talk page "You are in deep poo poo! JWB, AQFK and TGL are excitedly rubbing their hands together in preparation for a feeding frenzy on your soft bits, which based on my own experience I happen to think highlights the true nastiness of editors who are superficially civil." Then come here and go one about collusion and blocs. A bloc of one editor who canvassed some others, and one who went, "meh."
When, in all of this, have you ever had good faith? How are we to think you might even recognize it? Your attacks have become more poisonous and more toxic the longer this goes on. You need to step back. 76.184.207.202 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have exactly no good faith left with some of these editors and I request anyone read the representation on JWB's talkpage rather than the partial and selective representation by his defenders such as yourself here. By the way can you please sign your comments with your real username rather than just using an IP please. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read a partial or selective representation...I read the links you posted. I'm also not defending him, I'm not addressing his behavior at all. You're the one I'm worried about. You're the one I've seen carrying personal animosity toward several editors that goes way past any possible concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia. You're the one I'm honestly scared to login for, because I don't want you obsessing over me. 76.184.207.202 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpreting me and attempting to cast me as some demon figure. Why are you scared of me? Who have I ever tried to obtain sanctions on or block in the CC area? Exactly nobody. I am trying to stand up against the hipocritical. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo: Who are you accusing of being hypocritical? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not you. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is good for some laughs, but no more. WP:CANVASS doesn't apply: consensus among people not on ArbCom doesn't matter and my messages were not meant to affect it anyway. I went to editors who I thought might already have diffs I was looking for (or know where to find them), and the diffs I was pointed to on the evidence page (which I'd forgotten about) were very helpful. Any accusations of nefarious conduct or intent are simply assuming bad faith (and potential additions to my evidence). I did nothing more than ask people to do what they can be assumed to be doing here anyway -- looking at Scjessey's edits. Nothing said was an attack on someone and it was all done in conjunction with this ongoing case. Within 24 hours (I'm hoping much, much less time than that), I'll post something here. Anyone whose seen my talk page will get a very good idea of what's coming and, if they want, prepare counterarguments. I imagine it's not fun for Scjessey to be reading about this, but I'd argue that it's better than seeing it all, suddenly, on this page, so I don't think I've been cruel to him. Some editors here have indicated they find what I did distasteful, but I haven't seen an explanation why. Certainly nothing was said that would have been worse than what's on this page. Now, really, this has wasted a lot of space on this page. Let's discuss the case here, not discuss discussing the case. Ugh. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I indicated above, I really couldn't care less what you do. By all means go diff-diving if that's your thing, but I'm confident you will be wasting your time. I can see from some of your talk page discourse that you are already trying to figure out a way to frame my contribs in the worst possible light, which I'm pretty sure won't be impressing members of the Committee. Anyway, I look forward to your Big Reveal with great anticipation! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the IP editor should use his/her account to make postings. I was fearful of editing this page myself, which can be confirmed by an arbitrator. I don't think you have anything to fear from Polargeo or anyone else. That being said with what you have said about this editor he and everyone else has the right to know who is talking here. So please sign your posts with your account and remove the IP signatures. I would think on a page like this that signing with your real account would be mandatory, if it's not than maybe it should be. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well...I sort of agree, and sort of don't. Based on the penchent of participants to lump people's comments into a 'factional response' format and either listen or not based on who it is, this IP response might be the only way to get some editors to actually read the comments. I do think that Polargo is over reacting to some review others are doing of editor participation, the committee seems less interested in specific sanctions except against the worst offenders. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I find myself agreeing with you on some things Polargeo and then you go and pull a stunt like this. I realize the evidence against skeptics is incredibly flimsy and sparse when compared with the evidence about the "science" editors, but adding more misrepresented and overblown evidence to the pile just shows how weak the case is on your side. Other than that I really don't have much to say, others have pointed out how incredibly wrong this is, and anyone with doubts can go and look at the diffs and wonder what you were thinking in even bringing this here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and when you said this highlights the "true nastiness of editors who are superficially civil" were you referring to all three of the people you named in that post? Who exactly of the three editors that you named are "truly nasty" and "superficially civil?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the subject header you also refereed to us as the "unholy trinity" - and yet you are calling the three of us "superficially civil?" Unbelievable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on Scjessey's page you said, "Yes I saw that username change. On another note why do we have to deal with and be polite to "users" like this? Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)." That statement echoes diffs I put in my evidence page from other members in this case - showing the micro-culture of how you guys don't feel you need to be even "superficially civil." TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query on soliciting editors from non-Climate Change related pages

I posited that such canvassing as [7] on totally unrelated article pages will not aid the committee make any decision whatever. Does anyone feel such unrelated solicitation of input helps here? Collect (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention canvassing. See the section in WP:CANVASS on "Inappropriate notification," which lists "notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" and "posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions." Then ponder these[8][9][10] messages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, as I have made clear, am concerned that policies and procedures on WP be adhered to. Collect (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conclusion

Polargeo and Collect have valid points. While new proposals are welcomed, please don't spread discussion or drafting of them to other pages. Please use the case pages to present and discuss new proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

You should explain why you think that. It certainly isn't obvious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what I see here is groups of people trying to gather new evidence which has the potential to escalate out of control. We are open to new proposals, but they should be based on what is already in evidence, or limited to what people are prepared to find themselves from recent activity since the evidence pages closed. What we don't want is opposing groups working to bring out a whole raft of new proposals (half of which the arbitrators will not use). That is what happens on the workshop page. What we want here is limited, carefully done proposals. It is not meant to be a free-for-all with everyone joining in to provide a diff here and a diff there. I know you might not be happy with this reply, but the case is winding down now. Trying to crowdsource last-minute proposals won't help, so please accept that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't accept that at all. Your characterization of what's on my talk page is wide off the mark. What I was doing was asking for ideas so that I can refine my own proposal and that's just what I did. My proposal is better for it because I included the most telling examples I could get, some of which I hadn't noticed before. Getting the best evidence possible can only be good for the process. The idea of making proposals on other editors was brought up and the two of us who discussed that agreed there wasn't much point to it. Much of the evidence against Scjessey is from edits that occurred late in this case and, as you know, the Workshop page is closed. I did the right thing. I could have done it by email, but I could feel this case winding down and I wasn't going to rely on Wikipedia's creaky email-confirmation system -- and I didn't think the matter would cause any disruption. What we don't want is opposing groups working to bring out a whole raft of new proposals If Scjessey or anyone else commits a whole new raft of behavior-policy violations related to CC, a new raft of proposals is what you're gonna get, like it or not, and that's what you should get. And as for limited, carefully done proposals, some of the best evidence presentation I've ever seen in an ArbCom case (admittedly with my little experience) occurred above in the "free for all" regarding ChrisO. It convinced me that asking other editors for information would be a good idea and I was right. Incidentally, I hadn't seen Boris' WP:CANVASS comment. Of course I wasn't notifying anyone of a discussion, which kinda defeats his point. I think you should be more concerned about editors in CC-enforcement-related discussions calling other editors "assholes". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Carcharoth A question if you don't mind? You say near the end that "the case is winding down" (For clarity, partial comment made near the end of your comment.) so should comments here be stopped because the PD is written and there will be no more changes, just votes? If it would be more proper to have put this on my talk page or yours, feel free to do so but please put it on mine so I see it easier. Thanks in advance for clarifying this for me, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Endorsements of my view dated before 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) should not be taken to endorse the below material which has been just added.

This case has been a great disappointment to me and I suspect to many others. It has been a huge effort, apparently wasted. Much evidence submitted hasn't been reflected in findings at all. ArbCom seems to have suffered a failure of courage here, which they should be rather sheepish about.

  • The case mechanics have been handled very poorly. Stifling discussion, hatting things prematurely, closing pages and worst of all, distorting the workshop function. Waiting a month for the PD with no discussion allowed was a travesty, and the particular PD presented is sorely lacking. Further, the total lack of guidance on what the Arbs were looking for in the way of evidence, feedback on how things were going, and thoughts on what should be done next to move the case along, for such a large and important case, is a sign of mismanagement by the lead arbs. Perhaps Kyril would have been a better choice for lead arb as I suspect things would have been organized better.
  • The findings are greatly lacking in that a) they do not acknowledge the disruptive behavior of the blocs that are mentioned in the principles. It is as if ArbCom shies away from naming names, for some reason. Why mention a principle at all if you're not going to use it? b) they strain at gnats and swallow camels. The collection of things that are mentioned include some cases that are very small beer. Meanwhile much more egregious violations of basic site policy go unmentioned.
  • The sanctions are unbalanced, like the findings, in that they throw the book at a couple of editors on one side, while watered down sanctions are proposed (and tellingly, subsequently not supported by NYB) for WMC, the most problematic editor of the whole case, the one whose behavior is defended by a large bloc of aligned editors (and some who are acting in good faith but regrettably are confused) and who is a role model for bad behavior by many other folk. Further, by focusing on specifics, the sanctions are not likely to solve the actual problem here, that there is an unlevel playing field. Different editors are held to different standards, depending on ideological bent. Different sources are held to different standards, sometimes in both directions at the very same time, depending on what view they support. Different BLPs end up as puff pieces, or attack pieces, depending on ideological bent, with fierce edit wars to keep them that way. Why are the editors doing this not being sanctioned, en masse? It's not just WMC who is the bad guy here, his many defenders and fellow edit warriors hold responsibility too.

An aside: there is a significant misrepresentation of something I've said going on which needs clearing up. When I say the playing field is not level I am NOT referring to content, or to the weight that various views should be given, especially not in the science article area, which by and large has the right balance in my view (as an "alarmist", or "warmist" if you prefer). I refer to the process, and to the treatment given to editors based on ideological bent. All editors should be held to the SAME behavioral standards, regardless of any perceived POV they may hold. All sources should be evaluated using the SAME metrics, free of any use of what POV the source espouses, focusing only on reliability, verifiability, how notable the source is and our other principles. All material should be measured against the SAME criteria when deciding inclusion, including of those of undue weight, and relevance to the topic. Most importantly: All editors should be held to the SAME behavioral standards, regardless of any perceived POV they may hold.

That has not been happening. Editors who are in the bloc aligned with WMC are treated much more gently than those who are skeptic, or, most tellingly from a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective, than those who happen to be warmist as well but who abhor the factionalism they see. Anyone who claims that I mean something else than this... is likely part of the problem, the very bloc of editors that ArbCom is afraid to name and who is being let off far too lightly.

I recognize that the above is not a popular view, and that holding it renders me unfit for further office, at least in the view of the WMC bloc. They have tried hard to have me removed from the field because I am willing to state what I believe, while still acting impartially. Further, they will not forget, and they will have their revenge at the polling booth, as they have before, by manufacturing trumped up reasons. But I don't care any more. It needs to be said. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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. [11] 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)[reply]

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, [12] 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 [13] on Michael E. Mann and this [14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by JohnWBarber

I hope every ArbCom member will reread LHvU's comment at 22:44, 23 August [15]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

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

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

Jehochman's statement describes the nature of the problem very well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am very concerned that the Wiki equivalent of ex parte communication is occurring in the case. I believe that the lobbying by WMC on the talkpage of Newyorkbrad is inappropriate. Discussion of the case and proposed findings / decisions should be here, not on the individual ArbCom members talk pages. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGoodLocust

1. Administrator involvement - enforcement matters: The rules have been gamed too long - editors/admins who should have recused themselves due to COI have not. This principal will be ignored unless it is enforced. In particular Bozmo has edited the area extensively and has edited WMC's talk page hundreds of times ([16]) - he has refused to recuse himself despite being asked several times, going so far as to use such a request as evidence against me to extend my topic ban. 2over0 has temporarily cut back from enforcement, but he demonstrates the need for something else - a DUCK rule and enforcement mechanism for involved admins. While his edits in the area have been telling they have also been minimal - the real DUCK test comes from the evidence [17].

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ATren

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

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

Statement by Nsaa

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

Statement by WMC

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

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

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

  • Locus: the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes is wrong. The disputes are pre-existing ones, we all know that global warming is contentious in the real world. You could remove all the snark, etc, and insist on total surfaec civility - and the same disputes would exist. Having started with this fundamental error the PD goes downhill from there.
  • Sockpuppetry: I don't believe that a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. is credible. If that is to be believed, a list of such accounts should be provided.
  • Previous sanctions: as noted by others, noting that arbcomm previously imposed a revert parole on me, but failing to note that it was overturned as an error, is evidence either of carelessness or bias. Noting two RFC's but faling to note the (positive, for me) outcome is the same.
  • Incivility: refactoring deliberate sniping is not incivil [18]. Reaction to an admin blocking you [19] is explicitly permitted by arbcomm's own decision (remember Giano?). Etc etc. You'll also notice that 80% of that section - all the second para - ends up noting that I was blocked for what all agreed afterwards were invalid reasons. A finding that The WordSmith had pointlessly inflamed the situation would be in order.
  • Admin involement: The disputes were exacerbated because no clear definition of "involved" had been agreed upon for this purpose - this is not true. The probation had in fact been set up with a very clear definition of involvement - but it wasn't a defn that suited certain admins, most obviously Lar, so it was cast aside. But for arbcomm to pretend that the defn didn't exist is deceitful.
  • Ownership: that section appears to be a deliberate joke, presumably in order to discredit the entire judgement. Just one page? And why on earth is [20] or [21] or indeed the others "ownership"?
  • BLP: looks pretty desperate to me. Why is [22] a BLP vio? Could you not do any better? Perhaps [23], presumably for inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability - which misses the point. It is well sourced, undisputed, and (at the time) was one of the very few known things about him. And why is this [24] a BLP vio? That is just mudslinging by the drafting arbs. And dredging up edits 6 years old that actually pre-date the BLP policy itself [25] shows how weak this stuff is.
  • The climate change noticeboard: became pointless when it was hijacked by involved admins Lar / LHVU. Getting rid of it is good; failing to note *why* it failed is a failure of the PD.
  • William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area - thanks for the note, and then the deliberate belittling follow-up. Subtext: "yes you know what you're talking about, but we don't care, because there are plenty of people who can replace you". But you're wrong: the only other wikipedian I know of with significant climate expertise is Boris, and you know what he thinks of your judgement (oops sorrt: I forgot DF: but he doesn't really edit any more. You could ask him why).

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

See my 28 Aug edits to the PD from 14:17 to 15:40 UTC. I've attempted to address much of this. Still working on suggestions from you and others on the PD. RlevseTalk 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silently striking dodgy diffs looks dodgy; but I'll now have to trawl through the randomly-added new ones William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: some newly added stuff is valuable, in that it gives arbcomm a chance to reject it (15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.; Lar's May 18 block of William M. Connolley affirmed; 2over0 strongly admonished; Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised; ChrisO banned from Climate Change article for six months (etc). Use of blogs is bad (there are respectable blogs that should be used). OTOH, Lar comments, actions, and mindset is useful (Lar is involved would be more useful, of course).

The major flaw of the case, and of arbcomm, remains: a refusal to judge content, and a preference for surface over substance.

More interesting is the switch from FoF 1 to 1.1. This is correct (as I said ages ago): this isn't a dispute generated in wikipedia; it is an external dispute which is merely reflected in wikipedia. A corollary of that is that you can't solve the dispute by banning a few people and making everyone talk nicely: the dispute would remain as before, but with different people.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

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

Statement by recused Arbitrator SirFozzie

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

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

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

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

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

But what do I know.

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

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

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

Statement by K10wnsta

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

On Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

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

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

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

And my 500 words are done… now.

Statement by Woonpton

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

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

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

Statement by FloNight

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

Statement by Jehochman

The decision, as it is now shaping up, appears to be lopsided. Many of the regular editors and administrators who edit in good faith are being sanctioned for their efforts to resist an onslaught of sock puppets, canvassed editors, civil POV warriors, and agenda driven editing. Meanwhile, those who use dirty tactics in a battle for editorial control are not being held sufficiently accountable, largely because of the difficulties in doing so. We need to think about ways to encourage good editing and good administration, rather than playing the blame game. We also need to pay attention to content. Merely counting reverts and sanctioning those who revert the most is a very bad idea. Sometimes a lot of reverting means that there's been a lot of bad editing that had to be reverted. I am all in favor of discussion, but how do you discuss editorial disagreements with throw-away sockpuppet accounts; canvassed editors, and agenda-driven editors who have no intention of ever listening to reason? Jehochman Talk 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Committee was preparing the proposed decision I convinced about 15 editors to voluntarily cease editing CC articles. This experiment was successful. It helped calm the dispute for a time. In the future I would encourage more use of voluntary restrictions, such as editing breaks, or revert restrictions. Voluntary programs may reveal which editors are willing to control themselves, and which ones are beyond reason. (Those beyond reason may need involuntary restrictions.) Jehochman Talk 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

The proposed decision was improved by Rlevse's recent changes, but I remain troubled by the punitive character of much of the PD and the talk page conversation. As presently drafted, it is tilted significantly against editors with scientific expertise, focusing on their behavior without taking into consideration the provocation of dealing with an phalanx of editors pushing fringe science. Their behavior has also been influenced, for the worse, by the omnipresent Lar, who I believe is more responsible for the negative atmosphere in the climate change articles than any other established editor. He is simply not a civil editor. That appears to be his personal style. Yet not only has he not been relieved of his official responsibilities because of this shortcoming (except for the action in Meta unrelated to these proceedings), but in the initial version of the PD he was not subjected to any sanctions. That surprised even him.

There is such a lack of interest in the actual content of these articles that there is a serious proposal to remove all the editors involved in "conflicts" in these articles over the past two years. If enacted, the effect would be to degrade Wikipedia's reputation even further, and to reverse the strides that have been made in the CC articles. This PD leaves a lot to be desired. What worries me is not that this has become such a free-for-all that it may actually get worse. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't edit CC pages, and this is the first Arbitration case in which I've chosen to involve myself. Here's what I think:

  • When the dust of this case settles, it will be important that administrators who consider working in Arbitration Enforcement not be dissuaded by this decision, either because they worry that disruptive editors will get away with misrepresenting what the administrators will have done in good faith, or because they worry that the Committee will second-guess them.
  • There's an important difference between, on the one hand, having a bad day and making a mistake, and, on the other hand, displaying a chronic pattern of repeated disruptive behavior, all the more so after already having been warned about the behavior in previous Arbitration decisions.
  • In the latter case, it makes little sense to keep offering "second chances". It's in the best interests of the project to show them the door. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CrohnieGal

Watching this whole thing playing out as pretty much a lurker of several editor's pages, AN/i and the the sanction board along with other boards at times, I find this whole thing a bit disturbring. Sanctions against administrators like 2/0 with Lar, Lar with Jehochman is outright wrong. You want to bring in administrators yet you are are sanctioning these for minor things, a one event type of thing. Please reconsider these.

There is a lot of noise on this page I'm sorry to say. There are comments upon comments by involved editors. I hope attentions are being taken a lot more by those who are outside the area of CC. I also have to agree that a lot of the PD seem more punitive than it should be. I'm also getting the feeling that politics are getting involved in some of this. The reason I feel this way is that some of the PD missed out on being balanced about claims against editors which are now trying to be adjusted (see the history of the PD for the difs)). I sincerely think our first priority should be the articles. I'm not seeing this as being a prority. Editors do get sarcastic but let's not forget that some of these editors have been answering or trying to answer the same things over and over, add in socks and what you have is a lot of frustration. I honestly don't know if anyone reads what I say, it matters but then again it doesn't. We need to have articles for the readers, that needs to be our first priorty. Behavior is important but not more important than our readers having an article that is accurate and meets policies. I think the next priority is to get rid of spas and socks. People with an agenda that don't park it or a sock breaching policies first by socking needs to be stopped. I think I've said enough to get my points across. In closing lets please remember the reader before we do anything drastic. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2over0

Statement pared for presentation. More thoughts.

  • Encourage more involvement from more admins. I know that this point has been made before and that the power of ArbCom to do this is basically limited to social reinforcement, but the point bears reiterating. Encourage more involvement from uninvolved admins. At least half of this case could potentially have been avoided with another three or so "go-to" admins working the area. This would both lessen the impact of unavoidable individual biases, and provide enough back-up that we would feel more comfortable rotating ourselves out after two or three months (LHvU - I hope to see you around sometime in our mutual self-exile). I appreciate that P17 acknowledges this.
  • Lar makes a very good point some ways below regarding the value of positive reinforcement, which is especially valuable when coupled with MastCell's advice that we should all model the behaviour we wish to see in others. Examples of "best practice" scenarios might be helpful as a reference for admins and editors deciding the best way forward in future disputes in this and other areas.
  • I am not convinced that the present proposed decision strikes the best possible balance between giving every editor and every case a fair hearing while not allowing editors to choose for themselves which administrators are allowed to act. I would like to see a statement encouraging editors and admins to step aside, or at least wait a day, whenever they feel their objectivity may be compromised. One of the advantages of conducting these discussions over the internet is that they do not need to occur in real time - there is no need ever to say anything "in the heat of the moment", so the need to forgive and forget such statements should be rare.
  • The purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, period, full stop. We are not here to play host to interminable arguments about the topics it covers, and should have few to no compunctions asking people to direct their more fractious impulses to one of the countably infinite other websites who welcome such discussion. If there is one primary reason why I quit adminning this topic area, it is that I am simply not interested in being required as part of due diligence to continue reading interminable discussions concerning why a particular editor, source, or point is in the pay of the anti-FSM. I really appreciate the "put up or shut up" language in P6, and I hope that the principle is closely monitored and enforced in future discussions.
  • On the subject of P6, I think that it omits a very important counterpoint to P4. Specifically, no one should accuse a fellow volunteer of bloc editing (or any other behaviour not solely motivated by improvement to the encyclopedia) except in the narrow circumstance of providing evidence for and discussing potential sanctions. More at P6: Casting Aspersions.

2over0 public (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

I'm not clear on what the purpose of the "collective blocs" point is. You cannot stop people agreeing with each other - so as long they don't coordinate on or offline, I'm not sure what more there is to say. Local consensus on Wikipedia content can be artificially created by "blocs"; but it happens much less often than you would think, because generally it's overturnable sooner or later by a wider consensus, brought in through dispute resolution (or merely the sands of time), and partly as a result, people do tend to argue issues in good faith on the merits most of the time, albeit from maybe dramatically different perspectives. If this were not the case, Wikipedia would be a lot more screwed than it is. I'm saying this here because I feel the point, even though it doesn't really say anything, risks becoming a hostage to fortune of future interpretation and abuse (eg 2over0's point above). Either figure out what exactly this is trying to achieve, and try again to do so, or drop (don't endorse) it.

On BLPs, I'm not sure there's anything Arbcom can say that would help, unless it wishes to strengthen BLP policy in the area of climate change BLPs. Personally I would revise BLP policy to strengthen it, for example against WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM (the recent Michael E. Mann Virginia investigation a perfect example; though it's a universal temptation which policy would do well to mitigate somewhat), and to mitigate more strongly against re-introducing contentious BLP material while it's under discussion and there is not a clear written prior consensus for inclusion to point to. Oddly, we seem to have a stronger custom against removing NPOV tags when the issue isn't resolved than against re-introducing contentious BLP material while under discussion.

On WMC, whilst he clearly does not have an unblemished record, it does seem that too much of the findings in relation to him involve evidence from quite some time ago (and some of the evidence, from a brief perusal, somewhat debatable). I do not find these parts convincing right now. On a related note, I agree with finding 21. Beyond this, the proposed decision does not recognise the relationship between the underlying content issues and the expertise of contributors. Perhaps it should not. But I cannot help remarking that blog-inspired non-scientists tendentiously editing this area are cheap; dedicated scientists, even if abrasive etc, are rather more important to Wikipedia maintaining an accurate relationship with the science Out There. Getting rid of one is not at all the same as getting rid of the other.

Rd232 talk 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Proposed principles

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

P3: User Conduct

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

I think that there should be a strict prohibition against editors labeling each other. However, a quick word search of this page shows that editors seem to be using "denialist" in conjunction with the word "viewpoint," which is not uncivil behavior. I think that a more common form of incivility is to gratuitously attack other editors as being members of a "faction" or "cabal," usually in the context of "your faction does this and that." I've seen a lot of that. Editors who engage in this kind of personal attack should be sanctioned for incivility if they make a habit of it, particularly when they have been called on it and continue to defend their conduct, and persist in it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So calling someone a factionalist you object to, fair enough, but you'd be happy enough with references to their "factionalist viewpoint"? It doesn't seem to me like there's much semantic difference between the two. 92.39.206.238 (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think 92.39.206.238 is correct. Saying someone's views are racist is in effect the same as saying the person is racist. Same thing with "denialist" or "warmist" or anything else. The basic principle of civility here seems pretty simple: labeling other people—or their positions—in ways they dislike is uncivil. --DGaw (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. I don't think I've ever used the term "warmist," but many on the AGW side constantly use terms that are intentionally offensive. Bait any skeptics that show up by using those terms and then file enforcement requests when they lash out in kind. If someone wants to call someone a skeptic in quotes then that is fine, but in general, and this goes for BLPs too, we should use self-identified labels - not scarlet letters.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P4: Collective behavior of blocs of editors

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As an outsider who has commented or asked questions, that I should say mostly went unanswered, I think that the comments about "Collective behavior of blocs of editors" or factions or cabals or any other name you want to call it needs to stop. There is a distinct set of two groups of editors in these articles which includes supports from administrators who are supposed to be uninvolved. These administrators from an outsiders view watching comments on talk pages and various other pages do not seem to be uninvolved. It looks more like politics and revenge to me, sorry but that is how it looks. I am not naming names because I do not want to get myself on a list again which feel is a a personal attacks and totally uncivil to call any editor a cabal member or any other term. There actually are editors who believe the same things and are editing within their own belief's and not as a faction. I guess if you say it enough times it somehow becomes true. This is a complicated case with a lot of different editors involved. I find calling out editors as factions, cabals and now blocs of editors to be a distraction. If sanctions are needed than they should be for individual behaviors and not because they have other's who think like they do. I didn't read the beginning of this case (I already have a good idea what each party had to say) but I have watched the behaviors of this case since the sanction board was set up. There are no clean hands here. I don't think pulling a few out and giving them sanctions like banning them or warnings will stop the ongoing behavior that has been occurring. Heck, just read the talk pages of the main editors and administrators to see what is going on. It's not that difficult to see the issues here. All that is really needed is to check talk pages (some should be done through the history), boards like COI, biography of living people notice board and ANI. Just insert a user name in the search and see what shows up. At least this is what I've seen as an outsider, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise that it may be unhelpful to stigmatise people as "belonging" to a grouping of editors based around their pov, but there is an issue that the behaviours of members as a group of a shared opinion need addressing; that individuals will take actions that of themselves is not disruptive or in violation of policy, but when added with other individuals performing the same actions (along with another set of individuals reverting those actions) are. I have been very careful not to point to any one pov or label in describing these "fellow travelers" since I think there is fault found within any bloc when they occur. Also, I was using the terminology used in the PD - since I prefer the more nebulous term "confluences" where some editors agree on some aspects of a viewpoint but disagree or are not known to comment on other points. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie girl makes an excellent point let us not drag this back to trying to discredit editors because of supposed negative "confluences". When editors agree on things that should be an occasion to rejoice not criticise because it does not match your own opinion (even if you are an admin). In fact when admins start attacking editors because they seem to agree on stuff that is an indication that the admin does not agree and hence should withdraw themselves from being "uninvolved" Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ LHVU I understand what you are saying but think about this too. The same names keep coming up at the board or AN/i even when there is no problem the name is seen and attentions brought to it. Now think about it like this, that possibly because an administrator or even an editor saw the same name over and over but didn't read too much or skimmed it. That editor has a scarlet letter written on his handle no matter whether s/he did anything wrong or not. Administrator and editors alike are going to be watching for that editor now to see if they are causing trouble. That's a big problem I see with the board as it is. Editors are brought there, the case is dismissed with no actions but yet on talk page that editor is vilified as if s/he did something horrible to the project. There are other editors who stay away from the boards or just make ocassional comments who fly under the radar but are still causing problems not seen until it's too late. I've seen this go on. My point is the more a name is brought up as a trouble maker the more that name is going to be remembered. This is what I think is happening in a lot of this along with some of the other comments I've made earlier. Do you think this is happening at all? I think it's really possible that it is happening, maybe not purposely but possible. Just a thought, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of blocs, factions and confluences

The effect of confluences of editors within articles and article talkpages
The effect of confluences of editors within Probation enforcement requests

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Regarding confluences of editors

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[32][33][34][35] 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.[36] which I reverted.[37] 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.[38] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why are you all talking in small voices? Does someone have a hangover? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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[39]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Evidence I would consider sufficient? Doesn't matter, as no evidence of any kind has been presented. No one has even attempted to substantiate that position. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ScottyBerg: Sorry, I tried to help, but I have no interest in engaging in a circular discussion. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Lar was/is the only editor who specifically named editors whom he believed inhabited a "faction." He frequently has laced his posts with casual references to editors, usually the ones he's addressing, as belonging to a "faction." These are serious allegations, because in the past arbcom has acted against entire factions. He needs to provide evidence, or he needs to desist using that kind of rhetoric. It can't be assumed or taken as "self evident," particularly when this editor has frequently and casually said that specific editors belong to a "faction." Such unsubstantiated labeling, when used casually, is battleground behavior. Lar has said that criticism of his rhetoric is "shooting the messenger." I'm simply suggesting that the messenger, and anyone else advancing "factions" as an issue, need to back up their assertions with facts. If they can't, or won't, don't make them. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review the clear evidence of strong editorial overlap (shown on counts of overlap on User Talk pages to avoid the claim that the CC area has a huge number of articles and that therefore a huge overlap is logical) presented on the initial evidence page. In short, specific facts do exist and were presented, with the argument against mainly being that no one ever thoght to make such comparisons in the past. The editors on that list showed, in fact, a significantly greater cohesiveness than any sub-group on ArbCom, where such would be fully expected. In short again "no evidence" is inapt as a statement. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I see there is evidence that editors interested in climate change edit CC articles. Though many things can't be accepted on faith, I think that's a safe bet. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The overlap is not on "CC articles" - there are a large number of such articles, and so they were not used as the criteria for looking at overlap. Repeat: The User Talk pages examined are not "CC articles". Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to [40]. The first page on the list is [41]. Where's the collusion? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I did not call it "collusion" I can not say where it is <g>. I can aver that the amount of 6/6 ovverlap on user talk pages is far higher than for any other group at all I examined, and surpasses the ArbCom overlap significantly (where it would be fully explainable). The overlap is far beyond any of the several hundred sets of editors I examined, and I welcome anyone to see if they can find any similar sets of overlaps. Collect (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect. What do you mean by your new measure "significantly greater cohesiveness"? Have you looked at any of the talkpage additions to see if they are cohesive? This sort of vagueness runs through all of your analysis, the methodology of which was selected by yourself. Also by methods similar to yours evidence was equally shown of talkpage overlap between other editors who have set themselves up against this claimed "faction". The process of statistically pointing the finger at users is fundamentally flawed and I see it as doing nothing more than entrenching a battleground situation. Polargeo (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neat to see you entering this colloquy. As you are aware (especially since I defended you elsewhere only to have you attack me) I look at this as a completely disinterested observer. The methodology was explained now four times, which should have been enough. The only group with an expected similar (though lesser) cohesiveness was an ArbCom subset, where it would be expected. Using a buzzword like "battleground" is a sign of table-banging (ref to lawyer aphorism). No similar overlap was shown of any group of 6 whom you assert are in a different "faction." And I submit that statstics are as neutral a means as possible of identifying groups -- certainly better than "super secret means of identifying socks which can be disclosed not even to ArbCom" which then have up to a 40% error rate <g>. This is an open methodology, susceptible to anyone examining the results for any group they wish. Indeed, I invite anyone to find as great an overlap (6/6) for any group of "unrelated" editors on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking you I am highlighting that your methodology is self selected and flawed. Your finding of overlap of 6/6 is totally meaningless in terms of establishing cohesion. I doubt anyone would be in the least bit surprised to find that established editors who work on a similar group of articles for a long time had high talkpage overlaps, to suggest you have shown cohesion is a sociological statement which cannot be shown by your statistics and is reinforcing WP:battleground. This is because it adds to the fact that editors have been presented variously as a cabal, collective, faction ect. in order to discredit them in this area (whichever word the user thinks they can get away with at the time). Also battleground is not a buzzword but a policy. Polargeo (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is "User Talk" overlaps - and the universe of such is remarkably constant in my examinition of several hundred groupings of editors that is, unless the editors have a strong cohesiveness otherwise. By the way, I even examined the notorious EEML editors without finding such cohesiveness on User Talk overlaps. And again the table-pounding accusation of "Battleground" is used here as a buzzword, and not as any conceivable accusation about my evidence. Collect (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have outlined why I think your analysis reinforces battleground therefore I do not believe I am using it as a buzzword. I also fully understand that you are refering to user talkpages and everything I have said in this thread is on that understanding and this changes none of my commentary. Again you are not examining cohesiveness and you should not present your usertalkpage overlap as such unless you wish to enter into the battleground arguments of putting people into factions. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors (including several Arbs) raised concerns here about the validity of Collect's analysis. It's Collect's prerogative to ignore or misrepresent those concerns, but it doesn't inspire confidence. MastCell Talk 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted one of the concerns was that it did not deal with article overlaps - and I answered that concern (especially since I recall one of the complainers had complained about another editor using the tool to examine article overlaps!). Another asked for methodology, which I have now answered four times or so. Another just did not like it - there is no way to address that sort of concern <g> And I really, really like having third person asides aimed my way. It gives me confidence about those editors <g>. As for charges that I "ignore or misrepresent" such stuff - I assuredly do not, and sought in each case (other than the IDONTLIKEIT ones) to answer all specific queries about how the study was made, and how many effective sets of six editors I examined (300 editors taken six at a time, removing sets without significant UT page overlap). Or essentially 300!/294!6! cases for the mathematically inclined. Collect (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I have never edited or even watched any of the Climate Change articles, nor have I followed this arbitration, but I do have several of the active participants' user talk pages watchlisted for reasons of my own (I like these people; they are witty and smart and I just enjoy eavesdropping on their conversations) and their comments about the proposed decision led me to watchlist and read some of this page. As a statistician, I've been interested in Collect's analysis and would like to know more about the methodology, but all I see here is Collect insisting again and again (without diffs) that he has explained the methodology already and that it shows extraordinary cohesiveness within this particular group of editors. I found my way to his evidence section, which points to two results pages from a tool called Wikistalk, one of which gives a list of six editors followed by a column of numbers, and the other shows five of the six editors (eliminating Stephan Schultz) which is said to be "even more striking." I have no idea what those numbers represent or why I should be persuaded by them, to what conclusion.
I was especially surprised by the assertion in that evidence section that this small group of editors is "extraordinarily apt to edit on the same user talk pages in far beyond random chance numbers" [emphasis in original statement by Collect]. This is a kind of statement that is ordinarily supported by a statistical test; does the wikistalk tool provide a statistical test of the deviation from "random chance?" If not, this statement should not be taken very seriously, as without a statistical test, there's no way of knowing whether whatever-these-numbers-represent deviates significantly from "random chance numbers." I searched for the tool and/or a description of what data are generated by the tool, and came up with nothing, but my search did bring me to the workshop section MastCell points to just above, where the data are called into question, but again, little discussion of the actual methodology. I'd appreciate some more information by which to judge the adequacy of this assertion on the basis of this tool, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I empirically studied a substantial group of editors, specifically looking only at UT pages, as overlaps on article pages was shown to be meaningless as it is proportional to the number of potential pages in a topic. UT pages form a relative constant. The numbers showed a fairly random distribution - with only one or two UT pages in common other than the editors' own UT pages as a rule. Out of the several hundred runs, only one showed nearly the same (well - about half the level) of overlap, and no others showed even one fourth the level. These runs effectively dealt with 300!/294!6! combinations of active editors. Again - use of article overlap is misleading as it shows higher overlaps in popular fields for small groups (birds of North America, as an example) while there is no such excuse for huge numbers of overlaps on user talk pages. Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of a Monte Carlo method would seem reasonable for such an analysis, but I have seen no evidence that similar methods have been employed here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using 300 active editors does qualify - what criteria would you have used for selecting a large number of active contributors? Note that I have now mentioned this well over four times <g>. Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Collect didn't answer me directly, and answered someone else above by saying he has already provided information on the methodology four times (without having the courtesy to provide diffs for where these previous explanations can be found; I'm certainly not going to wade through all the text on this case to try to find them myself) it rather looks as if he doesn't intend to help me understand his methodology. I finally found the tool so I can use it myself, and have learned that what the tool does is take a group of editors and list every page in a given namespace which at least two of the named editors have edited, at any time. No requirement that the overlap needs to be in the same discussion, or express similar views, or be on related matters, or even be in the same decade, just any edit to that page. That's not much proof of "cohesion" it seems to me, but okay, let's go with this idea. So above, Collect says that the group he identifies as "extraordinarily cohesive" had "significantly more" pages that all six edited, than did six ArbCom members, who you would expect to edit the same user talk pages since they are dealing with the same parties in arbitration cases. Again, "significantly" is a statistical term and I would expect a statistical test presented to support it, but don't see one. I for one would need to see a statistical test supporting the assertion, to be convinced that 29 is "significantly more" than 27.
But there's more. Once I found the tool, the first thing I did was substitute a couple of names into the mix, so not all the names in the "group" are identified with one "side" of the content debate, just to see if that makes the "cohesion" fall apart. I forgot SBHB wasn't in the original group, so I put him in by accident, then there were three from Collect's analysis: Guettarda, WMC, and Tony Sidaway, and then I put in Lar and Cla68. Result
So if 29 cases where all six editors in a group edit the same page is considered proof of "extraordinary cohesion," what does it mean when all six of a group including some of those same people +Lar and Cla68 edit 34 pages in common? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I don't know if you would get more "cohesion" or less by changing the personnel of the group one way or another, but I think this one result shows rather clearly that this tool doesn't prove squat about how much a group works together or thinks together or acts together. Woonpton (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it proves that Lar is part of an "extraordinarily cohesive" faction of climate-change editors, and thus has no business acting as an uninvolved admin :P Well, according to Collect's logic, anyhow. Personally, I think the tool provides invalid and meaningless quantitative trappings which can be used to dress up a preconceived opinion, and so we shouldn't hold its output against Lar or anyone else, but I've expressed that belief elsewhere. MastCell Talk 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34 User talk pages? I would suggest that a cursory examination would show that often they specifically showed disagreement on said pages - making cohesiveness much less likely. There is the odd chance that the first group often disagreed with each other, although I find that scenario a tad less likely. Collect (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "that dog don't hunt," sorry. Before I posted my analysis, you were claiming that the 29 talk pages that these six editors had all edited at one time or another was definitive proof of the "extraordinary cohesiveness" of this group of six editors. When I showed that a group of disparate editors showed even more extraordinary cohesiveness, by your measure, that undermined your claim, if not toppling it altogether. To come back now and say well, it only works if you already know that the group are in agreement; it doesn't work for editors who disagree, further undermines your own claims for the utility of this tool to show the degree of "cohesiveness" within any given group of editors.
You seem to be assuming that in both cases the editors in question must have been in discussions with each other on these shared talk pages; the group you chose agreeing and supporting each other in these discussions, the group I chose disagreeing with each other in these discussions. You have provided no data to show that that's a valid assumption in either case. All that the tool does, as I said above, is to show that each of the six editors edited each of the shared talk pages at least once in the history of that talk page. As I've said before, there is no data to show whether the six editors participated in the same discussions on those talk pages, much less whether they expressed similar or different views in those discussions; there's nothing that says how many times each of the editors edited that talk page, or when. One edit to a talk page by each of the six editors over years of history would result in the page being listed as a 6/6 hit. With a talk page like Jimbo Wales', for example, which I believe is on both of these 6/6 lists, that's not as unlikely a scenario as it might seem. Or arbitrators' talk pages, the same.
The wikistalk tool, as I'm told by others more familiar with its use, tends to show a high degree of overlap when you look at groups of active editors who edit in lots of different areas; there are talk pages that are watchlisted by hundreds of people, and many active longterm editors will have posted on those pages at least once or twice in their history. On the other hand, if you had a group of SPA accounts who were actively collaborating offwiki with each other to bias content in one particular topic area, say cold fusion, you would get a very low number of user talk pages in common, since they would be in contact only with each other on this particular topic, not with a wide variety of users on a wide variety of topics*. In other words, this extremely cohesive hypothetical group of editors would score very low on this purported "cohesion index." So, perhaps to overstate the point in order to be sure it is understood: this tool says nothing about the "cohesiveness" of editors in the sense that seems to have been implied here, and to suggest that it does is simply, well, I think MastCell said it best: the tool provides invalid and meaningless quantitative trappings which can be used to dress up a preconceived opinion. Woonpton (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) *To test that hypothesis, I ran a group of single-purpose editors who discuss Wikipedia strategy on offwiki forums, and at least this one test supported the hypothesis: there is a very small number of user talk pages where even some of the editors overlap, but these are almost without exception the talk pages of their perceived opponents, rather than each other's talk pages (since they talk offwiki, there's no reason for them to contact each other on their talk pages). I won't post this link because I don't want to get into a discussion about this group of editors or this other topic area here; this is not the place. The point is that these are known SPAs with an agenda who do actively work together to bias content, the very definition of a "cohesive" group of editors (some of them have been banned for this activity) and yet they don't even register on this ersatz index of cohesiveness. Woonpton (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great minds think alike. MastCell Talk 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas. no language scholar has come forward to point out that, far from a declension, my sequence was a conjugation. My confidence in Wikipedia's collective scholastic acumen may never recover! --TS 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Nigelj: That's an interesting twist on the situation but hardly reflective of reality. As you well know, or should know, I don't edit any CC science articles. I was referring to our Climategate articles and BLPs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of equivocation is particularly unhelpful. --TS 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A two step RFC to deal with factionalism

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

P6: Casting aspersions

  • I hope administrators in the future will consider this principle encouragement to enforce WP:NPA in CC article discussions. It's one of the most toxic problems on these pages. If editors do this repeatedly, they need to be blocked. I wish the proposed sanctions against one editor would have indicated that ArbCom was taking this more seriously, but more on that below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
This principle needs to be enforced, but administrators need to be held to the same standards, or perhaps stricter standards, than ordinary editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that this problem has not been addressed at all in the past. I went to AN/I when an admin made a fairly damaging claim against myself with no evidence, nor would they retract it when confronted (if true, the claim regarding myself was serious enough to be a potentially blockable offense, IMO). While some agreed there was a problem, many preferred to dismiss it as "drama." Anyone who has had damaging claims made against them should be able to demand evidence or a retraction. The lawyer games where some cast aspersions and then simply strike them or stop when called on it should not get a pass, either; that behavior seeks solely to avoid consequences, while the damaging claims are never addressed, hurting the editor's reputation anyway. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A solid principle as far as it goes, but I think that in the context of P4 it should make explicit that treating a person as a representative of a group instead of as an individual in their own right is generally destructive towards the project. It will be necessary in the context of demonstrating or sanctioning meatpuppetry, but should be avoided except in that narrow circumstance. Out-group homogeneity bias decreases the ability of the accusing editor or admin to treat the accused on the basis of their own edits and expressed opinions instead of based on a pre-formed opinion of the assigned group. The accused, in turn, are more likely to dismiss all rendered opinions of the accuser, and less likely to respond to social pressure to justify their edits to someone who has prejudged them. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, reinforced by the mere act of lumping people together; read Robbers Cave Experiment and Stanford prison experiment if you doubt the power of group assignment and expectation. People here are just people, and deserve to be treated as such. 2over0 public (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, mentioning factions reinforces factionalism. It's also true that if we can't mention the elephant in the room, there isn't much reason to read elaborate analysis of the wallpaper patterns. Art LaPella (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P7: 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)[reply]
Any suggestion for a wording you think would sound stronger? Shell babelfish 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples being discussed

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wegman Report does not impeach the scientific credentials of any climate scientist. Also you seem to be saying that a scientist evaluating a Wikipedia article on science might be unduly affected because he knows one of its authors. Wouldn't that amount to an argument against peer review? The scientists all know one another. --TS 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, IIRC that was one of the points of the Wegman report - that peer-review among a small group of friends is no peer-review at all. I guess we can agree to disagree though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely should not debate the topic itself here, but one of the points of the Wegman report was the same positive feedback loop which appears to have taken place in the ratings of these Wikipedia articles. RealClimate is an advocacy site, in the same manner as Climate Audit, Watts Up With That?, and DeSmogBlog. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, exactly. If Conservapedia has Al Smith writing articles and Bob Jones endorsing them, where both Al and Bob are AEI fellows, do we consider that a good, neutral endorsement? This is yet another example of editors acting as if their POV is the truth, citing partisan sources as neutral. It's all over this talk page (see Viriditas's and Nigelj's earlier citation of essays as fact). We're not Conservapedia. ATren (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't 'essays'. Did you follow the links? --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Conservapedia, on the other hand, is a work of fiction. If you can't tell the difference, then that speaks volumes about the problem. The earlier citations of essays you refer to are based on known, historical events, no opinions. You were asked many times to raise a single objection about the information, and you failed to find anything wrong with the information presented. Yet, here you are, repeating the same distortions, even after they were addressed and you were corrected. That says a lot about the credibility and quality of your arguments. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic sub-thread removed. Please stay on topic. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P7.1: Advocacy

I would like to be very clear what is being decided in this specific area. This principle says we "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", per WP:NPOV. So, in this specific area, is it a fact that can be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and other man-made causes? Can that be assumed as background knowledge in other articles? Or is that just one opinion among many other valid options? These other options include that the scientists who say this are feigning incompetence or lying to increase their funding, that the UN via the IPCC have secret world-government ambitions, that all the counter-arguments are being repressed by a globally corrupt peer review system, etc. These options have appeared in op-eds in some parts of the media that are often considered reliable in their general or financial reporting. So are these WP:FRINGE ideas, or are they now mainstream? If, as I imagine, arbcom won't decide on such points, then is it the case that any editor saying that the mainstream science is accurate will be guilty of 'advocacy' under this principle, if passed? --Nigelj (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what the "advocacy" principle is supposed to represent. The text of 7.1 says we must accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source, but who decides? Arbcom? Admins? Whoever can get the most people to show up on their side? Supposedly, arbcom and admins don't make content decisions. If that's true, what are they trying to say here? There are several principles and findings that are unhelpfully vague and open the door to further controversy and mischief. This is one of the prime examples.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond ArbCom's authority to make content decisions other than repeating what WP's policies say, which is what they did here. It is up to WP editors to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise in order to ensure that that policy is followed. If editors are willing and able to do that, which has not always been the case in the CC topic area, then there should be fewer problems. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P9: Encyclopedic coverage of science

  • This is, IMHO, the central principle here. I would like further clarification if I'm wrong, but I read it to mean that scientific accuracy per the peer reviewed literature, and academic fidelity to accepted scholarly works in fields such as the history of science and the social sciences, should not be regarded merely as one 'POV' in the terms of the encyclopedia, but as the current basis for knowledge in the field. "Significant alternate viewpoints" should be "recognized" as such, and these include the errors and distortions that sometimes appear in the mass media (and are often later apologised for), the bias that follows from some extreme political and religious views, the political pressures that can distort or delay implementation of government policies, and the vested interests of some in various industries. This is different to the way that some editors have in recent months tried to insist that fringe or erroneous, non-academic, or political POVs be used to 'balance' or distort statements of current scientific and academic knowledge in CC-related articles. --Nigelj (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in the first part, that the scientific consensus as regards CC should be the basis on which the description of the subject is built. I do not agree that the scientific consensus ("sc") dictates the NPOV, because the subject is greater than the sum of its scientific definition. This may be frustrating for those who are persuaded by the sc, but the special interest (or just "bad science") viewpoints do form part of the debate regarding the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in articles, and sections of articles, that are about the debates, the denialism, the bad science and the lies, they should be discussed. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism is a randomly selected academic reference on the subject. --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I wish that NYB would rephrase his comment. In a hypothetical example, if 100% of qualified scientists believe X, but 50% of the general population believes X and 50% believes not-X, the science article or discussion should concentrate on X but the more general article should report that some people believe not-X and discuss why. is undesirable; it comes much too close to editing by opinion poll - the fundamental problem with this area. Both the scientific article and the general article should concentrate on the science; both should mention the existence of opposition - unless it is not notable (not the case here; but articles on chronology need not mention Time Cube); the general article should discuss the opposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a U.S. poll, 50% of adults questioned did not agree that the earth orbits the sun. If 50% of the general population believe in a heliocentric solar system and 50% believe something else, NYB, the encyclopedia should devote equal time to both points of view? Woonpton (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to what NYB actually wrote, Woonpton, if 50% of adults didn't believe the Earth orbits the sun, the science article should report that the Earth orbits the sun, and the more general article should report that some people believe the Earth does not orbit the sun and discuss why. I'm not sure if this is confusing, or you just don't like the statement. --DGaw (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I say "equal time" or anything approaching that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I misunderstood you, but I read your comment to mean that only the article about the science of climate change should reflect scientific consensus; the general article on the subject should be written largely from the point of view of the 50% who believe not-X, explaining their reasons for their non-belief. To me, that sounds like equal time, or close to it. If I misread your intent, I'm relieved, but maybe your comment should be reworded to better reflect your intent. Woonpton (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have on my desk the current month's issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, most of which is devoted to tributes to Martin Gardner, and my own skeptical views regarding pseudoscience are substantially identical with Gardner's and James Randi's, it is fair to say that we have a miscommunication here. I will try to clarify the comment (although individual arbitrators' comments aren't actually part of the decision in any event). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, NYB, but didn't Randi generate some controversy when he espoused a climate change denial position on his blog, and later retracted some of his statements on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wouldn't quite say, "Both the scientific article and the general article should concentrate on the science", but that both the scientific article and the general article should maintain the NPOV that the science continues to exist. Articles about 'skeptics', denial, controversies, and other attacks on the scientific status quo, should not be written to reflect an alternate-reality POV in which the science is wrong, is somehow in doubt, or is flimsy, or crumbling by the day. There has been a lot of talk in other fora about 'levelling the playing field', where it appeared that to some the goal was, in fact, to enable this 'alternate-reality' to be well-covered (e.g. 50/50 at least) to achieve 'balance' as NPOV. In reality, established scientific findings are not 'one POV' to be 'balanced' by an equal and opposing weight of whatever is their opposite, even in articles that are all about some people's efforts to do just that in the real world. I very sincerely hope that the final decision will clearly reflect this distinction as I predict that clarity on this exact point will be necessary in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be better; but less than Nigel's language is likely to be misunderstood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "If 100% of scientists believe X, but only 50% of the general public do, then the notable and reliably sourced arguments against X should be noted, per WP:DUE, while leading the article that expert opinion concludes X is proven, per WP:RS."? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to less a rephrase of NYB's position than the expression of a different (and contrary view). To restate what I think NYB was saying, in his example there are two separate topics at hand: one is science the other is public opinion (an aspect of politics). Scientists are experts on science, and a consensus of scientists may rule in their specific field of study. On matters of public opinion, scientists are private citizens like everyone else, and their opinions are appropriately given weight proportional to the part of the population that agrees with them. --DGaw (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P10: Undue weight

  • Again, I would like further clarification if I'm wrong, but to me this principle should be read in the light of the most recent academic and peer-reviewed meta-analyses of the field. The most significant one that I know of at the moment is Anderegg et al (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) whose chief finding is that 97–98% of active climate researchers support the tenets of CC as outlined by the IPCC. That leaves a 2–3% due weighting for contrary climatological views, overall. --Nigelj (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cla, I don't quite understand the relevance of the Australian election. People vote for politicians, who then make policy decisions. That's separate from what happens on Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize the current state of human knowledge. For that purpose, expert scientific sources are quite valuable in describing scientific topics. The former president of South Africa was unconvinced that HIV causes AIDS; he was elected, and he made policy decisions on the basis of that belief that impacted millions of people in a manner generally regarded as disastrous. But that doesn't affect how we present HIV/AIDS science on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His point, I believe, is that the state of human knowledge is not determined by scientists, but by everyone. Scientists make errors, and others make errors, and it's via the free exchange of ideas—and the reflection of that free exchange in Wikipedia articles—that we hope progress is made. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's sophistry. The state of scientific knowledge is determined largely or exclusively by scientists, not by politicians, activists, or Wikipedians. The opinions of a candidate for public office in Australia are not relevant to how we present scientific opinion, though they may be relevant to a discussion of policy implications of that science. Every serious reference work on Earth recognizes this implicitly, but here it seems to be a subject of controversy and overblown rhetoric. MastCell Talk 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SV and CLA, and would add that in the CC area there are several types of articles. Science articles, public policy articles, history articles, biography articles, fringe theory articles, and politics articles all exisit with in this topic area and the 'best' reliable sources for each type of article are not the same, and the weight of various viewpoints is different for each type of article as well. I think that, other than editor misbehavior this is the crux of the problems in this topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost by definition, an article that is controversial is a mix of fields. A big controversy will have multiple articles about it, with the opportunity to focus on particular fields. The articles that focus on the science should primarily reflect the science and rely on what the scientific consensus is for all but a small proportion of the content about the science. Articles that are only primarily about the science need to be a bit more capacious about covering widely held pseudo-scientific beliefs, and we need to show in the article what the more reliable science opinion is about those beliefs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The state of scientific knowledge is determined by scientists and our articles that fall firmly within (and only within) science need to reflect that. A lot depends on the subject of the article and what field we define that subject as being a part of. the IPCC report isn't just science: It's also public policy, and therefore the reliable sourcing about that is going to necessarily include coverage of public-policy sources separate from the science. The South African president's crazy policy needs to be explained, with some background in the crazy science beliefs, in the appropriate article about that. Wikipedia policy does favor "reliable sources" and the best among them, but Nigeljr's "2–3% due weighting for contrary climatological views, overall" looks like an attempt to gain a political edge by using the scientific consensus as the only relevant measure of what a reliable source is in a document put together for governments, by government-appointed policymakers. Wikipedia is big enough that we have room to describe all major points of view on enormous issues. We should describe those views that have overwhelming consensus among the most knowledgable sources with enormous weight in our articles on the topics at hand, mention fringe views briefly and link to longer articles concerning them. Minority views get something in between, and that can't be mapped out in advance: Coverage of minority opinions needs to be fought out on individual pages, and I don't think there's a way around that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla's point seems to be inaccurate, according to the BBC which shows the main parties playing the issue down, and a potential swing to the greens. Watch that space.
More on topic is that the state of human knowledge is not determined by scientists, but the state of science is. For example, religion can claim to be human knowledge, but it can't legitimately claim to be science. Our articles should show the state of science for what it is, and also show other knowledge for what it is. In both cases giving due weight to majority and minority views in accordance with policy. Free exchange of ideas does not mean giving a false impression of the significance or acceptance of tiny minority or fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to the subject -- the draft does a fine job describing the goal without getting into too much detail, the way this discussion has. The draft mentions both experts and commentators. It doesn't need to get into every detail, caveat and warning the way we just have. Just right. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think one point here is that, even in articles that are about the politics, economics, or media coverage of GW, we cannot have statements (in the encyclopedia's own editorial voice) saying things like "Global warming, if indeed there is such a thing...", "Future global warming, or global cooling as is also predicted..." or "Based on predictions now discredited by Climategate/the Hockey Stick graph/etc." --Nigelj (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People please take a breath here. Remember policies and guidelines are what we use to make an article. The most important thing though are our readers getting accurate information with the use of properly sourced articles by using policies and guidelines, not any one POV. Undue weight has always been and still is a very important policy to follow. I know I've said this before but it seems like the same kind of arguements are still going on that I've seen in other places while being a lurker. Thanks for listening, I hope, :) --CrohnieGalTalk 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P11: Sourcing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [42] 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.[43] An edit based on a self-published blog which, it is clear here, is an unsupportable edit. [44]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

  • Dave, I just reread WP:SOURCES, and its language is not as strict as what you are saying above about reliable sources, or as loose as what you are saying about self-published sources. I'll repeat it again, if we follow the policy and cooperate with each other, the problems that have existed in this topic area should diminish, which I'm sure is what you want. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P14 to P17: Administrators

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

P15: Administrator involvement - general

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

R13: Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement

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

Agree. This is a meaningless finding, as it will have no practical effect. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was expecting a more concrete suggestion.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Friendly correction, you need to delete "to grasp this." HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about "sucked in, chewed up, and spit out" instead of "ripped to shreds"? Admin actions shouldn't be supported when they are wrong, but they certainly should be stood behind when they are correct. Sadly, that hasn't been the case much in this area. At least not if the actions are directed against editors aligned with the dominant faction, regardless of how much they were misbehaving. Scibaby socks, and newbie skeptic editor directed actions are fine, though. As LHvU relates at length, farther on. As for my comments being helpful or not, perhaps since milder words failed, more extreme ones are needed? I don't think much of what you've said here is particularly helpful. You seem to be repeating a party line without much independent thought. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "sucked in, chewed up, and spit out" instead of "ripped to shreds"? No, that's worse. How about toning down the extreme rhetoric? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
@Shell: Maybe there ought to be an Arbitration Committee dedicated to policy disputes.--*Kat* (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tony Sidaway recruited me, although not an admin he had been involved in the Probation enforcement side. I suppose that some might think this reason enough not to try to expand the idea. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I believe Polargeo has been found to be involved, although I'm not going to state that with certainty. I don't know about 2/0, but I don't think Dragon's Flight was run off. And although I attempted to revert Dragon's Flight modification of a sanction, it was not because I thought DF was involved -- it was because he cited a consensus that did not exist. If DF had simply been imposing sanctions on a violation of the general or discretionary sanctions, I would have supported that even without consensus. I think that's the way it's supposed to work -- I think admins should be able to impose sanctions without having to seek consensus. But as a practical matter, that will not regularly happen because of the hounding and backlash that accompanies any sanctions against certain bloc editors. I think it could happen and be quite effective if there were also an ArbCom ruling that any such sanctions cannot be reversed or modified except with the consent of the admin imposing the sanction or through an Arb request. Minor4th 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P16: Administrator involvement - enforcement matters

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

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

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

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

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

Hrm..is that a relatively new development? I worked in fringe science areas quite a bit and frequently applied sanctions where necessary without ever using the board. I kinda thought that was the entire point of discretionary sanctions - often when something gets bad enough to be brought to AE, it could have been stopped long before. If admins who work at AE have gotten the impression that they need to be consulted before any admin acts under discretionary sanctions, they are sadly mistaken. Shell babelfish 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that new, it's just unique to this topic area and the general sanctions board (unfortunately). Tony Sidaway does a good job explaining the situation below; search for "January 3". Bringing matters to AE would definitely help. NW (Talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

@LessHeard. Your heavy handed actions were in my view not the enforcement of consensus in any way. The initiation of an RfC appeared to be a gaming tactic after consensus had clearly already been reached. You used your admin tools including blocks and protection before using discussion. This use of tools before discussion in all but extreme cases is to be deplored in any situation and leaves you wide open to the criticism you recieved. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assumes facts not in evidence. Although there may be some truth to the idea that some folk initiated RfCs "as a gaming tactic". ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately working in any contentious area generally means having people yell at you for all manner of reasonable things. More fun is when you simultaneously are accused of doing two things which would have been impossible to do at the same time. I'm afraid the only solution I've ever found is going for a cup of tea. Of course you could always trick other admins into working in the area with you thus at least spreading around the yelling and giving you a sounding board who knows what's going on. You'd probably be accused of some form of collusion then :-) Shell babelfish 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, something like, off the top of my head, getting consensus between admins active on an enforcement request page? Might work, at that - may slow down the process a bit, but I am sure that if everyone were to note how decisions were arrived at then it would be accepted... Plus, of course, when there are five or so admins arriving at the same conclusion then there will be less accusations against one or two of them of prejudice! I think that is a great idea, and one which all editors will subscribe to!</heavy ironic tone> LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I left this comment when I unprotected that article, and the delete/move/revert war (while a RfC on the issue was in place) I took action upon was within 24 hours of that. Further warnings, which are a courtesy only, are not needed in such circumstances. [redacted per response below.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)] LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the situation and I am not trying to attack you based on your actions. I think your actions can be considered reasonable from a certain viewpoint if not from my own, however, I am defending my own actions in this situation and this necessarily involves the questioning of your actions, whilst I am not questioning your reason for making them. Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of admin involvement

So...Is Lar involved or uninvolved?

