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

Proposed principles

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

P3: User Conduct

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

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

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)

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)

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

P4: Collective behavior of blocs of editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of blocs, factions and confluences

The effect of confluences of editors within articles and article talkpages

See also: Earlier archived discussion

The effect of confluences of editors within Probation enforcement requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding confluences of editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think some allowance needs to be made for situations where an editor may inadvertently participate in an edit war without even realizing it. I'll give a real-life example: Me. I woke up one morning to discover an edit-war over whether the word "free-market" should be used in the Lawrence Solomon article.[1][2][3][4] 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.[5] which I reverted.[6] 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.[7] At the time of my edit, I was unaware that other editors (probably while I was still sleeping) had previously added/removed "environmentalist" from the article. So, it was an honest mistake on my part. I guess you can argue that I should have done a better job checking the article's history, but still, it was a good faith error on my part, and had I realized that "environmentalist" was part of the edit-war, I would not have made this edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Where's the evidence of factionalism?

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

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

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

The thing that I find distressing about all the talk of factions is that it's just that, talk. There has been ample opportunity to provide evidence, but, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has actually presented evidence of factions. Sure there have been bald assertions, notably by Lar here[8]. But if you go to the comments section, you can see that MastCell asked for examples of factionalism and there was no response. If you go the Evidence section, you can find that nobody, not Lar or anyone, presented any evidence of factionalism. Again, if I'm wrong please correct me. Please show me where, in this entire lengthy proceeding, there has been evidence of actual factionalism taking place. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you're referring to [9]. The first page on the list is [10]. Where's the collusion? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A two step RFC to deal with factionalism

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

P6: Casting aspersions

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

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)

• 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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

P7: Neutrality and conflicts of interest

See also: Earlier archived discussion

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

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

Examples being discussed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

P9: Encyclopedic coverage of science

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Nowhere did I say "equal time" or anything approaching that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That may be better; but less than Nigel's language is likely to be misunderstood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

P10: Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

P11: Sourcing

See also: Earlier archived discussion

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the interpersonal aside. I would note that my position oon backhanded implementation of [WP:SPOV]] is based on my reliance on established policies and rules, not on personal animus. [11] 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.[12] An edit based on a self-published blog which, it is clear here, is an unsupportable edit. [13]. I would humbly suggest that this is the wrong time and wrong place to assert that a blog is a good excuse for CC warring indeed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Tony Sidaway's definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

P14 to P17: Administrators

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

P15: Administrator involvement - general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R13: Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P16: Administrator involvement - enforcement matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I left this comment when I unprotected that article, and the delete/move/revert war (while a RfC on the issue was in place) I took action upon was within 24 hours of that. Further warnings, which are a courtesy only, are not needed in such circumstances. [redacted per response below.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)] LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.[14][15] Can we please have a statement in plain, simple English that says that Lar is an uninvolved admin (or if I've misunderstood the proposed decision, says Lar is not an uninvolved admin)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given that Lar's response to the concerns raised in his steward confirmation has been to complain about having "lost my stewardship in a carefully orchestrated backroom long-knife deal," [16] I wouldn't get my hopes up that the will "heed voices of concern." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

According to the chart[17], it seems have been done on a strictly mathematical basis. Two other stewards with over 50% approval were also removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There are really two issues: is Lar involved and is Lar incivil? There is dispute concerning the first but I don't see how the second can be seriously disputed, as he's exhibited in this very discussion the problem that people have with him. Just the other day, I remarked that it was beyond dispute that Lar had been engaged in a feud with WMC. Lar responded by doing more than vigorously denying that, and said[18]: 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 [19] I have no pull whatever with ArbCom. None. Just clue. I just think I am able to predict what's going to happen, to some extent, better than the factionaries are. No threat was intended. Merely advice that it's better to change one's ways late than never. Which they ought to take. Even at this late hour. As you can see, he felt very confident that he was going to get a pass, and if he comes away from this decision feeling vindicated, I suspect that the battleground atmosphere on the CC pages is only going to increase.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedy: Empowering uninvolved administrator discretion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification on "uninvolved admins"

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

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

Regarding "involvement" and bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

P20 Conduct on arbitration pages

1. mea culpa LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

P22 Enough is enough

I think that the addition of P22 is a good addition. Obviously, it remains to be seen how it plays out in the actual remedies, but I encourage the Committee to apply it seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

P23 Evidence sub-pages in user space

My suggestion regarding this perenial issue, is for people to move their userspace submissions/collections to a subpage of the evidence page after they post their evidence. In such a way it gets archived/memorialized with the rest of the case, and does not become either an attack page in perpetuity or MFD'd when in might have some archival utility in the future. In which case we'd end up with pages of the form Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence/Extended Evidence by user--. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of FoFs1 and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of FoFs2