So, I'm reading the proposed decision and based on what it says, it appears to me as if ArbCom is ruling that Lar is an uninvolved admin. However, we still have editors saying that Lar is not uninvolved.[45][46] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let me try again, then. ChrisO has put himself forward as a model. I disagree he's a good model. He elsewhere disparaged Minor4th about sock related matters claiming they had no expertise but was unwilling to submit his actions to review by an experienced CU. He here is putting forward his "admin-fu" as if it's somehow to be admired, but he lost his adminship over his handling of various cases, including the one he touts. I submit he doesn't have the track record he's trying to portray, and that his advice ought to be discounted. If you think that's unhelpful? Not sure what to tell you. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's as complicated as that. ChrisO was simply recollecting that in a particular situation he tried to be impartial, and he posits that your not impartial. I agree with him. You're not. Unfortunately, the rules seem to allow administrators who are not impartial to act as "uninvolved", no matter how ridiculous it may seem.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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," [47] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Without going into details, which don't really belong here, the community part of the process is a negative consensus, unless there is consensus among the community not to confirm, the steward is confirmed, subject only to a positive consensus by other stewards requirement. Which existed. It was only when we got to the star chamber stage that things went awry. I only bring it up because others keep bringing it up... they are spinning what happened for their own purposes. I should have been reconfirmed per the policy. That's pretty clear. But I've tried my best to move beyond it. The wiki isn't fair, deal with it, has been my attitude. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the chart[48], it seems have been done on a strictly mathematical basis. Two other stewards with over 50% approval were also removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the steward discussion too? That's the one that counts. Again without going into details, you don't actually know what you're talking about. But as I say, the wiki isn't fair, and I've moved on. Except for still thinking I can correct misconceptions about what happened, I guess. Perhaps I should give up on that too, and let people who weren't there, weren't privy to the discussions, and most importantly, weren't stewards and thus weren't on the steward mailing list when it was discussed how things were going to be done, decide they know better than I what actually happened. It certainly would be more convenient. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't find it. You have to cut people a little slack here, as not everybody is familiar with Meta. I didn't even know there was such a thing, and yet I seem to have an account there. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you won't be able to review the discussions on the steward mailing list in any case. My point is that no outsider can really know what actually happened. Even I don't, without the chat log from the star chamber, which isn't going to be produced, but I certainly have more data to draw conclusions from than any non steward will. Tony's suggestion of producing incontrovertible evidence and then asking that something be done, (who to ask?) is well intentioned, but unhelpful. The real point is that I was railroaded out, it can't be proven, but it's what happened, and no amount of analysis of the publicly available information can confirm or refute that. Railroading is just one of those things. Life is like that sometimes, and WMF wikis aren't moot courts, they aren't governments, they aren't systems of justice and above all, there is no promise they are fair. They're projects. The people who railroaded me did so for whatever reason, maybe they believed it was good for the projects even if unfair. I no longer really care, except when people try to use that discussion as an example of something it's not. Aside: You have an account there because you went there while logged in here, that's how SUL works. You'll have an account on ANY WMF wiki (with very limited exceptions) that you visit if you're logged in here or at any other WMF wiki you already have an account at. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see that mailing list discussion myself. I don't like that kind of opacity. I'm not thrilled with the opacity of the arbcom process either, from what I've seen so far. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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[49]: 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 [50] 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)[reply]
  • I didn't expect to get a pass. I expected at least an admonishment for losing my temper more than I should (which is not at all). It's been a long 8 months. But I also expected that ArbCom was not going to paper over most of the problematic behavior on all sides by mentioning that factionalism is bad, but then not identifying any, and then proffering two sacrificial lambs among the skeptics to offset sanctioning WMC. Obviously I was wrong about how much clue I had. Chalk it up to optimism. Life is like that. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine you were not admonished for losing your temper because that is not the problem with your behavior. I can recall no instance in which I've seen you lose your temper, and neither was that even once raised as a complaint against you in the RfC. The problem is incivility and bias, not momentary loss of composure. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It's a bit of an odd definition. Lar seems to have largely ceased contributing in article space some time ago, which makes him unlikely to get into any content disputes per se (although he's expressed fairly clear positions on specific climate-change content disputes in user-talk space). The wording favors admins who don't contribute content, because once you start working in article space, you start getting involved in content disputes. I'm not really sure whether that's a step forward or backward. MastCell Talk 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is another issue. I, for example, have gotten into exactly one content dispute in the CC area (though i'm not sure if it is truly a dispute or not, since SBHB and I seem to be negotiating a compromise). Does this make me permanently unable to participate in AE for CC articles? Or, (more sensibly) should I recuse in anything arising from that incident or that article, but be allowed to participate in other parts of CC sanctions? The WordsmithCommunicate 04:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's uninvolved, and there's unhelpful. You are now "involved" by the narrow formal definition being applied under the sanctions regime, but I think your participation would be helpful. Whether it's correspondingly possible to be both uninvolved and unhelpful is left as an exercise for the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since it's possible to be involved and unhelpful, it seems obvious the metrics are orthogonal. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting as a curious observer, I would have to say that my small time looking over a few of the issues shows User:Lar to exhibit the small pull of an agenda (though not necessarily in promotion of a particular POV), and the preferences seem to coincide with one of the major contentious "factions" that actively edits the CC articles. If "uninvolved" is defined as never having edited the CC articles, then I believe Lar is fine; however, there are broader understandings of "involved" that it seems would reasonably include Lar. At the heart of it, an admin being "uninvolved" is really about whether that person is able to be trusted to act in a largely disinterested manner -- to maintain a perception of open-mindedness and fairness. Apart from actually editing CC articles, the question may be whether User:Lar's interactions and his passion have impacted any of the requisite perceptions. If this is the appropriate question, then it seems that only ArbCom would be able to give an opinion that will be broadly respected. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speaking in generalities, and without comment on this particular instance, the presence of a bunch of people complaining about administrative bias does not always mandate recusal. Where there's smoke, there isn't always fire - sometimes there's just someone blowing a lot of smoke. Accusations of admin bias are sensitive, but not specific, as predictors of actual bias. MastCell Talk 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we have to be careful that "taint" isn't used to game the system by driving away administrators who make decisions that are unpopular. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in both cases. Certainly it shouldn't mandate recusal, but surely in this instance it would better serve the process if this distraction were to be excised with Lar's recusal? There's been an awful lot of debate on this matter that has done absolutely nothing to move the process forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that the awful lot of debate will be never-ending unless the Committee makes a clear statement on the matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedy: Empowering uninvolved administrator discretion

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

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

This seems reasonable. BASC can probably handle this sort of thing. A huge part of the reason CC probation was ineffective is that a handful of editors and administrators on either side were able to confuse consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between "a gang that shows up at AN/I" and a community consensus to overturn an administrative action? I'm not a big fan of AN/I, but this proposal effectively puts administrative actions beyond any review or accountability. The Committee isn't equipped to make rapid judgments about the suitability of individual administrative decisions. MastCell Talk 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does in effect put administrative actions at a higher threshhold for review in this area, and I think that is exactly what is needed. If the Committee is not equipped to make rapid judgments, then perhaps there should be a special review committee established that is equipped to respond.Minor4th 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognise the history of enforcement which is described above. In the earliest days, the initial proponent of the probation ceased involvement when he was criticised by admins who imposed a discussion-first regime and who went on to chastise other admins who tried to implement the probation as it was written. That is the problem. The notion that the current probation regime developed in response to wikilawyering does not agree with the known facts.
Furthermore, the discussion-based regime stopped effective, timely action being taken because of the time-eating, enthusiasm-sapping bureaucracy. And, predictably, it fostered wikilawyering and battleground behavior.
The drafters seem to have recognised these problems and are imposing a new regime encouraging admin discretion, and forbidding any admin reversing a sanction without a full investigation. This may not be perfect but it's a vast improvement. --TS 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about how the discussion-first regime came into being, but the reason behind the reliance on the discussion-first regime is as I've described. In any event, the problem is not solved with this proposed decision because it is exactly the same as it was in the probation enforcement.Minor4th 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony nails it. The sanctions board was intended to create a streamlined procedure but was transmogrified into the exact opposite. The PD largely remedies this. I'm a little concerned that the wording gives a first-mover advantage but it's definitely an improvement over the absolute mess that the sanctions board turned into. Having Arbcom as the only avenue of appeal is a bad idea for many reasons, not the least being that it wastes the arbitrators' time on routine matters when they should be giving their attention to deciding cases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The streamlined process would have been fine for shooting random skeptics and claimed scibaby socks but it would not work to actually do anything about the actual problematic editors. 2/0 proved that when he reversed a 1 hour block of WMC with no prior consultation of the blocking admin. Seeking consensus for sanctions is not a perfect process but it has the merit of producing sanctions that stick, almost every time. Ambulance-chasing isn't what is needed here. Nor is having whatever fold (drama fans and concerned citizens, we usually get a mixture) turn up at AN/I decide. Perhaps a regime in which single uninvolved admins act, but their actions are subject to appeal or review, and any N uninvolved admins can turn them over if needed, might work? N being a small integer larger than 2. This allows for appeal/review but unloads ArbCom from being the direct appeal. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The streamlined process was fine when it was skeptics/scibaby socks, the wikilawyering, etc. started when I took my first actions; 24 hour blocks for three editors for edit warring over WP:TPOC violations, two account holders removing without comment an ip's questions within a discussion - the two editors were among those who subscribed to the scientific consensus; I was very quickly "critiqued" by some editors who subsequently became rather familiar to me, who wanted me to reverse my actions with regard to the two account holders. The reasoning was that these were editors in good standing, with clean block records, who were frustrated at reviewing the same questions posed by ip editors, and wished to clean up the article talkpage. I demurred, stating that as long term contributors the accounts should be aware of WP:TPOC and the necessity of treating other editors civilly. I then started a discussion under which it was agreed that non valid commentary might be archived, per the guideline page, which I hope TS remembers - there was apparent difficulty in some editors comprehending the need to treat skeptic or denialist commentary with anything other than deletion.
These reactions, which I considered per AGF, resulted in me when reviewing the next few cases of seeking the views of the other admins (and TS) active on the enforcement pages to ensure that my understanding of the terms was correct. Initially this worked well, as parties could see that there was consensus between the admins that the probation was being applied properly. It started to become overly bureaucratic, however, when sanctions against editors - often already under restrictions previously noted - who subscribed to the scientific consensus were applied and the familiar choir descended to castigate any admin who supported the imposition. Claims that article space was being given over to "worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue" and the like abounded, comments similar to "scientifically illiterate" were used to justify policy violating edits by other opposing editors, and a great deal of admin time was taken over by providing good faith explanations why policy considerations over-ruled allegations of inaccuracy, invalid consensus, and "the truth" as reasons for actions that contravened proper procedure. Actions against editors who contributed toward a skeptic or denialist viewpoint, however, remained relatively swift and straightforward for quite some time, and it was only in the latter stages when admin actions were questioned as vigorously in these instance (although it should be noted that they were sometimes questioned, but usually for the "leniency" shown - even though I thought admins were generally quite scrupulous in trying to act equitably in all instances, but I suppose that was part of the problem in some editors minds ). I would comment that in all the sanctions I enacted under the probation, only once that I can recall did an editor who agreed with the scientific consensus concede I was acting under the probation remit while several inclined to editing toward a skeptic/denialist viewpoint acknowledge their transgression - and even this was noted as being a "cosy relationship"!! Toward the end of the effective Probation enforcement era, the process now being moribund and obselete, the claims of bias, prejudice, incompetence, and the like became so vociferous that these allegations themselves became material for requests and then RfC's - exampled by the commentary and subsequent RfC's directed at Lar, and the Requests for Arbitration which finally lead to this case - that attention by those few admins still prepared to undertake reviews and actions relating to requests became sparse.
This is a long screed, I realise, and likely not one that every admin (and very certainly a number of editors who frequented it) who worked Probation enforcement will agree with, but one that I hope provides a lesson. Probation enforcement did not fail because it became process heavy and slow, it failed because certain editors were not prepared to be held to Wikipedia policy and guideline since they felt that they were both the torchbearers and the defenders of The Truth, and that their own understanding of NPOV was the only criteria by which content may be included in CC all related articles, and that fair and neutral application of the Probation was a hinderance to that goal. If this attitude, that what the scientific community concurs is the only viable POV and all related articles are to be edited strictly in accordance to it, is permitted to continue to drive the debate regarding NPOV and the allowance of other RS'ed viewpoints then any admin enforced process will fail. If the politics of ensuring that only the scientific consensus may be described (and, although far less likely, an overstating of the denialist or skeptic viewpoint) in a general interest encyclopedia is not countered, then enforcement will be similarly bogged down with wikilawyering. If the detrimental consequences of confluences of editors acting in unison to frustrate the influence of a differing viewpoint or opinion are not addressed, then enforcement will have a very high workload and subsequent admin burnout or turnover. If all editors contributing to CC/AGW related articles are not required to seek consensus, to apply policy scrupously, to seek all avenues of dispute resolution, to AGF of every other editor, to not denigrate opinions and viewpoints not held by them, and to model the best example possible of a Wikipedia editor, on the pain of swift and substantial sanctions, then these articles and related spaces will continue to be a battlefield (and never mind the mischief provided by the vandals and trolls). Those admins who will take on these responsibilities have my support and sympathy - but once this case finishes I am going to find some other places on WP in which to expend my energies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who called you in. You made a perfectly reasonable call. I'll never understand firstly why you caved, and secondly why you expect all other admins to behave in such a craven timid manner. --TS 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Craven? Is that what you actually meant to say? I think that term's kind of melodramatic. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS, you misunderstand Lar. He expect other admins to "be a mensch", by which he means that they should do what he tells them to. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of mischaracterization is particularly unhelpful, except as a demonstration of why some of your contributions, while "civil" on paper, are nevertheless problematic. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lar, from the context I thought it was pretty clear what you meant by the remark, and also regrettably thought it typical of your manners. You're welcome to give an alternative explanation. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I AGF'ed the reaction (after declining to reverse my sanctions), sought to find a way to resolve the specific issue, and proceeded to try and make admin decisions clearly in line with the policies because I then believed that people were interested in ensuring that neutrality and NPOV were reflected within the articles. Even when I realised that there were individuals, working co-operatively with like minded editors, that were only interested in promoting their preferred pov, I thought that evident unanimity - or at least consensus - between admins would end the wikilawyering. I was wrong, I now realise, because there are individuals who are not interested in creating encyclopedic articles, but in simply advocating their viewpoint. Regardless of the direction I took Probation enforcement into, or not, it wasn't going to work while there were groups of zealots prepared to war over every source and inserted comment and we were always going to end up here (with possibly a greater number of burned out admins). Unless this culture of en masse warring to/against a pov and pressuring admins into treating some editors differently to others is stopped, no admin will able to act effectively at their discretion. How easy is it going to be for a "substantial number" of editors to raise questions on involvement or bias in respect of any one admin, if it is recognised as being an effective means of removing an editor whose actions are inconveniencing some like minded editors. Yup, I got it wrong - I thought we were trying to write an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply LHVU. What you have described is what I have observed as well. So who's left to enforce in this area if LHVU is moving on? The problems described by LHVU must be addressed, and this Arb decision does not even touch it. Even the discretionary sanctions, which TS says have the teeth that were missing in the probation era, will remain a nice theory but will not be put into practice for the reasons LHVU describes. As he said, there must be an effective mechanism for imposing swift and substantial sanctions against editors who do not srupulously follow policy and just giving admins permission is not enough.Minor4th 00:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. I would add that we still need a determination/appeal process for involvement. Else we are going to forever be bogged down in quibbles about it. Something that is definitive unless appealed to ArbCom or something. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell has identified what I also see as a potential problem with this. If there is a glacier left in the world, surely it is ArbCom. ;) If the planet has to rotate twice so that all Arbs can have a look, comment, then decide, an unjust 48-hour block is in effect allowed to stand. I continue to favour maintenance of the current community enforcement board, which allows more admins to get involved and only take a bit of the heat and delivers consensus decisions that are very hard to overturn; but with the addition of AE discretionary sanctions if an admin wants to act unilaterally, which already have the clause "not to be overturned without clear community consensus". Having a gang of supporters show up at AN/I just shouldn't be counted as part of determining consensus. I think both processes can co-exist. However if the community board is to be dissolved, I would agree that something like this will be needed to help the admin acting alone to emerge relatively unbloodied at the end of the process. Maybe a "rapid-reaction" Arb committee of three would serve the process? Franamax (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Franamax and Mastcell. I'm going to sound naive saying this, but one of the biggest dashes of cold water I've gotten on Wikipedia has been a realization that administrators are just ordinary users, without any special qualifications, and no more or less prone to bias and error. Administrators on both sides are involved deeply in this particular case, and fairness concerns have subverted the entire process, hence the reversals that one sees. Finding a new pool of administrators, sort of like a new pool of jurors, is the answer. Empowering those administrators, and making them effectively unaccountable, is definitely not the answer. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although a couple of you have said this Arb proposal gives more empowerment to admins to act in their discretion, and therefore is an improvement over the probation model -- that is not the case. It's exactly the same. Uninvolved admins were also given the discretion to act on their own and pursuant to their own discretion in imposition and enforcement of probation sanctions, but it didnt happen! The language was exactly the same - admin action couldnt be overturned except by consent of the admin imposing the sanction, appeal to Arb or clear community consensus at ANI. The fact remains, uninvolved admins did not feel they had a clear mandate to impose sanctions without caucusing first and by the time discussion concluded, whatever the infraction was had likely been supplanted with 5 different infractions or it was written off as stale and here we are at Arb because that model did not work to curb problem behavior. It only got worse, and we all know that the ban of three people is not going to make a dent in bringing peace and acceptable editing practices to this topic area. Why does anyone think admins are going to feel any more empowered under the Arb regime when its no different than the old regime? Something more is needed. Minor4th 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of removing your melodramatic "note to all" flag. This is a public discussion to all comments are, perforce, notes to all.
You're perfectly right to say that the probation as written expressly allowed for admin discretion. However it wasn't executed in that way. If the newly proposed discretionary system is executed in a way that isn't consistent with the wording intentions of the Committee, you can count on me to be back asking the Committee for guidance. And you know what? The guidance of the Committee is binding on such matters. The point is that removing responsibility from the community domain, which has failed, to the Arbitration domain, gives the issue more teeth. These are the teeth we, the community of climate change editors, have patiently waited for. Would that we had them four years ago. --TS 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be melodramatic, that was kind of crappy of you. On the rest, I hope you're right about this having more force but I don't see how this would give admins any more comfort in taking discretionary actions. Minor4th 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The community's attempt to encourage further admin involvement in the matter was thwarted by admins themselves. That's the way I see it. There isn't a less crappy way of putting it. Admins have to step up to the plate and bat. If they won't, and worse, if they try to stop other admins doing so, things get worse, and we end up with an arbitration case. And of course everybody blames the arbitrators for spending months trying to sort out something that could have been handled better by swift, decisive admin action to stop a battleground environment forming. Admins will still have to bear the burden of this case going forward. --TS 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS: I do not think that narrative fits the facts. LHvU's explanation of how things unfolded fits the facts far better. But I'm not averse to trying new things, and I'm about to propose that at the existing GS/CC/RE enforcement board, we switch to an act first consensus later model instead of consensus first and only then act. We need something more structured to review and approve or overturn decisions than AN/I, and I'm still scratching my head on that one but I'm thinking something that involves the other uninvolved admins either approving or overturning, if there is a challenge, might work. A corollary to that is that we fix the uninvolved definition to match ArbCom's proposal (no content conflict in the topic area), and use it going forward instead of the defacto one we use now (no edits in the topic area). Would you be supportive of these changes? Do you have concrete suggestions about how to structure review/approval? ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the idea of anything being dealt with at CC enforcement and I particularly dislike the idea of an admin who has shown partisanship setting the standards so that he may continue with what he has expressed several times before as a clear content agenda. The best thing to reduce conflict in enforcement would be for Lar to stop acting as uninvolved in CC altogether. I cannot see Lar being given an act first negotiate later clearence as anything but a bad thing. Another huge problem with this is that Lar would then have to answer only to admins at CC enforcement. A place where he is the established dominant admin (alpha male) and has set the standards and policed those standards himself. I understand why Lar would not wish to answer to AN/I or AN in relation to many of his previous judgements. Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, the arbitrators are capable of making up their own minds whose narrative fits the facts.
  • Here is the current version of the probation, which is identical in wording to the version implemented on January 3.
  • Here, just in case you might not understand its intent, its author Ryan Postlethwaite himself elaborates in a comment on January 4: "Enforcement requests pages are to alert administrators to behaviour where enforcement may be needed. If any administrator sees problematic behaviour then they are free to act."
  • Here is Ryan's statement of January 5 after a discussion-first regime was imposed: "In that case, I'm outta here - I'm not investing any more time when you're already making threats of shopping me to ArbCom. The whole point of discretionary sanctions was to give admins more leeway - what your advocating is exactly the same as we had before. Anyway, I know when it's time to leave."
At that point, just a day or two after the probation had started, the discretionary element of the probation had been killed, not by events but by administrators themselves. It's still "on paper" in the wording of the probation, but any attempt to implement it as a discretionary system is actively opposed by some of the admins. Obviously it would not be possible for admins similarly to castrate the proposed discretionary sanctions in the current draft, which states the discretionary element in even plainer language, "on his or her own discretion". That is a good thing. --TS 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS: I still think LHvU's account fits what actually happened better. But never mind. Would you comment on my proposal, please? I plan to raise it soon. You may want to address Polargeo's concerns about act first seek consensus later. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion passing the proposed discretionary sanctions as written would be sufficient. Attempts to attenuate or subvert the discretionary latitude could be brought to the attention of the Committee, as could genuine cases of abuse of admin discretion. --TS 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the proposal, this would move requests to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (not ANI as Minor4th was suggesting) which would be more streamlined and open to a wider number of uninvolved admins. Also, more community scrutiny at the same board or by the committee in any dispute about sanctions being imposed. If sanctions are needed, this looks a much better system. . dave souza, talk 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also it's a "warn->sanction->enforce" system entirely based on discretion. There would be no requirement for exhaustive discussion while abuse continues, although of course the admin would be expected to explain himself if the decision is appealed, and the sanctions could be modified or repealed by the consensus of uninvolved admins following extensive discussion. I see no downside to this and I wish we'd had it in January, as Ryan Postlethwaite intended. --TS 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and think that's what I've just been outlining at #P 3.3.1 Discretionary sanctions above – your comments on that would be appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar's proposal to change the implementation of the probation - not actionable by arbcom
Apologies, I've not been clear enough, I guess. I am suggesting adopting as much as possible of the proposed decision now, and applying it at the GS/CC/RE board, prior to the PD passing (which might not be for some while, who knows). I think this will give some experience with how well the PD regime will work, and a chance to tune it. As well as getting folk used to the PD way of doing (if we assume it's going to pass). This also addresses TS's criticism of the current regime being too consensus driven. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Finding 3, Climate change probation and Proposed remedy 2, Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded. My objection to the current probation isn't that it's "too consensus-driven", it's that it hampers the use of administrator discretion. Under the proposed discretionary sanctions, admin actions could still be undone by the consensus of uninvolved admins, just as normal admin actions can be undone. What the current regime does is prevent admins using their discretion in the area, which makes things even worse than they were before. If Proposed Remedy 1 passes, the probation will be defunct. If it doesn't pass, then I'll consider your proposal.
In the meantime I'm not interested in seeing the results of any half-cocked demonstrations, without the teeth that can only be provided by arbcom backing. --TS 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words the current regime is flawed but you have no interest in making it better, just in complaining about it? Again, I'm suggesting that we try to apply as much of the PD as possible early. I think it is your objection that is "half cocked". ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, the arbitrators are doing something about it. I'm happy to leave the job up to them because they've got far more experience in this area and they have vaster powers than you or I. And to reiterate, if the proposal doesn't pass then I'll discuss your proposal. --TS 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option analysis

<-Here's how I understand the three options. First, the existing model at Climate Change Requests for Enforcement, second, the ArbCom proposal, and third, Lars proposal

GS/CC/RE model

  1. Warn First
  2. Propose sanction at GS/CC/RE
  3. Community discussion of issue
  4. Uninvolved admin discussion of proposed sanction
  5. Sanction imposed if consensus of uninvolved admins reached
  6. Appeal to: original sanctioning admin, ANI, or ArbCom

AE Model

  1. Warn first
  2. Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate)
  3. Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction
  4. Appeal to: original sanctioning admin, AE, or ArbCom

Lar model

  1. Warn first
  2. Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate)
  3. Someone brings it to notice board if they are not themselves the uninvolved admin
  4. Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction, record or update notice board
  5. Appeal to: original sanctioning admin (either at notice board or at talk)
  6. Failing that: Overturn by consensus of uninvolved admins (nb, no consensus implies retain sanction) at notice board
  7. Failing that: Appeal to AE or ArbCom

In defense of Lar, he may not have fully articulated his approach, or I may have missed some details. I think his key step is replacing the need to reach consensus to sanction with a negative consensus mode, the difference being that failure to reach consensus in the GS/CC/RE model means no sanction, while in Lars model, it means the sanction stands. I support that, but hope there was an implicit mutatis mutandis for the warn and appeal steps.--SPhilbrickT 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my guess is correct, and Lar intends the warn and appeal steps to be included, I see Lar's proposal as identical to the AE model, except that it gives one more venue for appeal of sanction, specifically, a consensus of uninvolved admins can overturn it, rather than needing Arb involvement. I think this sounds like a workable model (and I'll use this opportunity to note that I under-appreciated the significance of the AE proposal when I first read it).--SPhilbrickT 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me flesh this out better. I don't want to edit your words... But the AE steps one and two would be my steps one and two as well, and the AE step 4 would be my step 3.5 (appeal to the sanctioning admin) and 5 (that is, if the appeal to a consensus of uninvolveds failed to resolve the matter, AE, the AC, (or, sigh, ANI, except, let's not) would be involved after) ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lar proposal is, I think, essentially the same as the WP:AE proposal by arbcom, but its implementation would be subject to much the same foot-dragging among admins that compromised the original discretionary regime. --TS 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily so in any case and characterizing seeking consensus as foot-dragging just isn't helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the AE model eschews steps 2 and 3 of the GS/CC/RE model; those are not trivial steps, as they required collection of diffs and evidence of warning and fair amount of busy work, then step 3 involved grandstanding and hand wringing before you even got to step 4. And step 4 at GS/CC/RE required multiple uninvolved admins to weight in - on the rare case that didn't happen, hands got slapped. The AE/Lar model allows unilateral admin action at this point. Please don't let the larger number of steps fool you, both the AE and Lar model are significantly streamlined compared to the GS/CC/RE model (This shouldn't be construed as criticism of the GS/CC/RE model, it was largely a "let's transplant ANI to its own page, with comparable process." However, that process was cumbersome, and we editors haven't learned to play nice, so admins are being given much more power to break heads. I see the Lar proposal as simply adding a reasonable safeguard to the process.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this has veered wildly away from any proposed remedy that might be actionable by the committee, I've decided to disengage and have asked Lar to make his proposal on the talk page of the probation where such discussion belongs. --TS 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 WordsmithCommunicate 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. A less mechanical evaluation is subject to gaming but might actually be better. The GS/CC/RE board did formally evaluate involvement more than once but may have been seen as too inward looking to evaluate that by some folk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of your point - that it isn't really involvement we care about—indeed, involvement is often a plus. But we do care about bias, and like temperature records pre-instrument, it is difficult or impossible to directly measure what we want to measure, so we measure something that can be objectively measured, and argue or accept that it is a reasonable proxy for what we truly care about. Remembering this is important, but to the extent that you suggest we directly look at bias, I fear that is an impossible task. Very few people will take kindly to being labeled as biased (ignoring the trite "I'm biased in favor of the truth or verifiability" or whatever), and oddly, I predict that those most biased will squawk the loudest. However, while I think anyone might take umbrage at being called "biased" it isn't a mark of shame to admit that yes, you have been very involved in content disagreements. For that reason, I think we should continue to use involvement as the metric, but it will help to recall why we want to measure involvement, and that may guide us to more appropriate definition of involvement.--SPhilbrickT 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Involvement" is not really the issue, bias/partiality is. That's what arbcom needs to deal with, both in generalities and in specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceiving, though... at first glance, the time you spend hanging around WMC's page joking with the other regulars might be taken as evidence of partiality... It takes more digging than just a quick glance through contribs to determine whether an editor is biased or not. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about administrative involvement. No one has suggested that ScottyBerg is an uninvolved admin on climate-change enforcement requests. So I'm not sure his chatter on William's talk page is relevant to this discussion, except perhaps as a way to tweak him. MastCell Talk 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually, intervening admins should not be making editorial judgments such as "going with scientific consensus". It is the editors of a page that need to be making editorial judgments, and the admins need to identify the editors consistently going against or disrupting genuine and well-formed consensus established by other editors, rather then admins establishing consensus. Admins need to identify an existing consensus, not argue for it themselves, and need to remind editors to follow Wikipedia policies, and tell them how to try and get a new consensus established if they think that is needed. As others have said on this talk page, it is possible to focus on editor behaviour when admining a dispute, and not get dragged into content discussions that are best carried out by the editors discussing an article or topic. If specific examples of how an admin should have approached various disputes would help, that is one possibility that could be explored here. Building up a manual of best practice to guide new admins coming into the topic area. It might seem bureaucratic, but it might be needed and might help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an outline of best practices would be helpful. At the moment the only rule is "admins can never act regarding articles that they have edited." This is not adequate guidance for the general case, much less for resolving conflicts in a contentious area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for the contention that the rule is ""admins can never act regarding articles that they have edited.". My understanding is that admins can act, unless they have edited AND those edits have been part of a conflict. While some additional clarity is in order, in particular, the situation discussed by The Word smith, I don't believe the existing or proposed rules lead to your summarization. --SPhilbrickT 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I was wrong -- it's not necessary even to have edited an article. According to one of the admins engaged in the probation, simply having uploaded an image containing an ordinary plot of scientific data related to the topic is sufficient to qualify one as involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

TS, there are those who have some difficulty in placing RS (as determined by every other applicable standard) regarding skeptic/denialist commentary into CC related article space - and you are suggesting that there is anything more than outright rejection for WP:OR? The removal of trolling and contrarian (how quickly these shorthands become adopted?) advocacy is as swift as ever it was. You appear to be mistaking good faith attempts to "widen" the discussion via sources for timewasting, which resolves to to misapprehending NPOV as being guided by the consensus on only one aspect (the science) of a multi faceted subject (science, politics, economics, etc.), and almost wilful disregard that WP cannot evaluate the the content of RS for propriety. From my reading of policy NPOV is self hamstringing in determining what the truth may be, because it requires that any and all pov's underpinned by sufficient RS should be noted; and whatever "the truth" is, it can only be one of them. Insofar that the "best" RS'd viewpoint should have prominence, it must be hoped that it is the one that has the consensus or majority support in any topic - but it is not an option for WP to promote or demote a RS to ensure that that happens. That is one of the drawbacks to be found within the open and third party referencing editing model that Wikipedia is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with well sourced additions. I've no idea why you would get the idea that I had. The reason some editors are trying very hard to insert poor sources into Wikipedia's science articles is because there are no reliable sources for the fake "facts" they want to insinuate into the encyclopedia. But I don't see that problem going away, nor do I see the attempts to compromise the verifiability policy as likely to succeed. --TS 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P19:Detrimental editing

I would appreciate diffs here, to understand what edits are covered under this heading, and which editors are involved. Without specific examples, it's hard to divine the arbitrators' intent here, and what some editors may consider detrimental, other editors may consider to be essential. Horologium (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Kirill here, but I believe the drafting history reflects that this was posted shortly before the "asked to step away" series of remedies, supporting the idea that if one of the parties was asked and agreed to leave this topic area, it would necessarily imply a finding of misconduct on that party's part. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P20 Conduct on arbitration pages

  1. mea culpa LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. mea maxima culpa Or in English, "I screwed up." When things turn into a free-for-all it's hard to resist the temptation to shout louder and louder to be heard above the din. But I should know better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (principles)

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

Proposed findings of fact

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


F1: Locus of dispute

Recent article ratings and creations

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

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

Do any of the ratings value the WP rules and policies as factors? Such as WP:NPOV? Do they examine editor interaction? Do they examine any factors other than "This is what we know is correct and WP follows it"? Collect (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I've seen looked at the articles to see if they contained major errors. The factual accuracy is of course primary in any third-party evaluation of an encyclopedia article on a scientific subject. --TS 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they followed NPOV, would the quality of the articles be actually diminished? Seems that "factual accuracy" is another phrase for "SPOV"? Collect (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not the case. Other policies and guidelines also have to be followed like undue weight, reliable sources and so on. That's how articles are built, I know you know this so what am I missing in your question? --CrohnieGalTalk 22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether SPOV has any value at all - some editors assert that because SPOV has apparently been followed in some articles that that is the reason the articles get good outside ratings - my point is that a fair outside rating would not require SPOV to dominate - that NPOV is a valid criterion for articles. Is that sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this discussion? Is it in the workshop of this case or somewhere else? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I didn't watch the evidence or the workshop pages. I only started watching when this PD was announced as posted. Thanks for your patents, --CrohnieGalTalk 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I suggest you read the original requests for arbitration, the evidence pages etc. "SPOV" has been mentioned many times therein, and is repeatedly referred to throughout all of this. My proposed list of princioples also refers to it, and should be easy to find. The arbs have also had to wade through this, and, I trust, recognize the nonnegotiability often affirmed by the committee, and by JW. Collect (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F2: Nature and extent of dispute

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

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)[reply]


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

F4: Disputes regarding administrator involvement

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The proposed decision makes no mention of the Lar RfC[51] 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're making his invitation look like a blanket approval of anything that was said. Lar doesn't have the power to revoke WP:NPA and other policies. Nor can attacks on Lar on his talk page be entirely excused by an invitation to "let off steam and engage in frank discussion" because there's a reasonable limit to that, although any evidence of personal attacks from that talk page would have to be seen in light of the invitation, and the attacks would have to be pretty egregious. At a time when Lar was getting hit from many editors at once, it's unreasonable to say "Lar could have asked people to leave his talk page at any time." That response of yours, Carcharoth, lacks a certain empathy. Lar is not required to have made the best decisions at all times in order to have been made the victim. Nor is having an open attitude toward talk page comments from people antagonistic to him, or wading into the climate-change swamp as an admin the equivalent of someone victimized at 2 a.m. while trying to buy crack on a street corner known for drug dealing. In other words, avoid blaming the victim and don't give a free pass to the many victimizers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. I think the reality is more complex, to say the least. MastCell Talk 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's not what JWB said. We are none of us perfect, and that includes me, so it's certainly not uniform but really, anyone that is looking for factional behavior need look no farther than my talk page. I got piled on, time and time again. Sometimes maybe I had it coming, but many times, I didn't. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this: I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. MastCell, don't caricature what I'm saying. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [52]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

F5: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I believe your math is in error here. I think you meant to say 80 good blocks. In other words, 1 in 5 blocks is incorrect, but if you look at the larger picture and then out of 100 blocks you'll get 20 editors blocked incorrectly and a 80 sockpuppets run by a few individuals blocked correctly. This is even more pertinent since many of the socks blocked aren't actually being blocked for being disruptive. This kind of matches what I've been reading in the comments at WUWT on this case - many of them have talked about being instantly blocked or reverted but I suspect they don't have the time or inclination to find out why and get the situation rectified. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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: [53], [54], [55] and this discussion [56] Minor4th 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It continues [57]. 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)[reply]
You said that such socks aren't active on their talk page. You reported me after an argument on my talk page. The process for appeal is too poorly laid out for the average user to understand, I'm sure most of them give up. It took me a month to clear my name after your accusation. Few would go through such a hassle. The entire Scibaby issue is a pure witch hunt and you are the grand inquisitor. As one of the users falsley blocked as a puppet of Scibaby by admin Moreschi after being accused I have to take great offense to some of the statements made by ChrisO and others in defense of that witch hunt. I think that people like ChrisO and those who follow his line of reasoning on alleged Scibaby socks could greatly benifit by reading List_of_fallacies. The idea that because only X people appealed that all the rest were socks is a logical fallacy of the highest order and shouldn't be given any credence by anyone. The appeals process is not easy and not well defined. It took a lot of reading through and I wrote the appeal on my talk page which was the only thing I could find at the time and nothing happened. After a few weeks I had to go off wikipedia to find a better solution and I did. I wrote an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee this was about a month after I had been blocked. Most peoople would have quit. I won my appeal. There is no way as I explained in my appeal that my host showed up as a sock by a checkuser. Carcharoth then posted on my talk page that I hadn't actually been banned as a sock of Scibaby. I never believed him and still don't. His response seemed more backtracking to explain away how I was confirmed by a checkuser. The whole affair left me with a great loss of trust in admin. All and all it took a month and a lot of work to clear my name. Something most casual users would never do. No ChrisO just because they dont appeal doesn't confirm anything. It only confirms that wiki's appeal process is FUBAR for the average user and most casual users and new users which you clearly taget wont go through with it. As for checkusers. Well I'm sure the program works well. But the people doing the check if they are even really doing the check I'm not too sure of.Bigred58 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the bit where you named me - I posted to your talk page back in December 2009 in response to your appeal that was submitted to ArbCom by e-mail. I should note here that it was me dealing with the appeal, correcting the malformed unblock template on your talk page, and passing your appeal on to a checkuser, that led to your unblocking. In that post to your talk page, I tried to explain that your block was carried out as part of a response to edits made to the Climategate article. Your account had been tagged as a Scibaby sock when you were named at an SPI page, which is why I said the block (which had taken place earlier) was unrelated to the tagging. The block was more a response (incorrect in my view) to the deluge of editing that hit the Climategate article. You are correct that the tagging of an already blocked account (not the block itself) was a misidentification of that account as a Scibaby sock. As far as the atmosphere surrounding the article at the time goes, that can be seen in the response of the blocking administrator (currently inactive) to the message I left him about this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the subsequent discussion on hold for now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please send me your list of signs for review. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to you, I think. Uninvolved admins, yes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about everyone stops arguing about this and the list gets sent to ArbCom for review? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the list get sent to ArbCom? Do I need to use up one of my questions to find out? :) ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I will ask ChrisO to send us the list. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the information is elsewhere, but was the above list received prior to ChrisO's retirement - and should it have not, are those in possession of a copy who may be able to send it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this writing there are 725 entries in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. If the low end of the quoted 20-40% range is correct then the Checkusers and Arbitrators know of at least 140 incorrectly blocked accounts. Could the CUs please list the 140+ incorrectly blocked accounts? This would both verify the cited figures, and clear the name of those who were incorrectly blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence is retained by the system for only a limited time (currently 3 months, I believe). Accounts blocked before that time, are likely to be impossible to review either positively or negatively. I would assume that any statement about the error rate is based on reviewing recent cases only. Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Risker has now put up a "clarification" A bit of explanation about the percentages noted above. The higher number (up to 40%) was calculated about a year ago, when Arbcom requested that the AUSC review existing Scibaby blocks, and includes historical information and range blocks. The lower number is the estimate from several checkusers who have carried out Scibaby checks in roughly the past six months, and also includes range blocks. In other words, following an intensive review of practices, the number of false positives was significantly reduced and range blocks were removed or narrowed, resulting in a lower but non-negligible false positive rate. (obviously it would be unreasonable to expect R to deign to come here and talk) but that doesn't really answer the questions raised. If essentially all those false positives were from range blocks, and none are from falsely blocked individual accounts, then that puts a rather different interpretation on those values. And this matters, because there are a lot of scibaby apologists in these talk pages who are looking for an excuse to say "oooh look at all those falsely blocked accounts". And yet there is no evidence for a single one having been so blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, you should understand how these things work by now. Technically anyone caught in a rangeblock is blocked, so they can use the rangeblocks to justify the higher numbers. They haven't given any evidence that the fine contributors listed here have been incorrectly blocked. By constructing the figures in this way they can pretend to care about Scibaby while discouraging admins from acting. Pretty neat, huh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F6: Edit warring on Climate Change related articles

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

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)[reply]
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: [58]. Chris edited or reverted in BLP violations 3 times [59],[60] [61], and an additional instance with help from WMC [62]; Mark reverted 3 times, and claimed BLP exemption [63], [64], [65]. 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: [66].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [67], here:[68] and [69]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please tone down the aggression here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Minor4th, you are misrepresenting my edits. Look at [70]. 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 [71]. 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)[reply]
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 [72]. Even the protecting admin (SirFozzie) did not assert that there was any edit-warring going on. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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: [73], You added a BLP violation as noted directly above, linking the SPS attack: [74], MN reverted the BLP violation: [75], WMC reinserted the BLP violation: [76], MN reverted the BLP violation: [77], You reinserted the BLP violation, claiming that it was not a BLP violation: [78], MN reverted the BLP violation again: [79], the page was full protected by SirFozzie [80], and MN was blocked by NuclearWarfare for edit warring on that page [81]. 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)[reply]

F7 to F10 (William M. Connolley)

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

For clarity, WMC uncivil behavior includes engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA personal attacks] (PA), [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT use of Wikipedia as a soapbox and battleground], edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, and abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings and blocks. He has engaged in a long series of disruptive behavior, including biography of living person (BLP) violations, incivility, incorrect interpretation and misuse of source material edit-warring, personal attacks (PA), and attempts to override consensus content decisions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by William M. Connolley

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

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 [82] a BLP vio? Is it a pasto?
  • is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [83] as BLP vios?
  • The "ownership" stuff is pretty weird too. Why is [84] ownership?

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

Why continue to argue? It may be odd; however, acceptance will help you here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think that accepting obvious falsehoods is a good idea? Still, at least you have something to say. Everyone else is shuffling their feet and pretending not to notice William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that Preponderance of the evidence demonstrates your disruptive behavior. The PD is objectively verifying this finding, by and among involved and uninvoled folks, and it will be validated by the final decision. Can you accept that you may make good contributions and yet still harm Wikipedia when you harm others? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carcharoth, seems like I must apologize. Tell me, what would be helpful here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looking at the biographies of living people would be helpful towards judging BLP violations. The few I looked at from 2010 I put a search in for WMC that shows that there are some who agreed and some who disagreed with him but not necessarily that he is in violation unless you listen to those who are involved with WMC or have admitted to having negative feelings towards him prior to the discussion. Please see this search page. It goes back through the years. I think it's only fair to take a look at what the board has to say about this and also who it was that brought the cases there. Ok, Carcharoth I stuck myself in possible harms way, we'll see now won't we. I won't say anymore until I see what I get from making this comment ok? HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F7: William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

  • 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)[reply]

F9: William M. Connolley has shown Ownership

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
IIRC correctly newer editors who have edit warred their comments back into talk pages have either been warned for 3rr or blocked - despite claiming vandalism when WMC and KDP delete them.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic subthread, but Literaturegeek is correct. Please don't use editors outside the topic area as examples like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

F10: William M. Connolley BLP violations

Emphasis added: 1.I see little reason for us to delve into the minutiae of content here. Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Kiril, you make it sound like there are no obvious BLP violations. That is simply, demonstrably false. Understand this: Nobody, but nobody involved in this case has ever made this point, and it is utterly unbelievable. It does not take a whole lot of time digging into the sources to determine that he violated BLP, significantly, on multiple occasions. In this months-long ArbCom case in which so many editors have put in so many hours of work, you owe us more than that. I'd estimate that at most it would take you a couple of hours, more probably an hour, possibly even less. Do your job. Your statement is an insult. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real problem with Kirill's interpretation here. He is unwilling to look at the differences which were already laid out for him (in excruciating detail) in several of the evidence sections, but it goes far beyond that. While [85], [86], [87], and [88] are not BLP violations, they are deliberate attempts to delegitimize AGW skeptics; conversely, he had no objections to [89] and [90] these two edits, which were equally non-systematic additions of the ISI highly cited link for Phil Jones (climatologist). The only difference is that the first four are BLPs for "skeptics", and the last is a BLP for someone who endorses the AGW hypothesis. I didn't present these as evidence (partly because the evidence page was closed long before the PD was posted, and partly because they are not clear BLP violations, only NPOV violations), but Kirill's dismissal of the evidence against WMC for egregious BLP violations needs to be rethought. It's simply unconscionable to ignore WMC's animus towards scientists who don't hew to his particular views on climate change. Horologium (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is another "tiny" difference - isn't there? The "sceptic" edits where in March 2008 while the Jones edit was in March 2010 - it is quite possible to change your mind in the span of 2 years! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. If ArbCom is not willing to look at an editor that repeatedly commits BLP violations, praising pro-AGW bios and slamming skeptics, this entire process is useless. An arbitrator that won't take the time to look at the evidence is not worthy of being on the committee. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify it for you, Kiril: Simple BLP violations (although the set of diffs in the PD page, overall, presents WMC in a quite lengthy campaign to disparage Fred Singer in various ways -- definitely ArbCom-worthy material):
  • Here we have WMC adding self-published information to the Christopher Monckton article. [91] There's a discussion elsewhere on the PD talk page about it, but you've read that. It isn't rocket science to conclude that what the professor published was self-published.
  • More self-published stuff, and this one's a douzy, Kirill. To the Michael Fumento article, he added [92] this little gem [93]: Titled Fumento Follies V. This computer scientist who blogs about areas outside his expertise (check the "About" page on this blog) writes, Yes, he's back! Over at his website Fumento has posted Hate Mail, Volume 32, which contains his creatively edited version of our exchange. [...] It's another case of self-published, unreliable sourcing added to a BLP. Simple, yes?
  • And here's another self-published source added to a BLP, Fred Singer. [94];
  • And here's a self-published source added to the Timothy F. Ball BLP back in '07. [95] Here's what the BLP page looked like on that date (the part about self-published sources is in boldface). [96]
  • And again, same article, same BLP problem, same passage [97] (note the previous edit [[98]] -- the editor noted that the source was a blog)
  • And here we have WMC joining others to keep in another self-published piece [99] in the Fred Singer BLP. The source, a self-published blog (RealClimate) states: [100] S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change earlier this year
Not rocket science, Kirill. Not rocket science. You yourself said when you voted on Proposed Remedy 10 that it's just standard policy that blogs should not be used for BLPs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC) -- corrections made -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If ArbCom cannot enforce BLP policy, there shouldnt be a BLP policy. Minor4th 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really do hope that someone will scrutinize those links, since the Singer one isn't a BLP item (expert clause), the Fumento one is from before the BLP policy existed, the Tim Ball item isn't to a blog (but to court documents), ... Do remember that all blogs aren't created equal, and that BLP is about the person not about what kind article it occurs in. Not to mention that these "violations" span a period of 6 years, with no indication as to whether they are establishing a pattern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you should know by now that (1) the "expert clause" does not apply to controversial info in BLPs, (2) court documents are primary sources and also forbidden by BLP, and (3) the diffs above all document content that is controversial and personal, so they are "about the person". KDP, did you ever actually read WP:BLP? You've been making these claims for years and I keep correcting you, yet you keep making them. ATren (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we disagree on your (1), unfortunately this is not something that ArbCom will take a stand on.. Lets just say its a grey zone - some agree with you, others disagree (see later) - As for (2) do please tell me where this is disallowed in WP:BLP at that date[101] (were talking old BLP here). (3) Nope - sorry, there is a difference between what you consider controversial, and what is controversial - its a discussion of a published work - not of the person. No one btw. is more disappointed that ArbCom is unwilling to address the disagreement we have on BLP - it was my only focus in this particular case to get this determined, please see my preliminary questions which are almost entirely about that issue. (nb: And yes i've read and reread BLP every single time that this has surfaced (as you well know). The disagreement is actually rather simple, so it should have been something that ArbCom could have taken up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KDP, RealClimate or any other self-published blog cannot be used to add information, especially negative, pejorative, or impeaching, to a BLP unless it's the BLP of the person who is actually doing the talking in the reference. There is no grey zone. You aren't arguing the opposite, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that RealClimate wasn't used to add information about BLP (which is information about a person), it was used to reference purely scientific critique of a published work by Singer: The NIPCC report. As before: BLP is about persons and personal information, this isn't (and wasn't). This btw. was (as i've said a lot of times before) something that i had high hopes that this case could have clarified (no matter what way it would've turned). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the RealClimate reference fails on two counts, it was used to criticize a BLP subject (criticized his work) and because a self-published source shouldn't be used when it has no direct link to the subject itself. So, WMC violated BLP and V with that edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it fails on none of these. But let me try to explain my position here: If the content section on the NIPCC was split out from the Singer biography, then the RC link would both be relevant and very much within due weight. But here is the conundrum: There is no difference between BLP as interpreted on a "regular article" and BLP as interpreted on a biographical article. We have two logical conclusions then: Either blogs are never allowed, on all articles, no matter whether they are following our SPS guidelines, or blogs are acceptable within all articles where the information is not "personal" (about the person). I follow the latter, but could be convinced about the former (but then policy has to change). The major trouble is when biographical articles contain information that isn't biographical in nature, such as the NIPCC information in Singers bio. It is not biographical articles that is special - but whether the information is about a person. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(After E/C)(regarding point 2) It's right there in the old version that you linked, in the section "Presumption in favor of privacy/well-known public figures" (section 4.1): Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. Section 4.2 (for less public figures) is even more restrictive, and definitely would not include primary sources. Horologium (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that too - and i also read that at the time. Did you notice that the suit was referenced to a secondary source[102]? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. The suit was discussed in the piece that was linked (and not removed by the IP editor), but it didn't go into the detail of the court documents. The court documents should not have been used; what was not discussed by the piece you linked should have been left out. If that guts the argument that was being constructed against him, too bad. It is not relevant that you (and obviously WMC) can't stand Ball; Wikipedia is not a vehicle to discredit people with whom you have a disagreement (political, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise). That's we have blogs like Tim Lambert's. Horologium (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You assume rather a lot of bad faith here ("that you (and obviously WMC) can't stand Ball") - i can only speak for myself, and i have no such feelings towards Ball. The basis here is that the information was relevant (secondary source to show), factual, and reliably sourced, and not presented with undue weight towards any side of that particular controversy (all sides presented equally), see also the large amount of discussion about this on the talk-page of that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered my alternate proposal 10.1 to try to reach consensus without the need to parse each individual diff (and indeed, it looks like it may reach consensus among the committee, which was my point, though not on this talkpage). I will review the input here in more detail when I am back at my desk (I will be offline for several hours now for some Labor Day related activities). In the interim, I will say that while Kirill can speak for himself, I don't think the drafter of the Committee's Badlydrawnjeff and Footnoted quotes decisions needs to be lectured on the importance of the BLP policy, even if there is sharp disagreement as to how to phrase findings regarding it in a particular decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F 10.1 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons

The main difference between this alternate proposal and the original F 10 is that it refrains from saying the utterly obvious fact that William M. Connolley has, in fact, violated WP:BLP on numerous occasions, as the list I've posted just above makes abundantly clear. Secondarily, it leaves out the long list of diffs showing a selection of his BLP violations. Why on earth are arbitrators not convinced that he violated WP:BLP over and over? I'm asking arbitrators to explain their reasoning. This is a fine spot to do it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it refrains from saying it, it just takes a circuitous route around the bush. I am generally not fond of calling spades "regolith displacement devices" myself, hence I also support 10.

    There is a measure of pragmatism in ArbCom decision making; sometimes consensus of the Committee will form around a wording or remedy that few (if any) individual arbitrators would have supported in isolation, but where the alternative would have been so divided as to all fail. This is a case of "It's better to succeed at a fairly good decision than fail at the perfect one". — Coren (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one of the biggest problems here was the frequent use of blog sources; this finding doesn't address that at all, implying that the problems were exclusively editorial in nature. ATren (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The misuse of blog as sources is covered by remedy 10. — Coren (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I understand your pragmatism in voting for both. My concerns are really directed at some of the other arbs, who support the watered down version but explicitly avoid the one where blog sourcing is made explicit. Blog sourcing has been one of the biggest issues here. ATren (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, I was looking for a less abstract, more concrete explanation of the reasoning. I think baldly stating that he violated WP:BLP is better. I may have started discussion on this too soon, because now that I look down the PD page at Remedy 4 ("William M. Connolley topic banned (BLP)") [103] I'm a lot less concerned. If you topic ban him, then you send the right message whether or not you baldly state that he violated BLP. I'm hoping that ArbCom not only sanctions individual editors to prevent certain edits, but that it also make it clear to other editors and administrators considering sanctions in the future that certain behavior needs to be strongly discouraged. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Coren's point that 10.1 does indeed imply that WMC has violated the BLP policy, albeit in a less blunt manner; the main difference, in my view, is that 10.1 asserts this as a general point, without specifically asserting that each particular edit is an actionable BLP violation.

    My problem with finding 10 is that the examples are, in a number of cases, not particularly obvious ones. Consider, for example, edits like this one or this one. While they may indeed be violations of the NPOV policy, or the COI guideline, or the BLP policy, I would argue that they are not blatant and obvious violations (by which I mean that an editor who has no knowledge of the subject matter or the editors involved cannot simply look at the edits themselves and unequivocally determine that they violate the policy). And if we must delve into examining the underlying content in order to determine whether an edit violates policy, does that not implicitly make that determination a ruling on content, which we strive to avoid?

    Having said that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do agree that a version of finding 10 could be constructed using only obvious violations of the policy, to avoid the necessity to consider the content matter; however, given that 10.1 justifies the associated remedy just as well, I'm not convinced it's particularly necessary to do so at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F11: Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

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

Newyorkbrad's and Kiril's comments very obviously do not address the main point of the proposed finding: Polargeo has made personal attacks. The finding simply states it. The finding simply provides simple diffs that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not "that Polargeo has been unhelpfully uncivil" as Brad states, but that he was actively, severely, repeatedly violating Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Brad, that statement of yours is an awful misrepresentation of the clear evidence. It's the same with Kiril's statement: this is borderline for an arbitration finding. It's a selection of a broader pattern of personal attacks that's in the evidence and linked to elsewhere on this page. The finding also states that Polargeo was disruptive. That, too, is proven by simple, obvious, direct diffs right in the finding. If NYB needs more evidence of that to meet his standard of long-term interference with the proper functioning of our processes then we can include Polargeo's repeated insertion of comments in the "uninvolved administrators" section of WP:GSCCRE, and his vandalism to my article (and why shouldn't we define a content page as part of our "processes" since it's the ultimate end result of them) -- which gives us several examples extending over months (anyone want diffs here?). If the disruption part of the finding is the only problem, NYB and Kiril have the option of proposing an alternate finding on the personal attacks alone. Or is Wikipedia now a free-fire zone in which I'm just as entitled to make disparaging comments about the spouses of NYB and Kiril, go to their talk pages with aggressive comments and continue commenting after they tell me politely not to do so, file obviously unserious complaints on dispute-resolution pages, repeatedly (as in time after time after time after time) insult them and other editors by disparaging their integrity outside of dispute resolution? Newyorkbrad's and Kiril's comments are an insult to the people who Polargeo insulted and distracted, and Polargeo shows every sign of continuing that behavior. "Tsk tsk" is a preposterous reaction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Redacted some comments -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to consider an alternate proposal; I said so, and I think it's obvious from the fact that there are paragraphs I haven't voted on yet that I am still working through the individual-user findings in this case. Please provide me with a link to the evidence concerning what you describe as "[Polargeo's] vandalism to [your] article." In the interim, personal attacks on my spouse are unwelcome, and would be even more so if I were married. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)personal attacks on my spouse are unwelcome, and would be even more so if I were married Now thats the spirit! Diffs incoming. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs: Horologium, just below, has the link discussing Polargeo's edit to the article I started. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of ArbCom's gauge for how much disruption is worthy of an ArbCom sanction, but his personal attacks on me fit in with other behavior against me, and the same can be said about his behavior against Lar (disrupting the WP:GSCCRE page was a way of trying to make Lar look bad and of annoying Lar), so it makes some sense to include all the diffs together (personal attacks and other misbehavior) whether or not you want to call it disruption. And of course there's already a diff on the PD page about Polargeo attacking others. If you look lower down on this page, at R6: Polargeo admonished, you find more of his personal attacks against me. There are also some elsewhere on this page, and when I find them I'll tack on links just below this comment. What concerns me about those attacks is that they continued right into this page, even when he knew ArbCom's eyes would be on him. That speaks to whether or not he'll continue this kind of behavior in the future. He also seems to think my strong criticisms about him attacking me are themselves personal attacks, and it troubles me that he can't seem to distinguish personal attacks from criticism. Please also consider how appropriate it is for this individual to continue being an administrator when he shows this kind of behavior and lack of understanding. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Diffs: I'll add to this list today and tomorrow, all are from after this case started and don't overlap with any other evidence; unless noted otherwise, all are violations of WP:NPA, attacking me (it's understandable that someone being criticized here is going to be upset and might make a few personal attacks; but Polargeo's go on and on and are a significant part of his reaction whenever he's criticized or when others call for enforcement of policy against him):
  • Aug 24: his grudge against me [104] (related [105])
  • Aug 24 (attacking LHvU): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=380697464
  • Aug 24 (attacking Lar): [106]
    • Aug 24, Shel issues Polargeo a "final warning" on "borderline" personal attacks [107] (Polargeo's response [108]) -- note that the attacks continued
  • Aug 31: [109]
  • Aug 31: (maybe WP:NPA or maybe just WP:CIV): [110]
  • Aug 31: [111] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sept 1: [112]
  • Sept 1: [113]
  • Sept 1 (against me and others): [114]
    • Note: At 14:38, Sept 1, he made his last edit of the day on the thread he'd started on me [115] (in which the last three personal attacks appear), on 15:15 he nominated the article I'd started, "Dago dazzler" for deletion [116]. I think he's got every right to nominate an article for deletion when he sincerely thinks it shouldn't be deleted, and I'm reluctant to accuse him of doing this to hurt me because I've been wrongly accused of causing disruption for nominating an article for deletion. But I didn't nominate something for AfD between personal attacks. I'm not sure I trust my judgment on this one. Draw your own conclusion.
  • Sept 2 (ascribing bad motives to me): [117]
  • Sept 2 (attack on Lar): [118]
  • Sept 2 (against ATren and me): [119] (this very diff will probably end up listed in his next attempt to get me sanctioned -- correct, specifically for: throwing as much mud as they can scrape up to defeat anyone they disagree with; Polargeo later added this to the comment, which was not an attack [120])
  • Sept 2 (accusing me of acting out of revenge in complaining that Scjessey, among other things, had called me an "asshole"): [121]
  • Sept 2: [122]
  • Sept 2: [123]
  • Sept 2: [124]
  • Sept 6 (attacking motives of both Horologium and me): [125]
  • Sept 6 (accusing me of "harassment" or perhaps only of advocating "harassment"): [126]
    • Sept 6 (this one is not a personal attack, but it seems to indicate Polargeo doesn't or refuses to understand what a personal attack is, even though he's an administrator): [127]
  • Sept 6: [128] and [129] -- In addition to my other evidence against Polargeo, here are 13 more personal attacks; these additions bring this list to 19. Almost all of them on this page, right under ArbCom's nose. Should I go back in time before Aug. 24? Do I really need to? Shell told Polargeo to quit it on Aug. 24, warning Polargeo that it wouldn't be tolerated. Yet it was tolerated. Some of these continued even after a finding about Polargeo was posted on the PD page. At some point, arbitrators, you've got to come to the conclusion that an editor who produces this volume of personal attacks (each and every damn one of them violates a specific part of WP:NPA) and continues to do so after being told not to and after sanctions have been proposed against him, will simply not respond to warnings. It's a policy. He's violating it massively enough to make it worth an ArbCom ruling. And frankly, it's a wee bit difficult for me to do anything about it other than complain to you when it happens on an ArbCom page -- I mean, which admin who isn't an arb or clerk is going to intrude here to discipline someone doing something right under your noses? Enforce policy. If there is some reason not to do so, please explain why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brad, I think the vandalism charge was addressed on this page, in the first archive (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 1#Do I need to get some kind of Wikipedia "restraining order" against Polargeo?). One of the edits Polargeo made looks very much like vandalism, considering that it left the lede of the article an ungrammatical wreck. Polargeo's claim of removing unsourced statements doesn't wash, since the lede does not need to be sourced, if the rest of the article provides sources. More concerning is the likelihood that Polargeo was doing some stalking, since that article had been created the previous day by JWB, and the only edits to it had been by JWB and a bot, and the article had not been edited for four hours previously.
I don't think that even that rather unpleasant and unnecessary attack by Polargeo raises his level of disruption to a sanctionable level (although it comes close), but the personal attacks and unhelpful attitude need to be addressed. However, one might also note that Polargeo has already agreed to Kirill's suggestion of backing away from this topic voluntarily, rather than under sanctions, and that might be justification for letting the whole matter drop in regards to Polargeo. (Last sentence struck, as I misread one of the sections at the bottom of this page.)Horologium (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JWB It is not good practice to delete your talkpage comments after other users have responded to them [130] it makes everything disjointed, you should simply strike them. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before JWB and Horologium seem to have both presented evidence against me based originally on a single interaction with themselves. JWB then diff mined to find anything he could on me and most of this was then not backed up by other editors. This sort of stuff should not even be at arbcom as part of a grand CC case. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "evidence" (yes, I recognize it was quite thin, as was made clear in my presentation) was based upon a single interaction with you, but your contributions during this arbitration have been more than sufficient to reinforce my initial views. Horologium (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the problem. You entered during a situation where JWB was asking for my head and there was extreme pressure and you started judging. Every time I have legitimately questioned an editor's good faith it has been thrown back at me as a personal attack. This is not what WP:personal attack is for. If we cannot legitimately question an editor's motives at an RfC/U or arbcase then this project has gone the wrong way. If you think any particular statement of mine is a PA then please challenge me on it and I will provide a host of diffs which back up my statement. Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. My interaction with you at the RFC predates this arbitration. I had not looked at the workshop page when I submitted my evidence (I just checked the dates to confirm that JWB had already made his workshop proposals when I posted my evidence; I had no idea), but my evidence has nothing to do with JWB's evidence and workshop proposals. I didn't submit any proposals of my own because a single interaction doesn't rise to the level of proposing sanctions on another user for me; other editors have different standards. Horologium (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Polargeo (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polargeo, I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating now: My discussion with you at the RfC didn't offend me, and it had nothing to do with me drawing up complaints against you. I was offended by your repeated attacks against Lar. After I complained about you, you attacked me, and that also offended me. You have no reason to assume any other motive. Even on ArbCom pages, you shouldn't ascribe bad motives to people without pointing to evidence or being prepared to do so. That's what personal attacks are. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have consistently shown that you quickly take offense at the slightest criticism and immediately post the diff tagging it onto your case against me. This has nothing to do with CC and everything to do with gaming. That is not a personal attack but an observation of your behaviour. Personal attack is gamed mercilessly across wikipedia and rarely used in the spirit in which it was written. Polargeo (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has [...] everything to do with gaming. It's called "playing by the rules", and it's an alternative to attacking you back. I'm actually about as annoyed with ArbCom members and clerks who don't give you clear warnings when they first catch you violating WP:NPA policy on these pages and then don't follow through with sanctions, including blocks, when you go back to attacking me. ArbCom members should be embarassed for not keeping order on their own pages, right under their noses. You appear to be incorrigible, since you attack even on the dispute resolution page where I go to complain about your attacks, I document that, because continued personal attacks are relevant when ArbCom members consider your conduct and what to do about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F12: Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would not have been pretty.

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

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

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

a) [131] This diff is labelled as "PA, Soapboxing." Okay, this is ridiculous - what is the PA? That I said in response to,

"One (Murdoch owned) source? Please remember why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
"Yes Dave, you've made it clear how you feel about "tories" (is that the plural form?), but honestly, it doesn't really matter what you think of who owns certain news outlets." (me)

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

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

b)[132] Labeled as soapboxing.

I guess it is sort of soapboxing, pretty mild, as an atheist though I was a bit annoyed at being compared with both creationists and flat earthers [133]. Perhaps the person baiting me with that comment should be sanctioned as well? The topic area is full of such little things.

c) [134] Yep a poor reaction on my part, but not typical - the same can't be said of others in the area. The "allegations of criminal conduct" were pretty well-known though and should probably have been mentioned in the article if there was an appropriate source (I can't recall if I provided one). Again, when compared to the words others have made on their own talk pages this, while bad, isn't nearly as bad as calling someone "stupid and malicious" - I suppose that's a judgment call though.

d) [135] Labeled as a PA.

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

e) [136] Labeled as soapboxing.

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

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

d) [137] Labeled as a PA.

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

e) [138] Labeled as a PA.

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

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

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

f) [139] Labeled as proof that I'm trying to push my agenda.

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

g) [140] Labeled that I'm trying to push my agenda?

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

h) [141] Labeled as proof of trying to push my agenda.

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

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

Long discussion of the above defense
Given that you plan to focus on botany articles, I would support replacing the six-month siteban with a long-term topic ban from climate-related articles. In the end it's up to the arbs, of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support no site ban and no topic ban at all, reduce the topic ban to time served and issue a warning to be careful going forward. This is a far more coherent defense than previously presented by TGL. ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TGL, I recently asked you a question about some of your comments, which you declined to answer, so I am trying again. You recently wrote that:

"Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses."

To me, this suggests a disturbing disdain for the integrity of the academic community as a whole, implying that that studies published by reputable peer-reviewed journals are regularly rigged to find pre-determined results. You have also written, on the subject of the membership of the National Academy of Science that:

"Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it."
This comment was made in the context of suggesting that Mastcell does not understand the distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, and implied the same was true of the NAS membership. The NAS is the elite body of US scientists, and to suggest that they would not know the difference between hypothesis and theory, or that they are credulous fools unable to analyse results or information sources for themselves is disrespectful and shows a highly distorted picture of the scientific and academic communities.

Now, my question is this: in light of your comments, how am I or any other neutral editor supposed to assume that you are editing neutrally on scientific topics and not pushing an agenda? EdChem (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I or any other neutral editor" ... assumes facts not in evidence. We all like to think we are neutral. Some of us are. But more importantly TGL is not the real problem here by any means and the sanctions placed on him were disproportionate. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be the "real" problem here, but the examples above demonstrate a tendency to think in extremes, and this black and white thinking is shared by most of the climate change deniers. The "vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" nonsense is the foundation for almost every article on Conservapedia, and I suggest this is not a coincidence. Recently, Conservapedia went so far as to claim that the theory of relativity was a liberal plot. There's a limit to how much nonsense should be allowed. If someone wants to claim that the world is flat, then fine, civil discourse allows us to take them by the hand and conceptually walk them in a straight line until we're back where we started, disproving their theory. We can do this on virtually every issue. It only becomes a problem when such an editor is unwilling to change their beliefs after being shown otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, a big part of the problem here is editors who treat all deviations from "consensus science" like flat earth. It's absurd to imply that the scientific consensus in support of AGW theories is as black-and-white as flat-vs-round. But science editors continue to use such analogies everywhere, and it gives the appearance of dogmatic, "my-way-or-the-highway" thinking. AGW is supported by consensus, but round-earth is as close as we get to scientific fact, and when you treat consensus science exactly the same as scientific fact, you turn science into ideology. Fundamentally, that is what many of us object to here, how the some "science editors" are as dogmatic in their approach as ideologically-driven religious/ethnic/political partisans. ATren (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Atren, a huge part of the problem is editors who fervently believe that a few ambiguous emails showing only minor misconduct, as determined by five inquiries, makes 97% of scientists in the field hoaxers to be disbelieved, with all credence being given to half a dozen contrarian scientists and a large number of bloggers. It's a genuine cultural phenomenon and we should cover it, but we shouldn't give it undue weight in showing what the science is. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about something. TGL, one of your arguments against a ban is that you want to be free to edit botany articles. That's a good thing, and I endorsed modification of the PD in your favor on that basis. You are not now under a general siteban so that you have been free to contribute in non-climate topics such as botany. Yet in the past four months you have made precisely seven (7) edits to article space, precisely zero (0) of which have been related to botany.[142] If you are interested in editing botany articles, why have you not done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TGL can answer for themselves but, sometimes if one feels wronged enough, one doesn't want a project to benefit from one's contributions in any way until things are improved. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, does one feel wronged enough to withdraw the benefit of one's contributions, and confine one's action to soapboxing? Seems a rather odd argument, but guess it could explain tendentious and disruptive persistence. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emotions are not exactly rational. My motivation for article contribution since that topic ban is about zero since 2over0 topic banned me. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been driven away from article editing or completely from wikipedia. This is why I've said that I will start editing again if the topic ban is lifted since I'd feel better about contributing again.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TGL, looking at the diff you cite above at a), you did seem to be making the thread a bit personal, but I'm inclined to agree that it's not a personal attack. You did seem to be soapboxing a bit on the basis of a rather questionable source, one later forced to issue a retraction on a related story. So, agree it's not a personal attack. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who submitted evidence involving Thegoodlocust, and proposed a siteban, one of the deciding factors was not only the total lack of positive contributions in the history, but the apparent lack of interest in anything besides partisan argumentation going forward. When Thegoodlocust requested a reversal of his topic-ban extension at the enforcement board, I asked a simple question about what sort of activity we could expect if the ban were lifted. I found the answer rather unsatisfactory, brought the subject up again in this thread, and it still doesn't seem to be answered.

    I get that Thegoodlocust thinks 2/0 is horribly biased, and that he has technical arguments about specific diffs, but that seems like focusing on a few trees and missing the forest. Even with the help of sympathetic, experienced Wikipedians, Thegoodlocust is still unable to articulate any real interest in contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia. The near-totality of his appeal is based on disputing technical aspects and criteria of the sanctions, but that misses the point. Sometimes this project just isn't a good fit for what someone brings to the table or wants to accomplish, and I think we're at that point here. MastCell Talk 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the reasons I didn't answer you in that case (and EdChem above) is that I wanted to avoid a horrible argumentative mess. This seems to be unavoidable in this section now since apparently everyone has questions for me. Regarding why I didn't answer you, I didn't feel it was germane to the discussion on the scope of CC sanctions and wanted to keep things focused. At his request though I emailed NW and answered his questions privately in a similar manner to what I've said above but in more detail about the articles I want to write. As I said above, I'm going to stay out of anything controversial at this point and since I've never had problems in other scientific articles like in the botany area then this seems like a good place. Anyway people see what they want to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem: My first college degree was in psychology (and I took it for several years in high school as well) and as with everyone this experience colors my outlook on life. Regarding scientific studies I always read them very carefully to determine how well they were set up, where they could have gone wrong and how the results could've been misinterpreted. This is what I do, sometimes I even email scientists (usually in health oriented studies) and talk to them about my concerns. My "skepticism" is not something reserved only for global warming but for everything I read and everything I hear. This is simply who I am. Recognizing that academia has a specific culture and how this may affect results through well-documented psychological principals is just a demonstration of my inherent skepticism. And no, I don't have a great deal of respect for what 10% of any group thinks. 10% of the US probably thinks Elvis is still alive. 10% of Mensa probably believes in alien abduction. The credentials of a small section of a population is not convincing to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) @Viriditas: No, I don't think in extremes. I first think in possibilities and then I think of the likely possibility. I think you are reading far too much into that or it didn't sound like I wanted it to. And yes, I refer to liberal groups as liberal and conservative groups as conservative, is there a problem with this? I also refer to academia as atheistic due to the high numbers of atheists in academia - is this wrong? Anyway according to this Pew poll:[reply]
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.
When I say that most people in academia and the media are liberal I'm not talking out of my ass - I'm just stating the facts as I know them. If this was on an article talk page then this may be a problem, but like the vast majority of people here this is the kind of thing that gets said on friendly talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Now can we please not go off on any more tangents like I requested at the very beginning? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may come as a shock to you, but most of the world's scientists are not Americans. Your statistics have no bearing on the affiliation of scientists outside the US, which has the local peculiarity of having only two main parties, one of which is rabidly anti-intellectual and anti-science (so why should any scientist support it?). These conditions do not apply elsewhere, where there is usually a cross-party consensus in favour of science. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of response is exactly why I didn't want to begin engaging other people. This is irrelevant (and misleading). If you want to talk about something like this then go to my talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is now the third time I've asked to stay on topic and not get distracted by irrelevances. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nonsense I was talking about refers to your argument not the data showing political affiliation. You said: "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant.". You have all but said that climate change science should not be trusted because some scientists are liberal/democrat/atheist/chocolate cake eaters/puppy owners/barefoot on beaches during sunsets walkers/believers in the theory that Cobb was still dreaming/find Snooki attractive with both eyes slightly squinting, etc. Because of all this, the science as a whole cannot be trusted. Did I miss anything? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed cat owners. Speaking as someone who think the statement "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" is true, (but doesn't find it alarming) and as someone who puts a lot of faith in science, my observation is that the statement doesn't create any particular mistrust in science (no more than all good skeptics should have), but it does mean I watch carefully when the discussion switches from "what is the science?" to "what should policymakers do?" There's a lot on hand-wringing in this discussion about poor science, but I really don't think that's where the main debate is. The main debate is what public policy should be followed, and IMO, many proposals are not well-grounded in solid cost benefit analysis.--SPhilbrickT 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that is the standard reply, but it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Scientists and the media are generally centrist, and anything left of right is classified as liberal by the anti-science fringe. Public policy discussions are systematically derailed by repeated attacks on the underlying science, and these attacks are led by celebrities, writers, politicians, and religious figures, all of whom are not scientists. On the rare occasion that an actual scientist does show up, it is revealed that they represent a special interest, not the public interest. Since Nixon, public policy has been shaped by denying, altering, and misrepresenting science in favor of political expediency, and when I was a child in high school, we were actually taught to accept this as the gold standard, which is frightening. The history of science under Reagan and the Bush years (father and son) needs no explanation. Simply search for "politicization of science" and you'll have enough to read for the next decade. The key to all of this is an objective media that informs the public and gives them accurate (the very word that keeps getting removed from every source policy and guideline) information. The role of science is to provide and present this accurate knowledge that can be disseminated to the public and used to make good policy decisions. This process cannot work when the media twists the data, and when politicians use the media to promote their policies based on distorted science. This warped and broken process threatens the very fabric and foundations of democracy and civilized society. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. I'll wikilink confirmation bias and groupthink so you can better understand my position. I think you are reading far too much into what I said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that instead of contributing to an encyclopedia, you are helping to further the goals of the American culture war. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this collapsed discussion also illustrates the problems in the topic area. Despite my best efforts to disengage and keep the discussion focused I'm met with a lot of soapboxing and baiting (esp. towards the end). I don't mind there being a prohibition on soapboxing, but letting one side run rampant with it is not the way to do things.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this best illustrates the problem. 7.79% of your 2,324 contributions have been to articles, with the majority of them consisting of contentious edits to Barack Obama and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Facebook is that way... Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can either choose not to correct you and let the mischaracterizations stand or I can look like a whacko in defending myself. It is a catch-22. In this case my lack of articles edits is explained - I've severely cut back on editing due to my feelings on the topic ban and largely haven't edited articles for 7 months because of it. Your assertion that my edits to the IPCC and Barack Obama article were contentiousness is largely false. The IPCC edits, last time I checked remained in the article because they were correct and well-sourced - the "bruhaha" over them was simply due to the nature of the facts. Also, last time I checked about a third of my article edits were to science based articles outside of climate change - again, mostly in the area of botany. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9 edits to Morning glory, 7 edits to Equisetum, 3 edits to Arbutus, 2 edits to Holodiscus discolor, 1 edit to Salvia divinorum and maybe one or two others. How about helping bring Amaranthus brownii to at least good article status? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said "science articles mostly in the botany area," not solely botany (still more than the IPCC article edits though as you can tell). Of course, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove other than the fact that every time I get sucked into one of these conversations my ratio of article to non-article space goes down. I got sucked into a huge number of these things when adding what should've been simple info into the IPCC article. Since you insist on going down this route though, show me some of my contentious IPCC article edits - perhaps I can be enlightened that way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I thought this was Wikipedia, where editors collaborate to improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't seem to be a substantive response to what TGL requested. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No response was necessary. "Contentious edits" is accurate, and supported by his own comments. And, I didn't receive a substantive response to my request for assistance with an article. What kind of assurance do we have that TGL is going to work on actual articles? As a test example, I asked for help with one and was completely ignored. The edit history is clear: 2,324 contributions and almost no article work. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Viriditas, while we may be able to work with each other on something like botany I have no interest in Hawaiian plants. Typically I only care about plants in the pacific northwest or ones with entheogenic properties. Anyway I've already said what I'm going to do, you can choose not to believe me if you like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I see some action rather than promises in this regard? Which specific article are you going to work on? I recommended Amaranthus brownii because it was close to complete, and all the relevant sources were linked for research purposes. So please, share with me the name of the article you plan on improving. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I privately told NW what articles I would like to create and work on. I have no intention of telling anyone else. Honestly, this line of questioning is pointless. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar Regarding this edit. With TGLs experience and knowledge of how controversial this was he certainly should have obtained consensus before making such extreme criticisms of the IPCC based on one newspaper story. Also whatever the rights and wrongs of this addition to the IPCC article he repeatedly edit warred against multiple editors to keep his addition in. Now I know all of these editors with all of their multiple reasons are the “faction” to you so maybe he was right and deserves your support against the evil faction, I actually am not judging the content but were the edits contentious? Certainly they were. I hope this is a substantive response to TGL Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Polargeo, I do recall someone being upset that I used the word "glaring," but I then pointed out to them that it was a direct quote from the glaciologist in charge of that section of the report. Keep in mind that this was in the criticism section. As you can see though, especially in the later section as the story evolved w/ more sources available, it was impeccably sourced. Did some people not want well-sourced criticism in the IPCC article? Absolutely. It had been a common meme that the IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature, when, in fact, it used pamphlets from greenpeace and other poor sources to make some of its more alarming (and inaccurate) claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • ThegoodLocust has been banned from this topic for some time; however, without him the disruptions continue. I suspect extending a ban on this editor will have little effect on the overall disruption in the climate change area. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F13: Marknutley disruptive behavior

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

Who wrote this? The first diff was my first edit on WP and i`m surprised that is being used here. The second diff is used as a bad sourcing issue? Rajendra K. Pachauri [143] 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 [144] 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 [145] I did not think so, nor did the editors who knew i was working on it. An accusation of editing against consensus [146] Erm, no. Only one editor at that time was against the use of these quotes to balance the insertion of this [147] The assumption of bad faith [148] Well i suppose this [149] 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)[reply]

doesn't matter who put it together. what matters is getting the diff's corrected/removed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksanddirt, whom do i ask to get them corrected/removed? mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Collapse off-topic discussion about drafting of the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
While you are apologizing can you please strike out, "The PD is exactly as many of the Cabal members expected -- it's well known that Risker and Rlevse despise you, and the long delay was because they had to win over Brad to get sufficiently humiliating sanctions." from WMC's talk page? Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

I was working on some of my proposals when I happened to stumble upon this in the proposed decision about Marknutley: "[150] (POV fork)". I thought this was a bit strange because I don't recall Marknutley creating any POV forks. Anyway, I looked at the article, and while it certainly seems like POV fork, there's something I don't understand. Marknutley did not create this article. In fact, the article was created by Theblog on July 8, 2007,[151] at least 2 years before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. Is this the right diff? If so, is ArbCom saying that editing someone else's POV fork is an actionable offense? If so, WMC[152] and KDP[153] edited the article well before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. In fact, I've edited the article myself. On February 15, 2010, I deleted a blank line[154] and a moved a period.[155] Is this the right diff or am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed extension of finding

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

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

The protection for Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley expired today. It had been protected by SirFozzie, theoretically until the conclusion of the case - but protection has expired before the case has concluded. Minor4th has declared on the talk page that he wants to make radical changes to the article unilaterally, without prior discussion or consensus. [156] I, by contrast, have urged editors to discuss issues first and obtain consensus for major changes,[157] [158], and I have posted a request for input on some material that I feel should be removed - if there is consensus to do so.[159] For my pains I have been attacked by both Minor4th and Marknutley [160]. And now we find Marknutley deleting reliably sourced commentary from a columnist in the UK Guardian, with the comment: remove monbiots comments on science what does a Zoologist know of climate science. [161]

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

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

  • I did not say I was going to make radical changes to the article unilaterally -- I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations. I also did not attack ChrisO in the least bit. And incidentally, after ChrisO reverted mark nutley, I have since removed that content again since it is an editorial smearing the BLP and is only one of many BLP violations in this article. I have asked BLP editors at the noticeboard to please take a look and help edit with "new" eyes. Minor4th 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC
Interesting, so when you say The Hockey Stick Illusion publishd by Stacey International a highly reputable publisher written by Andrew Montford who has a BSc in chemistry is not a reliable source for matters relating to science what you mean is you don`t like him? Monbiot is ok for matters of science but not Montford? Is this what your saying here? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A BSc in chemistry? Words fail me. --TS 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call me old fashioned tony but it does make one slightly more capable of commenting on science than a degree in zoology don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, let me spell this out for you: your personal opinion on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in WP:V. You have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. Your edit is a shockingly bad example of completely overt POV-pushing. We do not need that kind of behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris let me spell this out for you, your personal opinions on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in wp:v you have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. [162] Your edits are shockingly bad mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, do you know what zoology is? Do you not realize that it is science, just as much as chemistry is? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, a first degree doesn't make anyone more qualified to comment on science, no matter what the subject. I wouldn't want to compare the two subjects, frankly, but the notion that chemistry is more "scientific" than zoology doesn't seem a very sensible stance.
Getting back to the main question, it seems that Monbiot was commenting on the commentary by an Professor John Abraham on lectures given by Monckton. Monckton has posed as an expert on climate science but his claims have been widely debunked. If our biography does not mention that then we have failed the reader. --TS 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to link to a reliable source with such debunking. Not an unpublished hatchet job.Bigred58 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say I wanted to make radical changes unilaterally. I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations and explained exactly what that includes per policy. I also posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard asking outside BLP editors to please look at the article and help edit, paying particular attention to removing blatant BLP violations. Minor4th 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I also did not attack Chris. That's really absurd. Minor4th 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was it withdrawn at the time of this [163] revert? No? Thne your argument is pointless mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We knew at the time that they were unreliable. This was discussed. We do not blindly include any old tripe just because a newspaper has printed it. --TS 23:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your POV is showing tony, tell me. What is the difference between one old tripe and another then? wp:v you see. There is no difference between my removal of content and chris0`s other than monbiot is not qualified to comment on matters of science mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your criteria we would have to delete most journalistic sources as well, as the vast majority of journalistic commentary on any specific issue is by people who do not have qualifications in the fields on which they are writing. Tony is no doubt referring to the two Telegraph writers' long-standing reputation for false reporting, which has now cost their paper upwards of £100,000. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That`s not my criteria it is yours. And as we are on the subject of not removing stuff expalain this [164] mark nutley (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't been withdrawn. It's a legalistic non-apology:
Dr Pachauri - Apology
On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused. [165]Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting rather off-topic, but I should point out that the story was indeed withdrawn - it has been deleted from the Telegraph website and news archives - and the paper has paid over £100,000 in costs. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Further off-topic discussion
Thank you for doing that. I have refrained from commenting on the PD findings against individual editors until now, but this incident is, to my mind, a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the editing environment here. Editors need to have at least some minimal respect for basic content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since ChrisO makes some accusations against Minor4th, Minor4th's response shouldn't be included in this collapsed section. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • For the record: last month, when WMC and ChrisO tried to force a highly critical unpublished presentation into Monckton, it was Marknutley who stood up to them and alerted others. ATren (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And got blocked for it. Minor4th 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another example of the bias that is present. GregJackP Boomer! 06:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F15: User:Lar and User:Jehochman wheel war

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

Agree. Furthermore, this incident happened 6 months ago, and was resolved between Lar and myself at the time.(Last two lines of this discussion) I don't see the value in rehashing it now. For what it's worth, my original close may have been hasty, as Lar suggested, so I waited about 22 hours before closing a second time. I purposefully waiting for outside input and consensus building. A very large number of editors placed comments during that time.
My second close noted, "Closed, no sanction by default, due to lack of consensus and inability of this page to consider an editor's entire history. Try WP:RFC or WP:RFAR instead" in the hat section, and "further discussion has not yielded a consensus to sanction, refer to next level of WP:DR process" in the edit summary. [166] In the prior edit I also explained, "This page has become useless. It is time to request arbitration. Rather than edit warring and disrupting the GW pages, the parties are now engaged in strategies to bait and sanction each other. It is time for a thorough review of everybody's behavior. Enforcement should not be arbitrary based on which admin responds to the complaint. Lar, you wanted to sanction. I did not. The default should be no sanction. No other admin has come forward suggesting to place a sanction, and by now any short term sanction would be punitive. This short noticeboard thread cannot fairly evaluate the long contribution history of WMC. If he is persistently incivil, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR are much more appropriate venues to address the problem, and establish consensus. " This was not wheel warring by any stretch of the imagination.
In my explanation to Lar, I said, "After you reopened the first time, I waited for multiple additional comments to be added to the thread. These further reinforced the consensus that WMC did not need to be sanctioned. Thus, I closed the thread a second time. It is not edit warring to wait for further comments and then take action based on a strengthening consensus. It is stressful for a user to be put in the stocks. We don't leave people in that state needlessly while we have a discussion about how best to refactor rude remarks in general. The thread should have remained closed, and you could have forked off the productive discussion about refactoring methods to an appropriate talk page."[167] Jehochman Talk 20:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As LHvU and JEH, except it wasn't even an edit war without discussion, there was plenty of discussion between us at the time. I think Rlevse just wanted to find something to wag his finger at me about. I suggest instead that the finger wagging relate to the fact that after 8 months of unremitting harassment by WMC's faction, I do let myself get baited into speaking sharply from time to time, instead of this non-issue. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Lar and I have had good faith disagreements about how to proceed with some matters, we remain collegial and there is absolutely no danger of us wheel warring. This proposal would only feed ammunition to those who want to undermine the work of admins who volunteer to enforce general sanctions (or arbitration sanctions) in difficult areas. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel war or revert war, it was certainly bad form on both your parts. It may not have involved the use of flags but they were admin actions as far as I'm concerned. I'll change it to revert war though. And Lar if you I'm going looking for things to "wag my finger" about at people in this or any case you're WAY off the mark.RlevseTalk 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it was a revert war because there was intervening discussion. Moreover, we resolved matters by ourselves at the time. ArbCom should show a little restraint and deference. If users work out their disagreements by themselves, just leave it alone! Opening up long ago resolved issues can stoke new disputes, which does not benefit anybody. ArbCom only needs to rule on active disputes. Lar and I already agreed not to repeat that situation. Lo and behold, six months later we haven't. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall arguing somewhere that it was a wheel war because it involved admin privileges, whether or not it involved use of technical tools. Take your lumps, guys. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy. If some other admin undoes my action, I don't in general get too sussed about it, especially if there is discussion. My default good faith assumption is that other admins feel the same way. JEH did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. many hours later, after much more discussion, (resetting any "counters") JEH again did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. Neither of us at this remove thinks it is. That ought to tell you all something. ArbCom needs to focus on far more important matters than this, and putting this in highlights all the larger stuff they let slide. I have no problem with taking lumps for things I did wrong. This wasn't one of them. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been closely watching this discussion, and I'm inclined to agree with Less, Jeh, and Lar. Looking at all of the diffs, it looks like a revert war where Lar and Jeh did not at first discuss it with each other, and then they did discuss it with each other. The initial lack of discussion is, I agree, not good, but it strikes me as being out of proportion to much of the other history cited in the PD. More importantly, it is raised in the absence of any clarification about "involvement", which many editors in this talk have been asking the Committee to address better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Questions for Rlevse

Resolved
 – I have no further questions. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, would you please answer the following questions about your behavior:

  1. You, a sitting arbitrator, proposed a sanction against me that is not supported by the person who posted the evidence.[168] As a minor player in the CC dispute, I had not been following the case closely and was completely unaware of that evidence and had not given my side of the story. Nevertheless, you jumped to a conclusion without getting any input from me. Was that proper behavior by you? Going forward will you listen to both sides of a story before making judgments?
  2. The "evidence" you cited includes exactly one revert made by me. I believe that in the entire history of ArbCom, nobody has ever been sanctioned for edit warring based upon a single incident containing only one revert by them, and nobody has every been sanctioned for wheel warring unless they have used administrator access. Do you believe the one revert, made after at least 17 hours of intervening discussion and dozens of comments in an attempt to form consensus, constitutes either wheel warring or edit warring?
  3. After making your proposal, you failed to notify me so that I could respond. I only found out about your proposal by lucky chance. I was out camping last week and with slightly different timing could easily have missed the entire thing and never had any chance to comment before voting started. You didn't notify User:2over0 either. Only later when Carcharoth noticed what was going on, a clerk was directed to contacted 2over0 by email. Going forward will you make sure people are aware when you start a discussion about them?

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Rlevse, please just answer the three questions I posed, and then we'll be done once and for all. If you have answered before you should be able to copy and paste, or post diffs. In reviewing the record I do not find proper answers to my questions, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place Jehochman Talk 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not reopening old disputes in the context of CC. For instance, I have no intention of asking if your accusations against me are part of the same pattern as your accusations during the Randy in Boise incident. Let's not go there. We should all focus on CC matters, and leave old skeletons dead and buried. Stuff that isn't already in evidence ought not be brought up at this late stage. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have reached a deadlock. I guess we'll just have to move on to other issues. Thank you for your time. Jehochman Talk 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Rlevse
I've already answered this on your talk page, yet you brought it up again on talk page and then here. John Barber's response below is on the mark. The only thing not covered before, as Martin mentioned, is that behavior in prior cases can be used in current cases to show a pattern of conduct. RlevseTalk 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by others
  • ArbCom's responsibilities are to rule where it thinks it will help the project and to give people a chance to respond before ruling. That remit does not include a minimum number of edits by a sanctioned party (in fact, there must be examples where one edit has resulted in an ArbCom sanction). There is no right an editor has to be notified or to respond before even a draft proposal of a sanction is posted. I think if ArbCom imposed a sanction without giving an editor a chance to respond, that would be horrible, but Jehochman is complaining that a draft proposal was posted without prior warning. This is ridiculous. Jehochman should feel lucky that Arbcom The All-Merciful isn't sanctioning him for what I think Jehochman should be sanctioned for. He's getting a slight knuckle-rapping and howling like his leg is being amputated without anesthesia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear on terminology. Draft proposals are the ones in the Workshop. The Proposed Decision is what's voted on. Arbitrators should not be posting a decision for votes before hearing what the affected parties have to say for themselves. It is wrong, absolutely wrong, for an arbitrator to make up their mind about an issue after hearing only one side of the story. They are not being impartial when they do that. This is a sore subject from a two prior cases I was involved in (Hoffman and Durova), and there were undertakings by ArbCom that they would not repeat past mistakes. I intend to hold them to their commitments. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of now, Rlevse hasn't even voted on sanctioning you. [169] I think it would probably be better form not to post a proposal, even for findings of fact, without first asking the liable parties to comment, but as long as Rlevse continues to keep an open mind, it's not a big deal. This case has been a bit strange because the Workshop page was closed, but the page is still called "Proposed decision" and it's a draft until it's voted on. I don't see a great wrong in this situation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not an unreasonable position. I hope you are right. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe investigations and disciplinary actions do require feedback from the accused for some semblance of due process in answering specific charges with fair hearing. Here and now must be the opportunity to answer the charges brought by the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop stage is too nebulous, seems like editors have an opportunity to discuss the PD (as a specific charge with evidence) here. I was disappointed to have my PD questions to accused parties be cut off or redirected to the General Discussion pages. Something is just not right if the accused can not be cross examined in fair hearing after the charges are made clear by the PD. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlevse. I don't disagree with you but please answer for yourself. What you say seems to indicate that you accept JohnWBarber's statement word for word and that is not a good place to be for a drafting arbiter. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, since my evidence submission is apparently at the root of this issue: I think the incident in question showed poor judgment by both Lar and Jehochman. I personally don't think that sanctions against them are warranted, because as far as I know these were isolated incidents for both of them, and they have long records of solid adminship in counterbalance. That said, their actions set a poor example for editors in the area, which I think contributed to the overall charlie-foxtrot into which things have devolved. A major aspect of this case is the need for admins (and experienced non-admins) to model good behavior, and so I submitted this incident as an example of where things went awry.

    If I personally thought admonishments or sanctions were in order, I would have proposed them during the workshop phase. That said, I'm not on ArbCom. I submitted evidence which illustrated the key aspects of this case as I see them. ArbCom can decide to ignore that evidence, to accept my presentation of it, or to take it further than I did. That's their prerogative. I agree with Jehochman that in an ideal world, the admins in question would be formally notified of the proposal to admonish them, but I also think the Arbs are doing their best with an intractable situation and probably deserve more slack than they've been cut thus far. MastCell Talk 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think MastCell's statement is very reasonable (quite in character). I am willing to cut the arbitrators slack if they are willing to cut me slack. Jehochman Talk 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with MastCell's take, but would add to you (Jehochman) that I think some of your past actions have trimmed your slack with the committee (or at least some members), more than you might have realized. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F16: Lar RfC/U

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

The RfC did not come to a consensus in anything; that it exampled some polarisations of opinion is the best that might be said for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. I really do not think we want to set up a precedent where the simple fact that an RfC/U has taken place is regarded by ArbCom as incriminating evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not innuendo. A substantial number of editors felt that Lar's behavior was problematic. The arbitrators would be remiss if they ignored these very serious concerns. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not the place to re-argue the RfC/U, so I won't. I trust that the Arbitrators can evaluate the RfC/U for themselves. What does concern me is that whatever the decision here says, should reflect the facts of the RfC/U, and not derive some sort of implied conclusion from simply saying that the RfC/U occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice they did the same to WMC (see my statement). So if they strike the one for Lar, they should strike the ones for WMC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed it somewhere, there is not a separate section just about the RfC/Us on WMC, and where they are discussed, there is discussion of what they meant, not just an isolated statement that they happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a correction to what I just said: I take your point that those other RfCs also did not lead to conclusions supporting arbitration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think close study of the *entire* RFC/U is warranted. Not just some of it, all of it. While there were some editors that had concerns, and I've tried to take those concerns on board, the "have a cupcake" section got a lot of endorsement too. The editors engaging in factional behavior tend to want to discount the fact that a fair number of editors realize they were engaging in factional behavior. Discount their views and the numbers come out rather differently. Which just shows you can do all sorts of interesting things with numbers. Including zero (the number of editors who endorsed the original complaint from WMC and Polargeo... that's a pretty significant number). ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there were some editors that had concerns, and I've tried to take those concerns on board... Sorry but I don't buy this for a moment. You said after the RfC that it was a "farce." You did not moderate your behavior one iota. You stuck like glue to your oft-repeated view that there were "cabals," despite the evidence to the contrary that indeed nobody had endorsed the complaint. When I pointed that out to you in the talk page, you said, "Alternatively, they're not stupid, and cross endorsing each others outside views, mixed in with the innocent bystanders who didn't know better and were drawn in, might have been viewed as a more effective tactic than being the only endorses in a view that was way over the top." You then said to me, "You're probably one of the innocent bystanders though if it's any consolation." As if I am supposed to be happy that you chose to be only mildly contemptuous. See [170]. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer sure you're an innocent bystander, given how you cavort on WMC's page ([171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]). Others characterized the RfC as a farce, and that view was actually pretty widely endorsed. Just not by the editors who act in factional and disruptive ways. Not everyone buys the line that there aren't factions, regardless of how often you repeat it! Some people know there are. That includes at least whichever Arb drafted Principle 4, even if ArbCom hasn't yet had the intestinal fortitude to build on that principle with some findings and remedies. You might want to reconsider who you hang out with. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you've mentioned my posts on the WMC talk page, both times inappropriately and gratuitously, now referring to them as "cavorting," as if I'm hanging out at a whorehouse. See your earlier post[177] and MastCell's response[178]. Here's one of my "cavorts":
"I wandered back after a few days off-wiki, and I find a nuclear war going on in at least three theaters of operation. I'm annoyed at WMC for behaving this way, and am in no mood to defend him at this time. I wonder whether he did it deliberately, so that he could be blocked for a trivial reason and thereby preempt a possible arbcom action. Bottom line: he should be unblocked. Excessive, uneecessary, and also with a whiff of irregularity as it was done by an arbcom member with a history concerning WMC, and who recused. It would be better for all, except possibly WMC, if he lifted the block and let arbcom decide. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=379993967[reply]
It seems pretty obvious that you feel such hostility to WMC that you feel that my posts, even the one I quote above, constitute giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You draw the wrong conclusion. WMC's talk page is a hostile, unwelcoming place, by and large... unless you're pretty closely aligned with him. That you can criticize him is commendable, but that he tolerates your posts suggests that you are far from unbiased. Has nothing to do with any purported "hostility" on my part. You've also failed to address the major point I made, that you can deny the existence of factions as much as you want, but that doesn't fool all the people. As I say, you might want to reconsider who you hang out with. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reconsider who you hang out with. Why? As for his talk page, it may be an unwelcoming place for you, but that's because it's perfectly obvious that you can't stand him. I think my explanation is valid, and is yet more evidence of your unfitness to act as an administrator in this area. As for factions, I agree with SPhilbrick's view expressed below, at 12:37, 24 August 2010, and the replies beneath. I think that "faction" is overused in the discourse on the CC talk pages, and that you are the worst offender by far. It's clear, since you are behaving this way in an arbitration page, that you aren't going to moderate your behavior, or back off from the CC pages, unless compelled to do so by arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a lot of users on my watchlist including some from this case. I can think of some from the top of my head that I have chatted with; users Lar, WMC, 2/0, Boris, ATren, Jehochman, Minor4th and others I'm sure. What difference does this make? I think that this part of the conversation should be hatted or moved as not being important to the discussion of this PD, which includes mine. Just thought it should be known, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F17: Lar comments, actions, and mindset

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

Thanks for asking. I am aware of this request and will answer shortly, when I've had a chance to compose my thoughts. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My answers:
1) What steps do you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor?
First, I don't have all these articles on my watch list. I become aware of issues either when they are brought to the enforcement page, or (less often) when I am contacted about them either on my talk, or via off-wiki request. I don't edit in the CC area at all, so any actions I take are as an administrator or at most as a disinterested commentator, hence there technically are no steps I need to take to decide whether to act as an editor or administrator.
So then, the question is better posed as "when would I recuse from acting as an administrator if something comes to my attention?" and the answer would be that I examine the article and the parties involved in whatever dispute or issue came to my attention to see if I have a COI about the topic itself, or if there are participants who I have a direct personal conflict with. I factor out participants who have been solely the focus of previous administrative action (as that is not a disqualifier from acting), and I factor out participants who may have shown animus to me, but to whom I feel no animus myself. I then (unfortunately) do a bit of a political evaluation, "will my taking action tend be incorrectly overturned?" or what have you. If any parties remain I won't act.
Finally, I've been finding lately that my actions are increasingly constrained by that last factor, as there seems to be a great unjustified hue and cry if I take any action whatever. So I tend to restrict myself to commenting and seeking consensus, I've placed a total of one block... the other enforcement actions were notifications of bans or restrictions. LMK if that's not the question you wanted answered.
While on this topic, uninvolved admins, whether me or someone else, will be hamstrung without stronger decisions out of ArbCom. Admins need to be able to act forcefully without being torn down at AN/I by a howling mob egged on by partisan and factional behavior of those allied with the misbehavers.
2) Do you have any comments to make on the diffs presented in this finding?
Technical note: here appears to be at least one dup, or there was last I checked. Also, I don't see why the links are to the secure wiki instead of the regular one, it makes them harder to decode. But those are nits.
More importantly, in general the diffs seem to be cherry picked and are somewhat out of context, I think... In fact I will go farther, The diffs are representative of nothing much important. It sometimes is necessary that one uses a stern tone, or to be curt and even harsh with disruptive editors at times (similar to a parent imposing restrictions on a child). If admins are required to speak in flowery, sugarcoated language when they are delivering stern warnings about misconduct, they will never be taken seriously (not that they are anyway, it seems).
I speak to disruptive editors in a stern manner, it's true. It's not like I call them names (old fruit, septic, etc.) or any such thing (except wacko, one time, but that was a case where I was echoing back someone else's words, and I really thought it would be received in the jocular manner it was offered... remember, I bear no animus so I was surprised to find it borne to me)
I have never denied that there are those active in this area that are capable of baiting me into saying things I regret later, or claimed any special perfection. We are none of us perfect. But the arbcom decision ought to be directed at those who cause trouble by their actions in the topic area primarily, I think, not those who are doing their best to evenhandedly ensure that the topic area runs smoothly. I said this about the proposed sanction of 2/0 but it bears repeating here.
3) Do you think administrators should have the trust of the editors in areas they are helping to administrate?
It is helpful but not necessary. If it were absolutely necessary, it would be too easily gameable. What is more important is to have the trust of editors who are NOT active in the area and who have not acted in factional ways in the past. The lady who writes me parking tickets doesn't specifically need my trust in order to do so, nor does the fellow who picks up my wastebasket. (those being somewhat analogous to adminship, especially the last one) Society in general needs to trust them, and I need to trust the general mechanisms. But not the individuals.
More specifically, in this area the admins taking action will be accused of bias by someone, so I don't think it is possible to have the trust of all the editors in the area. After all, people don't like being restricted to rules that they are trying to break. The disruptive editors in this area are not going to trust anyone who enforces policy, period. So, no, it's not only not necessary to have the trust of editors you're imposing sanctions against or warning ...it's perhaps not even a possibility if we are talking about those who are disruptive and who engage in factional behavior and who are the source of the major problems here.
An example to clarify... Marknutley... we know he means well, but also has some issues. If you review his comments when he's been sanctioned by me or (some) other admins, you'll find that he does trust me (or some other admins) and does understand that the sanction was imposed because he erred, not because the admins are biased. Contrast that with WMC's comment the last time I imposed a sanction... he called me "stupid and malicious". He even hurled insults at BozMo as well, when BozMo blocked him.
ArbCom should to look at the opinions of editors who have not had to be regularly warned and who have not been violating rules, I do enjoy their trust because they have no reason to fear me or be cross with me for simply doing what I was asked to do -- enforce policy on Wikipedia. I note that 2/0 and especially Bozmo were rarely, if ever, parties to the questioning of my involvement and continued interacting with me in the uninvolved admins section of the enforcement area.
Hope that helps. If not please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the diffs presented are the same, currently the first (link 109) and fifth (link 113). Several of them are also from the same conversations, and would probably be better presented together. Chronological order (numbering is for current order): third link (111), eleventh link (119), first/fifth link (109/113), tenth link (118), sixth link (114), second link (110), fourth link (112), seventh link (115), ninth link (117), eighth link (116). 2over0 public (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F18: Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions

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

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

Ok, so what actions have you taken to disable (in particular WMC) incivility? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZuluPapa5, that would be best covered in a general discussion section covering WMC's incivility, not specific admins. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that your extensive editing in this topic area makes it difficult (or easier, YMMV) to judge involvement. Whenever an admin arrives at an article, they have to make a choice between acting as an administrator or an editor. If they are unsure about acting as an administrator, they need to either ask another administrator to deal with it, or articulate why they are taking administrative actions, and also address any concerns raised. Stephan, I know you are on holiday, but if you get the chance, could I ask you to say what steps you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor. Second question is why you followed the letter, rather than the spirit of the rules at the probation enforcement board? Last question: when you realised your participation in the admin sections was controversial, why did you continue to participate there? I'll ask Lar the same questions, and could I ask that others please not answer for Stephan. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the premise is correct. Admins can act as both editors and admins as long as their administrative actions are not influenced by their editorial stance. This is in analogy with e.g. WP:COI. As an example, I would have no problem to use rollback or semi-protection to protect an article I edit against simple vandalism. WP:NOT#BURO applies. But to answer your first question in the sense it was probably asked: When I have a personal interest in the outcome of a discussion/edit war, because I have a strong opinion, I usually articulate this in my role as an editor. As an example, I've created and significantly contributed to Talk:Global warming/FAQ in order to avoid repetitive good-faith discussions of the same topics. I use admin tools only in cases where I have no strong personal opinion, or in cases where their use is clearly governed by policy and precedent (block of CU-confirmed socks, deletion of articles after AfD, ...). As for your second question, I think I followed both letter and spirit in this case. But the letter is clear, while opinions on the spirit are far more diffuse. I believe the section is there to collect input from all admins with insight into the situation, to have an informed discussion, and to come to a consensus decision. This interpretation is apparently not shared by Lar, who is the primary complainant. To answer your third question, I did not, for long. I did it for as long a I did because mere contentiousness is not a sufficient reason not to contribute - if that were the case, we would have neither editors nor admins in many areas. And, to be honest, I was (and am) pissed off by Lar waltzing in with an ego the size of a grand piano, a prejudiced view of the situation, and a grossly unfair and counterproductive master-plan to fix a problem he does not even begin to understand. I thought (and think) he needs to be balanced by someone with experience in the domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of this FOF is problematic. Stephan Schulz has made very few admin actions this calendar year. I would suggest rewording the FOF to:

User:Stephan Schulz heavily edits the Climate Change articles.[179] In the past, he has also carried out admin actions within the topic area.[Log entries of him taking action against non-vandals/sockpuppets and the like, which I assume exist]. He has also attempted to comment as an uninvolved administrator on the general sanctions enforcement board.[diffs]

NW (Talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

R1: 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)[reply]

Nigelj raises a very good point. Thus, "a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions" implies a warning for current behaviour, which should be given by an uninvolved administrator. So, presumably the sequence would be; report to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and the uninvolved admin deciding would impose that warning with clear advice on improving behaviour, then if the problem happened again a second report to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement would, at the discretion of an uninvolved admin, result in a sanction. Looks worthwhile as giving a clear warning and opportunity to mend ways before a sanction is imposed. Is it worth spelling out that editors should be able to appeal the warning in the same way that sanctions would be appealed? Overall, the move to the central noticeboard looks good. . dave souza, talk 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to look at the implementation of already-existing discretionary sanctions, which are all listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --TS 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Count me among those who under-appreciated the significance of the discretionary sanctions proposal when I first read it. I agree it provides more teeth for the enforcement process, and may play an important role in resolving some issues.--SPhilbrickT 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

R3.1 to R5 (William M. Connolley)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • To add to that of LHVU, I think that the poisonous atmosphere and outside influences that WMC had to endure could probably be helped by looking at the history of the article about him at William Connolley. Again, just a suggestion, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The six month general ban for WMC seems punitive in intent. I believe the topic ban from climate change articles is adequate to avoid future harm. Thparkth (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, I see no reason to believe that William M. Connolley will act well outside the CC topic. He treats people poorly whether or not they're in agreement with him on CC matters. I think recently he was rough with BozMo and SirFozzie. I would expect that to continue. A six-month block might let the message sink in, and it's easier to police than some kind of civility probation where others might be tempted to goad him. Probations are another burden on admins, and William M. Connolley has been too much of an admin burden already. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


R4: William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)

This should clarify whether or not WMC is allowed to edit BLP talk pages (cf. 3.2, which does clarify this point). --JN466 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R5: William M. Connolley restricted

Civility parole

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

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)[reply]

R6: Polargeo admonished

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

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

I concur with JWB, concerns that I voiced with Polargeo's actions in regard to Probation enforcement - and which I hoped would lead to self reassessment when they were aired - have crystallised into a opinion that he is not suitable to be allowed the responsibilities of adminship. His reaction to my strongly advising him to cease his repetitive posts to User talk:Lar, where he continued to note his conviction of Lar's involvement and subsequent unsuitability to opine in an admin capacity, was to describe me as a bully. He has also suggested that the reason for Lar and my agreement, and also a third party, over a topic relating to CC matters was the result of off wiki collusion. In both these cases these were comments made in regard to those made by others, and not to the mentioned parties. Finally, as is evident in the comments on these pages, Polargeo is disregarding the findings of fact and remedies suggested in the PD, but is continuing to insist upon his understanding of the situation. Admins are required to be able to discern consensus, by reference to the policies etc., and to not substitute their own opinions and conclusions. I believe Polargeo simply does not "get it", and should be asked to stand again for adminship if they want access to those flags. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I regret the stress this matter gives you and, for what it is worth, I believe that you have always been sincere in your interpretation of the issues, but I believe you are wrong and that you have consequently acted in a manner which has brought further disruption to this area and the project. This, I believe, is what you believe is also the situation in my case, and the basis of your comments on my actions. While very much not happy to be described as such, I recognise that this is the nature of these kinds of dispute. If we can agree that we are both working toward what we hope is for the benefit of the encyclopedia, then we acknowledge that there is nothing personal in our comments regardless of the harshness of some of the commentary. Hopefully, then, it is slightly less stressful for both of us. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The matter only gives me stress because I am the one named in the sanctions and on the workshop two people called for me to be desysopped. I have issues with your actions and viewpoints and I sometimes think they are influenced by misguided interpretation but I certainly do not have any personal issues with you at present. Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can also sympathise with being named, as I have previously been admonished as part of the remedies in an arbcom case - and when I was an admin, and not a new editor. It comes, I am afraid, with being a bit too passionate about the project. At least, that is how I justify it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Here's one response to the personal attacks Polargeo has made on this page (in this section and elsewhere) and the inaccurate statement of Carcharoth, above: I am not "engaged in an interpersonal dispute" with Polargeo other than one vandalizing edit Polargeo made on an article I had just started and which I reverted with an edit summary telling him to "go away". Other than that, my entire (pretty brief) interaction with him has been on CC dispute resolution pages. I complained against him because I'm appalled by his personal attacks on other people. Other than objecting to being attacked here and having my work vandalized in retaliation for my complaints about his conduct, I don't have a "personal" dispute with him. The discussion he refers to in his 10:48, 24 August post, above (our only previous interaction) was about the conduct of others and obviously didn't spark me to make any complaints, and it's just as irrelevant as it looks. Polargeo can't back up any of his disparaging statements about me with any evidence whatever (one definition of a personal attack). Since no one else seems to believe them, that doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me is that ArbCom members didn't tell him to stop sooner and didn't identify his comments against me as personal attacks. That makes them look like they're perhaps justified. Since the draft already proposed that Polargeo be "strongly admonished" for his previous personal attacks, any consideration of the personal attacks on this page should lead ArbCom to strongly consider an even stricter sanction. Carcharanth's comment, implying that I'm just as much or even about as much at fault in some 'interpersonal dispute" somehow unrelated to this case, in effect protects Polargeo and, frankly, insults me. There's evidence all over this page that Polargeo can't tell the difference between criticism and personal attacks, even after the draft was posted. It isn't hard to predict that this conduct will continue unless ArbCom takes further measures to impress on him the necessary message. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R7: Thegoodlocust banned

Proposed Alternate Remedy: Supervised Editing for TheGoodLocust

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

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

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

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

R8.1 to R9 (Marknutley)

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

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)[reply]

What makes you think i`ll quit? Of the 28 articles i have created 14 are not about climate change [180] mark nutley (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark has produced some quality articles, The Gore Effect being one that comes to mind. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he has made a good number of articles considering that he has edited for less than a year. In that respect I regret having advised him when he first got here not to get caught up in the climate mess, but, on the other hand, if he gets banned then perhaps it would've been good advice to take. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gore Effect is an example of his work inside climate change. Since it's not particularly well-written, and is about a tendentious joke, I do not see the merit proclaimed. Having run into some of his work outside Climate Change, I wish Arbcom would consider a general sanction rather than a mere topic ban; his behaviour and scholarship elsewhere are the same as here.