Proposed remedies

R1: Discretionary sanctions

See also: Earlier archived discussion

See also: Current detailed discussion of implementation issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

R3.1 to R5 (William M. Connolley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also: Topic bans, fairness or rational please

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)

R5: William M. Connolley restricted

Civility parole

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

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

R6: Polargeo admonished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R7: Thegoodlocust banned

Proposed Alternate Remedy: Supervised Editing for TheGoodLocust

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

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

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

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

R8.1 to R9 (Marknutley)

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

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

What makes you think i`ll quit? Of the 28 articles i have created 14 are not about climate change [20] mark nutley (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

This has no place here and it is canvassing by an editor over a content dispute, perhaps this [21] would provide a better read or these diffs *14 July: [22] a liar and ignorant.

• 14 July: [23] A Vandal
• 14 July: [24] A Liar and a sockpuppet
• 18 July: [25] A Vandal again and removes an AFD tag while doing it.
• 25 July: [26] Personal attack in edit summary. I had Hat Habbed other PA`s which he reverted with this edit comment
• 25 July: [27] He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful).
• 25 July: [28] "His ignorance of the subject, and of the English language, are plastered all over Talk:List of wars between democracies, xo I cannot say that he is deliberately lying; I see no evidence that he would know synthesis if he fell over it. " mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was, as several of the comments make clear, a reaction to "the serious problems with Marknutley's edits as well - specifically, I'm sorry to say, an absolutely abysmal knowledge of history. I can understand why PMAnderson might get frustrated at having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level." and "a clear pattern of removing text without consensus, failure to provide sources to support his edits, and a poor collegial approach to other editors. This style bears all the characteristics of civil POV pushing. "These are editors who are superficially polite" while editing a limited number of articles, pushing minority opinions, revert-warring and launching numerous frivolous RfCs". Neither of these quotes is by me, nor signed by me; neither is about climate change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • However, if Collect and Nutley really believed this request meritless, I doubt they would be protesting on the talk page linked to that this is a WP:CANVASS violation - although it is limited, neutral, non-partisan, and transparent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

R8.2: Marknutley topic banned (Climate Change)

See also: Topic bans, fairness or rational please

R10: Use of blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Judith Curry "Real Climate" has damaged their brand, are directly involved in Climategate, and are "too partisan in a scientific way." [29] This website obviously should not be used as the main source in the climate articles like it has been. If it wasn't heavily promoted by a founding member of the website and his friends then this would certainly not be the case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

• Recent example == William M. Connolley reverting in controversial content sourced to a blog [30]. Minor4th 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here [[31]] 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)

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[32] (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"[33] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough. --DGaw (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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 [34] [35] [36] to keep an article on Climate Audit from existing. Are you promoting a double standard here? Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

R13 and R14: Administrators

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

ex-R16: Determining if admins are involved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2over0 asked me to post this for him:

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

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

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

— 2over0

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

To me, this is another instance where the Committee will need to be careful about not making it harder for administrators to work in the future. I remember Rlevse recently saying that RfAs have become too picky, too prone to point to one mistake by a candidate and to blow it out of proportion.[37] Logically, that should also apply to administrators just as it does to administrator candidates. On balance, it is probably a good thing for the Committee to go through all AE actions and to go on record for every case where there was less than good practices. However, strongly admonishing seems to me to go too far. I would suggest that the Committee pay close attention to the difference between one-time misjudgments, and patterns of long-term repeated disruptive behaviors. It's the latter that this case really needs to repair. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

R17: Lar is an uninvolved administrator but advised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If anything, this section is worded with great kindness, as it makes no mention of his incivility. Lar's open bias in favor of the skeptic side is really not disputable, and was epitomized by his infamous "leveling the playing field" comments, and his incessant and obnoxious use of "cabal" and "faction" to label people in a one-sided and insulting fashion. This finding fails to record his incivility, which has been in evidence in recent weeks, despite this arbitration, and on this very page. See [38]See his "pwned" snipe at Carcharoth.[39]. 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."[40] This arbitration decision would have no credibility whatsoever if it fails to deal with this problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That is true. What was complained about at the RfC was bias and systematic incivility, not temper. See the statement at the RfC/U[41] by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, [42], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Lar was asked on his user page by Jehochman to "just walk away."[43] 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)