For comments on mark nutleys work at List of wars between democracies, see this section and the the second half of this section of an RFC they started against me; both sections are signed by several editors. The first mentions mark's claim that Greeks had no democracys [sic], compare Athenian democracy; the second deals largely with Mass killings under Communist regimes, with which I am less familar, so I will mention this discussion on its talk page. Perhaps a topic ban from political articles? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I looked at the title of this page and did not find "sour grapes from every event I can connect a person with." Ban from everything? Not likely for a Climate Change case - and carping that he managed to write an article which passed AfD, over your dislike for it, does not impress neutral outsiders here. Indeed, I had thought everyone agreed that material not relevant to the case at hand did not belong. YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has no place here and it is canvassing by an editor over a content dispute, perhaps this [181] would provide a better read or these diffs *14 July: [182] a liar and ignorant.
My post on that page averred that your post, referring as it does to a comment the nonsigner said he made here. Anyone with an ounce of sense would see that he was enlisting people who agree with his comment, on a talk page totally unrelated to Climate Change (you can not expand the scope of this page to other topics by simply mentioning their pages - and then seeking people from those pages to concatenate the hundreds of thousands of words the committee must wade through. And there is a really good chance that everyone in the Pmanderson RFCU will bop on over at this rate - then we can always get the Prem Rawat abd Scientology folks in as well. This case will beover sometime after all the glaciers melt <g>. WP:CANVASS allows noticeboard posts, limited individual posts, and posts to wikiprojects. It does not mean, and has not ever meant, that one can post to lots of unrelated article talk pages <g>. Collect (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Mark nutley's more contentious behaviors are not confined to Climate Change articles. If there is a topic ban, political topics of a more general nature would be more appropriate, though it may not need to be a very broadly construed topic ban. It seems the most contentious areas are political topics which challenge communism as well as hot button issues supported by US liberals (CC, Obama, etc). BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the behavior shown in the climate change articles is not restricted to those articles and relates to other political articles as well (e.g., Mass killings under Communist regimes, List of wars between democracies). While most of his edits on their own cannot be judged as disruptive, the general pattern is. He rarely uses solid academic sources for articles. TFD (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R8.2: Marknutley topic banned (Climate Change)

R10: Use of blogs

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I personally don't like use of blogs, especially for BLPs. However, I'm not certain that all the blogs you mention are not allowed to be used under the current policy. Arbcom should issue clearer guidance on the actual blogs used in the CC articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Judith Curry "Real Climate" has damaged their brand, are directly involved in Climategate, and are "too partisan in a scientific way." [189] This website obviously should not be used as the main source in the climate articles like it has been. If it wasn't heavily promoted by a founding member of the website and his friends then this would certainly not be the case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing one blog comment by someone who's not an expert in particular relevant fields to disparage a blog which often, but not always, complies with WP:SPS and is thus usable as a source. Rather self-contradictory. . . dave souza, talk 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm citing a "blog" published by the Houston Chronicle (a newspaper), written by their science writer which interviews a non-skeptic climatologist whose emails haven't shown some pretty nasty things and whose papers haven't been debunked by professional statisticians on multiple occasions and in peer-reviewed statistical journals. Any questions? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per NEWSBLOG, that's only valid for the opinions of those concerned. Judy Curry isn't an expert on paleoclimatology, and her opinion has less weight that those of experts in the relevant fields. Her views on hurricanes carry more weight. You're picking one opinion, much favoured by deniers contrarians, and trying to denigrate the views of experts who have published in the field. Unsurprising, really. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>You can try to distract in any way you can or bait me by using the offensive "deniers" term, but the fact is that she is a non-skeptic climatologist whose opinion of the Real Climate group is less than stellar. She is certainly not the only one, but that is irrelevant since I've said my piece on the subject. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what "peer-reviewed statistical journals"? Could it be that you're talking about the draft paper submitted to, but not yet published by, Wegman's vanity spinoff journal? You should read beyond the denialist contrarian blogosphere. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quit baiting, I'm not going to engage with you. I've already demonstrated how you inaccurately describe things TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No wish to offend, a nicer term? . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is preferable. I don't appreciate the sound of it, but it doesn't have the association with Holocaust denial. Thanks. As for TS's and your post below, sufficed to say I strongly disagree with those characterizations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The CRU e-mails themselves can tell us a lot about Realclimate and WMC role in them. From Dr. Mann to Tim Osborn February 9th 2006 "I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there, but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape." This suggests that WIMC while not a very active author at Realclimate reviewed much of what was posted on Realclimate. As a reviewer of what was posted on Realclimate how much of Connelley's own comments, and other edits made their way into the final product? While not the author as a reviewer of what is posted this very much amounts to self publishing. Also given the above e-mail it also leads me to wonder why in the world as a party to the e-mails Connelley was ever allowed to make edits on the thread relating to the incident.Bigred58 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason his numerous other COI with articles are ignored - every time it is brought up the usual defenders show up at the same spot, shout down the people who brought it up and all vote the same way. TheGoodLocust (talk)20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent example == William M. Connolley reverting in controversial content sourced to a blog [190]. Minor4th 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here [[191]] is another recent example, where Dr. Connolley asserts that "Use of Real Climate is fully within policy, as you know." In fact, there seems to be disagreement on this point.
I get the impression that the editors most involved here are well aware WP:SPS says "self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert..." etc. They simply disagree (and refuse to compromise) as to whether each given case is such a circumstance. Policy and the existing enforcement mechanism do not appear to be working to resolve these disputes. Unless it is written to extend or clarify existing policy, this isn't a remedy, it's just a partial restatement of Proposed Principle #11 (Sourcing), itself a restatement of policy. I don't imagine ArbCom will rule that Real Climate, Watts Up With That etc. are or are not reliable sources within climate change articles. But surely a decision that changes the resolution dynamics be in order? I don't know... maybe something to the effect that sanctions are applicable if editors revert instead of escalating a CC source dispute to the RS Noticeboard immediately, for instance? -DGaw (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erh? That would end up with the board getting flooded, each and every time that some J.Random Blogger writes something, or if a newspaper comes out with a ridiculous story (this actually happens quite often, that an SPA dumps something like that (see for instance this: Talk:Global warming##IAC_report - try matching that article up with other coverage of the same instance, and you'll see what i mean))
In the particular case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there RealClimate is fully within policy, and i'm rather astounded that Cla68 is stating otherwise. Realclimate is run by highly respected published experts in the topic area. The article that is alluded to is written by Gavin Schmidt, who is involved in the AR5 process[192] (whether he is an author i don't know). Stating that Realclimate is not a reliable source in that particular instance, runs against our sourcing policies. Now Cla68 could have cited that using it in this instance would be undue weight, which is certainly arguable in this case - but stating that it is an "advocacy source"[193] is completely out-of-line. I'd like Cla68 to explain how he comes to that conclusion, but more specifically - i'd like him to explain what Realclimate is an advocacy source for, and how he is capable of determining this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SPS exception allows self-published sources "on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication". My understanding is that his expertise includes climate variability, ocean circulation and paleoclimate modelling (although one would need a RS to establish each). Where is it established that he is an acknowledged and published expert on organizational governance issues, which is, of course, the subject of the report? Personally, I'd like to see WP figure out how to broaden the ability to use blog sources I don't see that this use is valid under the existing rules.--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Gavin is a part of the process (and published on that) of the IPCC [see the link i gave]. The report itself contains quite a bit more than "organizational governance". But the main thing here is that it is a reaction, just as Pielke Jr's is. (who is a bit more outside the mainstream here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, the board would only get referrals for those cases where a source was introduced, disputed, and the parties involved refused to agree on common terms, yet elected to continue the disagreement. If that did indeed increase the volume of activity on the board that is of no great concern, since as various people have pointed out, there's no great rush required in getting things right.
As for Real Climate--or any expert-written blog on either side of the debate--it may indeed be in policy in some cases. However, your position that "stating that Realclimate is not a reliable source ...runs against our sourcing policies" is mistaken. Perhaps you mean to say it runs counter to your interpretation of our sourcing policies. The policies themselves, however, do not say that self-published material produced by an established expert is acceptable, only that it "may in some circumstances" be acceptable. Which circumstances those are is a content dispute to be resolved between those who agree with you and those who do not. In the absence of consensus or compromise--a common scenario in this area, unfortunately--these issues should be already being escalated to the noticeboard under existing dispute resolution guidelines. What would be new would be prompt sanctions against people who refuse to work through channels and revert or edit-war instead.
In any case, my proposal is simply an example. My broader point to the Arbs is that as currently drafted, the remedy doesn't appear to actually remedy anything. --DGaw (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGaw, i agree 100% with the "in some circumstances" aspect, reliability (amongst other things) depends on context.. That wasn't what i was objecting to.... It was the categorical rejection of the source, on the basis of it being, in Cla68's opinion an "advocacy" site. That is against our sourcing policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --DGaw (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, WP's policies are clear on the use of self-published sources, which includes RealClimate. Not only is it self-published. As shown in my evidence section for this case, the blog was created for the purpose of defending the controversial research of the blog's founding scientists, research which has come under extremely severe criticism since 2003, including by scientists who appear to agree with the basic premise of the AGW theory. My evidence section shows that a founding member of RealClimate, with help from other editors (perhaps including you), has abused the wiki by using the blog as a source to push advocacy in the CC articles. (I do, however, believe the blog can be referenced in exceptional circumstances, such as if it is referenced by a reliable secondary source or if the blog's opinion is directly relevant to the topic).
Here's the thing, if you believe that an exception to policy should be made for RealClimate because of the credentials of its contributors, then why not Climate Audit also? Climate Audit won "Best Science Blog" one year and was runner-up for the award the next year. RealClimate has been neither. According to your logic, we should be using Climate Audit as a source all over the place. However, I doubt you feel that way, because you were one of the editors who edit warred [194] [195] [196] to keep an article on Climate Audit from existing. Are you promoting a double standard here? Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R13 and R14: Administrators

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

ex-R16: Determining if admins are involved

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

Seems to have been removed. Further discussion would be better in the "new proposals" section. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, though the phrase "as simple as WP:AN and WP:RFC" gave me a chuckle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The finding should probably be considered an example of not good practice. I would support such a finding without necessarily supporting any associated admonishment. It would depend largely on what 2over0 has to say on the matter. I think he is on the list of case participants that I asked the clerks to notify about this case. Now that Rlevse has added new findings, he should be ensuring that people named in such findings are being notified, or ensuring that clerks carry out such notifications promptly (I would have done so, but was out for much of today). Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2over0 hasn't edited for the past week. Perhaps he is on vacation? I'll drop a note on his talk page and send him an email after I move this section to the appropriate place. NW (Talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last I saw he has wiped himself free of this section of the project. I'm not even sure he is watching this now. Maybe someone should ping him that he is being mentioned. Personally I feel that 2/0 tries to be as fair and respect everyone. I think even naming him is wrong but again this is my personal experience with him as an editor and then an administrator. I forgot to take a look to see how active he's been and he hasn't been around for at least a week. His activities at the project seem to come in short spurts with breaks I think due to RL. I am sorry but I have to state now that I adamately feel that namining him in anyway about his case since he has not been active in it for quite some time is really wrong. Please reconsider besmirching a good editor who is also an administrator. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found 2/0 to be a collegiate and helpful colleague within the enforcement request pages, and who usually was well within the consensus derived from discussions and willing to enforce the said consensus. I was dismayed at his undoing of the Lar/WMC block, but regarded it as being swayed by the unrelenting campaign questioning Lars status and do not think that this one action needs to used to taint his sysop record. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2over0 asked me to post this for him:

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

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

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

— 2over0

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

To me, this is another instance where the Committee will need to be careful about not making it harder for administrators to work in the future. I remember Rlevse recently saying that RfAs have become too picky, too prone to point to one mistake by a candidate and to blow it out of proportion.[197] Logically, that should also apply to administrators just as it does to administrator candidates. On balance, it is probably a good thing for the Committee to go through all AE actions and to go on record for every case where there was less than good practices. However, strongly admonishing seems to me to go too far. I would suggest that the Committee pay close attention to the difference between one-time misjudgments, and patterns of long-term repeated disruptive behaviors. It's the latter that this case really needs to repair. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tryptofish and LHvU. While I think 2/0 erred in this case, and the drama that ensued was much worse than if the block had been allowed to stand, and while I think he does have some partisan bent, I think 2/0 does try hard in general to be even handed. So a strong admonishment? No, how about just a "that was wrong, I hope you realise it now". Affirming the block I placed as correct, on the other hand, is helpful. To the theme brought out here, perhaps ArbCom ought to do more affirming and positive reinforcement of behavior they want to see more of, instead of eschewing handing out praise, and less negative reinforcement of behaviors that are not nearly the most problematic. Management studies show that positive reinforcement makes for a far happier and efficient work environment (even in a volunteer project) than negative. All negative is viewed as draconian even if it's not. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother. This has been extremely demoralizing. Jehochman Talk 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider splitting this into two separate pieces. I think I may not be the only person who supports one but not the other. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R17: Lar is an uninvolved administrator but advised

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

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

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

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

No longer necessary per Rlevse's changes. NW (Talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons that should be obvious to those singing along at home, I don't think admonishing, warning, advising or in any other way singling out any admin in this case in this way sends the right message. We need more admins to watch this area, full stop. Lar's approach to the topic is covered in a finding, and he could be admonished for conduct unbecoming I suppose. But advising him to stay away is wrong. I'd ask him to avoid interactions with William M. Connolley and one or two others, sure, and I'd definitely keep any eye on any actions he might take on his own account to discourage other admins from using their discretion. But I don't think we should single out him or any other admin and say they're not welcome. --TS 02:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful that it is recognised that Lar was uninvolved, and acted within the sysop remit, but I also have qualms over the rest of the proposed wordings, in that it is also rather lopsided, as it notes that his response to the persistent, pointy (Polargeo and William M. Connolley - the latter a former admin - commenting in the "uninvolved admin" section in order to deprecate Lar's presence there, for instance) and likely agenda driven campaign to question his status may disallow him from participating for a period in adminning in CC related spaces, while the architects and acolytes involved in this nefarious policy remain uncommented upon. Further, I foresee some difficulty in Lar being able to function as a sysop in regard to those editors who made up the chorus on this issue, in that future actions against them may (should I say likely?) result in the remedy's language being quoted as an indication that there is bias or prejudice present. Unlike Tony, I think that a strong hint to Lar to absent himself from these areas and, per Tony, interacting in regard to certain editors might suffice, providing that those editors are named, and sanctioned or cautioned for their bad faith and improper conduct, and, if found to be party to a sustained effort to discredit Lar in an effort to deprecate his influence within the Enforcement pages, banned for a period. It takes two (or more) parties to get into a conflict, and if it is noted that the result of such a campaign is to penalise the target for reacting to a prolonged assault, and no or little sanctioning of the others involved, then it is likely to be a tactic that is repeated in whatever format enforcement takes. Even more than Tony's concerns, this will dissuade sysops from volunteering to police the enforcement pages.
nb. I like Lar, and agree with the majority of his opinion regarding how to properly admin the project... but being his cheerleader is becoming quite tiresome. Were that a few new commentators were to opine in regard to these particular instances! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to simply say Lar is uninvolved, to thank him for his service in a tough area, and then to advise him in private that for the practical reason that his continued admin work in this area is causing various editors to continue to make a lot of distracting noise, it would be a good idea to leave and let other admins take up the burden. I object to and Lar has also begun to show bias to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. I don't think it's true and if it were true, I don't think the best way of dealing with it in this case is, in effect, admonishing him publicly in a way that editors will use to defend their own bad behavior. This is also not the way to thank someone who has been doing one of the toughest jobs on Wikipedia, bar none. If ArbCom says begun to show bias it allows certain editors to continue thinking they've been treated unfairly, and allows them to continue to avoid some necessary reflection on their own conduct. ArbCom hasn't admonished Jehochman and Franamax for showing worse bias -- far worse bias. The level of any possible bias on Lar's part is, I believe, too small for ArbCom consideration and no more than a very scrupulous admin would have (that is, the irreducable amount of human error that we all have). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this section is worded with great kindness, as it makes no mention of his incivility. Lar's open bias in favor of the skeptic side is really not disputable, and was epitomized by his infamous "leveling the playing field" comments, and his incessant and obnoxious use of "cabal" and "faction" to label people in a one-sided and insulting fashion. This finding fails to record his incivility, which has been in evidence in recent weeks, despite this arbitration, and on this very page. See [198]See his "pwned" snipe at Carcharoth.[199]. Mind you, this is Lar on his best behavior, with his Sunday suit on, trying his best not be to be antagonistic. Just today, he showed his open bias for skeptical editors by his unreserved backing of Cla68 in his disruptive editing "experiment."[200] This arbitration decision would have no credibility whatsoever if it fails to deal with this problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This proposed finding is flat out wrong and is harmful to the topic area and the encyclopedia overall. There are hardly any admins enforcing in this area. Without Lar are we down to one truly uninvolved admin -- LHVU? Oh yeah, LHVU said he was moving on to other areas too. So, no uninvolved admins in this topic area -- a topic area so contentious that Arb can't even get its collective grasp around it. On the one hand you're asking for participation from other uninvolved admins, and on the other hand you're admonishing an uninvolved admin to step away from the topic area because the disruptive editors against whom sanctions have been imposed have made so much noise in a concerted effort to drive away one of the few admins willing to enforce policy against them. Lar has not shown bias for skeptical editors -- that evaluation fails entirely to address the real and underlying issue: it's just a matter of observable fact that the "skeptical" editors are not nearly as disruptive as the warmist POV editors! Naturally, the editors who are skirting the rules and pushing past the limits of policy want to get rid of an admin who might enforce against them, and it happens to be the case that the ones who are skirting the rules and pushing past the limits of policy are overwhelmingly from the warmist/alarmist bloc of editors (and their cheerleaders, of course). That is the reason for all of the disruption regarding Lar. Address the problem, not the attempts to remediate the problem! Cautioning Lar to step away from this topic area is a nail in the coffin of having any kind of enforceable policy in this topic area in the foreseeable future. Frankly, I don't know why Lar puts up with it, but he should be thanked for his service and encouraged to continue -- those who have so vocally campaigned for his removal are the ones who should be cautioned to step away. Minor4th 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tony, Less, John, and Minor. I think that pointing out the specific instances of battlefield language is appropriate for the findings, more appropriate than is the purported wheel war. I also am under the impression that Lar has said that he accepts that this would be appropriate. I think there is a big problem with the choice of the word "bias". It isn't bias. It's shortness of temper, and the wording needs to be corrected to reflect that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I am pleased that the most recent additions have addressed explicitly the issue of who was and who was not "involved". Thank you for addressing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is not shortness of temper. If it was, there would be no problem. We'd be seeing a constant stream of apologies from Lar whenever he labeled someone or engaged in the kind of behavior I've cited above. This is an administrator who can't or won't behave properly even when the eyes of arbcom are on him. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at the RfC/U. It looks to me like there is no shortage of shortness of temper, which is why this case ended up here. I think a great number of the involved editors displayed shortness of temper; the task of the Committee is to distinguish between that, and behavior that went beyond it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. What was complained about at the RfC was bias and systematic incivility, not temper. See the statement at the RfC/U[201] by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, [202], which received the greatest number of endorsements. He began by acknowledging that Lar was not involved, and then said:

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

  • Derides a group of editors in the enforcement area as "socially inept." [11]
  • Advocates a specific content position while engaged on the enforcement talk page.[12]
  • Makes no secret of his desire to "level the playing field"[13][14] by tilting it more favorably toward one group of editors and less favorably to another. As such he comes to the sanctions not as an impartial arbiter, but as one with a preconceived agenda.
  • Promotes a battleground mentality by lumping editors together as "the cadre,"[15] the "science club,"[16] and a "cabal."[17]
  • While engaged on the enforcement page itself, sarcastically berates an editor for having opposed his reconfirmation as steward.[18][19]
Note that "shortness of temper" is not complained about, but a pattern of bias is. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be spinning the results of the RfC/U. As I also said above, the Arbitrators can assess the RfC/U for themselves. They can also assess whether my phrase "shortness of temper" is or is not the best choice of words; I'm not going to quibble about that. What I am saying is that the current word choice in the PD, "bias", is a choice that needs to be re-considered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "bias" may not be the best word; terms like "contempt," "animosity," and "disdain" would be more descriptive of Lar's commentary toward other editors. But perhaps "bias" is a reasonable compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a creative definition of compromise! It occurs to me that "battleground" (per 3.1.5) may be more accurate than any of the other word choices discussed here (note: battleground != bias), perhaps as applied to this talk as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing an arbitrator's finding that Lar has shown "bias." That's what's on the table, so please don't try to inhibit or curtail the discussion. As for your comment, my aim was to show you as best I could that there is no evidence that the Lar's behavioral problem is that he "loses his temper." The "he blew his stack at times" defense just won't wash, and it would be just as invalid if he was on his best behavior now and brimming with apologies. As for your reference to the "battleground" finding, I don't see the relevancy of that at all to this particular problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly relevant. Because you can't dodge the fact that many people realise there are factions, there is a battleground and one faction has been pretty badly behaved for a very long time. Pointing that out isn't bias. Regardless of how some try to spin it. It isn't bias on the part of the meter maid to say "this car is parked illegally" and it isn't bias on the part of the janitor to say "This floor needs to be cleaned". It's just a recognition of how things are. Calling it like it is is not contempt, animosity, disdain or anything else. It's just message. The proposed finding is incorrect and without merit. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is your frequent insulting, one-sided and gratuitous use of the term "faction" and, until recently, "cabal." You say "one faction has been pretty badly behaved for a long time." This is a demonstration of precisely the kind of bias that makes your removal from the CC articles so essential. You come in to every enforcement proceeding with an prestated agenda and axe to grind. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar was asked on his user page by Jehochman to "just walk away."[203] The long answer can be found at the link. The short answer is "no." What this means is that a polite statement by Arbcom that he is "advised" to leave the area will be met by a less-than-equally polite "no." He needs to be directed, not advised. This kind of timid wording just won't work. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked Lar how he would act if this provision was passed, and he responded[204], "I consider it as request or advice rather than a requirement. But absent extenuating circumstances, ignoring a request from ArbCom is not often a good approach. What I will do will depend on how things unfold. Now go ask StS and Polargeo what they plan to do, please. I'd be fascinated by how they answer you." This equivocal and carefully hedged answer indicates to me that "Lar is an uninvolved administrator but advised" isn't worth the paper it's not printed on. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've kind of got a bee in your bonnet, apparently. I don't think my answer was "equivocal and carefully hedged"... goodness me, what rhetoric. I think it's a pretty good answer, actually. If ArbCom advises you to (not) do something you ought to think long and hard about whether you ought to do (not do) that thing... their advice is just that, advice. But it will go hard for you if you don't heed it, absent extenuating circumtances. What could be clearer? As an aside, I guess I should have realized when you turned up on my talk page that you were collecting things, since you dodged my first request to explain why you asked. You need to hang out with WMC less, you're picking up his bad habit of not answering questions. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking of bad habits, do you think you could restrain yourself from slagging WMC at every possible opportunity? Your last sentence is an entirely gratuitous, unprovoked potshot. MastCell Talk 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess potshots are a bad habit I picked up from some of the people that come by my talk to confound me. But, seriously... did you want to assert that WMC does willingly answer questions he's asked? Really? ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How on Earth is that relevant to the situation at hand? If you are making those types of comments, you should really think long and hard if you can act neutrally in this area. NW (Talk) 00:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lar: it's highly questionable whether ignoring "advice" from Arbcom will have adverse consequences, or result in a directive to desist. That's not my reading of the PD as a whole in its current state, and this part of it I view as ambiguous, timid, and lacking in directness. I think a better idea would be a directive removing you from the area. Not a bee-bonnet on my part, just a strong belief that you have contributed more than your share to the battleground atmosphere in the CC pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you underestimate the influence a request from ArbCom would have on me (just as they perhaps overestimated the influence it would have on some others they contemplate requesting). You've made your point that you don't consider my input entirely positive, you probably don't need to keep harping on it so. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be less concerned, or "harping on it" as you put it, if you did not repeatedly exhibit battleground behavior even on these pages, in plain view of Arbcom, as you did with your jibe at WMC above. If I'd seen even a scintilla of moderation I might feel differently. Sorry. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • While I'm not going to provide an entire list of WMC avoiding answering questions I will provide some context here. At one point Lar asked WMC to stop calling him "old fruit," after that WMC made a post referring to Lar as such, but in a subtle enough way that he thought he could get away with it. Lar directly asked WMC if the "old fruit" he was referring to was himself (it was either him or Less) - WMC refused to answer the question. Again, this is just a small example of the pattern Lar is referring to. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The relevancy to this section (i.e., battlefield behavior by Lar)? ScottyBerg (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I said I'm just providing some context. I suspect some of us wouldn't "harp" on these things so much if they weren't brazenly ignored while minor sins from minor players are exaggerated and hypocritically shouted from the rooftops by the same union of town criers that have circled the wagons for so long they haven't looked inward to see the filth oozing from the backsides of their mates and into the cesspit they now stand in. I suppose it must be like that old wives tale, of heating up a frog in a pot so slowly that it doesn't realize it is being boiled alive - some people don't realize how dirty they've become, or rather, they are so used to it now that it is second nature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R17 and F17

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

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

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

I think you meant R17. Fixed above. If you meant something else, please re-edit to show that. I'll ask Rlevse if he could look at this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't had my third cup of coffee yet -- that's my excuse, and I'm sticking with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (remedies)

Topic bans, fairness or rational please

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

That is why there is an accompanying civility restriction. My support of the topic ban will be conditional on the civility restriction passing, and if the current topic ban doesn't pass, I will propose one without talk page editing (i.e. a full topic ban). Tony is correct that WMC's expertise is one consideration here, but there are also considerations of off-wiki actions here. Too much of the editing of Wikipedia climate change articles is driven by blogosphere activity. No Wikipedia editors should be editing artciles based on what people are blogging about said articles. That only increases the phenomenon where off-wiki disputes are dragged on-wiki, dragging down the editing environment here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can pretty much guarantee that any civility restriction will be gamed in some way. Loopholes will be found. This has pretty much been WMC's record when it comes to every restriction - push the boundaries and find a legalistic opening. There are certainly many ways to drive editors away. I'm not sure if any of you read through the giant IPCC mess back in November, but they pushed a lot of logical fallacies, circular reasoning and invented policy to drag out the conversation for months - and ended up being shown completely wrong with the IPCC itself admitted that it was at fault. I'm not sure if that is technically incivil, but frustrating other editors away through obstructionism has the same effect. I can think of at least one PhD in Physics who doesn't edit the CC area much anymore(likely due to his interactions with WMC). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I don't think skeptic blogs generally talk about wikipedia articles too much. I do follow the most trafficked one and while there are occasional wikipedia-related articles they don't usually relate to the articles themselves so much as the CC-specific culture and WMC/KDP - I don't recall there ever being an article saying or implying to go to wikipedia to modify a specific article (in fact the Bishop Hill blog tells people to NOT edit wikipedia if they aren't already involved). Again, these articles are pretty rare, most articles on WUWT discuss the news, have guest posts from people on both side of the issue, discuss scientific papers, politics and other non-cc science/weather phenomena. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree that # 2 is a problem, but I don't know why #1 is there. If an editor is guilty of #2, why would you take different action if you discern that their position on the subject is clear? --SPhilbrickT 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, #1 is meaningless in terms of WP policies and sanctions. #2 boils down to 'placing anything above wikipedia's principles', when editing the encyclopedia, is wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what criteria arbcom used in the Israel-Palestine case but criteria #1 and #2 presented above are so useless (mainly because of how on earth could they be interpreted) that it is not even funny. Polargeo (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#1 is there simply to restrict the scope to climate change. But you're right, it's unnecessary and redundant. Thparkth (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And #2 is wishy washy in the extreme, how would you implement it? I actually find the principle slightly distasteful and on the general idea "law interpreted by the few is above morality" (what about Ghandi?). In fact IAR defends this line of thought but that is another matter and has nothing to do with any opinions I might have on this issue. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are dozens of simple ways in which this could be implemented, and I'm not particularly interested in arguing the minutia of it. Thparkth (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern about this proposal is that it oversimplifies the problems in the CC articles, and omits a crucial factor: the impact of whatever is done here on the actual quality of the articles. What is being ignored here is that the caliber of the CC articles, with the exception of a few on the fringes (about blogs, for instance), tend to be of very high, especially insofar as they deal with the technical aspects of climate change. This proposal begins by saying The climate change space is utterly dominated by extremist editors who are unable to compromise. The proposed remedies do nothing to address this problem. The "scientist editors," by which I mean those who have credibly identified themselves as scientists, are indeed extreme in their dedication to scientific fact. This proposal makes it seem as if we are seeing a duel between two "narratives" of potentially equal validity, such as between Arabs and Israelis. If Arbcom puts on blinders, and out of misguided "even-handedness" acts in a fashion that makes Wikipedia inhospitable to experts, this will have a ripple effect that will drive away valued editors. The fact is that editors with special technical knowledge are to be treasured. I have no special technical knowledge, except maybe in the history of the Third Avenue El. Editors like myself are a dime a dozen. We need to welcome editors that have such knowledge, and not put them on a par with politically motivated editors seeking to advance a fringe point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for how to improve the Proposed Decision

As this mostly concerns remedies (especially the first point), I'm moving it to the general discussion of proposed remedies section. The second and third points could also be fleshed out into proposed remedies. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the following ideas:

  • Don't sanction admins/editors who volunteer for very hard jobs and then make a few mistakes. Sanctioning such admins/editors will only discourage their further participation. As unhappy as I am about my own situation, I am much more unhappy about the proposal against User:2over0.
  • Do point out mistakes and tell people how they could do better. User talk pages are a good venue.
  • Rather than naming and blaming Lar, make a general proposal that all admins are advised to periodically rotate out of hot disputes to avoid personalizing conflicts. Lar's difficulties could have been avoided if he had walked away and been replaced by somebody else.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for putting these proposals forward here. I think these cover up the real problems that have been experienced in the CC enforcement with a sort of cosy admins are separate from other users attitude. A sort of you don't mention me in sanctions and I will cover your back sort of club. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an assumption of bad faith. The purpose of the proposals is to get more admins involved, which is clearly needed. You can't attract volunteers very well with the equivalent of "the beatings will continue until morale improves". Jehochman Talk 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not an assumption of bad faith. It is essentially an assumption of admins do not have the right to more good faith than non-admins when it comes to an arbcase amongst established users. If you think your admin status gives you more good faith points then that is something you should work on. Polargeo (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal butts heads with the proposition that administrators need to be held to the same standards as editors. Substitute "editor" for "administrator" in the above and you can see what I mean. "Sanctioning editors will only discourage their further participation." As for your (Jehochman's) personal situation, you may have a point, but I think that you need to make your case here, not on Rlevse's talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drifting off-topic. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Post here and I'll be accused of "drama mongering". There goes Jehochman again, drama mongering. If I post to a nice quiet user talk page and try to work things out directly, I get criticized for lack of transparency. Then there's the "shut up and take it like a man" faction who criticize either way. I think the proposals above with "editors" added read just fine, by the way. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drama mongering? You have every right to defend yourself, if you feel that you were treated improperly, which by the way is entirely possible. Anyone who would accuse you of drama mongering for speaking up for yourself would be far offbase. But the lack of transparency concern is very real. It just isn't right to "work things out" with an individual administrator. Please don't. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to satisfy everybody. Whatever the consensus is, to discuss hither or thither, I will abide. Let's let the arbitrators decide. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this page, I don't agree that it is "useless." Long, yes. But it is fairly well organized, and the discussion is actually on-point for the most part. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people find the page useful, they can use it. In fairness, Carcharoth and the clerks have made an enormous effort to organize the page. I am a bit pessimistic that the volume of comments will receive careful scrutiny, especially comments by "the accused". It's rather shabby for an accused party not to be able to respond directly at the location where the accusation is placed. We have the Workshop for a reason. It was a bad mistake for the arbitrators not to use it. Jehochman Talk 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they had used it, it would have generated the same volume of complaints. I've spoken to several arbitrators about it, and the one thing they agree on is that this case is ridiculously complex. They do intend to read the entire talkpage here as they refine the PD. Rest assured, this is not the final decision, and they will be taking this page into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talkcontribs)
Oh great and mighty yet anonymous voice, who are you? The goal is not to minimize complaints; the goal is to do a good job. Using this page in this way is shockingly bad information architecture. Jehochman Talk 03:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Not even signbot can keep up with this page. Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Signbot is cowering in the corner, terrified by this page's massive size and rapidity of edits. Jehochman Talk 03:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there is a principle of "Sanctioning editors will only discourage their further participation". It's why we say that sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

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

E1: Enforcement by block

This is lighter than the restrictions mentioned at WP:GSCC, which gave more guidance to administrators. I think you should copy those suggestions in the decision. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

General discussion (enforcement)

Discussion of possible minor modification to ArbCom proposal

A discussion of the Arbcom Proposed Enforcement process, along with a suggested minor modification, is occurring at the GS/CC/RE talk page. It is hoped that some arbitrators will weigh in whether:

  1. It is useful for the community to work out a precise process reflecting the ArbCom broad vision,
  2. The proposed additional step to the ArbCom process would be viewed positively, negatively, or a detail to be worked out by the community.--SPhilbrickT 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous discussion

Archived discussion links

A listing of archived discussions (including those that got no comments) to ensure they are read along with the unarchived discussions. Others are listed in the relevant sections on this page. One thread is not listed as that is genuinely resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) [205]. I'm assuming that you didn't actually read it? ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [206] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tony Sidaway: Again, for the most part, that issue was taken care of around January. Since then, the main problem with our Climategate has been the 'pro-AGW viewpoint' faction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TS and AQFK - all sides will point away from themselves when assessing the bulk of the blame. I suspect this is true, not just here, not just for every edit-war on WP, but real-world conflicts as well. I don't see how asserting it one more time advances the debate. For that matter, I struggling to figure out what exactly are we supposed to be debating. I thought we were supposed to be reacting to the PD, and offering concrete steps to remedy short-comings, yet I feel we are simply devolving into a reprise of the same ol' arguments. What, exactly, are we supposed to be doing? This feels quite unstructured.
Well the point is that climate science is very controversial to those who don't examine the science. As an encyclopedia we have a duty to reflect the reliable sources, which happen (as is usual in such circumstances) to be a huge consensus of scientists. --TS 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I've been arguing since November. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not assuming that everyone editing a BLP has an interest in it being a good and fair BLP article, but I'm describing how things should be. I should also point out that those looking through a BLP editing history to find evidence to use can also lose perspective on what the correct editing approach should be. They may strive to find BLP violations where none exist, or miss BLP violations because they are made by an editor whose edits they don't check. There is a way to demonstrate commitment to the principles of BLP editing, and that is to assemble a good set of sources and edit the whole article, rather than just part of it. Or if not able to do that immediately, to at least commit to doing that at some future point. Currently, the approach in this proposed decision is to topic ban from BLPs in the topic area those who have demonstrated poor BLP editing, and that will be a sanction we would expect to be used under discretionary sanctions as well. But is there a need to go further? To require that those editing BLPs in this topic area have demonstrated competence to edit BLPs? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a need to go further. ChrisO edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during this very ArbCom case. ChrisO's misconduct is not that drastically different than MN's or WMC's. Why is he not being sanctioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AQFN, you yourself have referred to scientists as "criminals" in the absence or any trial or even formal charges. Glass houses and all that. But the larger issue is that this is endemic to the project, and the GW/CC BLPs comprise only one small corner. What we really need to do is to delete all marginally notable BLPs, wholesale, mercilessly and without let or hindrance, and to have a much higher standard of notability (including default-to-delete). Putting band-aids on specific topic areas, while well-intended and of some immediate benefit, also gives us an excuse to put off real system-wide solutions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB: If your argument is that two wrongs make a right, then it is an epic fail. First, for the obvious reasons. Second, I've never edit-warred to include BLP violations in any BLP. If you have a diff to prove otherwise, please post it. Your forthcoming inability to provide these diffs will speak volumes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this bluntly: when you and Minor4th claim that I "edit warred to include BLP violations", the two of you are lying. I've explained above that I removed unequivocal BLP violations by Marknutley, which strangely enough you don't seem to have any concerns about, and I did not at any stage use any self-published material as sources. As for your "evidence", this would be the same "evidence" that you omitted to notify me about as required by policy - or even notify me about the case - until after the evidence phase had closed, by which time I couldn't respond to it? That was a nice bit of tactical backstabbing right there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, you edit-warred to include an obscure professor's unpublished presentation in Christopher Monckton, a presentation that openly questioned his intelligence, honesty, and motives. Come on, now, quit rewriting history. ATren (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC yet again) @AQFN: Read what I said. I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right, but that painting the BLP problem (and it is a problem) as a one-sided issue is incorrect. All have sinned and fallen short. Let's work together to fix the problem instead of using it as one more way to score points against the other side. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO: Really?! Are you seriously accusing me of lying? Marknutley edit-warred to remove BLP violations from a BLP. You edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP. What you did was far worse than Marknutley. BTW, contrary to your claim, I have presented evidence against Marknutley. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@SBHB, The point is, ChrisO's BLP abuse of Monckton alone is as bad as anything Marknutley did, and he's been very active on other BLPs during this case when others stepped back. Not only that, MN was the one who revealed the Monckton mess, and he's been active in raising red flags in other skeptic BLPs. So in my view, he's at worst a mirror-image of ChrisO, and if MN is banned ChrisO should be too. Get rid of all the partisan editors who lack good editorial judgement in this area. I would gladly include myself in that if all the major partisan players (particularly the BLP abusers) were banned with me. ATren (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I take BLP issues very seriously, when I noticed slow edit warring to keep reintroducing detailed accusations into a bio I checked the sources and found that unsourced information was being added, in the form of statements that misrepresented the sources. Rather than delete the paragraph and continue the edit war, I carefully rewrote the paragraph on the basis of the cited sources,[207] and described my reasoning on the article talk page.[208] My edit was largely undone by Minor4th,[209] with an incorrect claim in the edit summary "remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; ..." – the quotes and description of Cuccinelli came from the cited source.[210] Rather than continue editing the article, I let others argue for improvements, and later added a description of the issues to the BLP noticeboard.[211] A similar though more subtle issue arose on another BLP, where a columnist's comments on environmental issues have been portrayed in a questionable source as being "a shocking proposal to save the earth from climate change". In this instance I added my analysis to an existing BLP discussion where a version of the inclusion was being defended by A Quest For Knowledge,[212] but did not edit the article. While AQFK was rightly objecting to worse information being added to the bio, in my view this still seemed to be coatracking climate change into a bio with, in my view, inadequate sourcing. I've now amended the bio entry.[213] . . dave souza, talk 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dave souza -- I just want to clarify something here because I take BLP issues very seriously too and you mentioned my edit. My edit summary was (→Virginia Attorney General investigation: remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; remove "several", attribute properly; clarify data inquiry in the fraud investigation) -- I think the only part of your edit that was changed was the quotes you attributed to "an interview" without citing the interview. The Diane Francis issue is very strange -- this is a view that she has written a column about and given interviews about with Fox News -- it is a notable view of hers and sourced with her own words. I can't see how that is coatracking.Minor4th 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit restored a statement that "Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann" – that's not supported by the source, which provides the quotes concerned, and fully supports the version you changed from. You reintroduced a statement by Mann taken out of context in a misleading way, and paraphrased a statement by Cuccinelli's spokesman in a way that changed its meaning, to the detriment of the subject of the bio. The current version of that section is much improved, though there's now an over-emphasis on this current news story in the lead of the bio – a ruling is expected in a week.[214] The Diane Francis issue is clear – she noted climate change talks, and said that more pressing environmental issues were arising from overpopulation which could be tackled by draconian population control. Fox News spun that as her promoting population control to deal with global warming, and AQFK removed another slur, but still presented it as spun by Fox, coatracking it as a global warming issue. More care in reading sources is required. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there's an essay in here somewhere - say, Wikipedia:PIECEMEAL - that goes to the point that any individual contribution, however salient, must not be allowed to degrade the overall quality of the article. Anyone else agree? Ronnotel (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that my immediate reaction is that it will turn into a club for other than its intended purpose. Suppose you add something that doesn't promote another editor's POV. They can revert it is if it an attack, but it isn't. They can revert it if it is unsourced, but it isn't. They can attack the sourcing if the sourcing is sketchy, but the sourcing is impeccable. WP:PIECEMEAL gives them a new tool to (mis)use. "Oh yes, I agree your addition is well-sourced, and it is salient, but in my judgment, it degrades the overall quality of the article, so sorry, it has to be removed, per policy." No doubt the removal will be challenged, but we are back to an edit war, except there is one more arrow in the quiver of those who want to maintain a particular POV.--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's immediate dislike WP:An article is the sum of its parts. Please improve. Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes balance is very very important in all articles but particularly in BLPs. The simple claim "this article is just a stub so anything I add should be welcome as long as it is sourced" is poor. Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scorched earth approach

This section was originally titled 'SirFozzie's Statement' and was moved here under a new header. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie describes what I've often called Kindergarten like behavior. The problem I have with his proposals is that instead of fixing this and turning this place back into the University it should be, he proposes to solve the problems by actually accepting that this is indeed Kindergarten which then needs to be managed by rules appropriate for Kindergarten. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse SirFozzie's statement 100%, including his banning of everyone who has edit-warred, which no doubt includes me. This idea of wide scale banning has been thrown around (AQFK has been a big proponent of it) and after seeing what's been going on since the case started, I think it's absolutely necessary. But the important thing is to keep the policy in place, so if new users arrive with the same battleground mentality, they get banned as well. Otherwise this will likely start up again in a few months. ATren (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were a solution other than this that would work, but in all the virtual trees we've killed discussing this problem we have not found one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have proposed a remedy along the lines of what SirFozzie proposes, but which takes it even further: any participation whatsoever in this topic area over the last two years earns a ban, broadly construed. This will remove all judgement from the equation. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. ATren (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also proposed remedies that actually tackle the real problems. Under my proposals, we could unblock GoRight, there would be no need to impose any topic bans a priori to anyone as is proposed by ArbCom now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I entirely agree with SirFozzie's statement. His criterion for issuing topic bans would be practical and appropriate, and I believe the approach would be effective. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all those who have expressed support for SirFozzie's proposal, and who agree that they themselves have edit warred a bit in the topic area, don't have to wait for the final decision. All they have to do is stop editing in the topic area now, for good. --TS 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
quite true. Though many of the worst edit warring offenders feel that they are on the side of righteousness and therefore it's not edit warring. But we live in hope. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but improving the area by voluntary stand-off can work one editor at a time, too. I figured out a while ago that, since I have pretty mainstream views on matters of science, I have little or no incentive to perform edits for myself, and everything to gain from simply remarking on problem areas on talk pages. The problems are invariably fixed almost as soon as I point them out. The discretionary sanctions should take care of problem editors. --TS 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have stopped. But it hasn't solved the problems -- BLPs are still being abused. So it has to be everyone involved that is banned, or the problems will persist. ATren (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem of group psychology. There has to be a willingness on the part of good faith editors to disengage from article editing. Those who aren't prepared to do so, and continue to cause problems, will tend to stand out and can be excluded by an involuntary topic ban. --TS 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in the meantime what happens to the articles, Tony? It seems to me that you are relying on others to make the edits you would like, and then leaving them to take the flak. NPOV and BLP compliance doesn't happen by magic; someone actively has to work on it to make it happen, and to stop abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd rely on other good faith editors to perform the edits. These would be editors who know the science but haven't been involved up to now. The neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, verifiability, etc are all quite well known policies and can be applied just as well by somebody else as by me. --TS 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to voice my agreement here - there are such editors out there. Many of them are scared off at present by the hostility in the climate change area - the graveyard of good faith. I don't believe there would be any shortage of fresh blood if the atmosphere was changed. Thparkth (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is contradictory, I'm afraid. On the one hand you say that you'd rely on good faith editors. On the other hand, you say that good faith editors should withdraw. Is that not simply another way of saying that articles should be abandoned to the depredations of bad faith editors? - letting the bad drive out the good? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be diplomatic. Those editors (and administrators) who in good faith want the editing environment to improve should, I propose, recognise that it's time to hand over to a new team. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invite previously uninvolved good faith editors, since those involved up to now (whether "good faith editors" or "bad faith editors") have demonstrated an inability to foster an atmosphere of collegial editing. alanyst /talk/ 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have it exactly. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that it's a good time to bow out. Our global warming articles are widely recognised as some of our best science coverage. There's a lot to be proud of. --TS 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Isn't that quality due to the work of the existing editors? And how long do you think the articles would stay that way if they quit en masse? Good articles are good because people have worked hard to get them to that state in the face of relentless opposition and provocations. The editing environment has not simply been poisoned by existing editors failing to work together - it's been poisoned by the external situation, where we have bloggers and columnists ranting about conspiracies and directing people to Wikipedia to "put the record straight". Nothing we do here is going to change that. The driver for the dispute is not editorial relationships on Wikipedia, it's the external environment. Any new editors who enter this topic area are going to face exactly the same pressures and adversarial relationships as the current editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then having new editors will reproduce the old situation, with the exception that we'll be ready for it this time with the discretionary sanctions. And if that doesn't work, you'll be able to say "I told you so." --TS 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd say that, Tony, so I didn't bother adding it myself... Seriously, I'd like to second Chris here. One potted history of why we're here is that a lot of people got overexcited by what they called 'Climategate', thought that global warming was dead and descended on Wikipedia to bury it. Then they got stroppy when they found that a tireless group of scientific literates weren't happy with that reading of the reported facts, and so they wanted something done about it (e.g. disable WMC, GS/CC/RE etc). Tempers flared, and patience wore thin, among the scientific experts too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic argument about the evidence for climate change and bias in the world outside Wikipedia
People have collective amnesia and very short memories. "Climategate" and the actions and behavior of the editors involved is not new and these attacks on science have been going on since the 1980s. It is a large part of what is called the The Republican War on Science and it involves the same people and players. (NASA 2009) Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for these special interests. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's been going on for decades, especially in the US. It's only recently people have been able to 'join the dots', Oreskes says. 'Climategate' was just a recent moment when it went global or viral or whatever the right internet word is. I do think it's no coincidence that we're here at ArbCom nine months later, when there is no more juice to be had from sucking on the Climategate pips, now that the reviews are in, though. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Do you guys have any idea how strong your POV comes across in these comments? I find it amazing that you don't even recognize how biased you all are. If editors expressed the same kinds of sentiments for the "other side" you'd be up in arms. It is editors like you who are turning Wikipedia into Conservapedia's mirror image. ATren (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was said was neither POV nor bias, but an historical fact supported by reliable sources whose accuracy is not in dispute by any recognized authority. Reality is not a liberal bias. I recommend you check the two sources that were raised. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical fact? The book you cited is written by a contributor to The American Prospect, which is described as "American political magazine dedicated to liberalism." Now consider if someone promoted something written by an AEI fellow and claimed it was "historical fact" -- are you honestly saying you wouldn't consider that editor blinded by his own POV? You're insistence that such material is unquestioned fact actually proves my point. ATren (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confused. I was neither citing the book nor it's conclusions. If you had bothered to read my comments, you would have noticed I was citing a NASA report published by the U.S. government which mentioned the book and the history of opposition to and attacks upon climate science. Your response indicates you are reacting instead of analyzing. The historical facts are not in dispute by anyone. This is a part of the historical record and is documented by massive amounts of data, transcripts, news reports, studies, and books. Reality is not a liberal bias. I suggest you read the NASA source before blindly replying again. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A NASA report? It seems to be authored by NASA's "Chief Historian." I wonder if his duties are related to outreach to the Muslim community(NASA is so cosmopolitan these days)? Perhaps he knows NASA's James Hansen, who is in charge of the surface temperature data? Hansen, of course, has been arrested for protesting at a coal plant and thinks executives of fossil fuel companies should be charged for "high crimes against humanity and nature" for spreading doubt about global warming. Sorry, but planting the "NASA" logo on something doesn't give it automatic credibility - and yes yes, we've all heard the "reality doesn't have a liberal bias" line before, I used to enjoy the Daily Show myself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Republican and conservative groups have been targeting and attacking climate science for three decades. This is a historical fact and evidence supporting it has never been challenged. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three decades? Yep, that's almost about when the CIA released their report warning about climate change (I can throw out government initials too) - I bet "conservative and republican groups" were attacking the CIA for their report warning about global cooling then too.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you and ATren can offer are distractions and red herrings because there is nothing to dispute. The war against climate science and climate scientists is so well documented that one would have to deny history itself to ignore it. To remind you yet again, the source is found here. By your own inability to address it, or to point out any flaws in it, you have all but admitted that I am correct. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah is that what you call healthy skepticism? I was taught not to swallow hook, line and sinker everything I read - especially the things I want to believe. You are welcome to think there is a "great war against science" if you like - even if this relies on your belief that government agencies aren't politically motivated and directed entities (I guess NASA's Muslim outreach mission must be non-political). I'm sure you can find several individuals publishing similar thoughts, just like I could find books claiming all sorts of ridiculous things. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a great number of footnotes, studies, papers, reports, transcripts, and scholarly books on the subject and the NASA source is described by the GPO as a scholarly source. There is no dispute here, and since you can't directly address the evidence, I will assume that any further reply from you on this topic is another form of distraction. That there is a "war against climate science" is not a subject of debate. It is fully substantiated by more than enough evidence and is part of the historical record. The source I offered you gives you more than enough pointers on the subject. Educate yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the section and wasn't impressed. Many of his assertions were uncited, what he did cite was often not relevant and it was clear that his conclusions had already come first and that all he was doing is putting a few "diffs" together to justify his pre-determined belief. And no, I'm obviously not going to debate the tiny points with you, if you want to claim victory on this basis in your mind then I'm certainly not going to stop you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a section, it's a series of three pages from pp. 281-284. All of the major claims are fastidiously sourced, so I don't believe you when you say that "many of his assertions were uncited". That is demonstrably false as the footnotes show. You really need to actually read the material in question and directly respond to it. I don't think you can, because there's not a single thing about the historical record you can actually dispute, but I'm sure you'll keep returning here to waste my time. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NASA book you cite is actually a conference proceedings, and the essay you present as absolute historical fact is written by Erik M. Conway, who has also authored a book (with Naomi Oreskes) called "Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt". His "fastidious sourcing" includes George Soros and Paul Krugman. Your continued insistence that this is "the truth" simply amplifies my original point that you (and others) are blinded by your own POV on these topics. ATren (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your only response appears to attack the messenger, while ignoring the message. We are discussing the message, namely the "war against climate change" that has been going on now for thirty years and is well documented. What part of it do you dispute? Please point to specific instances and particular sources. You can't, because it's all part of the historical record, and is beyond dispute. All you can do is attack the authors. How sad. Again, point to specific examples in this "war" that you dispute, or remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point entirely! I'm not disputing Conway's opinions, nor am I saying they don't contain elements of truth. All I'm saying is he is a partisan source and his opinions should be treated as such. You are treating this essay from a partisan source to assert as fact that "Republicans are anti-science". This is no different than someone claiming, as unquestioned fact, that environmentalists are "waging war on our way of life" based on the opinion of a conservative columnist. Do you not recognize this? ATren (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one missing the point. What "opinion" should be treated as partisan? You can't point to one, because the source is talking about documented, historical facts supported by non-partisan sources. So, again point to an opinion we should treat as partisan. Are you denying that there has been a campaign by conservatives and Republicans since the 1980s targeting climate science and climate scientists? Then you'll have to directly refute the evidence in the source. Do so. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is that you haven't made any argument Viriditas. You've pointed to an essay, declared it historical fact and then asserted victory when we didn't go through the essay and refute your unstated points. If there are any key facts, not assertions for your claim then present them instead of complaining that Atren and I aren't addressing the specific points that you have never made. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more flabbergasted that they keep referring to a study that used a "Real Climate" founder to evaluate wikipedia's coverage of the climate change articles and act like that is really an independent and unbiased review. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nigel, I did notice the "Climategate" nonsense. That was a situation where, for me, complete disengagement from editing worked. I waited for the reports to come out, and as it was obvious what they would say it only required a bit of patience on my part. In Spring I looked at the article a few times and made a few talk page edits. Some problems that had crept in were fixed by the editing fairies. Why? I'm not an especially persuasive writer, I'm incredibly arrogant and I don't care much about detail. But my proposal were based firmly in policy and so they were implemented with barely a murmur. --TS 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong Tony, I'm all for wait-and-see and a light touch as well as using talk pages sparingly to promote a healthy respect for policies or for drawing attention to significant publications. What I'm not sure about is the voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of all those who understand the matter, who can lay their finger on just the right paper or academic quote, who know the chief authors and their arguments backwards and forwards, and who keep these articles sane. It's easy enough to reproduce some intelligent-sounding snippet from a conspiracy-theory blog or right-wing editorial, but it can be much harder to show exactly how and where each of such factoids contradicts the published science. If this decision were to take out all current editors, those who know very little about climate science would be easily replaced, but the real experts would take some matching, as the PD recognises with "William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians". --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are speaking from the assumption that getting rid of knowledgeable editors would a bad thing. This would require debate to achieve consensus, as some have explicitly stated otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The root of the problem is that there are different, conflicting, dynamics operating here. On the one hand, you have science-literate editors working away steadily over a long period, not being driven by external factors. They're the ones who've got our CC articles up to their present, overall very good state. On the other hand you have politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors - whether the "Climategate" nonsense, or the false accusations against Rajendra Pachauri, or some new publication that they naively think disproves the whole of climate science. They turn up in swarms with a rabidly oppositional attitude, denouncing mainstream science and scientists as "fraudulent" or "criminals". You can see exactly this kind of thing in the comments section of any newspaper article on climate science. The entire approach of such editors is completely antithetical to Wikipedia's basic principles. That is what is driving the conflict here. Now, maybe discretionary sanctions will help with that, but the only reason right now that articles are not turning into Conservapedia-style travesties is because good editors are working hard to uphold policy. The sanctions will not change the dynamic of oppositional politically activist newcomers versus established science-literate editors; it's that dynamic that underlies the conflict here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, when you and your ilk fought -- fought -- to deny any mention that the CRU unit administrators faced possible legal liability for violating the UK's FOI law, something impeccably sourced, something supported by independent observers at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, you weren't supporting science, you were supporting a political grouping. No more, no less. Your fighting was partisan in the extreme. It was WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by a group. It was POV from top to bottom. You have no excuse for it. You should stop hiding behind the curtain of "Science" and start admitting your partisanship. Now. I'll slap the links here in a minute. They completely demolish your posturing. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, well, just follow the links. Just follow the links. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ONE: (the passage you and your faction couldn't stand being in the article)[215] TWO: (must be read to be believed) [216]THREE: (ChrisO's request at RS/N demolished)[217] I believe this is already in evidence, I'm not bringing up anything new. Had the Workshop page not been closed, I'd have been discussing it there. Well, here you are: ChrisO can't claim to be merely an Acolyte of Science And Reason. His behavior was partisan and it is impossible to say he was attempting to make the page impartial. You don't get there by denying that emails declaring "Let's conspire to keep documents from becoming public" were not even indicative of potential FOI law violations. It was, by the way, one thing that came out of the sympathetic investigations: FOI law was, in fact, violated, although the CRU emailers were themselves not blamed for it. I think all of these links are on the the evidence page in my section on KimDPetersen, ChrisO's close ally in their faction's blocking of NPOV coverage of that. Reading ChrisO's holier-than-thou pontificating in light of that episode is really just too much. And don't anybody tell me I'm arguing a content issue: I'm arguing a freaking WP:BATTLEGROUND issue to which ArbCom has not given adequate attention. (ec with below)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) And here's another from the same archive page. I meant to link to this one earlier. [218] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I do think you're exaggerating but let's see what you have to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors Oh. How. True. Anyone who goes through my links should reread ChrisO's comment that I just responded to above. The Science Halo will never look quite as shiny again. I think it's a great illustration of just what's been going on in CC article and GSCC pages for months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, JWB, the hypocrisy of some editors here is astounding. ATren (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should have recognised (some of us did) that the information commission officer had spoken out of turn. In the end he was reprimanded for it. Insofar as we carried the erroneous reports (the emphasis was erroneous) we failed. We failed even though many of us knew that the newspaper reports were nonsense. That's the downside of my disengagement. I didn't monitor the talk page much. --TS 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The episode illustrates why WP:RECENTISM is such a valuable essay to bear in mind when writing an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of order here. Carrying erroneous reports is done all the time in Wikipedia. The key is correcting things when it is reliably known that such reports are erroneous. It is important to distinguish between: (1) suggesting that Wikipedia remain silent or non-committal on an issue until the full facts are known or conclusions and reports are published (that is acceptable); and (2) engaging in original research and using investigative journalism techniques, or synthesis of disparate sources, to conclude that a source is wrong (that is almost always not acceptable). In most cases, Wikipedia editors should remember that it is not their job to get ahead of the story, but rather to decide what it is possible to report about the current state of the story using the best and most reliable sources. In that sense, carrying an report (later found to be erroneous) from a reliable source is not a failing on Wikipedia's part, but a failing on the part of the supposedly reliable source. Wikipedia editors can only be expected to go so far in assessing the content of certain types of sources (particularly the ones where you don't know the primary sources used). This can be contrasted with assessing the reliability of a source. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to pass judgment on whether a source is correct or not. Other sources do that for us. Note the difference here between assessing reliability and correctness (two subtly different, though related, matters). Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly so. This is of course not an issue that's confined to this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters here is that because of extreme partisanship, Wikipedia could not say that there "may" be "liability" for an FOIA violation, despite the air-tight reliability of the sourcing. It is that simple now. It was that simple then. The fact of potential liability was never shown to be wrong until authorities simply made it obsolete by ruling that the emailers were not the ones at fault. That couldn't be known until the authorities ruled. And until they ruled, the fact of potential liability on FOIA was a very important part of the subject of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This Wikipedia episode illustrates successful partisanship by ChrisO and ChrisO's faction. Period. Point proven. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, and I don't have a "faction". Accusations of serious wrongdoings are always problematic to deal with. The difficulty here is one of perceptions of where to draw the line - some editors favour taking a conservative, wait-and-see approach to issues that may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, others want to rush in and document the latest media sensation in detail. WP:RECENTISM was written with the latter type of editor in mind. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Problematic to say FOIA may have been violated: If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) LINK for anyone who wants to make sure of the accuracy of the quote: [219] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for weighing in. I'm pretty serious about the potential benefits of withdrawal from editing but at the same I don't think SirFozzie's proposal is a runner. I think the main thrust of the arbitration should and probably will be a very strong, uncompromisingly stated, discretionary sanctions regime.

I also think that the arbitrators should probably look closely at the conduct of administrators, particularly those who may be technically uninvolved, don't take any admin actions in the area, but have nevertheless dominated the probation to the extent that it has been transformed from a discretionary regime to one that cannot operate without their support. I think this is a case where such administrators might benefit from counselling about appropriate behavior. Harm can drip from a honeyed tongue. --TS 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not a party to the case I've been following its latter stages with interest. As far as I can see, the main effect of the PD will be to replace the failed probation regime by remanding enforcement to WP:AE, which will bring in many more uninvolved admins. In fact, I'd suggest that all the admins involved in the probation regime should voluntarily desist from participation on WP:AE threads concerning climate change - let's make a fresh start and get fresh faces in, without all the disputes and baggage of the probation regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excellent suggestion. New editors, new admins. But of course the whole idea of discretionary sanctions is that they're discretionary. You don't have to participate in a WP:AE thread to cast a sanction. A certain amount of disengagement would be seemly, I think. --TS 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, there is a point of order that needs to be made here. You say that you are "not a party to the case". This case does not have a list of parties (see the note that Newyorkbrad posted at the start of the case). Rather, any such lists are an informal and incomplete list of those participating in the case (the list is used for notification purposes). Anyone (whether participating in the case or not) for whom evidence is posted and/or for whom a finding is posted by an arbitrator (either now or later) may end up being sanctioned. The only condition is that the editor(s) involved be notified of that finding to be allowed to present a defence. I'll quote in full what was said at the start of the case:

"Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not."

I'm emphasising this because it is quite possible that more editors will have findings added about them, so people should avoid saying things like "I am not a party to the case", because that is meaningless in this particular arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not notified of the case at any point, nor was I even aware of its existence until after the evidence page had closed. Hence my limited involvement in these discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You are mentioned a fair number of times on the evidence page. You should have been notified by a clerk. I've asked the clerks as a matter of urgency to make sure that all those mentioned on the evidence page that were not on their notification list are notified. And to also carry out any notifications needed. 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was mentioned on the evidence page but those mentioning me saw fit not to tell to me - which of course meant that I wasn't able to post any response, which I'm sure was quite intentional. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC on steroids) @Carcharoth: The practice of not naming parties and simply handing down findings/sanctions is a little unsettling (though of course the identity of at least one party at risk was obvious). Recognizing that arbcom is not a law court and so on, we might take into account that the western cultural tradition that largely guides Wikipedia's functioning has tended to deprecate the imposition of findings and sanctions without prior notice, using proceedings that are "held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why such notifications are carried out (unless those for whom sanctions are proposed are already aware of the case). All those named in the proposed decision have posted to this talk page since the proposed decision was posted. If (as several people have requested) more findings are added, then any new editors named in those findings will be notified (as both Brad and I said). Given that, I don't see the problem here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Informing people after the fact doesn't quite address the concern I raised, but I won't argue it further. Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether Fozzie's proposal would work, but the evidence of this talk thread is that the arguments might just keep on going, on other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're not yet calling one another names. This is a good sign. --TS 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When cancer has metastasized it is too late for the scalpel. I doubt there is the stomach for multiple surgeries and it is likely that such actions would miss some of the infection. It may indeed be time for the chemo and the rads - healthy tissue is going to get hurt either way, but at least the latter options have a better chance at success. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is well meant, but it disenfranchises those good editors who have taken part in efforts to reverse some of the more extreme edits to be found in CC subject edit histories - and especially those who have access to excellent sources because of their standing within the field of science. [redacted for readibility - see edit history for the full post] The problem [R4R] is that the scientific consensus is only one viewpoint and the viewpoints of the denialist/skeptic [R4R] are many and varied[R4R]. Expertise is required to debunk poor(ly understood) science and hokum, and it is also needed to note where arguments are made in good faith upon sources that are not invalid. My appeals to understand the precepts of NPOV, as it applies to WP articles, made to those who preferred the application of SPOV or considered that the scientific consensus was the NPOV, was so that RS and commentary in regard to skeptic/denialist opinion could be better weighted and accommodated within the article space, so that the reader was provided with all notable aspects of the subject, rather than the dismissal of editors and content whose opinions differed. [R4R] I think that among the ranks of those who [R4R agree with] the scientific consensus regarding AGW are those who can work with those who, in good faith, contest the sources and content currently within CC article space. These are smart people, as are many who edit to the contrarian viewpoint(s), and should be able to adapt to a regime that more closely examples the preferred Wikipedia editing model. Get rid of the bad influences, and give them that chance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Certain passages "Redacted for Readability", per request. If commenting, please read the entire post from the edit history - hopefully reviewers of the comments will do likewise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Sir Fozzie's statement. I believe his topic ban would include me also, because I was blocked once for edit-warring in this subject area. That's ok, I'm willing and able to be accountable for my actions. I believe the draconian measure he advocates would restore order to the AGW topic area, because editors who want to edit would be forced to be very careful not to violate WP's policies. I think the result would be a marked increase in efforts to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise among the involved editors, knowing that just one edit war or one personal attack could get them topic banned. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Sir Fozzie's statement. Lots of good editors with whom I agree and disagree have been in edit wars on the global warming topic area. There are many reasons for this: background knowledge, sources of information, and BLP concerns are all in there. There are several editors who do not do useful things, sometimes agressively so, and they should be banned. But I believe that SirFozzie misses the issues in this area, especially surrounding the wide variety of potential sources and large gray areas in opinion, and that his remedy would affect the long-term editors who have had the time to get into an argument or two. I also strongly support Count I: this is not a kindergarden, and I don't want to see the law laid down by someone like Sir F who (sorry - nothing personal) practically ignores article space. I think that added rules like this will also just make people try to game the system more. I am in strong agreement with LHVU on feeling "disenfranchised" if this passes. Awickert (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that Sir Fozzie's suggestion is too draconian and extreme.--MONGO 02:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we conduct an experiment to see if Sir Fozzie's proposal is really that extreme? Please read this article from The Guardian. The article goes into some detail on the Climategate emails in which Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones, among several others, discuss taking hostile action against two an academic journal which had published a paper which they did not approve of. Notice that the related article, the Soon and Baliunas controversy, does not currently contain any information on this aspect of the controversy. Now, over the next several days, unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to go and add a section on the email controversy to that article, of two or three paragraphs. I may use The Hockey Stick Illusion, which contains the texts of the emails in question, as a back up source. Hopefully, the regulars in this topic, even though at least one of them has a personal relationship with Mann and Jones, will help out with what I try to do. If they do, then perhaps there is hope that the editors in this topic are willing and able to change the way they approach editing in this topic area. Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I had to do four paragraphs to present the whole story, but I believe I represented it fairly and accurately. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is at least the second time you have edited a climate change article during the case and made some announcement on the case pages that you are conducting an "experiment". Please stop doing this. It is disruptive and it is a borderline breaching/baiting experiment. If you and others want to edit such articles during the case, fine, but don't comment here in parallel and turn it into some kind of performance art or demonstration for the benefit of arbitrators. It is not helpful. Point out examples of editing that have taken place during the case, and do any editing you think is needed, but point out any concerns after such editing has taken place. Don't pre-announce it as some sort of experiment and then use the results here to make your point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the first trial was so unexpectedly successful at showing what it is like to try to edit a CC article that I couldn't resist doing it again after seeing the opposition above and below to Sir Fozzie's and ATren's proposals. If there is no equivalent response to this experiment, then I think that in itself provides evidence for other conclusions to be drawn, besides the fact that you didn't think that either one was helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carcharoth: Were they good edits? Supported by sources? Did they improve the article? If so then Cla68 certainly was justified in making them, whatever his motivation. We don't care so much about motive as we do outcome. That it happens that these edits nicely illustrate the problem is something you should be thanking Cla for instead of berating him. What proposals have you put forth to address this issue? ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it time. I certainly won't disregard what happened there and earlier, but I want to stop this idea of carrying out "experiments" before it spreads. If everyone did this, there would be chaos. So please, no more experiments. Just normal editing and no editorialising here if you happen to be editing elsewhere. It is very disconcerting for editors not aware of the discussion here to find that someone has been engaging them in an experiment, and it arguably raises ethical concerns if people are deliberately using Wikipedia articles and editors to conduct experiments without the consent of those editors. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting experiment. At a first glance I noticed that Cla68 had added potentially damaging content of one of the most famous emails with some commentary, but without showing the response giving the views of the scientists concerned as reported in the source. Given the damaging BLP issue of this omission, I've added brief coverage of it.[220] I've not checked all of the section, and note that again Cla68 is pushing the use of the questionable The Hockey Stick Illusion but have done nothing about that for now. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is citing to a published book "pushing" anything, and how is it questionable? Minor4th 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Minor4th, WP:SOURCES requires more than that the book be published, and attempts by Cla and others to use this source for fact rather than the author's fringe opinion have been extensively discussed, as at WP:RSN where he did not get the support of uninvolved editors. The book itself includes blatant misinformation, for example Chapter 1 makes a great deal of the assertion that the IPCC First Assessment Report of 2001 showed a Medieval warm period warmer than today, and claims that scientists then conspired to pretend that it was only regional, but the report itself states that it may not have been global.p. 199. It's easy to be misled by the book, have you read it sceptically? . . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the book and don't know what it says. I just wondered what your reason for implying it was unreliable. Typically when book goes through the editorial and publishing process, there's a good deal of fact checking because publishing houses are particularly concerned with liability from defamation and so forth. Unless it's a vanity piece or self published, I think published books are generally considered reliable sources. It might be necessary to attribute content to the author, and definitely that is the case if it's an expression of an opinion. I'll look at your link to the RS noticeboard. Minor4th 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree withSirFozzie's proposal. I would equally support the "clean slate" proposal, so long as very strict enforcement follows the wiping of the slate. I think either of these solutions would work quite nicely, and I think it will take something that drastic to bring this topic area in line. Note that I support SF's proposal even though his topic ban would most likely include me. If that's what it takes to support Wikipedia and remedy this 5+ year problem, I'd accept being swept into the topic ban. Minor4th 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wipe the slate clean

Similar proposal copied here from elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy: "All editors and admins who have been involved in conflicts in this topic area over the last 2 years, whether on the talk pages of relevant articles or the enforcement board or in any user talk page discussion regarding this topic, broadly construed, is indefinitely banned from the topic area from this point forward. The list of editors shall be compiled based solely on an investigation of page histories, with no judgement as to the merit of their participation." ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based loosely on SirFozzie's statement. ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe ATren and SirFozzie don't realize the importance of having editors around who know what they are talking about because they don't really edit articles here, but having no one with a clue is a surefire way to disaster. We would be left with with no one who knows much of anything on how to make the topic area work, be factually accurate, and expand. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some knowledgeable CC topic regulars, such as Awickert above and Pete Tillman, for example, who as far as I know have behaved in a manner that is generally beyond reproach and could continue improving these articles. As for the rest, and that might include me, tell them to find another topic to edit and to try harder to cooperate, collaborate, compromise while doing so. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (This rationale might be read in conjunction with my one re SirFozzie, and both considered complementary in both cases) This proposal makes no difference between personalities and behaviours, and there is only a couple of instances were personality and behaviour are synonymous. Address the behaviours, robustly sanction inappropriate behaviour, ensure as far as possible that they cannot be repeated, and the majority of personalities will return to modelling appropriate Wikipedia editing behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Three points in response: (1) if you ban everyone, it's not a punitive measure for any individual, but simply an acknowledgement that this is simply too big for individual sanctions, (2) it's clear to me that individual sanctions (as currently proposed) don't go far enough in removing the problematic editors -- I can name 3 or 4 such editors off the top of my head who are not sanctioned at all in the current PD and will continue to disrupt (3) I believe that those who would be unfairly "punished" by this remedy wouldn't look at is as punishment at all -- I think they'd be content that the problematic editors have been removed and they'd have no problem being asked to leave with them, especially if the sanction is clearly worded as not punitive and not indicative of any wrongdoing. I personally would be relieved if I could leave this mess alone, secure in the knowledge that neutral, dispassionate editors can take over without fear of getting trampled on. ATren (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points in response: (1) I would not be satisfied being asked to not edit a topic area that I have been involved in because some other people have questionable behavior. I would be indignant, and actually, pissed enough to make a huge stink over it. It is like when the whole class doesn't get to go out for recess because of the one student who put the whoopee cushion on the teacher's chair. I want to be able to edit climate change and friends, and I am not giving that up. (2) Sadly, "neutral, dispassionate editors" don't come out of nowhere. Even if we leave behind the current bitterness, I don't see how such a topic of controversy and angst is going to collect nothing but saints. Awickert (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) There are plenty of topics to edit. Being asked to stay away from one topic for the good of the project is something we all should be willing to do. (2) I estimate that I've seen comments by at least a dozen good editors to the effect of "Oh, climate change? There's no way I'm wading into that mess". The fact is that the current group of editors (all sides) has created a toxic environment that has driven good editors away, and I believe removal of the whole lot will draw those good editors back. ATren (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I disagree. I will edit anything I choose, thank you very much. Staying away from one topic "for the good of the project" may be easy for you, but that's because you by default don't much edit articles in any topic. And I don't think that removing everyone in a single topic area is good for the project, because of the loss of the knowledge base, so in my mind it is not me being selfish (because I disagree with the premise). I will not, under any circumstances, accept this as a viable solution. I, and many others, have edited climate change articles by adding information, fighting vandalism, and trying to make them better and more comprehensive. Furthermore, parts of my profession are related to climate. I will not edit in an environment where I can't write about climate when I come across it in the course of improving articles. If this is implemented, I'm afraid that you and I will have to slug this out through any and every appeal process that WP has. Never have I seen anyone be topic-banned for doing nothing wrong. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to worry. Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is. The best thing you can do with "proposals" such as this is simply to ignore them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly sure that you are right and this will never pass. But I still worry that it will. Ah, well. At very least, I have made my line in the sand obvious. So I suppose that it is time to step back, since I don't think I will have anything new to say. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boris: "Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is." - what exactly is it that you think they will see? ATren (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean slate accompanied by very strict enforcement following wiping the slate. I would equally support SirFozzie's scorched earth proposal. I think either of these solutions would work well, and I think it will take something this drastic to bring this topic area in line Minor4th 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Same goes for you as for ATren. I won't accept a ruling that prevents me from making improvements to WP, and especially not from someone who spends very little time actually writing articles. You may be a very nice person (so nothing personal), but I'm sorry, I don't like to be told I can't do something that I feel that I have the privilege to do, and especially not if I feel that I have something good to offer. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Like Boris said, Arb is going to ignore this anyway. Minor4th 06:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm, mental health is a big check. But I will not be calm if ArbComm implements this, and I feel very strongly about this. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an awesome way to create massive disruption؟ Topic ban hundreds or thousands of editors and try to keep track of who can edit where, all the while arguing about which articles are included, and which aren't. You could reduce unemployment significantly by hiring enough clerks to keep track of this and provide evenhanded enforcement؟ Jehochman Talk 04:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, of course, rewards the socks (what do they lose? Another throwaway account) and removes everybody who has build valuable expertise in the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which socks? The real socks or the 20-40% of falsely accused socks? You know, the ones that ArbCom said were inappropriately blocked when they weren't socks, but the activist crowd cried "Scibaby" on their first edit? Or the activist socks that no one will check-user? GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is bigger than individuals. New blood may be exactly what is needed. It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out. The proposal accomplishes that and only deals with editors who have been involved in conflicts, so it is a rational approach to fix the problem in this area. (per clerk comment, who advised that this is not really an appropriate place to !vote, I have removed my !vote - I do like the idea for the reasons stated in my original comment and I do still support the proposal.) GregJackP Boomer! 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not supported by findings of fact. Asking folks to expand and extend their voluntary restrictions might help. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is supported by findings, such as the inappropriate accusations of socking, the bloc editing, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These incidents are specifically attributable to certain editors, which might warrant a case. Why should all be sanctioned now? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all are being sanctioned, just those that have been involved in conflicts. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then you have not read this section of the discussion. You reference the main one, which is why ZP5 and you have your wires crossed. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to GregJackP's original statement: you incorrect "It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out." I seem to be one of its strongest opponents, and have never been "in trouble" here. I don't think that I am alone. Please be careful with mass accusations. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of proposal might work for political subjects, but not for scientific issues such as this. It would irreparably harm the quality of these articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because "scientists" are exempt? If they want to be treated as experts, treated differently from any other editor, they need to go to Sanger's project or Britannica. "Scientists" shouldn't get a pass on COI, like WMC has on Climategate. He is directly involved, being mentioned in a number of the e-mails, being a former employee of the CRU, etc, but he is allowed to edit the article in complete violation of WP:COI. If they have been involved in a conflict, they shouldn't expect special treatment. GregJackP Boomer! 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because this proposal would remove the editors who have been most responsible for the CC articles being first-rate and scientifically valid. Those editors are not you and not me. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments on special test pages?

To be moved to "Miscellaneous discussion". Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but technically off-topic here. Further discussion, if any, should be elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman explains in his Statement that the fact that the PD doesn't address any of the content issues that fuel the dispute, is problematic. Somehow unreasonable edits have to be reverted, but William having done that with perhaps too much vigor against ZuluPapa5 is seen as ownersip on his part. No mention of the nature of the edits he was reverting is made in the PD.

Now, we can do more with the preseved editing history than just pointing fingers at who we think was wrong. We can e.g. take the Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change page and go back at the time when a problematic exchange between William and ZuluPapa5 started. Copy the content as it existed at that time to a test page. Invite William and ZuluPapa5 to reargue whatever they were arguing for at that time but now under new rules like e.g. William not being allowed to remove ZuluPapa5's comments, with all of us looking on. Then look at the results, if it's not satisfactory, go back again, tweak the rules, and see if we get a better outcome.

Such experiments can be performed on a larger scale. One can copy the state of many climate change articles including the General Sanctions pages as it existed on some previous date and replay the editing and the adminstrative actions under some new regime. I think that only such experiments can show if some set of proposed decisions is really effective. Count Iblis (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do love experiments. Personally though I'd rather write a "skeptics" version of the global warming article to demonstrate just how incredibly superior it would be in every manner (sourcing, NPOV, explanatory power, etc), but this is unlikely to happen. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO IT. in your userspace. call it something like TGL fantasy vacation or something so others don't bother it until you get to a point that you want others to look at it. I'm sure some time spent out of the contentiousness of article space will develop some information/text that would be good in the article. Don't be to surprized, however, when what you do ends up with a lot of the same sources that are in there now and just written differently. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be against my "non-punitive" topic ban which prevents me from even discussing the topic outside of ArbCom. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So use a text editor and create it locally, on your computer. If Arbcom releases you of your burden you will then be in a position to show it to others. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do it on your home machine then. when it's ready for others to see, we'll find a way to share it that won't get anyone 'in trouble' with a topic ban. I'm actually very curious to see what would be in the 'skeptics' version. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a massive undertaking. It would be nice to have some help (which is what the wiki platform allows). Also, if it was accepted then it would be subject to revisionist history like KDP was doing above when he said the "glacier information was immediately accepted" which was clearly an incorrect statement considering how many times they all reverted it out (KDP included). The most likely outcome is that some of the changes would be incorporated to make the articles slightly less ridiculous than they currently are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if you either didn't read what i wrote, failed to understand it, or deliberately ignoring it... Either way, may i point out that there is a not very subtle difference between "immediately accepted" and "immediately accepted as a particular edit on a particular article". The first is what i say, and the second is your "interpretation" of what i said. Good luck with your version of the GW article, it will be interesting to see. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how you keep on repeating things I corrected w/ diffs as proof....oh well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how you keep on repeating the word "odd" as if it somehow makes your bad faith assumptions look less conspicuous....oh well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quit baiting (odd how often I have to say this). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you've been trying to equate this edit (not by any of you) with this edit (by WMC and the rest of you) to say it was "included" before I posted it (obviously wrong) and then over a week after my edit to the IPCC WMC added the info to an extremely low traffic article as an excuse to excise it not only from the IPCC article but from the IPCC AR4 article. The only thing "immediate" has been your mischaracterization of the entire mess. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a final remark, since i think this has transgressed beyond any useful purpose, i care very little about exposure, and very much about presenting things structurally correct. There are lots of things in the sub-articles that could do with more exposure, but which is simply too detailed to be in the higher summary articles. That is what due weight is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nice sounding generality, but contrary to the history of what happened and the diffs I presented in the other section. As I said earlier, walk the diffs and notice the changing excuses for exclusion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While ArbCom doesn't rule on content disputes, they can look at content editing and say whether it complies with core policies, or not. I believe they ought to be doing more of that, and less counting of reverts and edit wars. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think experiments should be allowed in a separate subpage, or at least a discussion. Brainstorming and experimenting is a great way to find solutions to intractable problems, and we should be able to test them out. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fit into wp:dr? Interesting proposal, Count Iblis. Particularly about WMC quickly reverting reasonable edits in bad faith. Really, I am not interested in reliving the drama in a "low cost" and uncontrolled experimental environment. I believe when folks have less to lose in such simulations, the may behave worst. (For example, I've seen too many flight simulator wrecks, where pilots can pick up bad habits. The simulation process really requires trusted feedback from qualified mentors with disciplined lessons.) Anyway, WMC's disputes have escalated to ArbCom by his own doing. I may have been one, and one of the few to still be here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zulu Papa 5 is strangely quoting directly from an article that was published in USA Today earlier this morning: "Simulator training flaws tied to airline crashes". I'm not exactly sure why he has quoted from the article to make it sound like his own personal experience. I don't want to derail from this arbcom case, but this isn't the first time that Zulu Papa 5 has said extremely bizarre things, giving me the impression that this is a role playing game for him. I could be entirely wrong, but that's the vibe I've been getting from Zulu for some time now. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written very little here indeed, as my interest is in preserving proper policy and process, but I daresay making personal comments is not a great use of this page when arbs are trying to figure things out :( . Collect (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals

Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.[reply]

Climate science and culture wars

In the 1970s, climate scientists informed public policy, working closely with politicians from both sides of the aisle. However, beginning in the 1980s, climate science and its scientists became targets of persistent and repeated attacks from the political right, involving organizations and individuals operating outside the relevant sphere of science. This campaign has been described as one component of a larger American culture war surrounding the politicization of science, public policy influence, and climate change mitigation. Proponents of this culture war often promote climate change denial, a minority POV in stark opposition to the accepted, scientific consensus on climate change and the data that informs its discourse. Wikipedia does not take sides in such disputes, but seeks to best represent the scientific opinion on climate change and any significant, corresponding minority views, scientific or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talkcontribs) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

And, ah, skeptics have been targets, too. Right? (See evidence page for copious details.) And some of these campaigns have come from the pro-AGW side as well, haven't they? If the proposing editor can't acknowledge that, then the proposing editor is part of the culture war that the proposed language is denouncing. Why is it so difficult for people denouncing partisanship to avoid partisanship even while they're denouncing it? And why aren't these proposals signed by editors who make them? Please put your signature to your proposals, OK? I'm not wild about the specific language above, but I support the intent, so long as the intent covers all sides. The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All climate scientists are skeptics by definition, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that deniers have been attacked? Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the things you could have focused on in my comment, that is what you focus on? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be outside the remit of ArbCom - as it asked not only to abrogate NPOV in favor of SPOV, but to make a specific content ruling. Collect (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It seeks recognition of the fact that behaviorial problems on this topic are due to partisan editors bringing a real world conflict spanning three decades to this website and turning Wikipedia into a battleground as a result. Nothing about content at all, but a direct acknowledgment of the agenda driven, POV pushing behavior and its cause. Denial of climate change, attacks on climate science and scientists, and the resulting POV pushing on this topic are all intimately related and connected. There's no need to dance around the causes and conditions, the historical record is clear and without dispute. There is a political war being fought against science and its proponents, and this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. It is its very core. Failure to recognize this is ignorance of the worst kind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. What a perfect distillation of the AGW faction's defense in this ArbCom case: Since We Defend the Truth, Our Battling Is Justified. How many essays have been written based on clear policy that refute this position? We could start with WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:TRUTH. I suspect that even if this argument convinces some arbitrators, they're going to be embarassed to be openly agreeing with it or even admitting to themselves that it carries weight with them. You might want to think about ways of disguising it to make it palatable to them. It seems nobody has been able to do that so far. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Viriditas' analysis here, and do not think the (official) PD addresses this issue directly enough. Some details and refs have been mentioned above, but I'll repeat some of them here for conveneience, due to archiving, hatting and rearranging:
--Nigelj (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is where skeptics are supposed to insert their list of links to WP articles and Web pages and whatnot accusing the other side of doing the exact same thing. As I said before, The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. Thank you for illustrating my point. Why you and Viriditas would try to hijack an ArbCom case about behavior in order to make a content point to push your faction's political views and think it would help your case is beyond me, but thank you for showing your colors. I guess the idea that it's justified to violate behavioral policies to further a POV most of us agree with is a sort of desperate defense that will probably convince a few arbitrators. Will derailing discussions about behavior in order to discuss content result in distracting some arbitrators? Hard to say when arbitrators don't say much. Kinda sad. Principles aren't supposed to work that way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The results of painstaking work over several decades by thousands of scientists worldwide, accepted as real and significant by all the world's national and international scientific bodies, and most of its governments, are not one 'faction's political views' that can just be shouted down by any political group that doesn't like them. This case is not just about behaviour, but also about NPOV, sourcing, due weight, fringe, and all the other fundamentals of Wikipedia's work. No one is saying that anti-science political views should not be well covered in the CC articles, but they should be covered as what they are, not as some equal-and-opposite alternate reality. --Nigelj (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For an even earlier history of the present denial movement, specifically from the 1980s through the 1990s, see Chapter 8: Denial and Environmental Destruction, a psychological and historical analysis by Michael A. Milburn and Sheree D. Conrad in The Politics of Denial (1998; MIT Press). The authors note as early as the late 1990s that "environmental issues have become a major focus of conservative denial...What is fascinating and disturbing...is how conservative ideologues start with a particular viewpoint and then ignore the evidence, and the vast consensus of scientists, that contradict it." Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note here on background findings. As can be seen by the extensive changes, extensions and copyediting done by Viriditas on this and other proposed findings, if background findings try to go into too much detail, they end up reading like introductions to Wikipedia articles on the subject (and should arguably require rigorous sourcing for what is said in them). The Arbitration Committee should not be in the business of writing article-like content for its background findings, and should only paint with the lightest and broadest of brushes to define the scope and locus of the problems here. Background findings should only be a preamble to focusing on on-wiki conduct. Real-world background should never be used to justify poor conduct as an editor, as Viriditas seems to be attempting to do below with the two proposed Harassment and Baiting findings. Such findings can be used to justify sanctions on Wikipedia editors engaging in such baiting and harassment, but if Wikipedia editors are deciding to descend to the same level and 'fight back', they will also be sanctioned. If an off-wiki conflict is brought onto Wikipedia, the answer is not to continue and escalate the conflict here. This is covered already in the existing proposed principles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarifly what the current proposed decision says about the background of this case? I don't see anything. I also fail to see anything substantive as to the locus of the dispute. It's one thing to describe the general problem, but it's quite another to ignore it. As for your interpretation that I am justifying poor conduct, that is something that never actually occurred to me, so I will defer to your judgment. From where I stand, the background I describe only illustrates the problem, it does not justify the actions of any individual or group. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I think should be noted about this discussion is how the terms faction and deniers and so on stand out to poke and continue the battles. There has to be a way to stop the 'titling' of editors like this, esp. in an arbitration case but also everywhere else. There are scientific editors, there are those who question the science and then there are the socks and spas. The case has three different groupings though so please lets keep this in mind. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of climate scientists is well documented

There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would suggest that making comparisons with the harassment of abortion providers may cause offence to some. Best to stick to just the topic under discussion, even if this comparison has been made by others it is not necessary to go into this level of detail for an arbitration case. Could people also please sign these proposals that are being added here. I think Viriditas added the above, but people shouldn't have to dig through the page history to work this out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about abortion and added my sig. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant. What does the alleged harassment of these others have to do with this case? Are any of those you named Wikipedia editors? And what do parties like me, AQFK, SlimVirgin, Cla68, Lar, etc, have to do with that harassment? ATren (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I'm in the process of answering that question with another followup proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Should have it posted in the next 2-3 hours if I get the chance. In this new proposal, I will show, with good evidence, that the documented pattern of harassment of climate scientists off-wiki is directly connected to the harassment of climate scientists on-wiki, as well as the promotion of climate change denial over and above the scientific consensus. Contrary to your claim of irrelevancy, this is completely relevant and topical. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First update complete. See below: "Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki". There's a lot more where that came from. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy discussion collapsed. Mostly a back-and-forth between two editors who should summarise their positions on this, rather than continuing an ever-lengthening discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever asked WMC if he is a scientist? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the discussion and stop trying to distract away from it. Mathematics is the foundation of science, and science projects in the public and private sector are composed of teams of members in interdisciplinary roles, such as mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, etc. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connolley was a computer programmer whose role was simply to write code in support of the climate research being conducted by others at BAS. He does not claim to be a scientist himself. His background is in Numerical Analysis which is a theoretical domain within mathematics with no direct relationship to climate science at all. --209.204.76.33 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how his article puts him in the category of "Climatologists," (source?) but really not that odd considering the group that has been writing his article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no." And no, despite the protests, it is relevant if you are going to keep on bringing this sort of thing up in order to excuse poor behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't get it the first time. If you have nothing to say about this topic, please refrain from responding with distractions and red herrings. There is no excuse for poor behavior. That there is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists is not in dispute. That these climate scientists also work on teams composed of mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, and other contributors, is also not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that something is a red herring does not make it a red herring. The best argument to make that it is a red herring is that the entire topic is a red herring - despite your continued assertions of facts clearly not in evidence. Why didn't you just answer the question? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia via leaders in the climate change denial movement, such as Solomon and many others. The facts are clearly in evidence and not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a documented history of (i.e. Climategate) of some scientists trying to marginalize journals or scientists that dare to publish papers that cast doubt on AGW. I could put forth all sorts of proposals like that if I like (and actually provide real evidence), but it should be irrelevant to the task at hand. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to disrupt, distract, and change the subject of this discussion. Please confine your comments to only the topic of the documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia. If you can't comment on that topic, simply remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way, but I think these proposals of yours are marginal on the best of days. As I said, I or any number of editors could be adding proposals that are irrelevant in any meaningful sense. I think you are wasting a bunch of time on these things (and not just yours). Even if I went through and posted the diffs of the people who have shown up over the course of the last decade to defend this group of people, showing a clear pattern of the defense tactics, it would basically be irrelevant to the situation at hand. What matters is the behavior of the parties involved - not the same Chewbacca defenses thrown out by the same defensive line year after year.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the usage of the "Chewbacca defence" here interesting, since during GS/CC/RE the name of the defence has been the "WMC defence" ("never mind what i did .... over there in the corner is WMC!") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really the road you want to go down KDP? Viriditas has been trying to construct some vast internet/rightwing conspiracy to excuse WMC's actions. Pointing out the huge disparity between actions and sanctions between the two sides is needed context and in my mind a core problem that needs addressing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you do not like the comment. I believe it to be a true and verifiable statement, and to be more specific, that it is true and verifiable regardless of whether or not WMC is the devil portrait by that type of defence. All one has to do to see this, is go to the enforcement board and pick a number of random samples of enforcement requests, and read the discussions, they will almost invariably contain the "WMC defence" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I neither like nor dislike it. I simply found it to be a non sequitur and also rather amusing that you think people are pointing to WMC to excuse their own actions when Viriditas is literally creating an entire mythos to defend WMC. Anyway to your point, I don't think there are too many people running a "WMC defense" so much as people are pointing out how the rules that apply to some don't apply to others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather illustrating. It shows that WMC has been demonized on-wiki to a rather extreme extent, certainly beyond anything that i have ever seen before, and again that holds regardless of whether one thinks that WMC is a demon/devil or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I find illustrating is that with the plethora of contentious topics on wikipedia no other editor has been singled out by the media or blogs to such a degree (sans yourself of course KDP) as an example of what happens when activists find the perfect medium for their cause - and yet despite this unique position, the fault doesn't lie in WMC or those who emulate and enable his behavior, but in some implied conspiracy secretly orchestrated by fossil fuel companies. It certainly is odd that such "demonization" doesn't happen to this degree with editors in other topics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To break this off, and start another line, since i believe this has left the productive aspects, and entered the speculative region (though i will state for the record, that i do not think that WMC is a devil, but also that he has faults, though not to the extent of the picture being painted of him)
I'm curious as to what you define as "activist"? Do you consider me an activist? And if so, what exactly makes you think this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What activists, Thegoodlocust? Do you even know what the word means? Point to a single activist "pushing" a POV regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. You can't, because there aren't any. On the other hand, how many editors, how many accounts on Wikipedia, are pushing a minority, fringe POV denying climate change, a POV that has been pushed by politically conservative, right wing special interest groups for thirty years? Also, please note the timing of Solomon's columns in 2006 and the arrival of Scibaby on Wikipedia. Pure coincidence, of course, right? After the Kyoto Protocol went into action on February 16, 2005, climate change denial went into overdrive. You can actually go to the Google News archive and look at the timeline in detail. The uptick in denial after Kyoto is measurable, and Solomon and Scibaby rolled out the red carpet. That the climate change deniers have received money from the fossil fuel industry has not been seriously disputed by anyone since the early 1990s when it was first revealed in the major media. Time to update your paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"What activists ... You can't, because there aren't any." This is a false premise. The activists in this case are the ones coming here to (a) present their specific POV and (b) minimize and if possible eliminate all other points of view which do not agree with theirs. The faction calling themselves the "science faction" distinctly fits this description whereas the faction referred to as the "skeptics faction" do not. The former tries to limit information to that with which they agree, whereas the latter tries to broaden the perspective to include skeptical points of view (while maintaining the dominant consensus view as well).

The term "science faction" is actually a deliberate misnomer to try and occupy some high moral ground, but the tactics being employed are explicitly counter to a scientific approach which encourages skepticism as a means of identifying scientific truth. In this sense they are more appropriately referred to as the "anti-science faction" and it is actually the skeptics who are more properly termed the "science faction" because their tactics are in line with scientific inquiry.

As far as I can tell your admonition of Solomon as a leading denier is misplaced. He himself has not advocated for any particular position. He has instead done what any good journalist would do and that is report what others more qualified than himself are actually saying. That he focuses on giving a voice to the skeptics out there does not prima facie make him a skeptic, nor is there a need for him to try an provide any balance in his chosen niche in the debate since the other side is already receiving adequate media representation. Solomon's work serves as part of the media balance in this respect.

Your implication that Solomon is actually Scibaby is amusing and paranoid.

The bottom-line is that your proposal above leaves me with a rather "duh" and "so what" sort of reaction. The point is obvious and therefore dull and wholly irrelevant as a justification for Connolley's behavior. The civility policy does not contain a free pass clause just because other stuff exists outside of Wikipedia. --209.204.73.229 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "activists" pushing the scientific consensus, they are simply good editors. This is a form of misdirection used by those pushing the minority and fringe climate change denial POV. And, there is no "implication that Solomon is actually Scibaby". The implication is that the publication of Solomon's columns and the appearance of Scibaby on Wikipeida fall into a post-Kyoto timeline, when denialism increased across the board to unprecedented levels. The idea that "Solomon's work serves as part of the media balance" has been shown to be one of the primary problems in the coverage of climate change science by journalists. While studying the UK tabloid press, Boykoff and Mansfield (2008) found that people in the media faced political and economic "constraints", where the "combined influences of contrarianism and the utilization of the journalistic norm of balance jointly contribute to informationally biased coverage of anthropogenic climate change...the journalistic norm of balanced reporting has contributed to a skewed public understanding of human contributions to climate change...it may continue to significantly contribute...to eventual public resistance to climate mitigation and adaptation plans..." Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that what I've written must be very important, after all, look at how many off-topic replies you've made attempting to distract away from it. To remind you once again, the topic at hand concerns the history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this campaign has spread to Wikipedia. Please directly address it. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm trying to distract from it? Oh on the contrary, I think it should be considered very carefully for what it really is - and once again I keep on thinking back to the projection article. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are trying to distract, that's basically all you do on Wikipedia, after all you don't write articles, remember? Since you might have missed it the first time, I'll copy the words you can't address:

There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Completely relevant to this case as I show below, as the same people and groups making these attacks on climate scientists, are also making them against Wikipedia and editors who edit climate science articles, and this is part of a larger campaign of POV pushing involving a minority, and some would rightly say "fringe" POV. Furthermore, the tactics being used on Wikipedia are virtually identical to the tactics being used off-wiki, namely, the filing of frivolous reports in order to harass editors. The close similarity of off and on-wiki attack strategies is an amazing coincidence, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with external activist groups

It is apparent that some Wikipedia editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external activist groups in order to further the so-called "culture war", rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project. Editors are expected to respond to this in a professional manner. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • This topic has received no discussion so far; I suggest the topic heading be broadened to something like Dealing with activists or Dealing with ill-informed activists to attract more input, but it is not my heading to change. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to ask in all seriousness, what is the Wikipedia 'professional manner' of dealing with the persistent addition of fringe, badly-sourced, out-of-date, and undue-weight material, and POV tags? It seems that WP's policies are quite heavily biased in favour of the activist commentator in article space: Anyone is encouraged to make a contribution, but reverts and removals of dodgy factoids is strictly controlled by #RR and other rules. If a large number of well-informed, long-term contributors make a sustained effort to 'share the load' of removing the cruft and activist rubbish, they are open to be accused of acting as a tag-team or a faction. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, am I the only one to have noticed that some editors seem to have have learnt to copy reasonable arguments used against their disruption and use them exactly as written, back against their accusers, even when they clearly do not apply when so reversed? Examples include "I'm not an activist, you are", "I'm not advancing a political view/blog-sourced POVs/fringe theory, you are", and one from this very page, here. Although I cannot comment on the details of that particular argument without a trawl through all the diffs and sources, the tactic employed was clear, and has been quite commonly used, sometimes with more subtlety, over recent months. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki

Connolley was the subject of several personal attacks in the media stemming from his contributions to Wikipedia. Global warming "skeptic" Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers (2008) and writer for the Canadian conservative newspaper The National Post has written columns promoting climate change denial[221] and is known for criticizing Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. For several years, Solomon has specifically targeted William M. Connolley in his column.[222][223][224] Solomon has also actively edited Wikipedia. Journalist James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, whom The Guardian refers to as a "climate change denier",[225], referenced Solomon's work when he himself personally attacked Connolley and Wikipedia during the "Climategate" controversy.[226] A month after the media began reporting on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, a heated edit war broke out on that page on December 22. Simultaneously, an attack site, "Connolley Watch: Documenting the every move of William M. Connolley", appeared on Blogger.[227] The very next day, Solomon published a column about Connelley and the "Climategate at Wikipedia" edit war on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, with the first response appearing on The National Post at 3:32 PM, and the last revision to the article by Solomon at 7:47 PM.[228] A link to Solomon's article appeared on the "Connolley Watch" attack site at 4:13 PM, December 23, 2009.[229] Solomon later describes the previous 24 hours on Wikipedia as a battleground: "Battles like this occurred on numerous fronts, until just after midnight on Dec 22."[230] On the same day, at 7:54 PM, ten minutes after Solomon's last revision to his NP article, someone adds a new entry to "Connolley Watch", adding a link to an older attack article about Connolley on "Conservative Blog Watch"[231]. The article is attributed to writer Matthew Sheffield of NewsBusters,[232] a blog run by the conservative Media Research Center, founded by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Sheffiled's blog post consists mostly of quotes from Lawrence Solomon, and is dated December 19, 2009, 15:34 ET, just days before the edit war on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If you are going to bring Solomon's off-wiki postings and writings into this, then Connolley's off-wiki postings will also have to be considered. Also, any edits Connolley has done to the Solomon article need to be considered in light of this off-wiki dispute between the two of them. This is the whole point of the principle Wikipedia is not a battleground. Just as an example, someone who either is or is claiming to be KimDabelsteinPetersen, posted at the comments page to one of the links you provided. Wikipedia editors who let themselves get dragged out into the arguments out there, or bring them back here, are doing Wikipedia a dis-service. Editors need to be able to leave their off-wiki conflicts at the door when they edit here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators have determined that "this dispute revolves around Wikipedia's coverage of climate change", not Connolley. In that light, Solomon's writings about Wikipedia and contributions to this site are germane to this case. It is also evident from his writing and those of his critics (for example, Hoggan & Littlemore 2009), that Solomon's "battle" against global warming (as a proponent for climate change denial) exists independently of any interpersonal conflict he may have with Connolley. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not someone who pretended to be me, that commented on the Solomon articles - it was most definitively me. I have commented on two of Solomons articles [233] [234] (these links are presented on my User page btw). My comments had only one purpose, and that was to describe to the journalist what happened, and how Wikipedia works, I do not consider myself involved in a conflict with Mr. Solomon. (although he seems to have a different opinion :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has WMC criticized any Wikipedia editors in his blog, or only other climate change scientists and journalists he doesn't agree with, like Solomon? I don't read his blog except when it becomes a part of Wikipedia, like here. ChrisO has declined to say what exactly he was expecting WMC to use his blog for here and why ChrisO felt that WMC might be willing or able to do whatever he was asking. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment and baiting of William M. Connolley on-wiki

William M. Connolley is the former climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey. On Wikipedia, Connolley is the primary editor responsible for the featured article on global warming, with 1080 edits as of 2010.[235] Connolley has been the target of a persistent baiting campaign by editors who promote the minority view of climate change denial. Such editors often game Wikipedia policies and guidelines to harass and bait Connolley when he responds to their edits. Many of these accounts focus solely on adding contentious climate change denial POV, and show bad faith that thwarts the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think this grossly distorts reality -- or at least ignores a good deal of reality. Connolley may have contributed to a feature article but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why would you throw that in with discussions about behavior? I would say that it is Connolley who is the baiter and antagonizer, as opposed to those who "promote the minority view". If you are going to make this claim, actual diffs of this behavior would be helpful. You reference "many of these accounts" and mention several really bad behaviors but not a single diff. On the other hand, multiple diffs of Connolley's baiting and tendentious editing and article ownership and revert warring have been provided. Are you suggesting that he was baited into those policy violations? Note that I did not mention his incivility. Minor4th 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to ask you to share your experience as an example? When did you first encounter Connolley, and how? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you asking, and I also don't mind answering, but I'm not sure that is an appropriate discussion as part of this case. My first encounter was a rather oblique encounter on wiki and unrelated to climate change -- quite by accident, and I had never heard of him before, either as a Wikipedia editor or climate personality. Please provide the diffs for your statement above about harassment of Connolley and all the "minority view" accounts harassing and baiting Connolley. Minor4th 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence section is below, in the frivolous probation request section, not here. This is an overview which connects his on-wiki harassment with the off-wiki in the prior proposal. I will continue to improve it with more evidence. I am curious how you encountered WMC in an unrelated topic. Could you briefly clarify? Since you are a new editor (first started editing 16 April 2010) with a somewhat fresh perspective, how do you see Connolley's role in climate change related articles? To answer your earlier questions, Connolley's contribution to the global warming article and bringing it to featured status have made him a target of climate change deniers. He's had to do a lot of work to keep it free of fringe POV. I do not see this as "completely irrelevant to this discussion", but rather, the basis for him becoming a target of harassment in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at every one of your diffs below, and I would have to say that those diffs actually cut against the case you are trying to make. Not a single one was frivolous, unless you are saying that difficulty enforcing against WMC makes a RfE frivolous -- I would say it might be pointless, but the complaints were legitimate complaints where William had violated wiki policy and behavior guidelines, in some cases worse than others. If mark nutley had engaged in the same behaviors, he would have been blocked in some of those "no action" cases brought against William. I also don't see how those diffs show baiting or harassing of William -- in fact, there is some evidence there of William taunting and baiting others. I will answer your question about my first encounter with William after dinner. Thank you for clarifying the purpose of mentioning the feature article -- that was not clear initially. Minor4th 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can find this info very easily at the article about WMC called William Connolley. I think this article shows taunting and baiting that WMC didn't rise up to. I have this article on my watchlist for those who are curious. Check out the history of this article. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous probation requests intended to harass William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley is the primary target for editors promoting a minority, climate change denial POV. According to the climate change probation archives, a total of 23 probation requests were filed against Connolley from January to August. For the month of January 2010 alone, Connolley was the subject of six separate requests for enforcement.[236][237][238][239][240][241] In February, five more probation requests were made.[242][243][244][245][246] In March, one.[247] In April, one.[248] In May, four additional probation requests were filed. [249][250][251][252] In June, one.[253] In July, three.[254][255][256] In August, two.[257][258] Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note, the 3rd diff was not closed no-action; WMC got a civility warning and a sanction from editing others' comments. And the 4th diff was closed no-action, but with a note that some of the issues were handled in the other request (the civility parole). ATren (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. I've removed "all were closed as no action" for the moment. I intend to update it in an hour or so. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th diff is the request (only one?) that I filed against WMC. I believe it was the first one filed completely up to format and with extensive and described evidence. 2over0 closed it unilaterally and refused to reopen it despite being asked by other admins and editors. In fact, that set of diffs is a fine example of how 2over0 has played defense for WMC and prevented sanctions that might've corrected his behavior. It also shows how devoted Bozmo has been to defending WMC. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Vriditas, now list all the probation requests that were initiated by WMC and also were closed without sanction against anyone, and then list all the requests against WMC that resulted in sanction. WMC has chosen his own path and all you are doing is empowering his bad habits. These endless cries of they started it first are rather boring - if none of you can reasonably claim to be taking the higher ground then you are all in the gutter. Weakopedia (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for demonstrating how to assume bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, speaking of assuming bad faith, why is it that you ask us to believe that the large number of requests is, in and of itself, evidence of all those other editors "harassing" WMC; as opposed to the other interpretation, which is that WMC is the most reported because he is the most frequent offender? The latter assumes bad faith of one editor, but your judgement assumes bad faith of everyone single editor who reported him -- IIRC, it was at least 8 different editors, and several of those reports did result in sanction.
So it's OK to assume bad faith of all of those other editors, but not OK to assume bad faith of the one who was being reported? ATren (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you out again: I was responding to Weakopedia's poor commentary and even worse edit summary which read: "misrepresenting statistics is useless when we are all aware of it".[259] That was an entirely bad faith assumption on the part of Weakopedia, whose choice of account name and user page speaks volumes. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your belligerent presentation style in this section has in general been unhelpful. I was also left wondering if we should read more into names than we do? What of "Wikidemon" for example? Or even your name? I actually don't think that's a good path to go down. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerent, as in "thanks for catching that" and "we both agree"? I hang my head in shame. The content over at User:Weakopedia says more than enough. As for my name, you are welcome to visit Viriditas, or its related synonyms such as chai, prana and élan vital. "Life" is a threatening concept, for some, I suppose. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "belligerent" as in abrasive, argumentative and strident, and thus unhelpful. My point merely is that focusing on usernames is not particularly useful. You are perhaps too quick to criticize others. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I will make an effort to criticize no one but myself. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, quoting absolute numbers of RFE requests as absolute proof of "harassment" is not a misuse of statistics? Interesting. Let's expand on your thesis: by your logic, which presumes reporting an editor is equivalent to harassment, the single most harassed editor in the history of Wikipedia is... (wait for it)... Scibaby! :-) Seriously, do you not see how flawed your purely numerical analysis is? ATren (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that I've already "proved" something; We both agree that I have not. This is one small piece of a larger puzzle, and there are only so many hours in a day. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC's behavior earned these requests. These were serious issues. Simply characterizing them as frivolous is irresponsible, and calls into to question the intention of this characterization. Viriditas, did you abuse the term "frivolous" when you enforced against GoRight?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in my mind that the RfE process was being used abusively by several activist editors. I think it is clear from the many closed-without-action RfEs that a good number of these requests were frivolous (including at least two of the three filed against me). I am not sure I agree with the "harassment" characterization though. I think it's more sinister than that. It seems to me that the process was being abused in order to get opponents sanctioned (and, therefore, off the playing field), and the large number of requests filed against WMC suggests as much about his success as an expert-in-the-field editor than it does about his editing behavior. Quite a few requests filed against WMC were valid, but far more of them were frivolous. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that evaluation of matters. Perhaps it's more that it is extraordinarily difficult to get effective sanctions against WMC in the environment than that they are frivolous. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is clear from an examination of the requests filed that a great many of them were made by editors seeking to have WMC removed from the arena. This is to be expected when agenda-driven activists without a sure-footed grounding in the science are faced with what they perceive is an "opponent" who is an expert in the field, with a superior command of the facts. There is no doubt that WMC does not handle criticism well, and many complaints against him were based on legitimate concerns about his behavior; however, it is clear that the RfE process was abused to exploit these difficulties in an effort to "gain the upper hand". The evidence is quite clear in the RfE archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how those people with a "superior command of the facts" got the facts so very wrong in their opposition to criticism of the IPCC. Of course, most of their obstructionism has very little to do with facts at all, but with extreme and varying interpretations of various policies and invented policies (e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:TRUTH). It seems pretty obvious that if one side is so arrogant that they think they are 100% correct all the time that this would indeed be a source of conflict since they've be shown not to be correct so many times - the facts of these failures has never provided cause for introspection for some reason though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are talking about there, or why. I'm sure you think it was constructive though. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were people wrong about the IPCC criticisms? I doubt it. The Himalaya issue was accepted immediately (it was an obvious error), "Amazongate" has been retracted by the newspaper that broke it, Pauchari's alleged "money on the side" thing has been retracted as well. The errors were mainly in the WGII, and had very little influence on the conclusions etc. etc. All reports that have been checking the IPCC have come back with the conclusion, that the "errors" were over-inflated by media. Of course it does have a good side, the IAC review will make the IPCC processes even more transparent. All in all, this story tells us that we (as an encyclopedia) should never "jump" on a media-blaze (as WP:NOTNEWS tells us). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are full of it. This revisionism crap needs to stop. As you can see here I'd been edit warring in the "glacier information that was immediately accepted" and was put on 1rr for it. I'd been in very few edit wars on the topic area (compared to the constant reverts your side does). Anyway, I was actually talking about their use of non-peer reviewed sources which we arguing about for PAGES, you people rejected every source imaginable from the New York Times to ABC until finally the IPCC posted a statement admitting its fault. You guys may be able to fool everyone who isn't paying attention by saying this is "about the science" but not those of us who've actually been editing in the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the best thing to do would be to walk the diffs just to see how many times the glacier info was reverted, who was reverting it, and to see that you yourself reverted it several times. This is again a perfect example of how you people keep on rewriting history. Unfortunately, ArbCom seems to be ignoring these facts and not sanctioning you guys which is why I'm staying away from this area - it is too hard to edit the articles because you ALL show up to revert stuff you don't like.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are presenting a rather one-sided view, aren't you? (revisionism yourself?) The objections in the IPCC article was that the minute nature of the glacier error (1 paragraph in a 900+ pages report (for just the 4th assessment) would be WP:UNDUE there - it of course got included rather fast in Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report[260], by...... WMC! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) And what you also forget to mention is that everyone accepted that it was an error - the conflict was over where and how to present it, not whether it was an error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: And of course the issue had already been noticed, discussed and corrected by WMC and User:Sphilbrick on Dec 1. on Effects of global warming where the information was used already.[261]. Kudo's to both btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol this is incredible. First of all it was SPhilbrick who pointed it out, but most importantly is that this was a discussion to remove that info from the effects of global warming article. That's right, the alarmist baloney that was shown to be completely wrong was in the "effects of global warming" article and yet you people were arguing that it was "UNDUE" to put it in the section criticizing the IPCC. To make this clear, there is a huge difference between having someone else (not WMC) correct a huge error and trying to make sure that error wasn't mentioned in an appropriate spot (i.e. not some esoteric satellite article). What the hell Kim? Were you expecting me not to go and look at your link and just accept what you said at face value? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, Nigelj didn't even think such a ridiculous statement on the IPCC's part was likely to even be an error because nobody had pointed it out yet. And amusingly enough, the source you all argued against (Cogley) was actually mentioned by WMC in that section - I guess he was a good enough source then eh? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? Could you try to moderate your language? The issue was not that there was an error, but where and how it should be described. In EoGW the "dodgy" information should of course be removed. And in hindsight it is very good to see that people in that discussion are transcending WP:V and acknowledging that we should not present an error despite the error being reliably sourced. Once more: Kudo's to them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol a one-sided view? As with most of these cases you guys kept coming up with new excuses - first the sources (and you guys claimed it was incorrect), then claims of synthesis, and when none of that would stick you claimed "UNDUE" (a perennial favorite) and tried to shuffle it off to a satellite article like you guys always do with criticism you can't excise. As I said, anyone can walk the diffs and see what happened - less are willing to look at the pages of conversation where you all tried to keep this stuff out. I'll file away this entire conversation in the same category as WMC denying he ever called people "septics" even when shown diffs of him doing it. Simply incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, TGL, we didn't dispute that it was correct. On Dec 23 where you attempted to edit-war it into the main IPCC article, it had already been noticed and accepted as a very real error in the very thoughtful and civil discussion on Effects of global warming (22 days earlier)[262]link corrected --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC). The dispute on IPCC was about whether the error was significant enough to mention in a top-level article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kim, check your dates, you little diff there is from JANUARY and as you just showed I put the criticism in the IPCC's article on december the 23rd - over a week before WMC put it in a satellite article (to keep it out of the main article). You other points I've already addressed above, but try to respond here so we can keep this streamlined - I want this to be as easy as possible for people to follow. Again, all anyone has to do is walk the diffs in the history article and read the edit summaries. Odd how all you experts with "thousands" of edits (reverts) had that info in the "effects on global warming" article and yet someone not aligned with your group was the one to point it out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link corrected (it was also to the wrong article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a large number of climate related articles - do you think that all of the information is error-free, or that even obvious errors can't sneak in? In that case, i'd say that you are being naïve. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah for well historical accuracy here is the original diff before your "correction." It clearly shows how after a week of edit warring that info out the strategy was shifted to put it in a satellite article. Again, there is a huge different between removing an obvious error from an article supposedly about science and preventing the criticism of that error from going into the article about the organization that propagated the myth. And as for the errors, no I know there are a huge amount of errors, but this one was highly publicized and even in our wikipedia articles (any idea of who first put it in the article?). The IPCC has made a huge number of these errors due to their use of grey literature, but the article tends to include "criticism" like about how it burdens the poor scientists who volunteered to work on it - that's like an interviewee saying their biggest problem is that they are a workaholic.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just so we can be really clear on this situation. Here is WMC removing that info from the article on the IPCC's 4th assessment report citing "undue" (a shocker!) in the same time frame as the edit war on the IPCC article. So not only is this error "undue" in the IPCC article, but also undue in the report where the error came from, oh no, the only place it isn't undue in the "criticism of the IPCC's 4th assessment report" an article which received 6% of the views that the article of the 4th assessment report received, or 2% of the views that the IPCC article received. Again, this is pretty typical - put the crap you don't want people to read in articles that nobody will read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lar is right, there would have been less WMC enforcement request, had WMC been held to the same standards as others. In place, there were many long discussed, appealed and very specifically designed enforcements for him. Had he been subjected to outright topic ban for disruption (like the others) then there would have been less requests. There is no doubt that WMC enforcements are highly controversial. Blaming the messengers, when they carry the community message, is hardly frivolous. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC was deliberately targeted because he was seen as the greatest "threat" to the "skeptics". This is clear from the off-wiki campaign against him, with "calls to arms" appearing in various blogs, etc. You're misrepresenting the facts here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming facts not in evidence. How many enforcement requests were successful out of the 23? How many were made by editors who were having trouble pushing their POV? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SCJ, Viriditas: do you claim that BozMo, Cla68, SlimVirgin, LHvU and Off2riorob are part of this so-called off-wiki skeptic horde attacking WMC? Those 5 editors alone account for SIX of the requests against WMC, which is more RFEs than any other editor except perhaps Marknutley. There were also other reports from AQFK, Heyitspeter, and ChildOfMidnight, all of whom have significant edit histories outside of this topic area and aren't SPAs by any stretch. So, if this is simply about some "skeptic" boogeyman campaign, why are so many of the reports from long term previously uninvolved editors? ATren (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's "horde," not "hoard." Unless the point is that SCJ and Viriditas are stashing these unfortunate editors away for later use. Mr. Language Person (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected ATren (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will only say that my perception is that many of the editors who filed enforcement requests against WMC appear to be doing so because of an ulterior motive. I'm not interested in being drawn into naming names by your baiting. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scjerssy, WMC has many RFE's because he is uncivilly abusive to many and his POV has offended NPOV. That's what the evidence has shown. The bit about "greatest threat to the skeptics" is unsupported hyperbole. The kind that contributes to battleground mentality. Viriditis, how many WMC RFE's would have been unnecessary, if the RFE community found what ArbCom is now proposing ... that is to give WMC a vacation? How many editors found WMC's POV, standing obsessively in the way of a NPOV? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. WMC is being targeted. His "transgressions" are always the subject of an RfE, whereas many of the transgressions of others are ignored or passed-off with a simple talk page request. Everything WMC does "wrong" is immediately jumped on. Surely you can see that WMC must be under considerable strain when faced with this level of scrutiny? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's clearly not true, I know I've informed WMC of when he has broken 3rr, know Mark and others have others have also told WMC when he has broken various rules/restrictions and he is given the chance to self-revert. Oddly enough, this courtesy has rarely been repaid and skeptics are often immediately blocked or reported for transgressions. But hey, you and Viriditas have been making a great case that the the behavior is poor because your very defense relies on there being some vast conspiracy of people, out to get WMC, who have given him the chance to numerous times - if this is a conspiracy then we really need to get our act together. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review ALL the RfE processes. The pattern I have identified is clear (note: example given by ScottyBerg below) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me get this straight: you are acknowledging that they are transgressions on his part, but you object to them being reported? In fact, you accuse these reporters en masse of being part of some vast blog conspiracy simply because they reported transgressions by this one user, even as you brush off the transgressions themselves as irrelevant. This is a perplexing stance. So let me ask you this: since you seem to believe that accusing WMC of anything is prima facie evidence that they are part of this nebulous, blog-driven anti-WMC conspiracy, does that mean that the drafting arbs are part of it too? ATren (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you stop putting words in my mouth and drawing ridiculous conclusions about what I'm saying, please? You and ZP5 keep mischaracterizing my words. Stop it. Let me be as plain as I can. It is my opinion, based on looking at the bulk of all CC-related RfEs, that given the same "transgression", a request is more likely to be filed against WMC than any other editor. Minor matters that are usually ignored or brushed off with other editors draw RfEs if they involve WMC. Filing editors are employing double standards, judging WMC more harshly and filing more requests against him than other editors. That's how I see it. I am entitled to comment on it without prejudice. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair comment. A good example, which I remember as I commented it, was the case filed against WMC by Cla68 in July.[263]. Note the comment by the closing administrator: "no case to answer." Unfortunately, no action was taken against the editor who brought this meritless case, which was the only action that was warranted under the circumstances. What worries me is that the arbitrators just see "a lot of cases," but you have to really get into the weeds to see just how absurd some of them were, with this one a good example. You have to read all the diffs in each case to understand them all. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjerssy, it seems your analysis is attempting to "target" a group of folks for "targeting" WMC. It all fair balance, WMC has offended the/a community and its operating principles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: I do somewhat agree that WMC has been more likely to have complaints filed against him, sometimes for trivial things, but this is due to the fact that he gets away with so many things that aren't trivial. You can call it the "Al Capone" effect if you like (jailed for tax evasion not his more serious crimes). TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources

Popular press articles have been misused in climate change articles to further the "culture war" and detract from the science, often emphasizing a minority or fringe POV. This results in an unencyclopedic approach, focused on recentism and popular opinion at odds with scientific consensus. News reports, editorials, and opinion pieces are often inappropriate for reporting scientific results or theories, but are useful when discussing the context of science topics, including the social, economic, and political context, and may provide an important source of criticism. News articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the certainty of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea.