• I asked Lar how he would act if this provision was passed, and he responded[44], "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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
    • @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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • The relevancy to this section (i.e., battlefield behavior by Lar)? 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. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                • In other words, no relevancy. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • No, not what I said (but perhaps what you wanted to hear), I'm referring to gestalt relevancy, not relevancy of the conveniently myopic sort. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                    • I don't think that "gestalt relevancy" (whatever that means) helps advance understanding of the issue here, which is Lar continuing, to this day, acting as an "uninvolved administrator" in an area in which he exhibits battleground behavior and clear partisanship. His gratuitous jab at WMC was apparently the subject of your missive, and I just don't think that trying to justify it is going to be productive. If you can clearly state your point, if any, as it relates to Lar then perhaps it might be useful. But I think that you need to use clear language. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                      • Actually we have a policy on "gestalt relevancy". --TS 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                      • Oh well, I thought my point was fairly clear. I guess one can can lead a horse to the Pierian spring, but can't make him drink. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
                        • Actually I understood your first post, but the second one just made no sense at all to me. (In my past life I was a straight man, but I'm trying to take this case seriously.) ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

R17 and F17

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

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

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

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

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

Remedy 2

"Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded". If this happens, what becomes of the sanctions logged here? Some of them are still in force. Are they superseded too, or do they continue? Cardamon (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm specifically not counting warnings/cautions from CC probation when I say the following: At this point, only GregJackP's and Thegoodlocust's sanctions should be superseded. Any other editors should have continuing sanctions; that is, if any other users on this list of active sanctions may have either superseding or concurrent restrictions, then I think ArbCom should reconsider whether this is the right thing to be doing in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps the sanctions themselves should be reviewed, since some of them seem to have been applied with scant regard for what one might consider to be the normal process. This sanction against me, for example, was actioned 4 hours after the initial report in the middle of the night with no discussion or a chance to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a sanction; it's a warning/caution - see also my first sentence (it's more of a restatement or reminder of policy to alert you that if you breach policy, you'll be sanctioned; it's not the same as an actual sanction). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for clearing that up. The terminology had me confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The remedy only replaces the noticeboard for the purposes of further imposition of sanctions; note that it states that the noticeboard "should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions" (emphasis mine). Any existing sanctions are not affected by it (although they may be by other remedies in this case, at least as far as individual users are concerned). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3

"Scope of topic bans". Item (3) states that editors who are topic banned are prohibited " from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." Should it be clarified that those editors may participate in such discussions and processes that directly involve them? In other words, if an editor is taken to AE for a violation of a topic ban, the editor should be allowed to defend their actions - I realize that they probably would, but it would probably be better to state that explicitly. GregJackP Boomer! 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

When enforcing Community or Committee matters, administrators are expected (and should be encouraged) to use common sense and good judgement. For this area, merely checking if an alleged violation fits within the list is not good enough anymore; enforcing admins need to seriously think about the other factors for alleged violations (such as whether a particular enforcement action is best suited for the particular circumstances). That is, it's not needed in this particular case for this particular remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3.1: Scope

Proposed remedies (3.1, for example) speak of "articles about Climate Change broadly construed". How broadly? A few weeks ago, I asked someone if he could compile a list of the articles in Category:Climate change and all its subcats. Among the subcats it turned up were Category:Tobacco in South Africa (a subcat of Category:Tobacco by country, which is a subcat of Category:Tobacco, which is in Category:Smoking, which is in Category:Smoke, which is in Category:Particulates, which is in Category:Climate forcing agents, which is in Category:Climate forcing, which is in Category:Climate change) and Category:Wolfmother albums (which is in Category:Stoner rock albums, which is in Category:Stoner rock, which is in Category:Cannabis culture, which is in Category:Cannabis, which is in Category:Smoking, which is...) To quote: When I killed the script it was busy working through New Jersey train stations.

While Stoner rock may, for all I know, be just as controversial as climate change, and who knows what pitfalls await unsuspecting editors who venture into the world of New Jersey train stations, I feel pretty confident that the arbs don't have these in mind for the topic bans or probation. Some sense of what "climate change, broadly construed" actually includes would be helpful. (Does it include articles about climate, for example?) Oh, and by the way, "climate change" is not a proper noun. Definitely should not be capitalising the second word. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to be topic-banned from pages on New Jersey mass transit, broadly construed. And I'll accept 1RR on stoner rock. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we all realise that Mediawiki categories commonly form a network rather than a hierarchy and that the network is something like a ring species in that you start out with one thing and end with something completely different. This doesn't mean that an admin cannot be trusted to interpret the term "articles about Climate Change broadly construed" without further guidance. If another admin disagrees, then they discuss it further and, if consensus is reached, the ban is modified or reversed. Other appeal routes also apply. --TS 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this thread is uproariously funny, and it has made my day. It also marks the first time I've had call to type "uproariously". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Some of us take mass transit very seriously. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can cannabis combustion contribute to climate change? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the making of a game. What's the shortest distance between two articles, in terms of categories? Are there any two articles which cannot be connected via categories? Are hidden categories cheating? Is the game more interesting under the influence?--SPhilbrickT 00:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends, Tryptofish. If it's grown outdoors, with minimal chemical inputs, and it's consumed close to where it's produced, then not much. If it's grown in the middle of a National Forest, then you have to account for the tree and soil carbon lost when the land is cleared and tilled. If it's grown in high-tech indoor setups, then yes. Those things are major power hogs, since they're grown under high power lights that stay on 24-7. Guettarda (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (And, of course, we've got an article on it. Guettarda (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