ChrisO previous sanctions in 4 Arb cases for disruptive editing and BLP violations

  1. Kosovo: Edit warring [264], [265]
  2. Kosovo: POV pushing [266]
  3. Kosovo: Disruptive use of admin tools [[267]]
  4. Scientology: POV pushing, bad sourcing, BLP violations, protecting BLP violations [268]
  5. Scientology: BLP banned [269]
  6. Israeli Apartheid: Disruptive use of admin tools/disruptive editing [270]
  7. Macedonia2: Admonished for editing against protection and consensus [271]
  8. Macedonia2: desysopped for long term pattern of disruptive editing in several contentious topic areas [272]

ChrisO has been warned or restricted by this Committee in 4 prior cases. Within the CC topic he is now engaging in the very same behavior for which he has been repeatedly sanctioned. Throughout the evidence and workshop and on this page there are multiple editors bringing forth multiple diffs of Chris' BLP violations, extreme POV pushing, edit warring, revert warring and generally being unable to tolerate the collaborative process. At some point, enough is enough. Please deal with him in this case or we will be back here asking Arb to deal with him again after a great deal more frustration among editors who edit near him. Minor4th 06:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposed FoF: ChrisO previously restricted for BLP violations

In the Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology arbitration case (December 2008 - May 2009), ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[273] and September 2007[274], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[275] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[276] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[277]; declined a CSD[278]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[279] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[280][281] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[282][283][284][285][286]. ChrisO has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[287] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposed FoF: ChrisO disruptive, antagonistic behavior and BLP violations

ChrisO (talk · contribs) has committed a long series of disruptive behavior, including incivility, edit-warring, mass deletions of content during GA and AfD discussions, personal attacks (PA) and edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of the ArbCom case.(Selection of representative examples: [288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295] incivility, failure to assume good faith and personal attacks, [296][297][298][299][300][301] interfering with GA/AfD nominations, and [302][303] edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of this ArbCom case.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears ChrisO was not informed of this case until after the evidence phase was closed. While there have been broad hints that proposing additional remedies involving specific editors is acceptable at this time, I think it is too late to be adding a name that has not been formally notified. This is not to say that I find ChrisO's editing satisfactory—many of the diffs are quite troubling on their face. However, rather than go through a complete presentation of evidence and rebuttal at this stage, I'm comfortable that the proposed enforcement process, with a significant increase in the ability of admins to sanction editors who are editing inappropriately, will ensure that ChrisO will contribute positively or face sanctions if prior practice is repeated.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO has made many BLP violations and edited disruptively and has been persistently uncivil and unable to edit collaboratively on BLP's especially. Minor4th 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, ChrisO did a great deal of work to overcome BLP violations added by others – as it happens, one diff shows him removing a BLP violation inserted by Minor4th. Collaboration does not extend to going along with giving undue weight to dubious material attacking the subject of the article, there can of course be reasoable differences of views on each case, and that goes for the Monckton issues as well. Dealing with blatant nonsense promoted by a non-expert is always difficult, especially when it receives little mainstream coverage; whether pointing out that it's nonsense is a BLP violation is something that needs careful consideration, not the knee-jerk approach that seems to be evident in much of the proposed evidence here. . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (1)

I haven't gone through all these links and don't yet have an opinion, but there's an interesting contrast I see in two edits. One, from the Christopher Monckton article [304] in which there is a link to an unpublished criticism of Monckton which includes disparaging statements about him, according to Atren (who says here [305] Monckton's critic, in his unpublished statement, starts the presentation by discussing Monckton's qualifications in a way that would imply that Abraham thought Monckton to be unqualified.) Now, compare that with ChrisO's BLP justification for removing information from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, which I linked to above -- edit summary (emphasis added): rm accusations from self-published source per WP:BLP [306] (which, by the way, was factually incorrect -- the information was from from a WP:NEWSBLOG). So what we seem to have is the same double standard that's in KimDPetersen's edit history: When the subject is a disbeliever in AGW, the BLP standard is low and negative information must be included; when the subject is a supporter of AGW, the BLP standard is high and information must be kept out. This looks like partisan editing. That it is done in groups (KimDPetersen, for instance, was involved in both discussions) indicates that we have factions involved, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This makes it worse. But I'd like to know what ChrisO has to say about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWB, see this diff for an analysis of what personal criticisms were contained in the unpublished presentation that ChrisO was forcing into Monckton's BLP. ATren (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you what ChrisO would say about it because he's already said it [307] -- He'll say it's not a BLP violation if the offensive link is included inline in the text of the article rather than as a "source" at the end of a sentence. No kidding. He says it's ok to use self published attack pieces from non-notable associate professors, as long as you link the attack directly in article text. He would also tell you that NuclearWarfare and BozMo said it's ok, so it must be ok since they're admins. See this discussion for his inability to account for his actions: [308] Partisan editing? Nah. Minor4th 06:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly a tendentious pile-on. At least you are finally stepping back from your earlier false claim that I was using the Abraham presentation - and thank you for noting NuclearWarfare and Bozmo's concurrence - as a source. I've explained my position here. I've not bothered responding further because I'm fully aware that I would be talking to a brick wall - your mind is made up, quite obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my response to your "explanation" is here [309], which you did not bother responding to, but you are apparently taking the position that it's ok to smear a BLP as long as you cite self published attack blog inline rather than as a "source" in the references. Quite amazing, that. Minor4th 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment here: Despite your assertions to the contrary - my view of what is and isn't reliable is exactly the same regardless of what article i'm editing, you simply have failed to follow my arguments. For exactly this situation, i've jotted down my view here, do please go through my edit-history again, and verify each case against these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at that. But you opposed inclusion of information from a NEWSBLOG reporting on potential legal liability [310] and at another point supported an attack on Fred Singer because the attackers were so-called "experts". Here's what the source you fought to keep in the Singer article said about the subject of that BLP: S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries [...] served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment. (See the evidence page for diffs.) What counts is that you're violating Wikipedia's consistent BLP policy, not that you can come up with some kind of standards that disallow fair reporting or allow an attack under cover of "expertise". Now I see you're supporting the same thing with Monckton. ArbCom needs to be concerned about your actions, Kim. Your pattern of misbehavior should not be left to some AE admin to try to figure out in a future complaint. ArbCom should at least issue a finding that you're wrong and tell you you should stop. Especially when you're doing this in conjunction with others. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the typical pattern is that those most deserving or likely to get sanctioned suddenly get very quiet and well-behaved, while they are defended by those who've taken on that role for years. It has been an extremely effective tactic because it works on impressions rather than facts - make the defendants look meek and mild while the prosecutors look argumentative and hostile for calling out the defense attorneys on their misrepresentations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? My views on usage of blogs (and other opinion material) are rather simple:
  • Don't use blogs/opinion to reference information directly about a person or persons.
  • Blogs (and to some degree opinion) can only be used when they are covered by the exception rules in WP:SPS.
Your first case is directly about persons - it states that persons (identifiable) may have done criminal acts (red lights raised). It is not written by an expert. (red lights raised).
Your second example is not directly about a person, it is critique of a work by persons. You cherry-pick a sentence which you do not like, but which has never been considered as usable. So it passes #1 as a grey zone. It is written by published academic experts in the area of the topic. Which means it passes #2 with a Green.
I have explained this before - several times. And i'm certainly not the only one who has these views (see for instance the BLP/N discussion). Ths of course is not a thorough description of these particular situations, both situations are significantly more complex than this - but as you can see, both in context as well as in the properties of the references the situations aren't remotely similar.
Context is everything when you are dealing with sources - you cannot put a simplistic template over them and state that both are SPS refs so therefore they can be used equally without glancing at the context within which they are used and what context of information they are dealing with.-Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering:
  • It is not written by an expert. It was written by an expert journalist citing a legal expert: According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. [311] Wikipedia cites reliable-source news organizations all the time, including on sensitive BLP topics, and you know it. We all know it.
  • it is critique of a work by persons. You cherry-pick a sentence which you do not like It was an attack on a person by partisans. I don't need to quote again the same passage which proves that. You had no business edit warring to keep that source in the article.
None of this was obscured by the "complexities" of the situations -- the points I'm making were all mentioned at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (2)

I'll point out a couple of things in response to AQFK's claims in his so-called findings of fact:

1) Accusing me of "interfering with GA/AFD nominations" is nonsense - how is voting to delete "interference"? [312] And how does a single edit to an unrelated article [313] have anything to do with this? As I recall, someone elsewhere had highlighted what they thought was coatracking in that article; I agreed and edited it in response. It was certainly not related to any GA discussions. I agree that I overstepped the mark in editing Bishop Hill (blog) and was briefly blocked for it by LHvU; I've taken care not to violate 3RR since.

2) "Edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP" is equally nonsensical. This was in relation to a discussion here on the article talk page. The piece in question was a critique by a published scientist, on his university's website, with the full support of his university. Other editors had sought to include it, using it as a source. This was rightly removed for BLP reasons, as it was a self-published source. [314] I tried to find a compromise here in which only reliable sources were used. I've already explained the reasoning behind inline-linking it along with Monckton's response here.

I was also not in any way "edit warring". I reverted Marknutley once [315] and then took it to the talk page. As the discussion on the talk page shows, I reached an amicable agreement with other editors in which neither Abraham's critique nor Monckton's response would be linked, but the issue would be covered by reliable sources from both sides of the Atlantic. Note that Marknutley was repeatedly removing the entire section, not simply the inline links, under a false claim of "BLP violation". His objection was to the inclusion of any mention of the Abraham-Monckton debate, not simply to the inline links, regardless of the reliable sourcing. [316]

It's completely false to claim that I have been responsible for BLP violations on this article - on the contrary, I've repeatedly acted to take out BLP violations (defamatory content, self-published sources, unsourced claims etc) that affected Monckton's own reputation and that of others. - see e.g. [317], [318], [319], [320], [321] etc. Monckton is a controversial figure and the article has repeatedly been affected by BLP-violating edits. The fact that the article is in pretty good shape is due in no small part to my own vigilance. BrownHairedGirl, an uninvolved admin who works mostly on British political biographies, commented "Even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers." I think that speaks for itself. [322] -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, this is the problem with editors inserting proposals without attaching their signatures and timestamps immediately beneath each separate paragraph. I did not write any of the proposed findings of fact or related proposed sanctions against you. I think that was ATren. I just started the "Discussion" sections underneath some of them. Since I didn't write them and haven't even had time to look over all the diffs, I don't at this time support them, as I stated. In order to avoid more confusion, I may go back and check exactly who did propose each one and attach a note identifying the authors of each one, although I wish a clerk or arbitrator would do it. It needs to be done. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. The attibrution should have been to AQFK - I've amended the above accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO please just answer this simple question: why did you edit war to add a link to Abraham's unpublished presentation when it is obviously a blatant BLP vio to do so? You knew that the presentation was unpublished and so controversial that it was the subject of potential litigation between the parties, yet you edit warred to put the link back. Why? ATren (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham's presentation is available on his university website and has been referenced in several of George Monbiot's articles in the Guardian [323] [324] [325] [326]. I'm not sure I'd call it "unpublished". Moreover it addresses the arguments made by Monckton in a presentation, and does not say anything negative about Monckton except, of course, that his arguments aren't based on the facts. --TS 15:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm happy to be of assistance to you: I believe that if you think just a little harder, the meaning of "unpublished" in relation to WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources will pop into your head in an instant. If not, go ahead and follow the link to the policy section I've provided for you. No, no, don't bother to thank me -- it really only took a moment. (I've actually been confused by it, too, in the past.) I don't think an opinion writer's citing Abraham's comments will launder them enough to insert in a BLP. Some assertions of Abraham's have been quoted in regular news accounts and are fair game for the article (and they're in the article as of yesterday when I checked). None of that justifies linking to the self-published source. That would be a violation of WP:BLP. You say it does not say anything negative about Monckton I'm not so sure, there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece (see [327]). Some of those quotes seem to skirt the line between criticism and attack. Monckton seems to have threatened a lawsuit. That tends to make the BLP violation look a bit serious. In any event, WP:BLP seems to be silent on the actual content of the self-published pieces -- it just issues a blanket ban on them. ChrisO violated the policy. The same exact policy that he cited to keep out of an article a careful statement by a reporter from Science magazine that said there may be legal liability if the UK's FOI Act was not followed. Do you think there might be a pattern of partisanship to ChrisO's editing that is not in Wikipedia's best interests? (edited after a few minutes)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JWB: You are aware that "there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece" is incorrect - right? (those are quoted from Monckton's claims - not Abraham). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Unless your contesting Monckton's quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to be accurate instead of inaccurate. And there are several good reasons for considering Moncktons replies as questionable. [amongst them that a cursory view of the actual material show that quite a few of his claims are incorrect] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the discussion is that Wikipedia is not to be used as a weapon against notable people we dislike. I'm not interested here in Monckton's replies but the professor's statements -- but even that is ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published criticism, attacks or anything else self-published in a BLP (except by the subject). We need to crack down on editors who repeatedly violate BLP. I've submitted some evidence that you do and evidence has been submitted that ChrisO does. That you support each other in violating it is an additional reason for ArbCom to be concerned about you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TS: Are you seriously questioning whether that presentation is unpublished? Really? ATren (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. really. It's certainly published otherwise I wouldn't have been able to watch it, and as the university has refused, through an exchange of attorney's letters, to remove it, it takes responsibility for the content which was produced by one of its faculty and is published on its website. The Professor is certainly a reliable source for a critique of Monckton's claims, and it has been reviewed by the Guardian, so I don't see much of a problem here. This isn't just something on some random blog. --TS 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The university didn't hire the professor to engage in political controversies and isn't regularly in the business of "publishing" controversial texts in the sense that a book publisher, magazine, webzine or newspaper would be, much less an academic periodical. It's role here is closer to a web hosting service. Do you have evidence that the professor consulted with someone acting in the role of "editor" at any stage? It seems to me that the university stepped in after the fact in a situation they're not used to dealing- with. That's one of the problems with self-publication: care and responsibility is a learned behavior, usually accompanied with some kind of supervision. This situation doesn't have the marks of that, particularly as we get away from expert analysis of specific claims and toward criticism of a personality. Instead of reverting, we settle this kind of question on the talk page -- otherwise we're violating WP:BLP, as everyone reading this already knows. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, first, what "edit warring"? Did you miss the bit where I pointed out above that I reverted once? I was under a self-imposed 1RR at the time; on what planet does reverting once constitute an "edit war"? Second, it was far from clear that the inline link was a BLP violation. There was a vigorous discussion about it here and in this CC enforcement page discussion both Bozmo and NuclearWarfare rejected the claim that it was a BLP violation. In the end I and the other editors found a solution that met everyone's concerns. The process worked as it was supposed to. It's gratuitously misleading to claim some kind of violation here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went to that noticeboard discussion. It is bizarre. It was brought up that WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states (emphasis added) Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, The idea that the "criticism" must be criticism of the person and not the person's actions or statements is what is gratuitously misleading because it will always skirt the edges of a BLP violation and BLP is about creating wide-enough margins so the edges can't be skirted (from the first paragraph: Editors must take particular care [...] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity). We are extra cautious with BLPs. That discussion did not mention that the self-published source itself went either to the edge of criticism of the person or overstepped it. After all, it's easy to do. ChrisO, you and the editors who supported you, including KimDPetersen and William M. Connolley, were reckless. That NuclearWarfare and Bozmo didn't reject your arguments at WP:GSCCRE is something ArbCom should be concerned about. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO: I tried to use the proposed decision as an example. The diffs are a selection of representative examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisO: you joined an edit war and you knew the content was a contentious BLP issue due to the fact that the presentation was unpublished (it was all over the talk page and RFE) and you added it back in anyway [328]. Then, after reverts by MN, WMC, and MN -- the last one citing BLP -- you reverted it back in again! [329]. How is that not edit warring? Your continued attempts to change history are not working, ChrisO. You edit warred to add an unpublished smear to a BLP. Period. ATren (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At my last reading, ChrisO was providing properly published evidence that a non-expert was presenting nonsensical pseudoscience, and supplementing it with courtesy links to the detailed originals cited in the source. Arguably not a good idea, but clearly done in good faith. Revisionist history blackening the reputation of a conscientious editor is not good. . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, judging from ChrisO's history regarding the BLPs of people he apparently regards as idealogical adversaries, not just in the CC topic area, I don't think any revisionist history is going on here. Anyway, it doesn't matter now since ChrisO has invoked "right to vanish" which means he can't come back without arbcom's permission. If he does ask to come back and they agree, I hope for everyone's sake they ban him from BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposed Remedy: ChrisO topic-banned (Climate Change)

User:ChrisO is banned from all Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for long-term violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BLP for six months. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a topic ban ChrisO for tendentious editing, edit warring, and persistent BLP abuse. Minor4th 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC) :Addendum -- I have made a proposal to Chris regarding collaborative editing on the Monckton article to the point of jointly proposing a revised article to be added through the edit protection. I have said that if he will work in good faith with me on this, then I will withdraw my support for his being topic banned. If he agrees and tries to work with me, I think that is a show of good faith and good intent. Minor4th 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposed Remedy: ChrisO topic-banned (BLP)

User:ChrisO is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change for one year. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are repeat violations, I think the ban time periods should be doubled. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vindictive and completely unnecessary. I've been working hard to keep BLP violations out, as my comments above demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of what Chris says about working hard to keep BLP violations out, he is a repeat and pernicious offender as far as adding BLP violations to CC skeptics. Monckton is absolutely atrocious. Minor4th 03:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. If it is one that is a skeptic, ChrisO has used very questionable material while insisting on perfect material for AGW activists. ChrisO has consistently pushed a POV in the BLPs. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was honestly surprised to find that Chris hadn't been named an involved party (y'all know what I mean) and that the PD did not make any mention of him.
Because Chris had no idea there was a case going on or that any of his edits might be considered problematic by anyone. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar: Even if true (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure why that would matter. A BLP violation is a BLP violation is a BLP violation. Not sure how the existence of an ArbCom case some how makes it OK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Lar was being sarcastic -- of course Chris is aware of his own BLP violations and knows that it's sanctionable. There's no way he didn't know about the arb case, and in one of his comments above he said he has been following the case. Minor4th 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I honestly thought that ignorance (on the part of an editor with 7 years experience who has had multiple experiences with ArbCom already) of this minor case of little or no importance that just happens to be about one of his current primary topic areas of interest is an excuse. I thought it was, but perhaps you guys are right. As for Chris saying he's been following the case, that doesn't mean he's aware that he might be a party does it? ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means he knows he can get away with saying he's not a party to it because he knows there are no named parties (which, in essence, means everyone is a party). Minor4th 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As always, sarcasm is really helpful. MastCell Talk 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is that remark directed to? I'm not seeing any actual sarcasm here, but perhaps I'm missing something. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was directed to you. Your remarks about ChrisO seem clearly intended as sarcasm. MastCell Talk 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I was just repeating what ChrisO had said elsewhere, and assuming in good faith that he really honestly believed it. That you saw them as sarcasm suggests that perhaps you didn't think ChrisO's view was reasonable? ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate myself for pointing this out but that is as poor an excuse for sarcasm as I have ever seen Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO topic-banned from CC articles

Sample of problem edits:

I've looked over the diffs FloNight and others have presented, and I agree with the topic ban. I hope ArbCom ignores the "resigned" sign User:ChrisO has posted on his user page, because he can always return. The editing environment will improve without ChrisO's presence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ChrisO's retirement should not in anyway prevent ArbCom from enacting my proposed FoF and remedies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How many times has Hipocrite "retired" under a cloud? 5+ times? Only to come back after the dust has settled. These actions are little more than going to the bathroom when the check comes.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposal that ChrisO be topic banned from CC articles. I also agree that his "retirement" should not have a bearing on Arb's acting on this proposed finding and remedy. Minor4th 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well. I spent some time thinking what to say including showing all of the various provocations ChrisO has recieved but I can only come up with ChrisO bites the dust and his corpse will be food for the trolls Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous proposal by people who have completely lost their way. ChrisO was a valuable editor driven off, as PG notes, by trolls William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisO claimed above that I was not notified of the case at any point, nor was I even aware of its existence until after the evidence page had closed. Hence my limited involvement in these discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ' That doesn't quite square with the facts. He knew about the case as of July 14. [334] Note the link in the edit summary to a case he later claimed not to know the existed. (Arbitrators had accepted the case weeks earlier: [335]). I find it impossible to believe ChrisO had forgotten that the case existed. As Lar points out elsewhere, Climate Change has been one of ChrisO's major topic areas of interest for months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New alternate proposal: Marknutley CC topic 1RR + Sourcing/editing mentorship

Mark nutley is currently under a sourcing parole, that has recently been relaxed based on an acknowledgement that he has made improvements under his restrictions. In light of that, I don't think mark now needs to have stricter sanctions of banning and topic banning after he has shown improvement and a willingness to accept help with the issues that he has had. The proposed findings also reference that mark has been involved in several edit wars, but if the particular edit wars are closely scrutinized, you'll find that many of those reverts are BLP reverts when another experienced editor is knowingly introducing material that is BLP violation. In those instances, I don't think mark should be named as one of the edit warring parties. In other instances, mark reverts poorly sourced content -- blog and SPS sources. He's reverting too much, but he's following policy and trying to improve the article with his actions. Mark has also shown a willingness to take instruction and advice from other editors, and a ban and topic ban are way over the top sanctions in terms of what is needed to bring mark into line with the community expectations.

I propose that mark be placed on a indefinite 1RR restriction across all article space. That sanction can be enforced by block. As far as sourcing, I propose an indef sourcing parole/mentorship whereby mark is permitted to add peer-review articles and main stream media content without prior approval, and any other source he must first discuss with his mentor and gain approval. I will agree to be mark's mentor on the sourcing issue if this is approved. Minor4th 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a good idea to me. The proposals about marknutley are far too draconian when considered against those suggested for other, more problematic editors. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marknutley's record shows misuse of sources, massive plagiarism, edit warring... name just about anything a Wikipedia editor can do wrong, and Marknutley has done it. He also abuses BLP to get rid of information he doesn't want to appear or as a weapon against editors on the "other side" (in one case he argued that providing the address of a U.S. government office building was a BLP violation; see this diff and related discussion at article talk). This trivializes the very real problems with BLP that exist on this site. And I don't see any evidence that he has improved in his understanding of site policy. As for his reverting "poorly sourced content -- blogs and SPS sources" as Minor4th argues above, from seven hours ago we have this. Pray, by what criterion does the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's longest-standing newspaper, qualify as "poorly sourced," a "blog," or "SPS"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong. MN didn't claim it was poorly sourced; he removed it as undue weight. [336] And furthermore, looking at that edit, Mark removed what appears to be the opinion of an environmental reporter who claims that Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community." Doesn't any of this raise red flags for you Boris? An environmental reporter in what appears to be an opinion piece making an offhand critical remark about a living person -- Boris, you consider that so reliable that you cite it's removal as evidence of abuse? Consider a similar situation: Lawrence Solomon devoted entire columns to criticizing William Connolley, one of those columns was actually republished by CBSNews, and they've been frequently cited by others, yet if anyone tried to add Solomon's criticism to his BLP, they'd not only be reverted, they'd likely be banned for trying. So to summarize: in a skeptic BLP, offhand commentary in an opinion piece is so reliable that it's a sanctionable violation to remove it; but in a BLP for someone on the consensus side, a more extensive commentary that was more widely published and cited is so unreliable that it's a sanctionable violation to include it. This is what Lar means by the tilted playing field. note: in no way am I arguing for inclusion of Solomon in Connolley's BLP, only pointing out the double standard which is so frequently applied in this topic area ATren (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should write an essay about the employment of double standards with regards to BLPs by certain editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should. It's quite remarkable. So do either of you have any comments on my proposed alternative remedy for mark? Minor4th 05:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo

Polargeo Discussion

Firstly, this includes a presentation of new evidence. Understandably FloNight has not looked deeply enough into this. It is not her fault, but a quick surface skim of the situation from someone who has no background in the area is insufficient. For example what she categorises as a redirect was part of a full merge on an article which I had never edited previously and had been under merge discussion on the talkpage for some time. At the time I did the merge it had 10 editors for the merge and 3 against with 2 neutral. Please also bear in mind that this was a stub of marginal notability on the blog of a marginally notable person who is notable mainly for his blog. LessHeard then immediately undid my edit and protected the article against me, an admin who had not edited the article previously. I foolishly did an unprotect, stating clearly that I would not edit war and I would uphold LessHeard's version. The situation between me and LessHeard was quickly resolved and I left the article alone completely after reprotecting the article exactly as LessHeard requested and I kept myself out of the discussion. After a considerable amount of partisan wrangling with editors weighing in along predicatable lines the merge was put into effect sometime later exactly as I had originally done with my initial assessment of consensus. That FloNight is now holding this episode up as the main reason I should be banned from editing CC articles is quite simply sad. I do believe this unprotect is the only admin action I have ever taken on a CC issue and it was done entirely on the basis that I viewed the protect by LessHeard as a "revert and protect" with the revert being against a strong consensus, which is obviously highly dubious. To prevent a wheel war I then immediately reprotected on LessHeard's request. Polargeo (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not being familiar with arbcom cases having never been involved in one before it took me a while to work out what was meant by Fof11. Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you know what he meant by that, but I don't and I'd guess most people wouldn't. What is it? I really wish people would avoid shorthand and acronyms that may not be understandable by everyone. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fof11" = "Proposed findings of fact, number 11" on the Proposals page. Isn't there a page somewhere on Wikipedia with a glossary of Wikipedese or Wikipedia acronyms? One can always ask, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is a high-enough pile of accumulated bad behavior to topic ban Polargeo. I've mentioned before that his bad behavior stemmed from CC disputes, so if you allow him to edit pages related to CC, he'll likely get into another dispute and the dispute resolution will likely cause more bad behavior, so: No participation in CC-related RfCs or AE request discussions either. If ever another editor thinks he can get away with similar behavior, admins can then rely on the example of Polargeo. I've said before that the current proposal on the PD page is too light to do much good. Polargeo was told numerous times that he was going beyond the pale and it never stopped him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More unexplainable and rather nasty hysteria from JohnWBarber is in my opinion enough reason to ban him from ever editing wikipedia. But that is my own opinion. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators, don't ignore his reaction. He can't take the criticism one gets as the subject of a complaint at a dispute-resolution forum. As I just said: ...and the dispute resolution will likely cause more bad behavior I didn't expect it would take only nine minutes for my prediction to come true. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More nastiness from JohnWBarber conveyed as originating with me when I am simply defending myself. JohnWBarber is true to form. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a civility restriction placed on this page, as there was at WP:EEML. If there are any further nasty comments here, I think the clerks should block on sight. This sort of discourse is just burying legitimate concerns. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A civility restriction would do no good whatsoever as this has been gamed so much by users such as JohnWBarber. I think we should strive for truth not civility on these pages. Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that almost every counter-measure we have tried has been gamed. That's nothing new. Of course, every user has the opportunity to restrain themselves from trolling, baiting and insulting others on this page. Each should worry about themselves. Jehochman Talk 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"one for all and one for all" Every user for themselves then. A sad indictment and a general lack of backbone. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad behavior by others does not excuse one's own bad behavior. I wish you'd follow that. Jehochman Talk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would stop your double standards in which view yourself as separate from the issues we are involved in here and from which you make judgements on others. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary restrictions

Editing Wikipedia in general often involves accepting that you can't get your way. So, it makes sense to look for solutions in terms of voluntary editing restrictions. Jehochman took such an initiative before the start of this ArbCom case. If we look at the issues under discussion at this ArbCom case, we can see that the vast majority of the problems occur in the BLP area. I think it is possible for all the involved editors here to agree to a collective 1 RR restriction.

This means that if someone (whether from the group of involved editors or not) makes a particular edit on some issue, then only one revert of that edit may be made by the group. So, if e.g. Cla68 reverts ChrisO then no one else is allowed to revert back. Disagreements about the edit can from then on only be discussed. One can also post a RFC, one can discuss on the RS board, the BLP noticeboard etc., but no further reverts should be made by the group until there is a clear consensus on how to proceed. Such a consensus will in practice mean that there will be a few who agree to disagree and won't oppose whatever the other editors have agreed on.

I think that this can calm down the area, we may see hitherto univolved editors stepping in who will edit the BLP articles like real biographies are written (Carcharoth has made some comments about this) instead of narrowly focussing on the climate change issues. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are well-meaning but this will be incredibly gamed. The BLP violations in the articles will never be removed or it'll become such a hassle with the RfC's that most editors won't bother. Any criticism of the Hockey Stick team (Real Climate was founded to defend that graph) will be reverted and endlessly "discussed" until less ideological editors give up and move on. Consensus is a farce when a specific subset of editors is selected and even more so when long term sockpuppets are rarely checkusered and caught.
Ban the people gaming the rules and ignoring/inventing policy in order to get their preferred version of articles. This has been demonstrated in the evidence. More rules just mean the wikilawyers have more toys to play with - kick them out of the playground. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. But note that agreeing to a voluntary restriction requires a change of mindset. People who agree with this should decide to take a step back and be less protective about the BLP articles. BLP violations can be addressed at the BLP noticeboards, so it amounts to putting one's faith in the judgement of other editors.
Perhaps ArbCom could think of suggesting this also as a plea bargain for some editors who are now considered for topic bans. So, for them, agreeing to this would mean that any topic ban would be suspended as long as they stick to this and act in good faith (i.e. they don't game this). Note that the people who have not be named in the PD can, after the connclusion of the ArbCom case, also be brought at AE and be sanctioned. So, it may help to stay out of trouble to stick to a voluntary restriction like this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Prisoner's dilemma situation. It requires trust on all sides, where all sides are extremely motivated (save the world/save scientific truth/avoid being taxed back to the dark ages/save NPOV from the SIFs), and view others as evil. We need more than advocating voluntary bans and self-restraint. However, the voluntary ban/restriction in a plea bargain sounds useful: perhaps all new sources should be discussed on talk pages for 24 hours for the climate area? Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Habits are formed by practice. The voluntary topic ban has been very useful in calming the area and in teaching editors how to retire from a dispute for a time. Those who have agreed to, and honored, voluntary bans should not need external bans; they have demonstrated the ability to control themselves. If these editors get out of line in the future, it should be sufficient for an uninvolved editor to ask them to take a break.
  • The idea of 1RR may be useful. I'd be willing to see that placed selectively on particularly divisive articles by any uninvolved administrator. In addition, we ought to form a list where editors in the area can subscribe to a personal 1RR restriction for themselves.
  • The idea of rotating administrators out would be a good one. Perhaps we should set a voluntary target of 60 days maximum in the "hot zone". As long as people abide by voluntary suggestions, there is no need to employ an actual rule.
  • To implement these suggestions we may want to create a WikiProject where we can keep central lists. One that I have been involved in for a long time, and it seems to have worked, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Jehochman Talk 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K10wnsta raised the issue of the name "climategate" below. This is also a good example for this discussion. You can ask yourself if this is something you can agree to disagree with in the future. Or perhaps not even that, as all you would be doing is putting your faith in the wider Wikipedia community to resolve this issue. You can make clear your disgreement and raise the issue at some appropriate venue, but then you leave it to others to settle the issue. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual 1RR is fine. I'd be happy with an agreement on this. Collective 1RR is much harder William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Of Naming Policy

Would the term Climategate, as an article title, violate naming procedures per established policy?

I'm not asking the committee to rule whether such an article should or should not exist (or what content it should contain), rather, I'm requesting clarification of policy as it relates to the title specific so a more effective consensus may be established. The matter has been through RfC's, merge attempts, straw polls, and countless discussions in an effort to do so, but invariably gets waylaid in a stream of wikilawyering based on individual interpretation of naming conventions.
I'm at first submitting this for consideration based on the committee's understanding of said policy and the term itself. If the arbiters require more information, evidence, or clarification, it can be provided.
--K10wnsta (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Climategate" absolutely not be the primary title of any article, nor should the term appear in any context other than the discussion its use by reliable media (such as mainstream newspapers and blogs under their aegis), which means that it should not be used wholesale in any article. With that said, it should remain as a redirect to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which is its current status. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying our Great Leap Forward article should be named Mao Zedong's rapid modernization plan controversy. But anyway, this is a content issue, and ArbCom's not going to rule on content issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Perhaps you'd like it to be GreatleapforwardGate? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could, I don't know, use the terminology in the vast majority of sources instead of using invented in-group vocabulary. Am I Clear? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's genuinely the funniest thing I've read this week. I hope that WMC isn't going to catch flak for inserting levity into proceedings. Although I'd be delighted to see this word accepted as an article title, let's face it that there is never going to be a concensus on this.Slowjoe17 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a content dispute than a matter of conduct. What the arbitration committee would consider is the conduct associated with this, such as edit warring the term in and out of articles, misrepresentation of sources, disruption of RfCs and other polls of editor opinion, disruptive moving of articles, and so forth.
We wouldn't rule on the actual article title itself (if that is still a problem), but (if there was sufficient evidence that the editing community was unable to resolve this without moderators overseeing the discussion process to prevent disruption) could direct that a final settlement process be set in motion to allow the issue to be settled by the editing community once and for all for a set period of time. This is generally done to ensure maximum participation in the process (outside of those most closely involved) and to allow editor efforts after such a process to be redirected to improving other aspects of the article (you have to remember that outsiders looking at Wikipedia are generally astounded that editors would spend so much time on a single matter such as an article title, rather than trying to improve the rest of the article, or indeed the rest of the encyclopedia).
If certain accounts were focused on this dispute to the extent that they could be considered SPAs on the issue (in the sense that they were commenting on that issue to the exclusion of everything else), or advocating for a name change as part of an overall pattern of agenda editing or POV pushing, that would be a matter for ArbCom to consider.
Having said that, correct use of terminology is important. Indeed, I read an article in the news today (on the BBC website) that used a similar term ("Himalayagate"), but that article (a news article, not an encyclopedia article) was careful to put the term in what I believe are scare quotes. However, I see that our article on scare quotes says "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." So that may not help.
One final point: I know the mention of the news article, and the mention of another -gate term, in my comment here was strictly speaking off-topic, but it was intended to illustrate by example. If anyone here must discuss that news article or other -gate terms, please do so elsewhere, not here. All that should be discussed here is what could feasibly be put in a proposed decision, and what sort of conduct ArbCom could address on this matter (as I did in the first part of my comment here). Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Rather disconcertingly, the BBC news article in question has been updated and "Himalayagate" replaced with "Glaciergate", though I see that the typo in the same sentence (a double "the the") hasn't (yet) been corrected.... Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similarly protracted and unpleasant naming dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, the Committee explicitly declined to rule on the "correct" name for a disputed subject, and even refused to rule on naming guidelines and policy, instead referring the matter back to the community. Given that precedent, I don't think we can expect the Committee to rule on whether "Climategate" is an appropriate naming choice here. MastCell Talk 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the matter of West Bank - Judea and Sumaria was similar, the scope of this request has a couple key differences:
  • The West Bank - Judea and Sumaria issue was a dispute between two distinct article names. The intent of this proposal is to determine the validity of an article title as it relates to policy.
  • How policy affects our use of the term Climategate has been discussed (at great length) for over 9 months with no clear consensus resolved.
I debated this extensively prior to submitting it and ultimately resolved it was more a matter of policy than content, because regardless of what the committee decided (if they opted to rule on it at all), it would not directly alter the state of any content in the encyclopedia. The procedure of establishing consensus among editors would still be required to make changes.
It's basically a proposal for guidance - if use of a term like Climategate is, in fact, prohibited by policy, there's no point in making further efforts to gather consensus for its use without first establishing consensus to change policy.
If the committee finds it beyond the scope of their authority to resolve, then I propose they issue a request for definitive consensus from the community, on not just the matter of policy, but use of the name in general (ie. the request in the above mentioned case).
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Proposal for Sanction

Our naming policy clearly states:
Sometimes [a] common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.
Said policy further prescribes remedy for the resolution of such naming issues:
Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a common name (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors).

...we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources...

The following source listings support use of the term Climategate (with and without 'quotes'). They were compiled and presented throughout various discussions on the matter.

And for the committee's assessment, I append the following (which do not use 'quotes' in referring to Climategate):
[337] Guardian.co.uk
[338][339][340] CBS News
[341] Fox News
[342] U.S. News & World Report
[343] Telegraph.co.uk
[344] Yahoo! News
(Note: there are hundreds more)

The term's use even pervades foreign language news coverage:
[345]French, Spanish, and Portugese (at least I think that's Portugese)

Despite these sources clearly meeting the criteria of policy, a contingent of editors have perpetually cited personal issues and assorted guidelines in an ongoing (and so far successful) effort to circumvent it.

In addition to my above request for clarification of this policy, I propose sanctions for Scjessey, ChrisO, Guettarda, Nigelj, dave souza, and Hipocrite* for tendentious editing and gaming the system (specifically, 'using policies in bad faith by finding within their wording apparent justification for stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support'). Evidence of these efforts is exhibited throughout the initial RfC regarding the title of our Climatic Research Unit email controversy article (and the tangent 'Merge' discussion that disrupted it). In fact, their efforts have been persistent throughout the life of the article, right up to the most recent discussion and suggested compromise.
*Hipocrite's involvement is exhibited in the latter RfC
Again, policy states: ...we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources.... It even explicitly dictates how we resolve the use of a potentially POV term (by assessing if it has been taken from reliable sources or created by Wikipedia editors). The editors mentioned above are intelligent and experienced enough to understand the intent of this policy and have demonstrated a meticulous and either knowing or willfully ignorant intent to undermine it.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey: proposed findings of fact

Background: Scjessey has a history of personal attacks, and ArbCom cited some of them on June 21, 2009 in its Obama articles case.[346] Scjessey and I also have had quite a few run ins. It's a long history, but I think it's sufficient to say we don't get along well together. After many months of having no contact, IIRC, we discussed a CC article topic on a talk page back in December, and that discussion sunk into him attacking me. I then stopped participating on that talk page for a while. Recently our paths crossed here, and he's again attacking me. More to the point, he's continuing to attack editors he disagrees with. I think it's bad enough to warrant ArbCom's attention, as it was in the Obama articles case. Over and over again, Scjessey poisons the atmosphere when he participates in talk-page discussions for controversial articles. In addition to doing that with personal attacks, he does it by baiting other editors and assuming bad faith among those he disagrees with, so I include diffs of those policy violations as well. I actually think an ArbCom finding of fact is more important than whatever sanction is imposed because I think such a finding would back up any request at AE if he misbehaves in a similar way in the future. I think the community is then unlikely to overturn any sanctions imposed at Arbitration Enforcement because he doesn't have the longstanding AGW-faction ties to generate support from there and his sanctionable comments are almost always so over the top that a consensus to overturn is unlikely at AN or AN/I.

WP:NPA violations:

    1. [347] 15:24, 31 August -- Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit. The context makes it clear he's talking about me. And don't tell me this is outside the case.
    2. [348] 14:13, 27 July -- Wikipedia should be a shining beacon of common sense, not a cesspool of ignorance. This statement in response to: "Jimbo has suggested above that perhaps "Climategate" Controversy would be suitable, any thoughts on this?" So Jimbo's suggestion contributes to a "cesspool of ignorance". This invective goes beyond strongly objecting and beyond even criticism. If I say your ideas would create a "cesspool of ignorance" I'm saying something about you, not just your ideas.
    3. [349] 21:02, 18 February "The tactics that science deniers are now employing to try to bend this article to their point of view are scandalous." In context, he's attacking ATren specifically and editors who agree with ATren on the issue at hand.
    4. [350] 21:12, 18 February "Climategate" is much ado about nothing, and the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact. In context, this appears to be specifically an attack on ATren, and Scjessey made a related comment here [351].
    5. [352] 00:25, 9 December 2009 -- Thank you for your usual spin-doctored, scare-mongering version of the facts with special bold bits that were the same bold bits Glenn Beck showed the other night. I think this was the first discussion in which Scjessey and I had addressed each other in many months.

Baiting: [353] 21:55, 31 August; [354] 21:00, 12 July; [355] 20:03, 13 July

WP:AGF violations: [356] 15:30, 28 July; [357] 23:27, 11 July

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Scjessey discussion, it's been noted
I think you've done plenty of baiting right here on this page and even in this thread.[358][359][360] When an otherwise productive contributor cracks after being baited and trolled by a disruptive editor, the first thing to do is to stop the disruptive editor. If the upset contributor then settles down, the problem is solved. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey discussion

After a bout of diff-diving and barrel-scraping, JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has carefully constructed a narrative to support his desired outcome to get me sanctioned. The diffs he has presented do not support his analysis when all the layers of mock outrage and rhetoric are peeled away. Not content with an introductory paragraph consisting almost completely of falsehood, he has mischaracterized and misrepresented every diff he has listed with bad faith assumptions and outright lies. I consider JohnWBarber's submission to be an absolutely disgraceful act of gaming. Specifically, this is a textbook example of example (4): "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you claim JWB has mischaracterized your actions, so please explain the good faith interpretation of your words. Let's start with "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" and "the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact" -- exactly how is JWB gaming these quotes to make you look bad? ATren (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sadly see this in a similar way. I agree some diffs show that scjessy has been extremely fed up with JohnWBarber but I can only sympathise. In this arbcase JohnWBarber has also called for extremely harsh sanctions against myself based on the most tenuous of diffs. JohnWBarber has shown himself to be a sort of diff warrior, portraying any annoyance with his own actions as a personal attack against himself (for example this very diff will probably end up listed in his next attempt to get me sanctioned). Sadly ATren is very much a fellow diff warrior to JWB, throwing as much mud as they can scrape up to defeat anyone they disagree with. Their recent conversations at JWB's talkpage and ATren's offering of diffs to Cla in the Lar RfC are fair evidence if anyone wishes to call me on this. Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever Polargeo puts the word Sadly near the beginning of a sentence, a personal attack is about to appear within the next couple of sentences. I think Collect could statistically analyze it, incorporate it into a graph and present it as evidence by Sunday. The two Sadlys above are the mother lode. Translations: diff warrior = "victim who knows how to respond"; any annoyance with his own actions = "violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks", mud = "evidence of violations of Wikipedia behavioral policy, presented in a dispute-resolution forum", anyone they disagree with = "those who attack them", fair evidence -- well, why bother ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly JWB construes any criticism of his actions or motivations as a personal attack. However, when it reaches the point when one simply has to question his actions and motivations this ceases to be a good defence. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the diffs are attacks directed at me, and I had no prior history with SCJ. ATren (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize JWB was Noroton. That's interesting. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The [banana] you didn't: "Prior account of the filing party: Noroton" [...] Jehochman Brrr 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) And since I posted on the evidence page a couple of dozen links to the thread in which that statement was made, and discussed that thread on the Workshop page with you, it's a tad difficult to believe that you forgot it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about you that much. Users change names all the time, and it's not easy to keep up with everybody's newest moniker. Could you please be a little less hostile and take it easy on the assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman Talk 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care about me that much but you brought up my former user name in that discussion and suggested a long block. Then I filed evidence against you on the evidence page here. Then on the Workshop pae I discussed with you that evidence against you. Then yesterday I criticized your complaint about the way your name got into the Proposed Decision page. Then you say you forgot the fact you yourself had brought up. Then you start saying (just below) that I'm POV pushing (without evidence) and that I should be named in the Proposed Decision (without showing why). Well, .... sorry, my faith in your good faith is slipping ... just a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should show you good faith here so please stop calling for it. The fact that you have had conflicts under a previous username with an editor you are trying to get sanctioned and the way you are going about doing it with calling for other editors to give you diffs does not seem to be at all good faith in any sense of the definition to me. I personally have no good faith regarding your motivations anymore so please do not request it. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and this sounds a lot like an AN/I Barber/Noroton filed on me earlier this year (not able to find the link to it just yet) where he cherry-picked some comments here and there from my contribs, discussions he had nothing to do with, in order to paint a picture of "harassment" or some such lunacy. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here, let me help. Eight of your previous 50 edits were violations of one of three behavioral policies. Cherry picking? Oddly, you seem to have nothing to say about the diffs concerning Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also this seems to be an attempt at revenge for a long term dispute between Norton and Scjessy if you look at edits to Norton's (AKA JWB's) talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't JWB mentioned in the proposed decision? An editor with this lengthy block log jumping in and continuing the same sort of activity probably isn't a good thing. Everybody is entitled to their politics, but using Wikipedia for advocacy is not allowed. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he comes under the general umberella of the superficially-civil POV warriors who collect diffs against users who disagree with them. This sort of nonsense should really blow this arbcase to pieces but probably will not. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that once this matter moves over to WP:AE, and sort of civil POV pushing will quickly result in escalating blocks. Please be civil and follow policies. If you meet editors who act uncivil (even if they use polite words) while damaging content, be sure to report them. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is don't call a spade a spade because it is political suicide. Well I call WP:SPADE. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You SCJ can call them a disruptive editor if they are causing disruption, but don't he shouldn't make a comment that could be misconstrued as calling them a name unless you he likes the taste of crow. Jehochman Talk 15:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear mistake which implies I have said something I have not said. I have asked Jehochman to correct this. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can a clerk please hat the above?

If Polargeo and Jeh wish to propose a finding on JWB, they are welcome to do it in a separate section, but the above is just noise in this section, starting with the references to Noroton by Polargeo. ATren (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first person to refer to JWB as Norton. Also Norton/JWB has had a long term conflict with the editor (Scjessy) who he is proposing sanctions against. That he asked you on your talkpage (and two other sympathetic editors on their talkpages) to help and that you are now turning up here trying to help him speaks volumes. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to address what's been brought up, and I very much want Arbs to read it because they'll see Scjessey, Polargeo and Jehochman in action, making personal attacks right on this page. I think as all three of them continue to do this it becomes more and more difficult for ArbCom to ignore their behavior and assume that it's something best left for AE to deal with. Why ArbCom hasn't already dealt with editors making personal attacks on ArbCom pages is beyond me. As far as using my old name goes -- it's evidently supposed to hurt me or embarass me, but it doesn't. I didn't do anything wrong in changing my user name and I told ArbCom that, very forcefully, when I brought an ArbCom case last year. At the time, by the way, Lar and I were not, ah, getting along all that well. There's nothing like seeing Lar continually doing the right thing and getting a truckload of attacks dumped on him by the likes of William M. Connolley and Polargeo to change my mind. So let the discussion run a bit and read it, ArbCom. Read it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously said anything that criticises you is thrown back as being a personal attack and is then used by you as "evidence" Why not take a good look at yourself (and your previous incarnation Norton) and consider why editors make these statements about your behaviour. Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Collapsing this as there is more heat than light right now, and it has been seen. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the above hatband, Jehochman accused me of baiting. I disagree, and I think the edits he points to prove I'm right. Also under the hatband, ATren responded to Scjessey's statement and made two pertinent points which deserve responses from Scjessey and consideration from Arbitrators and everybody else:
  • OK, you claim JWB has mischaracterized your actions, so please explain the good faith interpretation of your words. Let's start with "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" and "the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact" -- exactly how is JWB gaming these quotes to make you look bad? ATren (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the diffs are attacks directed at me, and I had no prior history with SCJ. ATren (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the clerk wanted to cut off serious discussion and so, despite the hatting, I'm pointing out these sober observations, and I don't think Scjessey or anyone else should think that answering these questions is somehow off limits. I have nothing to say about Scjessey's own initial comment, also under the hat, other than to say I disagree with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is just another example of baiting by JWB, but I'll respond purely for ATren's benefit:
  • "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" - nothing more than a figure of speech, akin to "if you dance with the devil, you're liable to get burned" or "don't stick your hand in a wasp's nest."
  • "'Climategate' is much ado about nothing, and the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact." - not sure what the problem with this is supposed to be. It's a statement of fact. It's clear that determined POV-pushing by editors with an anti-science agenda is going on, and this entire ArbCom case is the result of that agenda-driven editing. Plus I was right - "Climategate" was indeed "much ado about nothing" as every single report into the matter concluded.
I hope ATren's questions have been answered satisfactorily. I am happy to respond to any further questions about the carefully-dressed diffs presented by JWB, but only if posed by arbitrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine anyone being satisfied with those answers.
  • nothing more than a figure of speech -- so, if I were to call you, oh, let's say a "jackass" ("Don't kick a jackass because he might kick back"), that would be nothing more than a figure of speech? I don't think so. I think it's a personal attack. Like "asshole". Figures of speech are used repeatedly and well known. And if it were a figure of speech, it still wouldn't get you off the hook, because it would still be a personal attack.
  • It's a statement of fact. You're not really addressing the personal attack part of what you said in that diff -- the part that says the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda, which attacks motives and disparages, and the context that shows you're talking about ATren.
Basically, Scjessey's response has been evasive, blustering and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The edits I linked to are actually a surprisingly large proportion of his edits to climate-change related articles, and it isn't hard to get a good idea of his overall behavior in them because he hasn't been editing much over the past eight months or so. Despite the relatively low volume (compared to others who regularly edit CC articles), his voice is pretty "loud" (in terms of invective) in those discussions. "Asshole" is a new low. What are arbs going to do about it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call anyone an asshole. Please stop misrepresenting the diffs, and mischaracterizing my impact on Wikipedia in general. Perhaps ArbCom would be kind enough to enact an interaction ban on us both, broadly construed across the entire project (and the rest of the known universe, if possible) to prevent you from further sullying my good name with your fabrications. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here again we see the double standard employed by certain editors in this debate: Scjessey can call me a "denier" with an "anti-science agenda" based on little more than his own prejudice (it's certainly not true), but when someone simply reports Scjessey's own words, they're "sullying his name". For what it's worth, in that debate I was arguing the use of "Climategate" in the lede of that article, and soon after that Jimbo himself went further -- saying it should be the title of the article. So, by extension, is Jimbo also an anti-science agenda-driven denier? ATren (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply reported" my arse. JWB has listed diffs with carefully-constructed bad faith commentary to maximise any perception of negative impact. And there's no double standard here - "Climategate" was (and will always be) a non-neutral term invented by science-deniers to draw attention to a faux controversy. Whether or not Jimbo said it was a good idea is completely irrelevant, since his opinion on the matter is no more significant than that of any other Wikipedia editor. Just like "Climategate" itself, you are trying to make nothing look like something by making a fuss over my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The context is right there in the two comments above the foul-mouthed diff. [362] Anybody can see it and make up their own mind. Since my only contact with you in the past year or so has been to complain at dispute resolution boards when you do things like make personal attacks, you can very effectively create your own interaction ban just by not doing that. I wonder what the arbs will do about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Another thought occurs to me. If my actions have been so terrible that they should be investigated by Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" (SCOW?), why has no other form of dispute resolution, such as an RFC/U, been pursued first? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because your calling me an "asshole" occurred in connection to this case and it turned out there were a sufficient number of prior examples of your bad behavior connected to the scope of this case to bring the matter here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call you an asshole. My comment was a figure of speech that had no particular target. You have chosen to interpret the comment this way, but your interpretation is in error. And the "sufficient number of prior examples" is complete nonsense that isn't supported by the diffs. Please stop lying. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I pointed out your statement about people believing in "dumb stuff like Jesus" [363] and you responded by calling me a liar on SBHB's talk page [364]. Also, I'll note that you have had a few enforcement requests filed against (not with evidence I would've used) and that both were closed by 2over0 as either "no action" or as a "warning" (i.e. no action)). What I mean by the last part is that it was made perfectly clear at the beginning of the CC enforcement that no meaningful sanctions would be applied to anyone other than skeptics. Also, considering the volume of evidence on our side we haven't file nearly as many RfEs - and those who have immediately had at least one RfE filed back against them (really obvious pattern of that). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense at all. First of all, I do think believing in Jesus is dumb, and I couldn't care less if you find that offensive. Get over it. Secondly, it defies all logic that you should think that two RfEs constitutes "a few". Finally, I called you a liar because you were lying. Get over that too. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't what you think that is offensive - it is what you say that is offensive. Personally I could care less about what you think of Jesus (I don't even think he existed). What I do care about is a battleground mentality that conjures words that are intentionally offensive to a huge section of the population. And let's be clear here, you didn't say that believing in Jesus is dumb (well, you just did that too - and that is also offensive), you said that Jesus himself was dumb. That kind of baiting and soapboxing is clearly beyond the pale - or it would be if you weren't shielded by the fact that so many admins share your ideology. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about your mock outrage. I think the whole concept of Jesus is dumb, and I think people are dumb for believing in who is now generally understood to be a fictitious character constructed from various unrelated myths and legends. And I think people are dumb for being offended by someone who thinks they're dumb for believing in something dumb. And I think you're dumb for trying to exploit what was nothing more than a dumb simile about dumb people believing in a dumb mythical construct. And I'm sure this comment will appear in another dumb list created by another dumb diff-diver trying to make another dumb mountain out of another dumb molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your mindset, so similar to that of your compatriots, can't even conceive that what you said was highly insulting - instead you have to pretend to yourself that my "outrage" (disgust actually) is feigned. It was a completely inappropriate statement in a completely inappropriate area. Your unwillingness to recognize this and insistence on continuing to attack me shows exactly what kind of person you are. As I said before, you are lucky that tribal politics is on your side, and frankly I'm glad that it isn't on mine, since I'd rather win or lose based on my arguments than the base prejudices of group affiliation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking you, and I'm not in any contest that I need to win or lose. This thread is about me defending the baseless accusations against me made by Noroton (clarification: "Noroton and JohnWBarber are the same individual). You chose to take part in this thread yourself, and it is too bad if you don't like how I choose to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't attacking me? I guess I must've been reading a different thread but so far you've said I'm a liar, dumb and in your edit summary you just said you wanted to use "RAID" on me (not very original - you've used that one before). You've certainly done a bang-up job of proving how "baseless" the accusations are Scjessey - perhaps a better defense would've been to not demonstrate the behavior you've been accused of? No worries though, the Arbs aren't reading this so you can continue to be as insulting as possible because I'm just a "civil POV pusher" right? And if I ever lash out in kind (like I have occasionally done in the past) then that incivility can be used as an excuse to ban me. It certainly is a nice little club you belong to. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with you, and I will not be responding to your baiting any further. Please find a different crop to feed on. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear from the conversation that you've been baiting the entire time and that you are simply upset that I didn't take the bait. I don't expect you to admit this just like you refused to admit that you were attacking me and twisted your actions to be a "defense" in your mind. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I won't comment on much of the above thread, but your edit summary in that last edit was very much a personal attack.[365] Horologium (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More of a "personal defense" than a personal attack. Sorry, but this guy has been "bugging me" for years now. How do you get rid of bugs, may I ask? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed remedy: Administrator tours of duty

Administrators are advised to periodically rotate out of hot disputes to help avoid the personalization of conflicts. Jehochman Talk 02:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This and the one below are both excellent. I'm discouraged that neither has been proposed on the PD page proper. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed principle: Stereotyping

It is not helpful to stereotype or label other editors. Calling somebody pro-foo or anti-foo, or identifying them as a member of a faction or cabal is unlikely to result in better collaboration. Instead, focus on the content and quality of articles. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to conflict with a principle already in the PD relating to confluences of editors. And with WP:SPADE which isn't policy but is considered a good idea by many. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My observation is that people who like name calling like WP:SPADE and that it is not helpful at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I don't see any conflict with any other part of the current decision. I'd put WP:SPADE in the general category of "problem," not "solution." There is too much spade-calling and battleground behavior in those articles. WP:NOSPADE is what needs to be applied by editors in these articles and, especially, administrators. Those who feel they can't abide by it should be directed to leave these articles. The "nutshell" summary of WP:NOSPADE seems to have been written for the CC articles: When "calling a spade a spade" means applying labels to an editor, doing so is just going to cause the dispute to escalate, and turn out to be really embarrassing if you turn out to be wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed principle: Pointing out errors

If editors make persistent editing errors, insulting or blaming them is unlikely to help. Instead, concerned editors should find an uninvolved party to review the problematic editing and leave guidance on the relevant talk pages.

New proposed principle: Experts and amateurs

Experts are needed to help advance articles on complex topics to the highest quality levels. Amateurs are also encouraged to participate because they can perform many useful tasks, such as starting articles, identifying possible sources, copy editing, proof reading, formatting, giving feedback, and making articles accessible to a wide audience. Experts need to be kind and patient when collaborating with amateurs, and amateurs need to be respectful of experts who donate their time to the project. In any case, expertise is not a license to violate Wikipedia policies. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed principle: Randy in Boise

Wikipedia does [not?] compromise factual accuracy to accommodate fringe views. See also Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean does not? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh-yup. It boosts my morale to see that somebody is paying attention. Jehochman Talk 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought JEH meant that the encyclopedia was in the habit of compromising the "factual accuracy" of a subject by accommodating too much fringe content, per the example of Randy in Boise... I was aware that he disapproved of such adulteration, but thought the original wording worked equally well. I suppose I am just too adept at reading JEH's meaning, like his chucklesome misspelling of ego! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Les, this statement works equally well with or without the not. With, it is a principle. Without, it is finding of fact. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nice idea, but sans anonymous trolls there isn't much of this going on. If there was then there would be evidence of such and it would have been presented as a pattern of behavior. This basic idea has been asserted countless times in various ways, but I've yet to see any proof other than the persuasive powers of repeated assertion over a long period of time (i.e. none). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo - involved/uninvolved

I see remedies on whether or not Lar and Stephan Schulz are/were (un)involved, but no such determination for Polargeo. As I recall, these three were the key participants in this corner of the dispute. It would be good to see such a remedy, if only for Polargeo's peace of mind (though he may not see it the same way). I'm not sure though whether sufficient evidence has been laid out to do this. Franamax (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If remedy 6 were to pass wouldn't that be redundant?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed something: Noticeboard threads

Administrators are advised to attempt discussion before undoing each other's closure or re-opening of noticeboard threads. Taking such actions without prior discussion may set a poor example for other users, and could lead to edit wars. Jehochman Talk 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: Minor4th has been disruptive

User:Minor4th decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [366], [367], [368] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: GregJackP has been disruptive

User:GregJackP decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [369] etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The so-called disruption cited above involved restoring a deletion by WMC to the article, and using a peer-reviewed source, co-authored by WMC to support the material that I restored. I believe that the inclusion of peer-reviewed sources to an article can hardly be disruptive since the intent was to improve the article by showing a NPOV, even by using the SPOV to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diff refers to you adding this source to support the statement, "Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." How in the world does the source you added support that statement? Please refer to at least one of the page numbers in the paper (1325-1337) to justify your edit. You should not be edit warring here or anywhere else, especially when it involves making controversial claims that are not explicitly supported by the sources. If the source and statement you edit warred into the article [370][371] are not supported, you need to start using the talk page more and stop disrupting the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P 1326 gives a list of people who have commented on what they perceive was global cooling alarmism in the 1970s. I think the paper is a good source on the global cooling alarmism of the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The paper is not about global warming or global cooling alarmism. You are arguing that you support the misuse of the source. Page 1326 is about the myth of global cooling, not climate change alarmism, and Greg's change introduced the words "global cooling" and misused this source to support it. Page 1326 is a list of quotes from people who have "perpetuated" the myth of global cooling. It says nothing about the concept of "climate change alarmism". This can only be described as bad editing. We do not interpret sources to promote our POV. We use sources explicitly, and paraphrase closely and appropriately. This appears to be a deliberate misuse of a source to promote and push a POV. If true, there should be sanctions for this kind of bad behavior, which evidently, has not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the discussion about these proposed FoF's (Greg and Minor4th) on WMC's talk page looks to me like they are retaliatory because these two editors have been so busy editing the CC articles lately in ways that WMC and his friends do not approve of, but feel helpless to resist because they are currently under the ArbCom spotlight. It seems to me that if editors are following the rules with their edits, they should have no worries about being watched by ArbCom or anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we see quite clearly in the above and below, that these two editors have not been following the rules, neither with their edits nor in terms of civility. Edit warring and battlefield mentality is also a continuing problem with Greg and Minor4th. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can go to the RfE archives and look for patterns of retaliatory enforcement filings - it is an easy pattern to see and from two editors in particular. Describing such actions as retaliatory would be used as evidence by certain admins to topic ban "skeptics." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. It was not disruptive, and I made exactly 2 reverts. I stopped at that point, to stay well clear of 3RR and nowhere close to edit warring. How many did WMC make? I also discussed the matter on the talk page. The source explicitly supports the material, see sidebar beginning on p. 1330 and ending on p. 1331, and cited popular media (Science Digest, 1974, "Brace yourself for another Ice Age"; Time Magazine, 1974, ""climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."; Newsweek, 1975, "cooling trend would 'reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.'"; and several books, including "A more extreme book. The Cooling (Ponte 1976). predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050"}. All of these statements are pure examples of "of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page, but was reverted without any discussion on the material in depth. I can't help it that WMC's article provided perfect examples of what he was trying to edit out - but it was not a disruptive addition. I stand by the source and the inclusion. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is a type of disruptive behavior. Per WP:3RR, "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please remember that in the future. As for your examples, I appreciate your interpretation, but we must use sources carefully, paying special attention to explicit claims that any reasonable editor can agree matches the content in the article. So, instead of interpreting what you think are examples, find an explicit claim that supports your material and discuss it in good faith on the talk page. You will find, if you do this, editors from all sides of the aisle, jumping at the chance to help you. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. GregJackP Boomer! 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree with Greg that the paper does support the text in question and I might be readding it as a source myself. The disruptive edits in question in this incident lie with WMC and Wikispan, because they deleted reliably sourced text from the article. WMC made three reverts, but I think he escaped a block because he didn't revert the same material each time. But, shouldn't that be considered as rather disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this case at all and so I won't comment on the specifics, but as for 3rr, it doesn't matter if you revert different material each time - what matters is the number of reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion above, I just readded WMC's paper as a source to the article. I don't have time at the moment, but perhaps someone should study these three reverts by WMC [372] [373] [374] to see if it merits reporting to the appropriate authorities, since I doubt anything will happen by reporting it here. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three reverts isn't a technical violation of the rule - you would need more than three. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except as Viriditas was kind enough to point out (above), "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Based on the pattern of behavior noted in a number of CC articles, I think that a reasonable admin could conclude that WMC was edit warring. Thanks V - your comments were very helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, one of the main problems in the area is unequal enforcement. Most admins are completely unwilling to act against WMC et all on anything except technical violations (and often not even then) - this is why BLPs are grossly violated and their civil (and even uncivil) POV pushing is allowed and even encouraged - they are subjective and therefore either ignored or gamed. WMC should've been flat out banned for posting Fred Singer's address and telephone number while at the same time implying he was committing tax fraud - AFAIK that evidence wasn't even posted in the PD. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop bickering and look at the results. We have come to this:

"Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling"

This would get you an F-minus in primary school. I'm sure that the average 10 year old can do some research and write about climate change alarmism as this term is used in practice. The conclusion about global cooling the student will come to is that in the 1970s, there was not an alarmism about global cooling, rather that this term is invoked today by sceptics to paint global warming discussions as alarmist by pointing to media reports in the 1970s on global cooling.

While ArbCom should in general not look at content disputes, they can still take a general look at the nature of content disputes. If it's not about two reasonable POVs like here, i.e. one POV would not be acceptable for a primary school level coursework project, then ArbCom can use this to make a decision like : "One group of editors is so much influenced by a POV that it affects their ability to contribute to certain articles in a resonable way."

It may not be the case that this groups is edit warring, they may well play nice and stick to all the rules we have at Wkipedia. It may well be the ones who try to correct the mistakes who, from the point of view of the Wiki-rules, are behaving more aggressively. But what it boils down to is that the group is simply not qualified to contribute constructively to get to good quality articles in a certain topic area of Wikipedia. And that is then the source of the friction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just media reports Iblis, but the same things that are being quoted now (e.g. government reports). Historical revisionism is the term for this, often by people who were pushing global cooling back then and who now switched over to warming. Oh well, I suppose that'll be fixed eventually too - unless some people start claiming CO2 is responsible for cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD winding down

The drafting arbs are trying very hard to finish sifting through evidence and statements and finish the PD by Sunday. If you have more to say or present, please do so in the next couple days. Thanks to all for their support and inputs. RlevseTalk 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there going to be any changes to the PD? Unless I've missed something I don't see this as being terribly effective. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. At least both sides can agree on this. (Ah -- so maybe it was a cunning plot by the arbs!) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to ask the drafting arbitrators to review my initial scope questions one more time and determine, if you haven't already, if you believe that the answer is "yes" to any of them. If so, please consider whether all the editors who contributed to that "yes" answer, as documented in the evidence, have been named in the PD findings section. Also, please take into account whether the behaviors documented on this PD talk page and in the CC articles over the last few weeks have reinforced the evidence of behavior by those editors, including wikilawyering, personal attacks, edit warring, agenda-driven editing, BLP violations, assumptions of bad faith, battleground mentalities, and deletions or blanking of reliably sourced text without good faith attempts at collaboration, compromise, and cooperation. I'll conclude by adding that I really appreciate the time and attention you all have given to this case. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have more stuff to add. RlevseTalk 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No involved editor will be completely happy with any decision in a case of this magnitude. I personally think some are treated too harshly and others not harshly enough (or not at all), and all things considered I think I still prefer SirFozzie's scorched earth approach. But I do think the arbs have taken great effort to address the major issues, and I can live with the result. There can always be a new case if unresolved issues remain after this one. ATren (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage all editors who have contributed to this page to re-read your comments and refactor (or summarize) where possible for the sake of brevity, clarity, and civility. Jehochman Talk 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add new proposals in this section - only general comments on the scheduling, scope, handling and timetable of the case, as it winds down, should be made here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is it and there isn't going to be much more in the way of substantive remedies, it wasn't worth the wait. You guys missed the mark. Closing the Workshop a month early was not a good approach at all. This page turned into a workshop anyway. ++Lar: t/c 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been reading all the commentary on this page as is (I hope) reflected in some of my votes and comments so far. In retrospect, we probably should have workshopped the proposed decision rather than posted it straight to the proposed decision page; Lar is right that this page is functioning more-or-less as a workshop anyway, only a bit harder to follow (despite Carcharoth's yeoman efforts). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was the point of the one month lockdown? In the post mortem I expect that ill considered decision will be resoundingly criticized by most participants. As I said elsewhere, you didn't stifle discussion. You just forced it to places where your clerks have no remit. Very bad idea, please don't ever do that again. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The short answer to that is that we had no idea it would be anywhere near as long as it became. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, are you saying that you made a decision without thinking through the consequences and when it became apparent it wasn't working out the way you thought, you didn't see the need to revisit it, instead letting the matter fester for a month? That's how it reads to me, but perhaps there is an alternative explanation? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see the point in rehashing it. Many of us disagreed with closing the workshop, and many of our concerns were realized when they did close it, but there's little that can be done about it now. This page is now de-facto serving as the workshop, so the net effect is not much different. Let's move on. ATren (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What's done is done but it is nevertheless worth noting what a botch it was so that... perhaps... it won't be repeated. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page started out at a disadvantage, and it's still awfully big, 900kb, which may be too much for some user's computers or connections to handle. Nevertheless, the clerks and Carcharoth have made the best of it. As a general suggestion, I think we should return to the old format workshop were everybody could add proposals, and the proposals should be sorted by topic rather than by editor. This would help avoid duplication. We could innovate by producing versions of the Workshop. Start with version 1, then pull the best proposals and comments to Version 2 (and close 1). Rinse and repeat until you get a semi-stable product at Version N. Copy that to the Proposed Decision and start voting immediately. This would be a way to wash out the noise or heat, while keeping signal or light. There would also be an incentive for people to make insightful proposals because these could eventually turn into the decision. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like that idea a lot. The switch from workshop proposals organized around topic to ones organized around editors is one of the less productive changes in AC process, ever. JEH not only argues for switching back, he's come up with a good innovation. The question is who decides what the "best" proposals are, though. Still, worth exploring. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is assuming that other people's proposals are even going to make it to the PD page. Sometimes those deciding the case insist on changing workshop proposals because they can rather than because they should; not sure why they don't change or add the modified proposal in the workshop first. Then these proposals get discussed on the off-wiki venue even though it isn't often necessary for the reasons for which that system was created. And then it comes back on-wiki somewhere where everyone makes their round of feedback. An analysis is needed on how much feedback is reflected in the actual decision of each case. They vote, then the decision comes out where people again provide feedback, and this may include a number of concerns about the way a particular case was handled (for example, posting on the PD straight away instead of first taking it to the workshop, which was raised in other cases). The question is how many of those arbitrators from a particular batch learn from the feedback, or is it going through one of their ears/eyes and out the other? The community cannot act on this unless we have appropriate candidates in the future - they are rare, and even if they are appointed, such candidates are eventually not available for reasons beyond their control (if not out of frustration with the way the system is 'working' on many levels). Until the community formally binds arbitrators, through policy/procedure, on some of these features (like moving workshop proposals straight to PD), I wonder about the likelihood of change (if any) and should it occur, how long will it last for this time? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of articles

Final suggestion from me. One can clearly distinguish three types of articles:

1) BLP articles

2) CC articles that are substantially about the controversy like e.g. the article on the CRU hacking incident, global warming controversy, The Soon and Baliunas controversy, the hockey stick controversy etc.

3) CC articles that are substantially about the science like the main global warming, the Greenhouse effect article and the vast number of other articles on the technical aspects of climate science

The PD so far does not distinguish between the two types of CC articles. The editing disputes in recent times (say after 2007) have mainly involved the first kind of CC articles and the BLP articles. There are only a few articles that are on the boundary between the two types of articles, like e.g. the Scientific opinion on climate change article. There are quite a few articles that belong both the first and second catagory.

It is thus possible to implement more selective topic ban. E.g., editors who have made good contributions to the technical science articles but have found themselves in frequent conflicts on the first type of CC articles and BLP articles can be restricted from editing these articles. This would only require a more specific labeling of all the CC articles that are on article probation. Articles that are a bit on the boundary like Scientific opinion on climate change can be put in the second category. Such a labeling would not be controvesial; this can be performed by Admins who have some experience in implementing the General Sanctions regime. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you move this to either the "locus" finding discussion, or to the general discussion of the remedies. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to run now, if anyone can move this to the approprate "locus" section and give it the correct label, then that's ok. with me. Count Iblis (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although edge cases may be hard, I think this is a useful and meaningful distinction. It goes well with something I've been saying for a long time... this topic area is not only (in fact, not primarily) about the science. There are a number of editors that I would be happy to see allowed to work on the pure science articles but who ought to be restricted from the socio/economic/political and BLP articles. I'd urge ArbCom to seriously look at this. ++Lar: t/c 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could also put it the other way. There are a number of editors working in the socio/economic/political and BLP articles who should be restricted from working on pure science articles. It doesn't sound like quite such a good idea now, does it? I think trying to restrict people along these lines will be an administrative nightmare. The real problem in this topic has always been with "controversy" articles and BLPs. The latter has a strong set of rules easily policed by administrators, but the former are magnets for complex dramas played out between warring factions that are far more difficult to effectively administer. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have editors who are behaving badly. If we use one bin for all of CC, they need to be banned from all of the CC articles. But if we want to still allow benefit, if we can partition CC into areas, some of which some of our badly behaving editors might still be able to contribute productively... should we do that? It doesn't matter which editors can contribute in which areas, really, that's not the point. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Unfortunately it appears that editors you wish to bar from the socio/economic articles all fall on the supporting global warming side. This then appears to be a POV endorsement. What about POVeditors who turn up consistently on articles about sceptic BLPs, blogs and books with the single intention to add positive reports (often written by other sceptics or originating with the sceptic themselves) and then to vent the scientific arguments (coatrack) of those sceptics with no weight or balance (often under the guise of summarizing a book). This is POV pushing that is allowed to go on unchecked but for those editors who you wish to sanction. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "you" referring to? I agree that the problem is from both "sides". One faction just happens to be more problematic but both are not without issue. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently refer to one "faction" as more problematic and I strongly believe this is where you have ceased to be objective and where you are trying to push an agenda even whilst acting as an "uninvolved" admin. Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting a little off the beaten track a bit here. This thread is supposed to be about classifying articles, not classifying biases. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but I encourage arbs to fully appreciate the spirit of "involved" and not to make the facile argument that any editor who has ever edited a CC article is involved whilst any editor who has not is not involved. That on my reading is not what involved is about and is a simplistic and incorrect argument and all too easy to implement by those who do not care about admins pushing agendas. Polargeo (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-The Count has codified something I've been thinking about for some time. (I even visited Category:Climate change and mentally started the allocation). I would make one modification to the definitions—a modification I think is non-controversial. I like BLP and "primarily" science for groups but I would simply define Group 2 as everything else. For example [The Ny-Ålesund Symposium] is a climate change article; it is not a BLP, it is not primarily about the science, but also not about the "controversy", so it is homeless without an modification of the definition (or a fourth group, but that doesn't seem ncessary)

The main value in this exercise is that quite a number of comments in this discussion relate to SPOV, sourcing of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed, proper weighting of minority views and related issues. I am not suggesting that these issues only apply to one of the groups (obviously, weighting of minority views is everywhere an issue), but that how we address those issues may be different for the three groups. To take the obvious example, science articles should exhibit a strong (though not exclusive) preference for peer-reviewed sources, while BLPs needed have that same emphasis.

If the attribution to group could be done, it would be interesting to do an analysis of the editing histories. My cursory review of the list of CC articles tentatively concludes that there are rather more pure science articles than I had realized, but my guess is that we will find substantially more edit-warring in the other two groups. --SPhilbrickT 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would add a fourth category, those CC articles that are tangentially or directly connected to CC, but are neither about the science nor the controversy per se. This would include items such as articles on books, on skepticism, and similar subjects. For example, an article on skepticism or denialism is not technically about the science, nor is it about the controversy. Nor, for that matter, is an article about a book normally directly connected with either. Otherwise, I agree with the basic idea and proposal. GregJackP Boomer! 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CI; this is an important distinction that has not been adequately drawn by the PD (I tried to refer to this in my evidence [375] but perhaps not very clearly) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that this distinction could be usefully drawn with regard to some of the sanctions proposed in the PD. I would like to add a note of caution, though, following the discussion under #P9: Encyclopedic coverage of science above: The impression should not be given that some non-science CC articles would then be allowed to drift into an 'alternate reality' in which the effects of the laws of physics, as ascertained by mainstream scientists, don't still apply. --Nigelj (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useful distinction. I would love to see editors with a good science background but a deplorable BLP track record able to continue contributing to the science articles. --JN466 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO

I lost my internet connection yesterday and only have a few minutes this morning free. I wrote this yesterday but didn't get a chance to post it because of my connection problem. It appears as if some of my concern has been addressed, but not fully:

The way that it's currently written, it seems to be arguing for sanctions against ChrisO for conduct related to the Kosovo, Macedonia 2 and Scientology topic spaces.[376] There's only one very brief mention of ChrisO's conduct on the CC topic space. Here's my suggested FoF.[377]

Hopefully, this makes sense and the FoF can be (possibly) be expanded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also only mentions sanctions based on NPA (or at least that is how it read yesterday). NPA is the least of the ChrisO problems. The edit warring and BLP violations, the tendentious editing and intentional insertion of improper sources to push a POV are the bigger issues. I think the proposed remedy was banning from BLP's but the finding does not mention his BLP violations in the CC area. That needs to be addressed. Minor4th 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would find sanctions based on the Macedonia case regrettable. The substantive resolution of that case included consensus that the movement to call the Republic of Macedonia FYROM was undesirable, the creation of an abuse filter to discourage it, and the banning of several of its more persistent advocates - "and they've none of them been missed". ChrisO opposed this clique a little too strongly; he has already been desysopped for it, as part of the case. Double jeopardy, especially for opposing partisan movements which are of no benefit to the encyclopedia, is neither justice nor expedience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in the Macedonia case, I also think that the dynamic there was somewhat different, and some of the sanctions applied in that case don't work well here. In particular, the naming issue was an overarching portion of that conflict, and ChrisO substantially wrote WP:Naming Conflict, which was at the time Wikipedia's guideline on naming conflicts, one that was in fact a guideline for over four years. (It was later merged into Wikipedia:Article titles). Note that a related group of proposed sanctions would have topic-banned ChrisO from Macedonia-related articles; all were soundly rejected. Topic banning the author of the guideline on naming conflicts over a topic in which a naming conflict was the central issue was stupid, and the arbitrators apparently recognized that, at least. I disagree with ChrisO on a number of issues (especially his flexible interpretation of BLP), but not in ARBMAC2. His only misjudgement there was the timing of the article move, because of the incipient arbitration request, which was about a week away from being filed. Horologium (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the references to some of the prior cases in the proposed finding of fact should be rephrased, but at present I do not think it necessary to address the issue because I find the entire finding unnecessary in light of ChrisO's retirement from the project. (See next thread below.) Should my colleagues disagree with my position in that respect and desire to pass a finding, I will revisit this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and Innovative Way to Avoid Being Sanctioned by ArbCom?

According to this vote,[378], all an editor has to do to avoid being sanctioned by ArbCom is to simply announce their retirement from the project. After all, why sanction an editor if they say they're never going to edit Wikipedia again? Well, what happens if MN, TGL and WMC also announce their retirement? Does that mean they escape sanctioning, too? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I've said before, some of these people have a pattern of "retiring" when sanctions are being considered against them. I think anyone who retires under such circumstances should have that retirement made permanent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) @AQFN: I think you're overgeneralizing. I'm fairly certain that in the past arbcom has sanctioned users who had announced their retirement, or said something like "the following applies when/if they return" (someone who remembers can fill in the details of the case(s) where this was done). Note NYB specifically said in this instance there was no need to issue such conditional sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive no need to do so in this instance. Please explain why you think there's no need to sanction Chris. That's the heart of the matter. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chris leaving, but if that's really the nub of it, please explain how that can be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the position of NYB. In general, ArbCom should review the evidence and take whatever actions are dictated by the evidence and policy—the status of the party in question should be irrelevant. While one can imagine some exceptions - if the retirement occurred early in the evidence gathering stage and the party did not have an opportunity to rebut evidence, if there are open questions which can only be resolved by the party in question, or if the remedies require the involvement of the party, but there's no indication that any such exception applies in this instance. Excluding ChrisO simply because he chose to retire creates a potentially bad precedent.--SPhilbrickT 01:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have considered this input, as I am considering all the input we are receiving on this page, but stand by my votes on the proposals relating to ChrisO.

The purpose of findings and remedies in arbitration cases is to solve problems. When we make a finding against an editor and impose sanctions, we are seeking to prevent is to avoid future problems with that individual's editing. We are not imposing punishment for punishment's own sake. Thus, when the editor has credibly stated that he or she will no longer be editing, then depending on the circumstances, findings and remedies against the editor may no longer serve a useful purpose. In each such case, we must decide whether to pass the proposals anyway or to drop them. This is by no means the first time that such a situation has arisen.

Factors to be considered in deciding how to proceed in the face of an editor's announced retirement may include the evident sincerity of the retirement, whether the editor could pose a threat if the matter is not pursued to a conclusion, and what effect not passing the findings and remedies might have on other parties to the case. In this instance, consideration of these factors leads me to conclude, with little hesitation, that further proceedings against ChrisO are not necessary. ChrisO is not alleged by any of the commenters to have a history of claiming to be retiring so as to avoid sanctions, and then returning when the coast is clear. There is strong reason to believe that his invocation of the right to vanish is sincerely intended. This is not a case involving allegations of sockpuppetry, so that sanctions against the main account would be needed to govern editing by another account. Nor does ChrisO hold any special userrights that he could misuse if he were suddenly to return after the case is closed; since the Macedonia 2 case he is no longer an administrator, so we need not consider whether to desysop him. He is not leaving in the face of a proposal to ban him from the project, but simply to topic-ban him from a particular area. Should he later return to editing and return to the climate change topic area, we would retain jurisdiction to quickly pass any necessary motion restricting his editing in the area.

Contrary to the comment by SPhilbrick, I do not believe that my position creates a dangerous precedent. The established precedent here is that we consider each of these situations on its own merits.

ChrisO, for all his mistakes and sharp edges (including those that led to the proposals against him in this case), was a dedicated editor and administrator for a number of years. I also am sorry that has left us after years of participation under these circumstances, and I think it unnecessary to fire a parting shot of official criticism in his direction in the immediate wake of his departure.

Needless to say, my colleagues on the committee may have different views; we will see what they think of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. We apply this reasoning, subject to circumstances, whenever an editor decides to leave the project. The Committee has always used its discretion in a parsimonious manner, formulating remedies in a forward-looking manner. It's up to the arbitrators currently considering this case to decide whether the findings and remedies pertaining to a departed editor serve any useful purpose. --TS 03:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, (1) your statement that in sanctioning an editor you're not punishing him (what we seeking to prevent is to avoid future problems with that individual's editing) is contradicted when you say later in your statement, I think it unnecessary to fire a parting shot of official criticism in his direction in the immediate wake of his departure. If the purpose of sanctioning really, truly is not to punish, then it isn't a "parting shot", either, but still an attempt to avoid future problems if that editor comes back. (2) You (and Risker, below) see only two possibilities here: ChrisO was sincere when he resigned and won't come back or alternatively, that he was insincere and planned to return. But there's at least one other obvious possibility: He may change his mind. A lot of people get angry and announce they'll leave and then return, and there doesn't have to be anything insincere about it. (I think this is especially true when someone leaves when they're upset -- the mood passes, eventually, but the desire to edit remains; it's not hard to see that ChrisO may have been upset.) You aren't insulting ChrisO by acting as if it's possible that he'll be back. If he does come back within the proposed period of the six-month CC topic ban or the one-year BLP-editing ban, then ArbCom will face a decision on how to vote -- but the committee will be faced with that decision perhaps months after this case closes, when the circumstances of the case won't be as fresh in anybody's mind. It's better to make your decision one way or the other now, not later. If he returns and, yet again, gets in some kind of trouble that causes him to go before ArbCom or ANI or anywhere else, it would be better to say "ArbCom sanctioned him in that Climate Change case" or "ArbCom decided not to sanction him" rather than "ArbCom would have sanctioned him" because that last statement will inevitably be disputed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a significant and notable difference between a user who has a history of regularly sticking "retired" tags on their userpage and one who takes the step of invoking the right to vanish. While I will take time to sleep on my final decision with respect to sanctions involving ChrisO, I believe that he was fully cognizant of the meaning of vanishing, and that he has taken this action in the traditional internet understanding that it means he is not coming back. Risker (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It would seem the point is moot with respect to remedies against ChrisO since he has exercised the right to vanish, and his username has been deactivated and changed to a vanished user number. At least it's my understanding that there is no longer a "ChrisO" account that can log in or edit. The findings with regard to the prior cases are probably irrelevant for the same reasons. However, it might be helpful to make findings of fact in this case just as a manner of providing further guidance to the editors still involved -- but the only existing proposed finding that would be relevant is a finding that ChrisO has been uncivil -- there should be a finding about edit warring, sourcing and BLP violations if there's going to be any finding at all. Minor4th 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that the arbitrators go ahead and vote on findings for ChrisO but then table any discussion of remedies for ChrisO indefinitely. Remember, it's not just ChrisO's feelings involved here, but also the feelings of his victims, videlicet, the BLP subjects whose articles he abused, the WP editors he belittled, insulted, and patronized, and any others who observed his behavior and wondered why Wikipedia's administrators weren't doing anything about it. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides here. My main thought is that we do not do Damnatio memoriae, ((well, except via the Magic 8 Ball.. *grins*)). Despite the various sanctions against him, I think ChrisO was quite indeed a net positive to the project, and if he wishes to return, I would encourage it. Rather than putting something official in the record as a possible deterrent to his return, I would think that the proper thing to do here is not decide that part of the case. If he returns and If his editing becomes problematic again, it is a simple matter at that point to put sanctions in. I think, quite honestly, that the odds of that are low. But we'll see. 08:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well there are important issues here and I'm probably being way too blunt on a side point but NYB I think that attempts to reassure people by pointing out that Arbocmm can "quickly pass any necessary motion" are more likely to have the opposite effect. 92.39.206.238 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the wider issue, you probably need to decouple discussion on what the policy should be in general with regard to editors who retire in these circumstances from this particular case. One further thought on NYB's reasoning though - it does read to me like a return to the sort of thinking that had editing of BLPs as a less serious issue than major world shaking wikipedia internal politic stuff like who can block whom. It isn't. BLPs matter more than admin bits every time and I thought wikipedia had matured to the point where at least the arbitrators got that. 92.39.206.238 (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Editors who consistently and unrepentedly attack BLP subjects should not be tolerated to any degree. Cla68 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks for your input, I don't really need to be reminded of the importance of the BLP policy. I've not only been writing about it on-wiki for three and one-half years (beginning with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad), but I've blogged about it off-site and given a major speech about it a conference (see links on my userpage). I am not, however, convinced that it is necessary or helpful to promote respect for that important policy by sanctioning someone who isn't here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, the BLP violations I've observed related to this case are some of the worst I've ever seen from established editors in my four years of participating in Wikipedia. I'm angry that there would be any consideration give to any of the editors involved in these violations. WP's administration needs to send a message that as part of taking the BLP rules seriously, as you've obviously been doing with your appreciated advocacy on the issue, editors who abuse BLPs will be firmly invited to take up a new hobby. Yes, I'm advocating bans from editing Wikipedia altogether. Although ChrisO and WMC were among the worst offenders, they weren't the only ones. At the end of the evidence phase, I asked, I think three times, if you all wished to extend the evidentiary period so that I could add more evidence of BLP abuses, but I received no answer. So, I assume that means that you all have enough evidence to take action on the offending parties. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I shall put it another way; ArbCom famously does not make precedent, but its actions are minutely reviewed and considered (which is why I have made efforts in some matters to lessen the language used), and if it is noted that retirement/RTV is a method by which an identity's good standing can be protected (ChrisO is not the only person whose account can be quite easily linked to an RL individual) and findings/sanctions suspended, then the preventative aspect of being held to account is deprecated. I recognise that ChrisO has no record of socking or abusing accounts, but he does have an unfortunate history of policy violation in several subject areas and those sanctions and comments remain linked to his editing account. What makes this ArbCom so different, other than he retires in the course of it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risker and Newyorkbrad, why do you trust ChrisO, given what I've shown here. [379] I can't imagine a good explanation for this that doesn't impeach his honesty. The priority here is protecting the encyclopedia from further disruption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the concerns expressed by some here: retirements are not always permanent, and even though the language of right to vanish retirement indicates permanence, it also seems to allow vanished users to return ("Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.") I think there should be a finding that remedies for ChrisO were made moot because he permanently retired ("vanished") during the case, but if he returns in the next year, those remedies would be revisited by the committee. ATren (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A failure of nerve. ArbCom should pass the findings (elaborated to cover all the issues, not just one) and remedies regarding ChrisO. If they then wish to put them in abeyance, they should do so. But saying he's gone so we don't need to acknowledge the damage he did is just that, a failure of nerve (at least by those speaking out in favor of doing nothing... perhaps the members of ArbCom so far silent have more courage). For shame. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. One could conclude that it takes considerable nerve to stand up to a group's insistent demands for a pound of flesh. MastCell Talk 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A pound of flesh? Have you skimmed through the RfE archives? I'd say that WMC et all have filed at least as many requests as the other side - and that's not even counting other methods of vanishing the opposition (e.g. "Scibaby"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell: It's not a pound of flesh I'm after. ChrisO has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia across multiple topic spaces. My proposed sanctions are to prevent further disruption should ChrisO return. I note that even Jimbo has said that ChrisO is earning a reputation as an activist editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was an activist editor. He was an activist for neutrality and verifiability in numerous nationalist disputes all over Wikipedia. His departure is a loss for Wikipedia, whatever faults he may have had in the CC area aside. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed in the block log, Vanished user 03 was blocked today with an edit summary "Vanished users don't need to edit." Vanished user 03 is what ChrisO's name was changed to -- does this block indicate that he was trying to edit today as a vanished user? How does one pull up his contribution history?Minor4th 02:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't mean that.
    • The contributions should migrate to his new username; if they haven't, there must be a technical glitch or slowness with the rename program (perhaps due to the quantity of his edits). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all: Please note that there are new proposals on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which you appear to be opposing, for no good reason I can see. Your desire to sweep it all under the rug does you no credit. Acknowledge the serious problems, sanction, then put the sanctions in abeyance. This is what has been done in the past when the problems truly are serious. Why the failure of nerve? We waited a month for you to wimp out? You could have done that a month ago and saved us all a lot of bother. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ChrisO has certainly made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but this should not cloud our awareness of the gaping chasm between honest dissent and disloyal subversion.
In a faith-based system such as this, even a single attempt to subvert due process is enough to undo an eternity of honest effort. Such an act deals a swift and terrible blow to a body's trust and it cannot - it must not be tolerated if the body's integrity is to be restored.
The tragedy of his departure is not in what the project may have lost. It is in the betrayal of process he has so blatantly exhibited. It is in the complete forfeiture of integrity accumulated through so much time and effort, and while it is worthy of our pity, it is not worthy of our forgiveness. Nor does it warrant dismissing the judgment of his actions on the grounds that he opted to vanish rather than face being held accountable for them. Even in doing that he has managed to manipulate and disrupt the process here.
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Verbal

I know it is extremely late in the game, and I doubt the Committee will make a finding about this, but I still want to point out that User:Verbal does not edit in the CC topic area except to show up from time to time to edit war. In each instance I've seen, Verbal enters an ongoing revert war and adds one revert to the WMC/ChrisO side to protect them from crossing the 3RR threshold. I was reminded of this by noting The Gore Effect was protected today for edit warring, and Verbal was a part of that. I know he was part of at least one other listed edit war in the PD. I will go look for diffs. This might go to the "blocs of editors" acting in concert. Minor4th 16:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:
  1. Lawrence Solomon:[380], [381]
  2. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming:[382],[383]
  3. The Gore Effect: [384],[385],[386]
  4. Anthony Watts (blogger): [387], [388], [389], [390]
  5. Fred Singer: [391]
  6. Robert Watson (scientist): [392]
  7. Hockey stick controversy: [393], [394]


These are all reverts that were part of a larger revert war, most of which included WMC, and all of them took place since July 8 when the evidence closed. What's troubling about these reverts is Verbal was not otherwise engaged in editing the subject articles -- he only showed up to revert in support of the warmist bloc, usually without any discussion on the talk page. Minor4th 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this would be sanctionable behavior, if repeated, under the new sanctions regime. But I'm not holding my breath. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I told JWB when he asked me about diffs regarding Scjessey, there is a good chunk of editors like this and it is hard to point out just one for it. As Lar's recently updated statement suggests, part of this behavior is due to patterning their actions on other editors like WMC and KDP - and encouraged by the fact that they have never faced sanctions for gaming the system. As I said before, at an enforcement request when I pointed out such behavior (tagteaming to avoid breaking 3rr), that statement was used as evidence by 2over0 to topic ban me - poor behavior on their part (incivility/edit warring) more often than not leads to their "enemies" getting the boot. If ArbCom doesn't solve this problem after being given all the information necessary then I'll be back in a few years and ask for a nice bottle of wine from every one that regrets their votes (as I will from a few editors as well). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to get down to explicitly sanctioning very occasional participants in edit warring such as Verbal, then there are a lot of other editors, including some here calling for explicit sanctions against Verbal, who could be more justifiably sanctioned. We already have a proposed finding, with one arbitrator vote, recording Cla68 as a participant in 5 of the named edit wars, and ATren as a participant in 4. Perhaps it might make more sense to let the discretionary sanctions regime take effect and either modify behavior or exclude disruptive editors. --TS 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal had 4 too, see [396], and unlike mine, none of Verbal's has any reasonable claim of BLP exemption. Also, Cla68 and I have both indicated our willingness to be removed from this topic area if they similarly removed all participants in any war, so in a sense I agree with you here -- let's wipe the slate clean. ATren (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TS- You're totally missing the point. ATren and Cla edit the articles and are participating in discussions on talk pages and enforcing policy. Verbal does drive by reverts in support of a particular bloc without any discussion and without otherwise being engaged in this topic area, and it's suspiciously at the moment when a particular editor has reached his revert limit. Minor4th 17:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fair to remark that most of those who have engaged in edit warring and are facing possible sanctions have done so while engaging in discussions. It's a bit late to hope that we can ramp back to imposing conditional exemptions, and only discuss sanctions on those edit warriors who failed to discuss.
I suggest also that this talk of blocs might not be sensible at this point. The problem is a failure of collegial editing, for which the edit warring was a major precipitating factor. As it happens I think the discretionary sanctions are likely to provide all the encouragement those involved will need. But I could be persuaded otherwise if partisanship continues even under the noses of arbitrators. --TS 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I believe some of the edit wars in which I was a party involved sourced text which I had added and which was subsequently reverted in its entirety without discussion, such as you did here, 11 minutes after I had added it. Yes, reverting someone's addition of sourced text to an article without even attempting discussion on the talk page isn't very collegial. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I think a distinction should be made between reverts that are enforcing policy and reverts that are tendentiously violating policy. The Arbs do not seem to be making that distinction, however. Minor4th 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to examine the behavior dispassionately, and that means we have to stop taking sides and engaging in casuistry. I absolutely accept that I've failed in collegial editing. This doesn't detract from the truth of my observation. --TS 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the first two sentences are very true, and very good advice, they don't address Minor4ths point. Not all transgressions are equally serious. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla, yeah those were the circumstances of my edit wars as well. Notably none of my edits were subverting the science articles with "fringe anti-science denialism" - the excuses for the behavior don't align with observed fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're making a case against Verbal, you might want to prune those diffs and remove those that clearly fail to substantiate your request. For example, [397] appears to show Verbal reverting a banned sockpuppeteer. [398] shows Verbal removing an egregiously poor edit which clearly violates content policy (and BLP, for that matter). In both instances, his edits appear to be well within standard and even encouraged practices. MastCell Talk 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldnt encourage reversions of new users whose edits actually improve the article and restore NPOV by removing inflammatory language, such as in the first diff you cited. Banned sockpuppeteer? The user has three edits, none of which are controversial in the slightest. This is the problem -- if there's any attempt to improve the articles so that they don't read like alarmist propaganda, the user's reverted and blocked as a scibaby sock without any evidence whatsoever. I cannot believe you are supportive of this practice and are even encouraging its continued use. On the second one, Verbal jumped in the middle of a revert war started by Connolley - she reverted GregJackP after he had discussed his edits on the talk page, added additional sources and reworked the content. I believe it was eventually modified because it was SYNTH, but it is not a blatant BLP violation and Verbal shouldnt have been doing drive by reverts in the middle of an edit war without making a comment on the talk page or engaging in some type of discussion and participation on the talk page. Minor4th 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No: Banned sockpuppeteer? The user has three edits is wrong. The user, Scibaby, has many many edits, and is banned. Verbals revert was correct. Scibaby has also been instrumental in several of the recent non-edit-wars-leading-to-article-protects that we've seen William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have incontrovertible evidence that the user in question is actually Scibaby? Aside from your dislike for their edits, I mean? ... I didn't think so, so you're the "wrong" one here. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are blocked as Scibaby, which is good enough to be going on with. If you feel any reason to challenge that block, you should do so rather than just casting aspersions here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking as Scibaby is what, 80% correct? 90%? 95%? Good enough for hand grenades perhaps but not for making definitive statements. You're the one casting unwarranted aspersions. As per usual. If I didn't like you as a person, it'd be really hard to take, how much trash you talk. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence at all that the user was a sock, and its edits were improving the article by removing inflammatory language -- if improving an article is what is considered evidence of sockpuppetry, we have a real problem here. Minor4th 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the "socks" are actually doing (I suspect some are actually socking because they were previously incorrectly banned as Scibaby); what matters is that they can be added to the ginormous Scibaby list and their edits characterized as "fringe anti-science creationism" - this is a great justification for atrocious behavior on the part of the anti-heroes who protect us from the Scibaby menace. I mean, Batman seems like a prick, but he gets the bad guys right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal's reverts give every appearance of a drive by edit warrior called in somehow (or exceedingly observant of their watch list, but that's less credible given the data) when someone's RR bolt was shot and a boost was needed. That's what the reverts LOOK like. There may be some other explanation possible but I don't see a credible one on offer. AGF but don't be a damfool about it. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is so funny, in the light of your requests for "inconntrovertible proof" just above, now you're flinging out allegations based on no evidence at all William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the diffs. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, maybe you might spend some time reading AGF before you next cite it, because your shot at me earlier on this page felt to me like you weren't willing to extend any good faith when I asked TGL a question. EdChem (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've been extending much good faith, come to think of it. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EdChem, welcome to my world. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to some of you, for shame. A lot of you need to start reading basic policies again to refresh your memories about things like talk about the edit not the editor, sound familiar? Here you all are, at of all place arbitration and you behave like this? What's wrong with this picture! This section and a few more up shows how deep the lines in the sand is drawn. I have to say I'm glad I don't have any of these articles on my watchlist. It was bad enough to see it on pages I watch, but it needs to stop now. All of you are grown ups, at least I am assuming you are, so start acting like it, NOW! An administrator made a comment like this similar to me and others which I am now sharing though not his/her exact words the meaning is close enough for the point to be made. I'm totally sad by this, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, and never called me mother

So Rlevese has disappeared in a puff of smoke [399]. It would be interesting to know why. And presumably the list of active arbs should be updated (incidentally it took me ages to find it; shouldn't it be on the main case page, rather than here?). Assuming R is gone, that leaves 7 active. I don't know how that fits in with For this case, there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 3 who are recused, so 5 support votes are a majority. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision - have we lost another one along the way somehow? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating is on my list of things to do. Sorry, but I also have RL things to do, but I'll interrupt those to sort out this. I'm not sure why it says 9 active. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret means of IDing Scibaby

Were the secret criteria to identify all those hundreds of editors as Scibaby ever disclosed to the committee? With the source notw "retired", I do not feel the issue thus becomes moot. Collect (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I. Aside, did you mean "now retired" or "not retired" ? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the same question a few days back in the section relating to Scibaby socks - I supposed it got missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom has come down pretty heavily in favor of Scibaby, going so far as to use rangeblocks to inflate the false-positive rate. Given that, it would be ill advised to entrust them with Scibaby's identifying characteristics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is inflating the false positive rate? That's rich. Thanks for the evidence of why you're part of the problem here. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this thread have any value whatsoever, besides being used to attack each other? I recommend some swift hattery. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a great deal. It highlights the open question about ChrisO's "secret means", and further it nicely highlights your bloc's scorched earth methods... anything but actually answer the question at hand. Hat the section starting with SBHB's unwarranted slurs, perhaps, but not the whole thing. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two points of issue here. Firstly, "ChrisO's 'secret means'" is, as I understand it, something that is shared by several editors (including administrators) who monitor Scibaby's activities. Without the assistance of these individuals, huge chunks of science-related Wikipedia articles would be in a terrible state. Anyone who hangs out at WP:ANI should be familiar with the magnitude of the Scibaby problem. Secondly, exactly what do you mean by "your bloc"? Are you suggesting I am part of some cabal? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
huge chunks of science-related Wikipedia articles would be in a terrible state -- ah, but you're assuming that would be a bad thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would be a bad thing. But it doesn't follow that identifying editors as Scibaby (who actually are not) correlates to ensuring that they would not be. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a compendium of identifying characteristics would allow them to refine the criteria by which they measure the ratio of false positive results? I also suppose that your comments are in regard to WP:COMPETENCE rather than WP:AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have always worked to the understanding that WP:COMPETENCE is a subset of AGF... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the original question seems merited... DID ChrisO send his secret stuff to ArbCom? When? If not, why not? The first two questions perhaps someone from ArbCom can answer for us. The last one... who knows. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my question was; do other people have a copy of it, and would they please forward it to ArbCom if ChrisO didn't? The query regarding not sending would also apply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Do we know who ChrisO sent them to? Does anyone? SBHB perhaps knows? ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether his list of scibaby features were sent to ArbCom - but iirc they had earlier been sent to User:Deskana. And i have at least a version of it from Jul 24. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope that ArbCom will be making a request of either Deskana or you before this case ends. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we received an email from ChrisO that detailed the things he believes are hallmarks of Scibaby's socks. Shell babelfish 08:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not tell us what they are? Sounds more like general stuff rather than any actual tool at this point. Key words used by Scibaby? Use of single word edits? Special words in summaries? Time of day? Astrological signs? At this pint, I think it is only "single word edits by a new user which we disagree with, even if they are, on their face, reasonable edits." A far cry from being "evidence" in such a case. Collect (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there really IS a Scibaby, although he's not quite the bogeyman painted by some. And to the extent that there is validity in ChrisO's tells, we don't want them generally publicized. I object to his refusal to share them with any CU that asks for them (and I repeat my request to see them) but I do not object to the refusal to share them with all and sundry. That would be inappropriate. CUs are chosen for their discretion. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good - I am hopeful it will be of benefit to balance the insight of someone with detailed experience of the modus operandi of a sockmaster against the technical knowhow and general familiarity of weeding out likely socks from false positives, and thus ensure maximum effectiveness in combating Scibaby while allowing unrelated ip's to edit the articles. Perhaps a previously uninvolved CU might be invited to take on the handling of Scibaby reports for a period while a determination on the effectiveness of using the metric provided by ChrisO is being made (the CU workload, once the new appointees are bedded in, may slacken in the coming month or so)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Apparently, ArbCom can't be bothered to read the evidence that we all spent so much time putting together: "Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail."[400] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section for this, above (F10), and made just about the same point with just about the same degree of shock. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he means is, he doesn't trust a lot of the diffs that Rlevese / Risker threw in. Hardly surprising, when so many of the edit war diffs turn out to be nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then he can take the short amount of time it would take to verify several of them. I congratulate you on Kiril's statements exonerating you in so many ways. No doubt you will consider this encouragement to continue much of your previously disputed behavior if the committee agrees with Kiril. Plus, you won't have some editors around if the committee follows Kiril and topic bans some of the editors. And I'm sure that like me, other editors are tired of complaining about you, so a number will be discouraged and go away. Perhaps you can add back that language about belief in extraterrestrials to the Fred Singer article. The possibilities really are endless. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) -- redacting -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the previous identified BLP issues. Seems like the quoted commenter wants this to be an extended content dispute. Throwing out the BLP issue when there is a preponderance of likelihood for BLP issues, is denial. The kind of denial that avoids helping Wikipedia with a duty to protect BLPs from slanderous contributors. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought also was the Kirill didn't read any of the evidence. Astonishing. His votes also appear to cut along ideological lines, and that is troubling. I don't know how one can favor sanctions for mark nutley and TGL and none for William M. Connolley or ChrisO -- I'm not as familiar with Polargeo or Stephan Schulz, so I can't speak to those. Minor4th 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he found a few troubling pieces of evidence an applied a bias excuse to throw out the issues. Evidence should simply be accepted, ignored or dismissed ... the accepted evidence is what is most meaningful, the rest is a distraction. Taking the distraction further, just increases the drama. Decisions should be made on accepted evidence and findings of fact, of which WMC is culpable for BLP issue. Dismissing the issue for a few questionable pieces of evidence is a clear indicator of bias. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any ArbCom member that is not willing to read the evidence should 1) abstain, 2) retire/go inactive, or 3) be impeached/removed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to assume good faith and stop guessing/questioning the arbitrators when they aren't even done with this case yet. They are still discussing a lot of things and no one knows how any of this is going to shake out in the end. I noticed that a bunch of you have taken going directly to arbitrator's talk page to continue your reasonings about what should be done in this case, might I suggest you give them all some breathing room? Being an arbitrator is a hard job that not everyone can do so show some patients please. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...asked"? Re Kirills proposed remedies

Requests have been tried, appeals made for moderation made, suggestions to withdraw raised, and yet we are here at ArbCom - because the previous Probation enforcement failed to deter the worse excesses even under threat and use of sanctions and restrictions, and the enforcement process itself became subject to partisan quarreling. Asking advocates to temper their convictions is pointless, because the requestee may reply, "No." Only by requiring parties, under threat of sanction and restriction if they do not comply, to cease their involvement will admins at AE have the basis to enact the remedies. It should not be said that all named parties would say no, but it is certain that those who would are those whose actions are have lead us to this place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the parties whom Kiril currently proposes to ask to absent themselves from the subject ever been asked to do so before, say under the probation? Bear in mind that if they carry on editing and this causes problems, under the proposed discretionary sanctions regime they could be sanctioned directly by any uninvolved admin. --TS 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absent themselves from the entire climate change area? No. All of the named parties have been asked to stay away from certain area's, articles, editors, and suchlike; some have, for the most part, and some needed logged "official" warnings or specific restrictions, and some of those were were later sanctioned for violating the warnings or restrictions. Such methods of diminishing disruption were attempted in the early days, but were soon recognised as obsolete in some instances. My point is that polite appeals at ArbCom to the better nature of editors involved as parties to a case appears not to recognise that those initial attempts at reducing disruption failed along with all the other methods of dispute resolution. Like law in RL, the citizenry are not requested to not indulge in criminal activity they are told not to; it is just assumed that the majority do not intend to but the language makes plain that it will not be tolerated. The wording used by Kirill suggests that noncompliance is an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have every confidence that every editor named in those remedies understands the likely consequences of pressing the issue. I would prefer to let everyone walk away from this with their dignity intact; but that doesn't mean that the requests cannot become binding sanctions, should there be a need to go that route. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that the editors named understand the likely consequences, which is why I prefer a more resolute wording to assist the admins at AE in enforcing them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm hopeful it won't come to that. It would be best for everyone if people would just accept our polite requests without the need for anything substantially more unpleasant. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Kiril, it's substantially unpleasant to be attacked and substantially more unpleasant to be attacked repeatedly. It's even more unpleasant when complaints about that aren't resolved and more unpleasant still when ArbCom, which can address those complaints, refuses to do so. To one degree or another, one could say much the same about the other misbehavior you politely decline to recognize. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they understand the likely consequences quite well - no consequences. Those have been the consistent consequences applied every single time and surprisingly they've had no effect. Fast forward 6-8 months and they'll get another "suggestion" and the new "skeptics" on the block (Greg and Minor4th) will be indefinitely topic banned or blocked. Rinse and repeat. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)the likely consequences of pressing the issue. They've been pressing the issue for many months. They show no sign -- I repeat, no sign -- that they recognize their behavior was bad. I repeat: no sign. If ArbCom can't admit to much of their bad behavior, why would you expect Arbitration Enforcement to be tougher than you? You can't even give Arbitration Enforcement enough findings to make their job any easier. It's more likely almost certain that on several points these editors will claim exoneration. If ArbCom passes your proposals on this, these editors will treat ArbCom as spineless and the result will be predictable: continued bad behavior, fighting every AE sanction with appeals to AN and AN/I. It will be worse than before because you've provided plenty of reason for editors concerned about personal attacks and disruption and BLP violations to throw up their hands and leave in disgust. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why the remedies do not require anyone to admit that their behavior was bad—merely to absent themselves from the area, for the greater good of the project and so forth. Whatever their faults, the editors named in these remedies have long and illustrious histories of service to Wikipedia; they deserve, in my view, an opportunity to walk away from this "voluntarily".
This doesn't mean, of course, that there will be no further consequences if the requests are ignored, or that such an opportunity will be offered a second time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to clarify "a second time". It seems inconsistent with the numberless warnings on those editors' talk pages. Twentieth time? Art LaPella (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They've had the "opportunity" to walk away at all times. By voting not even to find many of the facts proven in the selected diffs, you've undercut Abitration Enforcement and lengthened the dispute immeasurably. You've refused to see significant behavior violations in numerous cases, so why should AE? Your praise for "long and illustrious histories" of editors would be more credible if you didn't ignore long and ignoble histories of bad behavior from those same editors. And none of this explains your treatment of Polargeo. You're suggesting requests, not topic bans. They have the option of staying and they no doubt will stay. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that's all true, you still want Kirill on your side, right? Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want him to do his job well, and when he doesn't I critique the result. I don't look on it as a question of "sides". Once an arb proposes or votes, it's a question of how close to the bull's eye they get. I actually have very little hope that arbs, once they've spoken, will change their minds. Kirill is so wrong that I don't expect him to come close to the bull's eye. I want other arbs to aim better and hope they'll see where Kirill is wrong. I expect they won't, and I expect to wash my hands of this whole mess.a -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) -- Redacting: Clearly I underestimated Kirill. I shouldn't have written the redacted lines. I apologize. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley (et al) asked to disengage...To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, William M. Connolley is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Wikipedia. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing...."not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing" Huh?...then why have them disengage? In other words, leave the area of dispute or else...but if you do so voluntarily, then we won't ban you from them. Great...I sure am glad I managed to not get banned when dealing with the less than sane that stalk the 9/11 related articles...maybe my work in very divergent areas allowed me a safe zone to go to when the water got too shark infested.--MONGO 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC's vested interests can do no wrong. He's being given immunity from enforcement on his disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Kirill I noticed many "not necessary" in your decisions. What would be a sufficient Dispute Resolution step after ArbCom? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fill out standard arbitration complaint form, put in envelope, and address it to the name of the hospital where you were born. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does that help? Are your being disruptive here? Please voluntary disengage. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very puzzling thread. When we were all discussing (and some of us actioning) voluntary absenteeism there was no dissent. Now that one single arbitrator has drafted a similar proposal, to be made official by arbcom's imprimatur, it suddenly becomes a problem. If it wasn't a problem a few weeks ago, why is it a problem now? --TS 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interim step to bring calm while waiting for ArbCom to do something useful. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem? No, I wouldn't call it a problem so much as typical, tried and true, CC "problem-solving" - ban the skeptics and vaguely warn the real trouble-makers while apologizing for even warning them. The fact that the PD omitted the worst offenses on the non-skeptic side was the first clue to how this would play out.
Every single non-skeptic gets a warning and the two skeptics get indefinite topic bans? I've edit warred far less, been more civil, soapboxed less, obeyed BLP regs better and used far better sourcing than any of the people getting "warnings." This is clearly not an evidence-based decision. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to be less punitive to those that follow the scientific majority than those that don't since those that don't are oftentimes trying to add fringe science that makes the articles in this website look like they were written by drunken sailors.--MONGO 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with your theory "MONGO" - I haven't added or tried to add any "fringe science" to the articles. You people keep on asserting these things but you never show any proof (obviously you don't have to because evidence is clearly irrelevant) - perhaps Hipocrite could help you find some proof? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know I had a theory...it isn't officially published. Anyway, "TheGoodLocust"...it is easier to get along with experts if one doesn't spend all their time on Wikipedia repeatedly underminning their good faith efforts to keep innuendo and propaganda at bay.--MONGO 00:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all that puzzling - a few weeks ago there was no proposed decision and any offers to disengage were based on the idea that eventually an arbcom decision would supercede all of that. It was never the way that people signing up to disengage thought they were signing up for good and that if enough of them signed up then arbcom could call it a day and drop the case. There was always the assumption that there was a decision coming, and that they would unengage if they weren't banned by then. Did you really expect everyone who signed up to voluntarily and temporarily step back from editing the affected area would just stay there? That was never their intention. Yet it is what Kirill is proposing, that we all agree to disagree but to do it civilly and knock this case on the head. Which would make all this the biggest waste of time in history, not to mention the time yet to be wasted as each participant edges their way slowly back in and needs further knuckle rappings. Cheers Kirill, it looks like you really thought this one through. Weakopedia (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that it is because the voluntary absenteeism was that, voluntary. This is the place where the hard and binding decisions are made, where lines are drawn, editors blocked or banned, and such decisions made that can only be overturned by appeal to this body (or Jimbo, although that is now deprecated). The language of suggestion and compromise was appropriate for the voluntary process - and note that there were exceptions included with some agreeing parties statements - but here there should be intent and firmness. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely. After a dispute is so exacerbated that is comes to ArbCom, it should be dealt with firmly, hopefully once and for all. These remedies merely push the issue until the first person asked to avoid the issue doesn't, as Lar points out. NW (Talk) 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after E/C with Lar) Because that was a temporary resolution, until the arbitrators formed their decision. It wasn't intended to be a long-term solution to the atmosphere surrounding the topic.
Additionally, I find it highly unlikely that all of the named parties will adhere to the "suggestion" that they refrain from editing.
Kirill's proposals are useless, and possibly counterproductive. Horologium (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill: The most common complaint from multiple viewpoints is that the PD does too little. Now, you come along and propose that it does even less. We're moving backwards, not forwards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my WTF?? comment: this is absurd and insulting to those of us who have spent so much time and attention bringing evidence and explaining the problems. A suggestion that disruptive step away from the topic area is tantamount to an engraved invitation to continue disruptive editing, but even more importantly -- Kirill's votes are conspicuously biased in favor of the AGW bloc and against the "skeptic" bloc. There is simply no way that a neutral evaluation can lead to the conclusion that marknutley and TheGoodLocust have engaged in wrongdoing sufficient for a indefinite topic ban, but William M. Connolley and ChrisO are not even given mere suggestions that are "not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing." No recommendation for sanctions against any AGW editors at all -- but 2 indef topic bans against editors who were far, far less disruptive than WMC and ChrisO. (I don't know much about Polargeo or Stephan Schulz, so can't speak about them. Also, advising Lar to step away is totally uninformed since he doesn't edit in the topic area and never has. The bias in these votes is alarming and brings into question whether Kirill should recuse or be disqualified from this case. Minor4th 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 0RR restriction combined with a "make your point only once on the talk page"-restriction would be more than enough. This has almost exactly the same effect as walking away, as far as conflict reduction is concerned, but it has the advantage that the editors can continue to edit. So, the technical articles on climate science can continue to be improved. Arguably, the attention will be focussed more on that area as no more time is wasted on disputes by the (voluntarily) restricted editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scenario under which WMC's wretched behavior and flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy should be rewarded by eliminating two ideological "adversaries" to indefinite topic bans while WMC gets a suggestion that we all know will do nothing to restrain him. Blocks, restrictions, desysopping, more restrictions, more blocks have not restrained him -- let's just be real here and quit pretending that any of us believe that he'll stop editing this topic. What rationale can there possibly be for indef topic ban for nutley and TGL and no sanction at all for Connolley? It is insulting and infuriating. Minor4th 00:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVU: All of the named parties have been asked to stay away from certain area's, articles, editors, and suchlike; - they have? By whom and in what situation have I been asked to do this? I'm not aware of any such request, though my memory is, of course, less perfect than the data base. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to stay away from the uninvolved administrators section of Enforcement Requests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill's proposals and votes are quite ill-advised (not to mention contradictory), and I sincerely hope the other arbs ignore them. ATren (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me advance something to see if I see something you guys don't. (this is based solely on the reading of arbitrators votes here..). I think my fellow Arbitrators were trying to see who was willing to disengage voluntarily as a way to reduce drama. It allowed the saving face fig leaf of not formally placing sanctions on the users involved, but also removing editors who have shown intent to disrupt. This kind of thing happens all the time... (offered the chance to resign to avoid being fired). The rejection from all sides means that in this case, face cannot be saved, and harsher actions are necessary (as seen by the switch of several arbitrators from opposes to supports on the requisite topic bans..
Also, while I temporarily have control of the bully pulpit.. I suggest that copious amounts of WP:TEA be consumed in the near future by editors here. Yes, this case has taken a long time to handle. This should come as no surprise. There's a reason that is the case. Most arbitration cases have a limited topic area, or limited amount of users. That certainly is not the case here. Or for another example, in a lot of arbitration cases, the Committee hears the evidence of the parties, and have to weigh them accordingly to balance the scales appropriately with regards to findings and remedies. Tricky, but not time consuming. Here, the Committee has so many parties, that finding the right balance is infinitely tricky. Not only that, but even if the Committee finds that magic formula to balance out all the remedies to enable positive action in this sphere going forward, soon enough parties are adding more weight to the scale and throwing it all out of whack again (the constant editing wars that have plagued this case. Last time I looked, we're about to hit double digits on that counter).
That's why I posted my statement about a half-megabyte or so ago that the best way I saw to move forward was to remove ALL the edit-warriors and current administrators from the WP:BATTLEFIELD. It's certainly the simplest. Rather then continually trying to re-balance the scales to be equitable to all parties (who can't seem to keep their thumb off the scales), it's fairly easy to balance a zeroed-out scale. Remove all the weights, and see if a new crop of editors would return us to a harmonious environment. It may not be the fairest of methods (setting the bar at two edit-wars treats an editor who gets sucked into a dispute differently from some who was basically involved in EVERY dispute noted during this Arbitration case).. but it is certainly the surest.
Hopefully, this is food for thought for some folks. I apologize if I've rambled on a bit too much, but I hope I've adequately explained myself here. SirFozzie (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SF: if this is just about editors saving face, why was it not extended to MN and TGL? I've asked Kirill for clarification on this; specifically, what diffs inspired him to split along those lines, and his response was that he got a ["general impression" that "MN and TGL would not partake of an opportunity to walk away quietly." I have never seen MN take a well-considered sanction badly, and TGL accepted his lengthy topic ban even though others have gotten away with far worse. Contrast this to WMC, who has refused most requests to voluntarily disengage and who has insulted every single admin who sanctioned him (SirFathead ring a bell?). So it's more about the inconsistencies and outright contradictions in Kirill's stance that is alarming to many here -- his stance simply does not mesh with the evidence and even his votes themselves don't mesh with each other (i.e. voting for BLP principles and findings but then explicitly exonerating those who egregiously violated them in the remedies). Though I do agree that the reaction on this page and elsewhere is a bit over the top. BTW, I agree that your proposed solution remains superior to all others. ATren (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard enough time trying to ascribe motives to the Committee as a group, to try to do so with individual arbitrators is an exercise in folly *grins*.. However, I will say this in general. There are parties in this case who would voluntarily depart the topic area if everyone else agreed to do the same (and if the agreement was honored in letter and spirit), and there are parties in this case who would not agree to do so even under such conditions. That's one thought.
The other is, and forgive my bluntness here.. there are varying levels of culpability here. The active members of the Committee may be willing to offer the saving face alternative to people with lower levels of culpability, or to those who have improved the encyclopedia in various ways.. while not being as willing to those whose "body of work", so to speak are more actively tied up in this case (IE, here less time, so more of their history is edit-warring, disruption and ABF).
While I, personally *again, speaking as a recused arbitrator* would have had offered the fig leaf to people not on the list, and possibly denied the face saving measure to people on this list (that I feel are exceptionally culpable in this case), that's me, only. Also, I think it's really a theoretical exercise to discuss who is or isn't offered such, as one and all have spoken against this, not the least of which the parties directly. SirFozzie (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawing from the topic area

I'm sorry if I am repeating anything further up the page but this whole idea of withdrawing from the topic area is not well considered. Stephan Schulz and I (Polargeo) have no issues with editing articles. The whole issue with me seems to have been decided to be my civility on arbcase talkpages and RfC/U talkpages (ie my civility when this was already in a heated dispute) with StephanSchulz it was a question of his involvement as a frequent CC editor and with Lar his attitude and actions whilst acting as uninvolved. The idea that any of us are actually causing the heated environment on the CC pages themselves that would require a topic ban is frankly silly. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's right about this.Minor4th 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of future editing behavior

NYB commented on Kirill's proposal, asking if editors don't agree with withdrawing from the topic area, what modification they are willing to make to their editing behavior. I think what I wrote earlier in this thread about a voluntary 0RR restriction could be acceptable. BLP articles and articles on organizations like e.g. the IPCC that are not primarly about the science, are the places where the editing disputes happen.