Theoretically cannabis should reduce CO2 emissions since people who smoke it will drive slower and less aggressively which increases their MPG. Perhaps if breathalyzers are made mandatory to start cars then we can also make it so that a minimum amount of THC is required as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, per acre, I believe hemp is the most efficient plant for biofuels. My understanding is that it grows quite rapidly and so it should be a good CO2 sink in that respect. Perhaps Boris can weigh in since I believe biofuels are his specialty. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I asked. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As a biomass crop hemp is competitive with maize. High-end yields for hemp are roughly similar to low-end yields for switchgrass and much lower than for miscanthus. Furthermore switchgrass and (especially) miscanthus have advantages in that there is substantial translocation of nutrients from stems to roots near time of senescence, greatly reducing the need for fertilizer and simplifying management. Perhaps this could form the basis of a Finding of Fact in the present arbitration. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

More seriously: is Hadley cell, for example, about climate change? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And as clerk, I'd appreciate it if this thread stays serious now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody have any answers? Shame, it would be better to know now rather than later. OK, then, does removing a Cl Ch cat count as a Cl Ch edit [45]? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Um. Really *no-one* dares to even attempt to answer these questions? They will get answered somehow or another during the enforcement, so it would be better done now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The normal way those bans are interpreted at AE is that removing a CC cat counts as a CC edit. As to Hadley cell, my view would be that it depends on the part you edit. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3.2: Appeal of topic bans

It says that no one can file an appeal of a topic-ban until after 6 months after the close of the case. What if someone is topic-banned for only 3 months? Does that mean they cannot file an appeal? Or does that mean that every topic ban will be at least 6 months? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably just something the Arbs didn't think of. Perhaps wording it as "6 months or the end of the sanction, whichever is earlier" or something like that would work. GregJackP Boomer! 23:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also the question of scope (3.1) - the topic ban is defined as applying to both articles and their talkpages, yet some of the individual topic bans proposed specify that the ban is on articles, and not their talkpages. That's to say that some of the topic bans being voted on specify conditions that are contradicted by 3.1. Before someone exploits that to get around their topic ban the arbs might want to harmonize their proposals. Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 4

"William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)". This states, "User:William M. Connolley 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." It does not specify whether or not William is permitted to edit the talk pages of such BLPs, leaving the scope of the remedy unclear. Compare remedy 3.2 for example, which includes the clear statement: "He may edit their talk pages". So, BLP talk pages: yay or nay? --JN466 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, this would contradict proposed remedy 3.1) "Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." I suggest that the Committee not pass Remedy 3.1 and instead state in each instance how widely the ban is to apply. NW (Talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry: these wrinkles will all get reviewed and sorted out when we finish with the FoFs and start looking at individual remedies. Roger Davies ^talk 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 4.2

"Use of blogs". Does this only apply to blogs, or does it also apply to the other types of self-published sources mentioned in Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) and Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion? If the latter, should the wording be made more explicit? --JN466 03:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedies 11.1 & 11.2

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

Several remedies are now qualified by "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing". I interpret this to mean that the sanction period starts at the time the user does return. I'm not quite sure this is a good idea. Why should it make a difference if a user withdraws before or after the sanction passes? If s(he) withdraws after the decision, it will silently expire after 6 months. If he withdraws before, with this qualification, it will sit there gathering dust and be unpacked if and when (s)he returns. This certainly looks more punitive than preventative to me, as in "(s)he must serve the time". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't meant to be punitive. It was clumsily drafted, and is not passing. I'll probably withdraw my vote for it when I look at the remedies.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 19 - KimDabelsteinPetersen (remedies)

I do not believe that this proposed topic ban is apposite. For a period of several months, I read the overwhelming majority of edits KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) made in the topic area of climate change, as with each of the other major participants. It is my observation that in any dispute, KDP is likely to be the first to make a full presentation of his reasoning on the talk page, the first to urge calm while outside input is gathered, and the first to introduce new sources in an attempt at compromise. To the best of my knowledge, KDP has never been blocked, banned, or formally sanctioned in any way. Obviously this would apply to everyone at least once, but in this case we have good evidence to hand that KDP responds rationally when the community expresses concerns.

In early February, KimDabelsteinPetersen was formally warned at the community requests for enforcement board that further participation in any edit war in the probation area would lead to a 1 revert restriction or similar sanction. My part in this discussion may be seen at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2#Result concerning TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC. Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 8#Joe d'Aleo and temperatures is the relevant discussion initiated by KDP with reference to established policy and guidelines; KDP discussed with the editor who initially contributed the material in question and others before invoking WP:BURDEN. He engaged with this discussion even while the recently contributed material with which he disagreed was displayed in the article. This judicious discuss first approach is contributory to a harmonious editing environment, and should be actively encouraged.

Still, the above incident did see KDP revert twice. As people who have seen my work at AN3 will likely agree, I tend to take a hard line approach with regards to edit warring. One of the bigger problems with this topic area has been the tendency of additional editors to involve themselves in ongoing edit wars, leading to article disruption even in cases where no individual editor has broken 3RR. KDP responded to the abovelinked enforcement thread by not being involved in any edit wars for at least the next two weeks (the period over which I followed his edits as due diligence after warning him). Nor was he a major participant in any edit war nor subject to any request for enforcement for the next two months (the period until I rotated myself out of actively adminning this topic area). I believe that he has also stated that he consciously enacted a personal 1RR rule, though I do not care to track down the diff at the moment. Continuing to contribute productively while moderating potentially questionable behavior is the best possible response when the community raises concerns. This again is behavior that I would like to see acknowledged and encouraged.

KDP agreed to the voluntary topic ban proposed by Jehochman earlier in this case, and has continued to follow it unilaterally, with the exception of the case pages. This is very much the behavior of a patient and reasonable editor rather than a disruptive one.

KDP explains his approach to editing BLPs at User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles. Though I personally take a slightly more parsimonious approach to BLPs (I favor excluding any aspect that has not received in depth coverage from good sources, giving us poorer but safer articles), the views outlined at that page are well within the mainstream of interpretations of Wikipedia policy. I would not invoke the BLP hammer on anyone making such an argument. Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms.

While I sympathize with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Enough is enough and the success of the Scientology ArbCom case, I believe that we also have a duty to recognize KimDabelsteinPetersen's positive responses to and engagement with the larger community. His editing habits have not been a major contributing factor to the situation leading to this case, and it is my considered opinion that his renewed participation in this topic area would both enhance article quality and contribute to a positive editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to write. An opposing view, which I am not saying that I necessarily endorse, of this editor's contributions can be found here.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading, Roger Davies, and for linking the prior presentation of evidence. I do not find that section compelling. Would it be a good use of my time to rebut it, or would it be preferable to concentrate on more immediate matters? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2/0, you state: Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach [to BLP issues] is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms. No, that does not adequately describe his approach. As I said on Roger Davies' talk page, it's Kim's application -- where the rubber hits the road -- that's the problem. Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to protect climate-change skeptics? Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to show where information critical to someone with Kim's general views should be included? I'd like to see diffs of that. What I've seen, over and over, is interpretation of BLP in ways that further Kim's preferences on the issue of Climate Change, with resulting rough treatment for one side and adamant protection for the other. He has worn away all assumptions of good faith in this regard. Combine this behavior with any edit warring, any BLP violations or any other violation of a policy, especially when ArbCom has declared this a Draconian Enforcement Zone [46] in an area where WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has been a problem.

It is an unacceptable BLP violation to cite a blog [47] to call Fred Singer's lead-authored report "dishonest" and it doesn't matter how many times Kim cites "the exceptions to SPS" or has thought out his approach to BLP issues in the abstract. In fact, it's more disturbing to find BLP violations coming from someone who has thought so much about the policy. This edit [48] is unacceptable when you contrast the description of the source at the bottom of this page [49] (Professor Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability) with Kim's description of that source as some kind of "qualified expert" (in the edit summary from the last diff) -- the statement being sourced had nothing to do with climate change or climate science, but with Lindzen's views on passive cigarette smoking: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated".

As far back as June 2009, editors were flabbergasted that Kim would defend that edit after reading Kim earlier rail against use of Op-Eds as BLP sources. [50] [51] [52] It is simply not possible to conclude that this editor is giving adequate effort either to presenting readers information without bias or keeping BLP articles from becoming attacks on the subjects. These and other edits make it look like Kim is using Wikipedia as a tool to gain political advantage in a political fight. Kim needs to be separated from this subject area and show he can edit against his side, particularly regarding controversial BLPs, and he should not be let back in until he's shown ArbCom he can do it. As the flabbergasted reaction I linked to shows, this kind of behavior on Kim's part naturally gets under the skin of editors trying to work with him to make improvements to articles. It obviously contributes to a battleground atmosphere. To turn 2/0's statement on its head: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what am I missing here with the difs John is presenting? To me it looks like Kim's response is saying they need to find references with "editorial oversight". What is wrong with that? Why is that disruptive rather than reasonable? No John I don't think you turn "2/0 statement on it's head" at all. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from a more general discussion section below. So the opening comments are slightly out of context.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that one is interesting.. especially since i was asking specifically about the issues that ArbCom is now considering to be "ideosyncratic""idiosyncratically"[53], and which they seem to think merit topic-ban, but haven't addressed :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [strike: sprong welling --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)]