I can see William agreeing to disengage from editing disputes, rather than from editing the CC area (the latter would amount to a voluntary permanent site ban for him, as he mostly edits CC articles). The details of the restriction could be that on articles that are not primarily about the science (which are not primarily based on peer reviewed sources), William sticks to a 0RR restriction and only makes two comments per issue on the talk page.

E.g., consider the recent dispute on the IPCC page. Under the proposed 0RR restriction, William could not have reverted Cla68's edit about the comment by Pielke. All William could have done, would be to write a comment on the talk page why he feels this is unwarranted and that if Pielke's comment can be included, the comment on RealClimate can also be included. William can then make one other comment, so what he will do is leave for a while, let other editors continue the debate on that issue, without him being involved. Then William returns a few days later, looks at all the reactions and gives his final comments on the issue.

This is a good way of immunizing yourself from getting involved in disputes and yet allows you to make contributions to controversial areas. It forces you to think carefully about comments, as the goal is to persuade other editors. In edit wars, what you typically see is that editors revert and then justify their reversion on the talk page, which amounts to making a statement like "I'm right, you're wrong and I'll keep reverting to my version because of that".

Taking your "right" to revert out of the equation helps to make talk page discussions less polarized. But limiting talk page discussions is an additional restriction that is necessary, because you may tend to argue for longer in a vain attempt to convice people of your point of view. What I've learned to do on Wikipedia is limit talk page exchanges by sticking to the three comments rule: Make your point once, reply to give clarification if necessary, and perhaps again if the clarification is not well understood. If your original point still doesn't come accross at all, this is very likely due to some entrenched disagreement. More talk can then start to fan a dispute, so you have to think hard if you really want to continue the discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

For the record, if Kirill's sanctions are the only sanctions that pass, I will be happy to abide by them. Just as long as all the other folk named in them do as well, broadly construed (that includes not responding to commentary on talk pages and user talk pages with anything other than "I choose not to make any substantive response whatever" or words to that effect). Once the first one of the others doesn't, all bets are off. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I may start a pool, haven't decided. 5 bucks a pick on who breaks it first and how many days (hours?) in... any takers? ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this supposed to be a suicide pact or MAD? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I say above, I think more of a chance to save face, more then what you guys suggest. SirFozzie (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So as I read this. To save face, StephanSchulz withdraws from the main area of his editing on wikipedia when he is a generally constructive editor in the area and nobody is seriously calling for him to be banned from editing CC articles anyway and Lar agrees to withdraw even though he doesn't edit in the area because he can take a few people with him, nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not referring to Kirill's proposal, but to Lar's conditional (i.e. implausible) acceptance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implausible"?? As in you expect that at least one other person will break their commitment at some point? Since the four other folk currently on the list are WMC, ChrisO, Polargeo and you... well maybe you're right. But you're not assuming good faith about your fellow bloc members, are you? Can't say as I blame you, but it's rather a shocking admission. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasted?

If Kirill's 'sanctions' are passed, then this entire case was a complete waste of time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kirill should be disqualified from participation in this case for voting with bias along clear ideological lines -- the underlying problem this case is supposed to cure. Minor4th 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... he should seriously reconsider changing them. Possible a voluntary disengage (abstention) on his part would set the example for us. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give Kirill a chance to explain why he can't be bothered to read the evidence. I note that on their talk page, they state they are an administrator open to recall. Not sure how that applies to ArbCom members. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill is saying that this is a content issue.[401] I thought ArbCom has ruled against BLP issues in the past? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. Don't go there. Much as I disagree with the PD, that is not a way forward. Horologium (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's calm the rhetoric down, shall we? NW (Talk) 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see rhetoric, I see a statement of fact ("waste of time") and disillusionment over Kirill's statements that he can't be bothered to read the evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that perhaps people might see evidence differently than yourself, especially if you are an uninvolved party. Rather than seeing Kirill's statement as he couldn't be bothered to read the evidence, have you considered that he may instead feel it is not ArbCom's place to analyze a set of individual diffs so closely looking for borderline calls? Calls for desysopping, removal from the case, and even removal from ArbCom (Kirill is a reelected Arbitrators – no mean feat by itself – and even so received one of the highest supports at the last election!) should be entirely out of the question. Horologium and Tony Sidaway say it much more concisely than I. NW (Talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please extend good faith to Kirill's approach. As arbitrators, we occasionally propose an entirely different way forward from a conflict, in the hopes of finding a better mousetrap in complicated problems. Some proposals may end up being rejected, or tweaked beyond recognition, or may end up being the Holy Grail; but that doesn't mean they should not be put forward and proposed because they might not get traction. — Coren (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you come out of inactivity? (I see you voting) Glad to see it. As to your point, I'm willing to extend good faith to Kirill's approach. I just already know how poorly it will work. Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt. I really can't imagine what he's thinking, and he hasn't articulated it well at all. Voting against most all the findings? Seems to suggest unwillingness to wake up and smell the coffee. ++Lar: t/c 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content issue...if the doubters and skeptics get Connolley banned then they win and Wikipedia loses. So WMC isn't the sweetest guy on the block...least he's trying to keep fringe science from eroding the CC articles...once they get a foothold, they'll want the whole ballgame...information is power. However, I do see what Kirill is saying with his PD's...walk away and save face...not a bad option, but truly no different than a topic ban.--MONGO 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, it's not a content issue. If only it were that easy. It's a behavior issue. But the worst behaved work hard to try to make those without enough time or interest to dig in deeply think it's a content issue. You've fallen prey to their line, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connolley and I have had truly minimal interaction...I don't even edit CC pages, much less watchlist them. But if you tell the experts to saw off because they aren't sweet enough or don't want inroads of fringe science and innuendo into articles that are supposed to be part of a project hoping to provide a reliable witness, then it does become a content issue.--MONGO 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty amazingly incorrect statement of my position, which is merely that no one gets a free pass, we all have to abide by the principles and mechanisms of the project. You should spend some time reading some of the talk pages (say, those diffs introduced in evidence and the edits around them) to see how bad the problem is. Then you'd be one up on some of the arbs, who apparently can't be bothered. One wonders what they were doing for that month long whatever it was... ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: Please stop framing this as a two-sided issue. The reality is far more complicated than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, if WMC is bias (non-denier and non-skeptic), how can Wikipedia win? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By sticking to the evidence....WMC is hardly an alarmist...I know a few alarmists.--MONGO 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC is bias? Like, not just biased, but he is the very concept of bias itself? There's an interesting twist to this case. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move along

Could the arbitrators just vote and get this over with. You're not going to make everybody happy. Anybody who deserved sanction, but did not receive one, will be taken care of at WP:AE, most likely sooner rather than later. Jehochman Talk 01:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't WP:AE "take care" of the editors before this ArbCom case? These issues have been to many dispute forums and even had a special General Sanction, they will continue as long as the actors continue. If ArbCom can't act then, I guess it will fall back onto the community and maybe back to ArbCom again. Along the way, additional editors and admin will be disciplined to protect the Wikipedia:Vested interest of a single WMC. Jimbo should just sell Wikipedia to WMC, that would be easier for all. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Zulu Papa 5 * Would you please refactor your last sentence? That is not at all a proper statement to be making. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Votes Analysis

Arb votes on editor sanctions. Summary, please edit as acceptable
Arb votes on editor sanctions
Remedy Editor acceptance Newyorkbrad Kirill Coren Risker Shell Carcharoth Mailer Roger Pass/Fail
3.3.3 WMC 6 month ban Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Fail
3.3.4 WMC 1 yr CC ban Support Oppose Support
3.3.5 WMC BLP ban Support Support Support
3.3.6 WMC 1 yr restricted Oppose Oppose Oppose
3.3.7 Polargeo admonished Oppose Support
3.3.8 TGL 6 month ban Oppose Support Support
3.3.8.1 TGL 1 yr CC ban Support Support
3.3.8.2 TGL Indef CC ban Support Support Support
3.3.9 MN 6 month CC ban Agreed Oppose Oppose
3.3.9.1 MN 1 yr CC ban Support Support Support
3.3.9.2 MN Indef. CC ban Support Support Support
3.3.9.3 MN withdraws Agreed Support Oppose
3.3.10 MN BLP ban Oppose Support Support
3.3.15 Lar / JEH admonished Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Fail
3.3.16 2over0 admonished Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Support
3.3.19 ChrisO 6 month CC ban Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Support Support
3.3.20 ChrisO 1 yr BLP ban Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Support Support

So far it looks like TGL and MN are being judged to have a greater degree of egregious behavior than WMC. Does a comparative analysis of the evidence really support this outcome? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even close. I am so disappointed in ArbCom (so far, I suppose there's a chance for redemption but my confidence in the committee is shaken). In fact I'm disappointed in the whole Wiki. The bullies who have made this topic area a hellish place to edit are getting rewarded for making it unbearable for the rest of us. Good luck getting new editors in here and good luck getting any new uninvolved admins -- great message being sent -- take a stand against blatant and persistent Wiki policy violations and get topic banned or asked to refrain from taking admin actions. What a complete and total waste of time this has all been. Minor4th 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not over yet; however, the current votes seem to be carelessly imbalanced in fair standards application. If this continues, many disputes may be put back to the admins and newbie admins ... to be bitten by the bullies. The arbitration process just delayed things. I don't believe it will be a waste of time. Folks have matured in this process, no matter how it turns out. For myself, my own voluntary climate change restriction (since I applied before the General Sanctions, which i did not trust to protect my content contributions) has taken away from content development. I look forward to the ArbCom close, so I may focus time on articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps arbcomm are indeed taking some account of substance after all William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt they have. However, whose accounting the bodies left behind in the wake of climate change progress? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happily for my biases, I was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong about what? WMC, will you agree to a voluntary remedy now to withdraw? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reconsidering your decisions Kirill. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A plea

A wise person once said: don't moon the jury. Some of the expressions of frustration made on this page are quite understandable. Nobody so far has expressed wholehearted support for all of the proposals that seem most likely to pass, and those who have toiled honestly over evidence and workshop proposals, then waited patiently for weeks while the drafting arbitrators produced their initial proposals, understandably want their hard work to go towards the final decision.

There are other statements that simply should not be made in the circumstances. Attacking the arbitrators is, if nothing else, counter-productive, especially if your stated grounds imply a strong element of partisanship. In most cases that come here, the battleground mentality is entrenched, and the arbitrators know this and recognise the signs.

Surely at this point, instead of antagonizing the very people elected to solve the problem where we have failed, we should strive to set aside partisanship and cooperate. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to do is question the arbitrators about why they're voting the way they are. We need to question them in a very serious, very polite way. And we need to politely press them for answers. Bring it up here, and name Arbitrators, asking them to respond. And if they don't, go to their talk page and link to the questions here and ask them again to respond. Ask them politely to do their job, one part of which is explaining just what they're doing. There are several admins we should be asking and we should do it before the case closes. Cooperation was never supposed to be mindless. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a very polite way I suggest that we all allow the arbs to vote without any harassment. Polargeo (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with what Tasty monster and Polargeo say. Please let the arbitrators have some space to do the hard work that is needed in this case. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for clarification, pointing out things that have been missed, and suggesting changes are all legitimate things to do, as long as they are done politely and non disruptively, so I think your comment misses the mark. ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're even more than legitimate things to do -- they're the purpose of this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing"

OK, what's with the addition to the ChrisO remedies "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing"? Surely if the purpose of the ban is really to be preventative, it doesn't matter whether the user sits it out while editing or not. I'm sure it serves plenty of purposes that relate to leaving something hanging over this editor's head to discourage him from returning, but I was not under the impression that was supposed to be the purpose of topic bans. ArbCom sanctions shouldn't be affected by a user's decision to vanish, neither positively nor negatively. Above, we've had many arguing that ChrisO's vanishment shouldn't cause arbs to choose not to sanction him. That's absolutely correct, but nor should it cause the sanctions to be any harsher, which this amendment would effectively do (instead of X time, it becomes X time + however long ChrisO does not edit). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HL. That clause does look punitive and should be changed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to raise the same question, but I got distracted by Kirill's findings. Retirement time should be "time served", so if he were to return in a year, the ban would have expired by then. ATren (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, HL, I agree.--SPhilbrickT 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was set to give a long list of analogy with sentencing, but I realized that the entire line of questions is moot. ChrisO left for good, so what does it effectively change when the remedies kick in? — Coren (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda have to agree with Coren, if we're getting to the point that we're routinely assuming people are going to come back after asserting RTV, then we really need to plug the holes in RTV (not that we probably don't already!) SirFozzie (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, @Coren) If he really did leave for good, then there's no need for sanctions at all. The only reason to enact sanctions at all is that there is a possibility he will return, which we all know does indeed exist. If he stays away forever, yes, this is moot. But we all know that the right to vanish can be revoked at any time, and if that does happen, the questions are no longer moot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hole to plug here, Fozzie. No one is getting out of any sanctions by exercising the right to vanish. As long as the purpose of the ban is to prevent disruption, it is of no consequence whether the user sits it out while editing or while not editing. Saying that it has to be served while editing is effectively saying "Yeah, go off into that corner you picked over there, bad boy. You can come back when you want, but when you do, no cake for a week." That's just plain punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree with you, but in general, when the committee topic bans a user for a set amount of time, what we (in general, noting I'm recused here) are looking for is the ability to work constructively with others in areas that are not so heated. Let's take a completely hypothetical example here. The Committee topic bans User:JoeShlobodnick from a certain topic area for six months due to edit-warring and problematic source use. Instead of showing that he can work in other areas without a problem, the day after this passes, he ceases editing for six months. The day after his topic ban expires, he's back editing in that area. You can probably understand the increased scrutiny that this would bring.
I don't doubt that Chris, should he desire to return at some point in the future, will probably want to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic area (Even with my status in this case, I think I'll break out in hives if someone says "Climate Change" in real life... so I can certainly commiserate!).. I still think that the question is moot, and personally, I support the remedies that he is to contact the committee if he returns to editing to work out terms of his return to allow the community and the Committee the necessary security that there wouldn't be any problems re-integrating him with the editing community. SirFozzie (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Punitive? No. Dissuasive? Yes, definitely. Let's not bury our heads in sand here; there have been very many invocations of RTV which were made as a way to duck out of the way of a sanction and never intended to be for a permanent departure. (And my own position is that this is, in fact, almost always the case). In some cases, hoping that sanctions will not be applied at all in the first place, in other cases hoping that the matter has been delayed long enough that a reevaluation weeks or months later will lead to lesser sanctions. If ChrisO left for good (as I presume he has), then the remedies are not affecting him. — Coren (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as the clock starts when the case closes. If it runs out before ChrisO returns, done. But if he returns before the clock runs out, then the sanctions are in effect for that remaining period. Not to pick at old wounds but there have been users in the past who asserted RTV and then came back under a different name, and complained when they were tied back to the old name. So this package of remedies ought to be passed... if he comes back, it has to be with linkage or at the very least notice to ArbCom, and if he comes back within the time limits of the sanctions, they are in effect until the clock runs out. If ArbCom actually meant they start as of the moment he returns and run a year/6months/whatever from THERE, then I join the chorus here saying that's probably not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my intent anyways. I think the wording is clear enough (the remedies don't start if he returns, they apply if he does); but rereading some of the questions above make it seem as though some think otherwise. Wording woes? — Coren (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely not at all how I read this remedy. Though it does explain a lot about why I thought we were talking past each other previously! But if the purpose of Roger Davies's change was not that the remedies would begin whenever ChrisO returns, which is how I read this, why add it in the first place? Isn't it automatically true that the remedy begins at the closure of the case, and are de facto effective only if and when he returns during that six-month period? Also, while that may be how Coren read this, is that how Roger Davies and Shell Kinney have? If the current wording does mean the sanctions expire six months after close date, regardless of if and when ChrisO returns, consider my objection withdrawn, though I would suggest better wording.
P.S.: No statement on my part as to whether the sanctions are warranted in and of themselves, as I haven't read the evidence, and I think going through this case at any length cause me to vomit my breakfast and several vital organs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Coren has acknowledged that it wasn't what he intended either, and if rewriting to improve clarity is needed, I expect the arbs are open to it. Do you have a suggested reword? I thought for a bit and I didn't come up with something crisp. But I tend to be wordy. Maybe you'd have better luck? ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not understanding why an addition to the original wording was needed. "ChrisO is banned from Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for six months" means that from the day this case closes, ChrisO may not edit CC articles for six months, doesn't it? Which I think is exactly what Coren and you mean, or am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing either in your meaning or the meaning of the phrase Roger Davies added? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this comment makes me think Shell Kinney is reading this very differently from Coren. Her wording strongly suggests she does mean the remedy to start as soon as ChrisO returns. Which, if I'm reading the situation correctly, means they've voted the same way for a remedy that they are interpreting in different ways. Assuming I'm right, I think further discussion is going to be needed by the arbs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more I re-read this point in the PD the more I agree with you that some sort of careful editing to make crystal clear when things start is needed... I thought it was clear, and I gave my interpretation, and Coren said that's what he thought too. But elsewhere he and others talk about whether sanctions that don't start on return are as effective as those that do. Plus Shell's commentary. So clearly more clarity is needed. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. Let's start by figuring out what exactly these sanctions mean; then I'll figure out if/how much I want to gripe. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with Heimstern Laufer on this point; the RTV should not be a significant factor in our decisions about ChrisO, and we shouldn't be approving sanctions that are fundamentally unfair and imply that failure of editors to continue participating in the project will be be held against them. If ChrisO had simply stopped editing, there would be absolutely no consideration of extending a sanction beyond its natural termination, and I see no justification in treating an editor who has publicly left the project any differently from one who quietly leaves without any comment. Risker (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean ChrisO no disrespect when I say he's unlikely to stay away from Wikipedia for long. In that light I think his invocation of the Right to Vanish" was a tactical error, probably committed in haste and anger. But in the meantime I respect his right. And I could be wrong.

I think that rather than making a special case of this we should probably change Wikipedia:Right to vanish to reflect the harsh reality that an editor who invokes this privilege and then changes his mind has gone back on his word. In such a case, the editor should contact the Committee prior to returning to returning, and if he doesn't then his status will be reviewed by the Committee when his identity is discovered. This would provide an opportunity to review his interactions prior to leaving, identify any possible issues that might arise going forward, and in some cases where the vanishing was to avoid harassment, to safeguard the identity of the returned editor. --TS 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Offish topic, and because I admire CO for putting his personal principles before the status of flag holding over issues they are passionate about, it is a pity to comment that I thought that RTV was for editors in good standing; I am not considering the allegations, PD findings and (perhaps) remedies, but the FoF which detailed the admonishments, sanctions, restrictions and desysoppings, following cases brought brought previously before ArbCom regarding ChrisO. The decision is made, however, that RTV has been allowed, but perhaps next time another editor requests RTV during a case where they are a party and a troublesome past that they be permitted to retire with a courtesy blanking-redirect as appropriate. It also means the distinction is not deprecated by those with a potential to abuse it. Sorry. Sermon over. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with TS and LHvU on the FoF regarding RTV for CO. (Enough acronyms?) Perhaps WP:ADMIN is relevant here, since it defines "in good standing" as "not in controversial circumstances," whatever that means. With the caveat of course that ChrisO is not an admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Coren - You stated: '...there have been very many invocations of RTV which were made as a way to duck out of the way of a sanction and never intended to be for a permanent departure.(And my own position is that this is, in fact, almost always the case)...If ChrisO left for good (as I presume he has)...'
Given your position on the majority of such right-to-vanish cases, on what are you basing your presumption that ChrisO has left for good?
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGF. He wouldn't be the first person to actually leave for good, even if it's not the general case. — Coren (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO's commendable work on BLPs

Allegations have been brought against ChrisO but in the circumstances don't seem to have been carefully analysed in a balanced way. I've not gone through them in detail, but would note that in the cases I discussed under the #Editing of BLPs heading above [fixed link] the editor doing most to discuss in a collegiate way and reduce or remove BLP violations was ChrisO. My comments were focussed on those apparently trying to contravene proposed principle # 3.1.8 Biographies of living people by giving undue weight to negative or controversial aspects of the subject's life and work, but ChrisO should be given credit for working to get agreement on reducing that problem. Have been short of time to work on this lately, will come back on this with diffs when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Diffs for a start: [402] [403] [404] [405] and various discussions, for now... dave souza, talk 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the sake of argument that your diffs actually show what they purport to, which is not exactly a slam dunk, good work does not give a free pass for bad. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor reconciliations

Marknutley indicated he would agree now to accept a 6 month withdraw [406]. Can the Arbs accept this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs are considering it, apparently. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more important point is that while banning individual editors may quiet things down for a while, the situation will deteriorate again in the absence of systemic remedies. There's no shortage of people to take the place of Marknutley or TGL (or ChrisO for that matter). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree, Boris, and it also worries me. I have tried to encourage the expression of some more systemic thoughts above under #P7.1: Advocacy. No takers yet, unfortunately. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity when should i start the six month ban? mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you want. Any user is free to self-ban at any time. You don't need anyone's approval. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, take what you want; however should be noted here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB, this may be because the true disruption is beyond them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun to unwatch various CC articles and shall withdraw fully tonight. I suspect it shall make no difference though to the obvious outcome of this mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and shall withdraw fully tonight - it looks like this promise was worth nothing [407]. This seems to fit into the previous pattern - every time you've been unblocked with a promise not to contribute to the Cl Ch area, you've broken it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding policy change / suspension

WP:ADMIN#INVOLVED says 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. But the PD says (at enforcement item E2) 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 the committee's omission of the "conflicts with an editor (or editors)" part of the definition intended to be a broadly applicable policy change, or is that part of the policy being suspended only for the present case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on another policy change: WP:BLP says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion but the PD says unsourced negative or controversial information is unacceptable. Does this mean that unsourced positive information is OK? In the past some have argued that it is, so it would be helpful to get clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that positive unsourced information may be kept in while an editor searches for a reference, but is removed if that search is fruitless; unsourced postive information should not be retained on the basis that a reference might be found. Negative unsourced information is removed immediately, and then a search conducted and the content only re-instated when a RS is found. IMO, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a message from our sponsor

Have you ever been faced with tendentious editors pushing an idiosyncratic point of view? Haven't we all? Next time this happens, reach for Wikipedia:Advocacy, the quicker, less costly way to explain that Wikipedia is not for promoting causes. Jehochman Talk 00:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried that. It doesn't work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the extra strength, institutional size package? Jehochman Talk 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is humor, a means of releasing stress during tense situations, such as the one that has existed on this page. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to explain the joke to the literal-minded. AQFK, Jehochman was humorously engaging in advocacy while promoting his advocacy essay, using the persuasive tactics of advertising cliches and marketing strategies such as "extra strength, institutional size". Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that this was Jehochman's essay.[408] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mine. Feel free to edit Wikipedia:Advocacy. Perhaps this is a place where the disputants could find common ground. Jehochman Talk 03:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies section is a train wreck

While it is not a fait accompli, since a number of the arbitrators have not voted, the remedies section is shaping up to be a train wreck of epic proportions. Neither of the proposals (R1 or R1.1) for applying standard sanctions are passing, but R2 is passing, so the climate change sanctions noticeboard is going to be suspended, replaced by ...? <cue crickets> None of the remedies against WMC, Polargeo, TGL, or MN are currently passing. R10-R14 read more like principles than remedies, especially R10-R12; maybe they should be moved to principles? (Those five are all currently passing unanimously, which seems to support my contention that they are principles, since all of the arbs who have voted are in agreement.) The only other remedies which are passing are R18.1 (instructing Stephan Schulz not to characterize himself as uninvolved) and R21.1 (regarding a user who has left, invoking his Right to Vanish). Some of the measures currently not passing are likely to move to the pass side as more arbitrators weigh in, but right now, it's not looking very pretty in the whole remedies area. Hopefully, the whole situation with R1 and R2 will be resolved before the case closes. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just close your eyes and don't look. Eventually some sort of coherent decision will be posted. Jehochman Talk 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the discretionary sanctions will obviously pass and that is the most poweful tool for Admins to control the CC area. Forget about the currently named editors, they are not important. Just visit any science forum on the internet and check out threads discussion climate science and you'll see what I mean. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very optimistic about things going forward. The discretionary sanctions could pass now in some form if Risker's procedural concerns were resolved to mutual satisfaction, because it only needs her vote to pass.
I disagree with Horologium's description of the remedy section as "a train wreck", too. I've seen many arbitration cases in trouble, and this isn't one of them. The most important remedies have enough votes to pass, some of the minor quibbly ones such as Lar, 2over0 and Jehochman are dead, and the only major decisions to be made there are on the final dispositions of William Connolley, The Good Locust, and Mark Nutley, each of which need two or three supporting votes to pass.
The really sticky area of this arbitration case, it seems to me, is the enforcement section. The crucial "Uninvolved administrators" motion is just dangling there like an odd sock in a laundry basket. Three abstentions, no other active votes. --TS 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Count Iblis and TS have the correct perspective. There's never been a shortage of combative editors on the climate articles, so whether or not sanctions are placed on specific individuals doesn't matter much in the long run. It's the systemic changes that are important, and those are a mixed bag at the moment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not whether sanctions are applied to specific editors (although I think that several of those need to be done too), but the fact that it seems that the arbs are focusing on the individual points without looking at the big picture. The fact that the only specific sanctions are directed towards Stephan Schulz and Departed User 3 seems to be odd, to say the least. The problem over Discretionary Sanctions is even worse, with everyone in agreement that the current regime doesn't work, but no clear support for a replacement. We have two "active" arbs who have not voted (one ow whom has not participated in any of the threads on any of the many pages of discussion), and 17 principles, 6 FOF, 10 remedies (5 of which are more like principles), and 0 enforcement mechanisms which are passing. (Out of 20 principles, 22 FOF, 27 remedies, and 3 enforcement mechanisms.) I recognize that when the arbs finish voting, we will have a clearer picture, but some of the most sorely needed FOFs and remedies appear to be hopelessly deadlocked. Horologium (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way things are going, I think this case is destined to be known as "Climate Change 1". :-/ ATren (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are correct, but the case isn't over yet. Let's give the arbs a chance to come up with something. If they find an innovative solution to this problem I will personally lobby for them to be given a pay rise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd put money down against ATren's proposition, but from what I can tell the discretionary sanctions regime has been extraordinarily successful on many formerly intractable topics including September 11, 2001 attacks, pseudoscience, the Arab/Israeli and Eastern Europe kerfuffles and whatnot. I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of cautious editors playing nicely with one another once the meaning of that sanctions regime sinks in. --TS 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas. --TS 02:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I may be overestimating the appearance of chaos right now. But even if they do everything right, CC2 might still be unavoidable. I still think SirFozzie's scorched earth was the best approach I've seen. ATren (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly quiet things down for a while, but is not a realistic long-term solution. The problems would erupt again whenever the next batch of dogged contrarians showed up and encountered "true believers" (or perhaps someone who was familiar with the scientific literature, but there are fewer of those). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extending the metaphor farther than its reference to a military strategy, we should remember that in fire ecology, a "scorched earth" can both inhibit and stimulate the germination of certain types of plants. It may or may not be a coincidence that the long term disruption by Scibaby has been a topic of concern for many accounts created after the user first appeared. I maintain that Scibaby's purpose is for distraction, while the real problem goes untreated, as is illustrated in this case. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I've said that very thing myself on multiple occasions, but I imagine we disagree on what the effects of Scibaby have been. To be sure the "real problem" has gone untreated since there are good excuses like Scibaby around to cast the "real problem" in a good light. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TGL, I always appreciate your POV, even if we are in disagreement most of the time. Yes, we are talking about two different things. When I talk about Scibaby's distraction, I mean that the user is keeping "us" busy looking this way, while there are things going on "over there". Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem with "scorched earth", and any kind of WP:Kindergarten justice is that the good guys edit under their real names, while the bad guys use pseudonyms. Do you really think, that William M. Connolley would return to Wikipedia or CC under some sock pseudonym? How about someone named G major or Bozo the Clown or Johny Walker or Catharsis or LOX or AK-47 or A-Team or Debit or Big mama or Delirium (no pun intended)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - By the way, is there any administrator left, who is using his real name and is notable enough to have his own article? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only know of one administrator who is notable enough to have their own article which is this one. I can't think of any others but there probably are more. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arthur Rubin although I don't think this should convey any sort of respect with regard to editing CC articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is another who isn't primarily notable for Wikipedia-related activities--User:David Eppstein. There are two whose notability derives from Wikipedia: User:Jimbo Wales, and User:Michael Snow. There are others whose names are prominently linked to their usernames, as well: User:Anthere is an easy example. Horologium (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist redirect of new CC article

This is so disheartening [409]. marknutley created this article yesterday and obviously put a great deal of work into it. There are 71 references, 54Kb of data, well-placed images, etc. ScienceApologist redirected that article, losing every bit of content, to Climate change alarmism -- without any discussion on the talk page, without any comment to mark, without even any kind of reason given in his edit summary. This appears to be a total nasty, malicious, in-your-face POV pushing, taunting-of-a-soon-to-be-banned-user redirect. What's even more distasteful about this is that at approximately the same time SA was disrupting the Wiki and escalating tension in the CC topic area, I was over on Watts Up With That? extendeding SA a giant dose of collaborative good will on a very long, hotly-contested issue .. for which ScienceApologist expressed his gratitude [410].

Not much has been said by or about ScienceApologist in this case, but this needs to be looked at because this is exactly the kind of action that is taken against non-mainstream-consensus science content and editors all the time. This kind of thing belies the repeated arguments that the poor scientists are picked on and frazzled from dealing with attacks and assaults from the "fringe."

I reverted the redirect and actually redirected it to its proper name per MOS, and left SA a notice on his talk page. I will notify him of this new section mentioning him here as well.

(Addit -- After being reverted again and then self reverted by the admin, discussion had stabilized and a merge discussion had started. William M. Connolley then came in an redirected it again without discussion on talk page and without explanation in edit summary [411]Minor4th 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE – The article has been deleted / moved to user space as a recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration. I do not see any point in continuing this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's been redirected again [412] -- losing all the content from what must have been weeks of work -- and the page is protected [413]. Great. Please do something about this. Minor4th 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might this be an opportunity to work closer with your colleagues under the provisions of WP:BRD, and can we make an effort to assume good faith without attributing malice to one side or the other? Civility is important here. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SA should know that the proper and non-confrontational way to approach this would be to place a "proposed merge" tag on the "exaggeration" and "alarmisn" articles and then start a discussion on one of the talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best for everyone involved in this dispute to refrain from speculating about motives and to work towards resolution in a harmonious manner. This often involves taking a step back and looking at the big picture. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article beyond the pretty pictures and the irrelevant references? It's a pure case of WP:SYN, inventing a term not supported by significant sources and then listing alleged examples. While it no doubt represents a lot of work, that in itself does not make it valuable - I can shovel sand from one mound to another and back again all day, without having done something useful (except, arguably, for my stamina). And no, nothing is "lost" - it's all in the version history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are pretty though. I think the article is now tagged for merging, and there is a discussion there where all of this would be more appreopriate. Weakopedia (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has been started on a proposed merge, so please chime in there instead of here. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being virtually empty of content, the article is a POV fork by a single-purpose editor who doubtlessly knows the other article exists. We can keep it up for a few days to see if there's anything worth keeping. (Of course, the merge request could have been made straight from the author's sandbox.) — kwami (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla - the merge discussion should take place there, but this kind of action needs to come to the Arbs attention. If there was not an Arb case going on and a light being shined on this type of action, it likely would not have been reversed and that would have been the end of that. This kind of thing is exactly what the Arbs need to see because you see people right here trying to justify it, arguing for summary deletion because it's "not useful" and "empty of content" because they don't like the article. Have y'all seen some of the crap that is around Wiki? This article may need work and maybe the alarmism article can be merged into the new article but we dont go around deleting articles we don't like by calling them POV forks and redirecting the content away to the article history. Minor4th 08:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason that assuming good faith is considered a "fundamental principle". We want Wikipedia to be a place where people from all backgrounds can work together towards the common goal of creating and improving encyclopedic articles. It is possible to have disagreements with other editors without accusing them of "nasty, malicious, in-your-face POV pushing". Per 3.1.6 of the PD, "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've redirected the thing yet again, as a POV fork. MN is being disruptive by creating this thing. And M4th is being disruptive by accusing SA of malice (I've removed the PA from the header [414]) (oh - and for those with better memories than me - wasn't something similar deleted a while ago?) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that takes the cake as far as AGF goes. An admin already protected the article, unprotected it, undid the redirect and started a merger discussion. Which you have just overridden. Great display. Weakopedia (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More fun-n-games at User_talk:Kwamikagami#Climate_change_exaggeration William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice that MN has already broken his promise for fully withdraw from the Cl Ch area less than 24h after making it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I fully support ScienceApologist's action, this is the kind of situation WP:BOLD is for. The Climate change exaggeration "article" is a prime case of WP:POVFORK. It is a WP:POVish essay full of WP:SYNthesis. Nothing here is lost however; if the sourced content is usable, it should be merged to Climate change alarmism. Marknutley was fully aware of the POVFORK nature of his work, he has therefore no right to assume that it would survive deletion. Maybe that was not even his point; what if he just wanted to make his position known without outside interference. What I would suggest to Mark is that he publishes his article somewhere outside WIkipedia, Google Knol is a perfect place for this kind of personal insight. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WMC, I do NOT see that MN broke his promise. You didn't cite a diff, so I reviewed MN's edit history. I do not see an edit to a CC article after 6 Sep. Surely, you aren't claiming that edits here are a violation?(addendum, I see you've said this twice, and the earlier time, you did include a diff. To a talk page, defending against the claim that MN only posts about CC. Are you saying it is a violation to assert that you post about other things? He didn't mention Climate Change, and the sole point was that he does edit on other subjects. Isn't this carrying a personal grudge a bit too far?)--SPhilbrickT 13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – I have now gone back to the "exaggeration" article and tried to read it a second time. I still did not understand a word of it. This is about the worst piece of writing I have seen on Wikipedia. The article does not provide a definition; it does not even seem to contain a single statement of fact. All it contains is a large collection of cherry-picked quotes. It may not really even be a WP:SYNthesis: it tries to avoid synthesizing its claims from the quotes – as if this was some kind of miracle path to a neutral point-of-view. User:*Kat* below me seems to be saying about the same thing. I really do not think any part of this is usable in the Climate change alarmism article, not at least without a thorough rewrite. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making articles composed entirely of quotes is a common MN pattern. See for example Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets AGF for now, please? We're talking about the article, its fate, and how this is a good example of the problems within the CC editing community. Or at least that is what most of us are talking about.--*Kat* (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've got to agree with William and ScienceApologist on this one as well. I've read Mark's article. Its not very good on a number of levels. For one thing it reads like something out of the 1901 Encyclopedia Britannica because it is literally a collection of statements and accusations made by various people and organizations on the subject of climate change and the (possible) release of exaggerated or erroneous data. That is why it cites so many sources. Its not an article. Its a list dressed up as an article.--*Kat* (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no opinion on Mark's article since I haven't read it, but this statement struck me a bit since it reminds me so much of the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article, which is a clear POV fork and it keeps the list of scientists intentionally very small to make it look like it is a "fringe" position. They even include misleading graphs to try and debunk each type of skeptical position and have an introductory primer to make sure people know how incorrect these people are and how the IPCC is 100% correct. To be sure it is probably more polished and well-written, lipstick on a pig if you will, but it is purely an advocacy article as it is currently written (like several other articles). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed is an unambiguous list containing the relevant scientific results of the sceptics without any rebuttals and introductions that have a pro-AGW bias. We should let the outstanding scientific results of the sceptics speak for themselves. Would something like "List of publications in the journal Nature contradicting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", do? Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Nature have to retract 7 papers by that fraud Jan Hendrik Schön? If you want to keep it, then keep it simple - making such oddly specific articles is gaming in the same way that partisan polling places tend to get the numbers they want by asking the "right" questions.
A good way to improve the article is to stop posting graphs based on a paper or two from Real Climate/Climategate scientists (you know, WMC's associates) and then explicitly declaring those misleading graphs to be the "consensus" version (source?) in an article that has nothing to do with those graphs. The article clearly tries to discredit everyone on it in the most dishonest of ways, but that's what you get when people edit with a clear COI. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Off-topic discussion of author and content

I simply wish to emphasise the nature of Marknutley's edit summary. [415] It's like throwing a grenade and running for cover. Wikispan (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth quoting here in bold: may as well move this to mainspace and let them fight it out among themselves - is that an act of good faith? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is an act of good faith, as i am withdrawing from CC articles then any CC related articles in my user space had to be moved or deleted. It was painfully obvious that people would fight over this article, hence the edit summary mark nutley (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew that it would start a fight why did you create it in the first place?--*Kat* (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Mark has given a perfectly good reason for his action, no reason to accuse him of it. Likewise ScienceApologist took the only possible next step. The only thing to consider now is what possible part of Mark's "citation collection" could go into the main article. Anyway, I apologize for my hard criticism of the article content, I now understand it was nowhere finished. Unless there is still someone here who wants to accuse SA for something, I think this discussion can end. If you like, continue at the merge discussions. I do think that Minor4th should strike out his original comment. If not, someone should archive this discussion as irrelevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making accusations. I was just asking a question. --*Kat* (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because CC Exaggeration happens all the time, it is notable. All articles related to CC cause arguments, i knew this would be no exception to that. Personally i would prefer peace and quite and people working on improving it, not just try and remove all content which does not agree with their POV mark nutley (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that this is a violation of MN's restriction not to add content without approval (approval he has sought as failed to get; [416], User_talk:Marknutley/Archive_7#re:_Request, Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Climate_Change_Exaggeration), it's also a CSD G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration). And that's aside from the whole issue of it being a POV fork of climate change alarmism. Guettarda (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hatting this section is inappropriate. The real problem here is MN's actions. SA's decision to simply redirect the article was both appropriate and very restrained. Minor4th's behaviour, on the other hand, is far less than optimal. Guettarda (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about section headers? Those do help with navigation and this section has gotten pretty long.--*Kat* (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the current version similar to the one deleted via AfD? If there's an admin around that can take a quick peek and compare, a G4 deletion could save a lot of bickering. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not identical to the deleted version or I would have tagged it already, but I believe that it's close enough that the deletion decision applies. See a copy of original article here. Guettarda (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't think that it is the same - the old version i believe is this one: User:Joepnl/Vault/Climate change exaggeration. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too different from the deleted version for G4 I think. But equally a second AFD or merge debate seems a waste of time and drama. I've userfied to User:Marknutley/Climate change exaggeration, from whence any that wants can merge anything to climate change alarmism. Rd232 talk 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the edit summary at the link provided by Wikispan above. His creating this article was disruptive, even more so during the arbcom decision. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect war involving several editors and admins

Timeline of events:

  • [418] Minor4th (talk · contribs) restores article with edit summary: ScienceApologist, why would you do this redirect and lose all of the content of the new article? That is very mean spirited and contrary to policy. PROD it or tag for AfD) and left note on SA's talk page asking for explanation. Started discussion here.
  • [421] After discussion Kwamikagami unprotects, reverts his own redirect and starts merger discussion
  • [422] William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) redirects it back to the alarmism article without talk page discussion and without meaningful edit summary. Before Connolley redirect warred, things had calmed down and the merger discussion had begun and was accepted as the proper method for proceeding.
  • [424]Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) userfied the article to mark nutley's userspace without discussion, without speedy tag, with edit summary: Userfy clear fork of Climate change alarmism; see talk page -- merge tags are still on the page, and the merge discussion had only barely started
  • [426] Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) Tags the resulting empty page for speedy deletion citing recreation of deleted content: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration (it is not a restoration of a deleted article, not even close)

Do I even need to go through the analysis of everything that is wrong with this series of actions? Arbs please do something about this. Minor4th 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do you not need to go through it, but you didn't need to list it, especially with the omission of key data points. The page is now at User:Marknutley/Climate change exaggeration if anyone wants to merge stuff from there. Whilst not a recreation of the deleted article, the March 2010 AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration seems to establish "alarmism" as the preferred term, and this article was created in June 2010, and comfortably survived an AFD in July. Global warming alarmism, by the by, has existed as a redirect since 2004. Rd232 talk 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious if you happened to see the redirect war going on when you deleted the page from mainspace and redirected the resulting blank page? Did you happen to notice the merge tag linking to the merge discussion? Under what criteria did you unilaterally speedy delete the article without tagging it? Minor4th 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, the creator's edit summary "may as well move this to mainspace and let them fight it out among themselves"[427] was the decisive factor. It sounds WP:POINTy, and it achieved disruption. Sending it back where it came from aborted that disruption. Besides which it is a blatant POV fork of an existing article, under a name which had previously been deleted, with only one plausible merge target. What exactly is there to discuss? There's nothing to see here, move along. PS the speedy deletion question threw me but I think you don't know that admins have the ability to move pages without creating a redirect to the destination, to avoid creating something only to have to delete it. Since cross-namespace redirects to userspace are not allowed, I unticked the "leave a redirect" option. Rd232 talk 14:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, please have these discussions in an appropriate place; the Proposed Decision talk page is not it. You also may want to consider that your current behavior is not reflecting well on your participation in this topic area. Shell babelfish 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, could you be more specific? I don't doubt that I am a bit wound up right now and my behavior likely reflects it, and for that I apologize and will be more aware of it and modify it where it is pointed out to me. That notwithstanding, I think this event is a very good illustration of the difficulties and contentiousness in this topic area and to the extent the Arbs have time or inclination, it could be informative. I do wish you would be specific about the behavior of mine you find troubling so that I may correct it. Minor4th
Minor4th, I apologize for my harsh comments earlier. I do however think that your argumentation is not at all helping you or your case. I have been following this CC circus for half a day, and it is already driving me crazy. I am starting to feel great sympathy for the editors on the "scientific" side of this debate. I do wonder what is keeping all of you in this battleground for so long. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder as well. And I accept your apology. Again, to the Wiki in general, I apologize for getting wound up, but this is very frustrating -- I know we obviously see it differently if you're feeling sorry for the "scientific" editors (not sure what that means but I catch your drift) because what I see is actions being taken that just wouldnt be tolerated on the rest of Wiki. I'll just leave it at that and acknowledge that there is clearly more than one view. Minor4th 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I think this event is a very good illustration - but not in the way that M4th thinks. A more honest assessment would be:

  • MN receates a previously deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration with a deliberately inflammatory (though accurate) edit summary.
  • The page is properly redirected, as before.
  • A few of the "usual suspects" (M4th, Collect) show up and stir up trouble by re-recreating the deleted article.
  • M4th makes an attack on an uninvolved admin [428] who has dared to touch "his" article.
  • M4th deliberately adds in PAs whilst discussing the matter here [429] and revert wars to keep the PA in [430] and still insists that the PA is justified [431].

William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The usual suspects"? All I did was say that normal processes should be followed. That is all. If that is enough to become a "suspect" than I surely pity anyone who actually disagrees with you on something! I "re-created" nothing, by the way. I do not have that power to begin with! Now might you calm down and recognize that I am just an outsider who has consistently spoken for following rules and procedures? Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you re-created it: as in, you reverted the redirect, thus unhelpfully prolonging the problem [432] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me -- I note that you made not any try at a real edit summary - all I did was undo your unhelpful redirect as there was an already-started merger discussion. Is that sufficiently clear? Where a merger discussion exists, is there a deadline you must meet to act without an edit summary of some consequence at all? Is there a reason to short-circuit established WP policies and procedures? Collect (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the crisis is over. Why turn it into a drama after the event? The only point I would have people take away is a useful reminder of the value of edit summaries which are (a) informative and (b) neutral and AGF. Hasty and and large-volume editing makes it easy to forget at times, so let's just take the opportunity to remind ourselves of what we should aim for. Rd232 talk 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not oversimplify things. I saw Minor make his first post here, and I checked all the talk pages of the peoples involved to see what was what. At that point SA had made the redirect and the article was protected. By the way SA didn't give his reasons for the redirect anywhere, just did it. So that is mistake one and two - Minor posting here without stopping to discuss, and SA redirecting without discussion.
I tried to diffuse the whole thing by making a discussion out of it - but then you jumped in and again redirected the thing, despite it just having been edit warred over and left that way by an admin.
That wasn't really a good faith move.
Actually there are a few people making less than good faith moves, and they seem to part of the cadre that always make less than good faith moves. This is a good illustration in that if you blocked all the particpants you would solve half the problems in one fell swoop. Weakopedia (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good illustration in that if you blocked all the particpants - no. This is an illustration that if you blocked the original source of the problem - viz, MN and his ilk - you'd solve *all* of the problems. even now reality has intervened - the article is deleted, the redirect restored - you're still unable to accept it. In your odd world, the people causing the disruption are good, and those attempting to fix it lack "good faith" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as how you have managed to worm your way into yet another edit war, your nth since this case started, I suppose you would say that, wouldn't you. Which, I suppose, is why your name is in lights, and mine isn't. Thanks tho. Weakopedia (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if a saving grace for nutley was that he was unaware of the existence of the climate change alarmism article (having not edited it or its talk page or the AFD). But Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Climate_Change_Exaggeration shows substantial discussion of his userspace draft in July, including comments about being a fork. Rd232 talk 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, but surely he knew that he was re-creating a deleted page, which (if substantially identical) could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People don't always know when they're re-creating a deleted page; this was (I think) completely written by nutley, so G4 didn't apply. But the NORN discussion shows nutley was aware of the context. Rd232 talk 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when you create an article with the identical title of a deleted article, a little msg. pops up saying that it was deleted. This he would have seen at the point of actually putting the article into mainspace. Even if he didn't, which I doubt, it seemed to be deliberately provocative, given the timing. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I forgot about that warning. Rd232 talk 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a big pink thingie. See Greenville business magazine, as an example. 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what she said. --TS 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe MN created the article as Climate Change Exaggeration (note upper case "CCE") which had not previously been deleted. Minor4th then renamed it to "Cce" [433]. So MN didn't see the deleted indicator. ATren (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, digging deeper, he did vote to keep the original, so he did know about it. ATren (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he had forgotten about that, he'd still have gotten the big pink notice when he created the article. It's not case sensitive. See Greenville Business Magazine ("Greenville business magazine" had been deleted). ScottyBerg (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, poor example. In all likelihood Mark did not see the pink notice. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be case sensitive (I don't think ScottyBerg's link shows what he thinks it shows) but as ATren points out MN clearly was involved enough to know what he was doing. Polargeo (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to show was this:Greenville business magazine was deleted, but you still get the big pink deletion notice if you try to create Greenville Business Magazine. If you try to re-create either article you'll get the same notice. Go ahead, give it a try. I'm familiar with this article as I posted the original CSD notice, and my contrib history still shows the lower-case version being deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Oh no! I goofed. Both were separately deleted. Sorry. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse's votes

It looks like Rlevse's votes are indented and not being counted. If this is intentional and he had removed his votes, can a clerk strike them so it is clear? If this is a glitch, can a clerk please fix? 128.151.71.18 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, but from memory I think it's the normal method of handling struck votes. --TS 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has gone inactive on all ArbCom related materials. The normal procedure for an arbitrator going inactive during a case is to indent the votes (to show that they do not currently count, due to Rlevse going inactive), but not to strike them. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 comments

  1. If remedy 4 (William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)) passes, will WMC be allowed to make talk page edits?
  2. As Risker has pointed out, remedy 20 (ChrisO is banned from all BLPs and their talk pages for one year, to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing.) does not have an associated finding of fact. That is not fair to ChrisO; there should be some diffs given to justify such a sweeping remedy (all BLPs, and their talk pages, project-wide). --JN466 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's a sweeping remedy. The fact that no arbitrator has attempted to justify it is not fair to ChrisO at all. Doubly so because he edited under a long-used alias and is retiring from the project anyway. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FellGleaming

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:GS/CC/RE or later, WP:AE. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has just returned to CC. This user ducked out before this case began. User:FellGleaming is now edit warring at Watts Up With That?, trying to reintroduce edits of the IP 99.144.248.213. It is difficult to know what to do in the current limbo but there have been past CC sanctions against this user here and shortly after there was a case here which closed as wrong venue as stands without prejudice on some or all issues being raised elsewhere or here. The reason these issues were then not raised at the time is because FellGleaming withdrew from the topic area of climate change Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 3#FellGleaming. However as FellGleaming is now back we have an issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Requests_for_page_protection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks AQFK but please just protect it and think later. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo is an involved editor at this article, actively reverting my changes. [434]. He is also an editor who has conflicted with me on other articles. The material he refers to has been deleted and reinserted by many other editors besides myself, including Squiddy, A Quest For Knowledge, ScienceApologist, William M. Connolley, SlaterSteven, Minor4th, and at least two different IP editors. See history here: [435]. Some of these editors have been far more active in reverting here than myself. It's illuminating that Polargeo considers none of them as "edit warring", but immediately threatens me with action. Is this the act of a disinterested bystander? I put forth that his past history of conflict with me is driving him here, and as further evidence list his choice of language as accusing me of "ducking out". I was a bit light in editing over the summer, but I've been actively editing again for the past month. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny I have gotten involved in this article with my recent edit and I don't deny that I am involved with regards to FellGleaming, that is why I did not protect the page myself. If she wishes to throw that up as a smokescreen to protect her actions then that is hopefully not going to gain traction. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo is there as an editor, not as an administrator. There is nothing wrong with that. Admins can get involved in content disputes, just like everyone else. they just can't use the tools. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please get my sex right please Polargeo; I've said many times I'm male. Secondly, the action in this case is a small group of editors who wish to remove a NYT-published recommendation of the article subject, as part of a lengthy campaign to scrub the article of any positive references. Their initial justification was that the review wasn't notable, because the journalist who wrote it wasn't a scientist. When that argument failed to gain traction, a posting on a personal blog purporting to be an email from the journalist was then notable enough to preface the recommendation with the statement she had retracted her opinion. When it was revealed that not only was the source non-reliable, but the interpretation of the remarks was flawed (she actually stated she regretted that her recommendation was interpreted as idealogical), her NYT article suddenly became "not notable" again. Another group of editors, myself included, are arguing against such a tendentious interpretation. Further, these same editors who believe the NYT recommendation isn't notable, believe very strongly that a negative review from another journalist is notable, despite the journalist issuing a formal retraction that he "got it wrong" when he accused the article subject (a web site) of having inaccurate figures. See Polargeo's reversion above for an example of this.
However, if the charge is "edit warring", the real issue is that Polargeo has seen fit to ignore several other editors who have been far more active in this article's disputes than I have been, instead visiting mine and other talk pages with threats to me of "topic bans" and other similar remarks. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was going on the recent ANI you were involved in on a politcal BLP for your gender. As to the edit warring I asked for page protection against everyone. I saw two recent reverts by yourself re-adding information added by the IP. This was more significant recent edit warring than from any other individual (except maybe the IP). Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past week, SlaterSteven and ScienceApologist have engaged in far more reverts than I. Yet the only person you slapped with an edit war warning and a threat of a topic ban was myself. Further, one of those two edits of mine you refer to (the one you yourself reverted in fact), was not even itself a revert. And even now, you're visiting my talk page with unfounded accusations of sock puppetry. Is this proper behaviour for an admin? Fell Gleamingtalk 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect your two reverts in the last two days on the same thing were here and here. They have nothing to do with your other edit which I undid/reverted here. Polargeo (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second edit was over a day before the first, meaning I haven't even breached 1RR here. A glance at the article history shows several editors with 2 or 3 reverts of the same material on a given day. Did you warn any of them? Did you threaten any of them with a topic ban? Did you accuse any of them of sock puppetry? Please answer. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said you previously narrowly avoided a topic ban by leaving the CC topic area as I outlined at the beginning of this thread, I did not "threaten you with a topic ban". as to edit warring I am simply looking at your recent actions. If you wish to justify these by highlighting what other editors have previously done then you are unlikely to find much sympathy. Polargeo (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are diffs of other editors reverting the same paragraph, just in the past 3 days alone ( I think I missed a few but this should suffice to make the point):

To clarify, Polargeo, how many of these other editors did you warn for edit warring? Fell Gleamingtalk 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you two could continue this discussion on one of your talk pages? This is an ArbCom case page. This has been a useful demonstration of some of the patterns of interaction in the topic area, but it's probably run its course in terms of relevance to the case. MastCell Talk 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poleargeo, who is an admin, gave me an edit war warning, and notified me he had opened my case for discussion here. If an admin doesn't know proper policy, how are we mere mortals expected to understand? Fell Gleamingtalk 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]