"Ideosyncratic"? Have I mispelled it somewhere?  Roger Davies ^talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. --JN466 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Kim (whose spelling is much better than most English speakers, although I think his native language is Danish) is pointing out that he asked months ago for guidance regarding the line between sourcing that criticizes a BLP's work (which might conceivably include criticism from bloggers in some circumstances -- say, if it is considered simply an alternative POV) and sourcing criticism that goes beyond criticizing what a person has done. It's a bit complex to explain the details, and frankly it would be a lot of effort to explain to Kim, who is very well versed in the intricacies. I explained to Kim on your talk page, Roger, [54] how I think ArbCom would be justified in calling Kim's edits "idiosyncratic" in that regard and worthy of a sanction (because to me this doesn't look like a well-meaning misunderstanding). But I obviously don't speak for ArbCom and Kim wants guidance from ArbCom. Years ago, when I first got blocked, I had a similar misunderstanding about policy. It actually only took a few words from CoolHandLuke to get me to think through what was wrong about what I was doing. I concluded that while I was certainly confused about policy, I wouldn't have erred if I'd tried harder to follow the spirit of the policy and that I'd fallen into wikilawyering over policy in order to try to get what I wanted (I think the policy was WP:CONSENSUS, but possibly WP:DISRUPT, too). I think it would take some effort to explain to Kim what he did wrong in that regard, but it would help him to figure it out. I think if ArbCom approves the six-month-minimum topic ban, he'll figure it out eventually anyway, but an explanation would be smoother. Personally, I think if Kim stopped the partisan kinds of behaviors mentioned in the Fof, he'd be one of Wikipedia's very best editors, so I think the effort of understanding this and explaining it to him is worth it. I hope the finding and remedy for Kim is approved, but I worry that ArbCom members might think his "idiosyncracy" is just a misunderstanding, when it's really more serious than that. It really is worthwhile for ArbCom members to understand these details, and it would help the project to explain it to Kim. Sorry to go on at length, but I don't know a briefer way of saying this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Link added. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

note: Because i think that my involvement in this discussion may sidetrack it into minutia, and a response/counter/response/... type of discussions, i'll attempt not to comment on this section, except in answer to direct questions. I am following it though, and will be reflecting on the comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel disquiet about Kim. He is not the kind of person who is more trouble than he's worth. 2over0 says it better than I could. Kim is the way forward. We can't improve things by explicitly excluding people who are working very hard to make things better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim's behavior, including BLP violations and tag-team reverting, but perhaps not the deletion of article talk page comments (theoretically more eyes should be watching and prevent this but it looks like all the watchdogs are getting topic bans so who knows), has gone on far too long for a mere "talking to" to get through to him. I will say that several editors have certainly changed their behavior during the ArbCom case, but I imagine this sort of thing is so commonplace that it is transparent to experienced eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about "tag-team reverting." In my experience that term is used by singleton edit warriors to attack several other editors who are reverting their attempts to impose their view against consensus. Have you often found that Kim and several other editors are reverting your attempts to make an edit that you know is right? Is there another definition that I'm missing? What would it be if you and some other editor were reverting an edit by a singleton editor who happened to be in disagreement with you? Would you then also be "tag-teaming"? How can I distinguish "tag-teaming" from "expression of consensus against a determined singleton edit warrior?"--TS 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash evidence that's already been presented Tony. The short answer to your first question is "Absolutely." If you want more detail then simply read the evidence page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the nomination, Kim has tag-teamed revered with WMC. It's really annoying and provokes edit wars. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I find what 2/0 and Ncmvocalist have to say about KDP very enlightening since I don't know nor have I ever edited with this editor other than recently on their talk page. I hope the artitrators take notice of these two additions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3: Topic ban scope

What about, say, Template:Global warming? That's neither an article, nor a talk page, nor a Wikipedia process. Does that mean that it is not covered by the topic ban? T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck in getting an answer. There is a pile of unanswered questions at the end of the "Remedy 3.1: Scope" section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Logic would say it is covered by a CC topic ban in my view. Editing it would look like looking for loopholes in the remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I think clarification may be helpful and there may be some cases where I can understand there would be confusion, in this case I would have to agree anyone who edits it then tries to argue it isn't covered should rightfully be smacked down for wikilaywering. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is best to preempt those wikilawyering in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is an easy answer to this question, then one of the many watching arbs should just give it. If they don't answer, then the assumption muct be that there is no easy answer, in which case asking isn't wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an easy answer: it's any directly or tangentially related article or topic attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. That's what broadly construed means.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about Hadley cell, Greenhouse effect, Atmosphere, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Antarctica, Suess effect, Photosynthesis, Rice, Windpower, Royal Society, NASA, Ocean, Walker circulation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Current, Hurricane,...? I think it will be quite hard to delineate the topic, and it is essentially impossible to delineate the topic on a per-article basis without massively overshooting the target. In addition, most of the more technical articles have been fairly quite, if only because non-experts simply are not aware of them or do not understand the implication of the concepts. Do we need to extend topic bans to articles that never have been a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is one form or another is already mentioned in 14 out of the 17 articles: the other three have potential for coatracking. Probably best to leave well alone with all of them,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Customarily, topic bans are a ban on contributing content related to the topic. So, any edits to any article, template, image, or related talk page that introduce material related to the topic would be a violation. For example, introducing material about the topic into an article about a politician would be a violation of the ban despite the person not being in any category related to Climate. That is the reason that we can not merely give a complete list of WP entries that fall under the ban. But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban. And yes, preventing the problem from being introduced into more articles is one of the goals of the remedy, so we define the topic ban as "broadly construed" for purposes of enforcement. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban." - that's not obvious to me at all, and seems to be a horrible idea. Why not articles related to biology and ecology which are just as affected by climate change? Or to politics or building codes? For all of these we can construct reasonable connections to climate change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FN has failed to distinguish Climate from Climate Change. Not an easy mistake to make, but a possible one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the frequent number of mentions of "change" in the Climate article, including a section named Climate change , (the concept of change is include throughout the article for example see Record), and also for example in the Climate model article, I don't see how an editor can edit about Climate and avoid bumping into content that could be in conflict. Also, articles about climatologists are in conflict at times and need to be included in the topic ban for it to be effective in stopping the constant disputes. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that we all live in the climate, the topic touches everything. Go for a site ban then. "Could be in conflict" is not an operational definition. Stradivari violins may sound so good because the climate in which their wood was grown was colder, so an edit to a classical music article "could be" in conflict. On the other hand, updating Köppen climate classification is unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy. "Stopping the constant disputes" is an admirable goal. As stated by several other editors, even complete removal of all current editors is unlikely to achieve this goal. And what's more, the overarching goal is not to stop disputes, but to build a better encyclopaedia. If you want no disputes, restrict the topic to Barney the dinosaur, the allowed content to "Barney is cute", and lock down the Wiki (in fact, you could do away with the Wiki in favour of a static web page, much cheaper to operate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., [55][56][57][58] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I defer to Boris' superior knowledge in this domain. But that does not affect the main point: "could be in conflict" is not a useful criterion, and there are edits to climate topics that are not significantly connected to climate change or the climate change controversy, just as there are non-climate edits that are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FN;s stuff is all besides the point, and should be ignored as ignorant. RD has provided an answer, which is clearly all we're going to get attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. Thus Hadley cell isn't covered, by RD's defn, at least not at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: Hadley cell clearly is covered and I wouldn't disagreee with FN's block prediction either.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, if you make an edit such as you did on the Hadley cell article then you would be blocked because it is adding content directly related to Climate change. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are no objective criteria that could be laid out without being susceptible to wikilawyering. Instead, I'd suggest a few subjective rules of thumb:

• By making the edit, are you attempting to say something about climate change or about a person with a notable connection to climate change? If so, avoid making the edit.
• If you were to ask a disinterested but knowledgeable and reasonable person which topics were closely related to the article you wanted to edit, would there be a strong possibility that they would mention climate change (or global warming, etc.)? If so, avoid making the edit.
• If a topic-banned opponent in this dispute were to edit the same text you want to edit, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit.
• When in doubt, ask someone who will not just tell you what you want to hear -- preferably one of your more reasonable climate change opponents; barring that, a disinterested third party.

Run these rules of thumb past the scenarios offered above and see if there are any that are truly still unclear. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the rules of thumb. At first, I thought you were changing the emphasis from the article to the edit, but now I see that you have covered the union. If someone wants to edit building codes, and discuss grounding rules, that's fine, but if you want to discuss changes in codes due to potential climate changes issue, then it is covered. However, if the article is primarily about climate change, then any edit is covered. I wanted to make sure, for example, that someone editing the CRU incident article would not be able to claim they were editing about legal issues, because their edit related to FOI, and that's not climate change. That should be covered, and is, based upon your rule of thumb. This is not to say there won’t be questions that arise, but the rules of thumb sound like a great start.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3 - Question

I see that there are new proposals on the PD that names editors with per Remedy 3, which starts here, that are being voted for. This may be a stupid question but what does this mean for the editors? Again, sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't understand if it means a month or indefinite or anything in between. Thanks for any clarifications to this,--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed "Remedy 3" ban in this case is an indefinite ban on having anything at all to do with the topic on-wiki, with the possibility of an appeal as defined in either Remedy 3.2 or 3.2.1, whichever passes. --TS 13:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I have assumed it means an indefinite topic ban, which seems extraordinary given the wildly different issues and standards of conduct between the individuals named. I raised concerns about it in an earlier section. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, past attempts to make editor remedies very specific to the person was a failure on several levels. Deciding between 3 months, or 6 months, or 9 months, or 1 year bans on numerous editors needlessly adds complexity to cases, and are difficult to quantify adequately without doing a full review of each editor (a consistent problem is poor quality of evidence submitted by the community which does not necessarily fully address the underlying problems). Indefinite bans that can later be lifted is a better since it lets users comeback if they are viewed as able to edit collaboratively in the topic area rather that picking an arbitrary period of time for the ban. This idea fits better with the preventative nature of the ban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But such a system is extraordinarily unfair. In this case, we have identical remedies proposed for individuals whose behavior ranges from minor WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA violations to in-your-face WP:EW/WP:DISRUPT/WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA/WP:BAIT orgies. The guy who stole an apple from a market vendor is getting the same punishment remedy as the guy who stole millions in an armed bank robbery that left a trail of corpses. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem unfair, but the more I think about it, the less I'm concerned about it. I doubt anybody is going to tell a topic-banned editor that he or she got the same treatment as some more egregious violator and therefore was just as egregious: If so many editors got the same remedy, it's hard to believe that. It's a blunt instrument on the P.D. page, but it will be much less blunt as editors apply to get back in -- then it will be tailored to fit the circumstances of each editor. The guy who stole the apple still gets a six-month ban (in some cases, I think that's still unfair) and should get back in pretty easily; while Caligula may have the seven labors of Hercules to complete before convincing ArbCom. For those who really like editing Wikipedia rather than just like promoting a POV, the time should pass pretty easily. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy editing Wikipedia productively and would do so exclusively, were it not for the activities of certain individuals who first game and then bait to remove a perceived opponent. This is the second time such underhanded stagecraft has been used to (seemingly successfully) attack me in an ArbCom case, but there will not be a third. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the issues here go beyond a simple inability to work cooperatively with other editors. In several instances we've seen editors with a deep philosophical belief system that conflicts with Wikipedia standards on sourcing, and/or with a cockeyed view of Wikipedia standards. These editors can almost instantly demonstrate that they can work with others, if it's on articles on noncontroversial subjects, and then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. That could be addressed by asking those editors to help bring an article that's controversial in some other field to FA status. A skeptic working on a BLP of an anti-Intelligent Design scientist or journalist or book and improving the article in NPOV ways (especially in giving fair treatment to views that are the opposite of your own) would make it pretty difficult for ArbCom to refuse entry back into CC articles in six months. Once an editor has done that once or twice it should become easier to get into the habit of doing it with CC articles. And once an editor has gotten into the habit of editing for the other side I think they'll find it a pretty satisfying thing to do and even take some pride in it. The six month waiting period also makes it easier to work with people you've had conflicts with in the past. Some of them, anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flo and John. And -- this topic area has become overheated; a cool-down period to re-gain some perspective may be useful. The editors concerned may appreciate that themselves after a few weeks, once they are out of this toxic environment. --JN466 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Thank you for all your inputs to my question I now understand. What will happen if these editors just leave the project all together? Another thought is, what if there is a boycott not to edit in this area by some? I can see both of these happening. I guess I worry about the stabiliy of the articles. I think this is something that needs to be thought about. Remember the goal here is to write the best articles possible to give our readers the best knowledge they can find. I worry that this is not going to happen and that the articles are going to suffer and if the articles suffer so do our readers. Just a thought I want to share. Thanks again for answering my question, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, Arbcom does not get involved with content. The effect on the quality of the articles is a content issue and thus is not something that Arbcom can consider here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is asked not to edit on a tiny fraction of the articles in WP, and decides to fully leave the project because of that rather minor restriction, it suggests that the editor may be an SPA. If that is the case, the project is better off without them. However, I think this is merely an intellectual exercise; I don't see a single name on that list who is likely to leave forever simply because they cannot edit a few articles for a few months.SPhilbrickT 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::After looking at these again I have to say I don't see the need for them since most of the editors votings are becoming clear what the arbitrators feel should pass or fail. Why the need for these extras at the bottom when there is the above remedies being voted on? It seems almost redundant imho. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I struck this, this has been explained to me off this page. Feel free to delete my comments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• @SPhilbrick and anyone else. I have no history of poor editing of CC articles. No edit warring. I have defended myself on the arbcom case talkpage and obviously taken the bait once or twice when offered. For this I am being accused of promoting a battleground and am in the list for a topic ban. I have not primarily been an editor of Climate Change articles and that is certainly not my reason for being on wikipedia. However, I would regard a topic ban as a very silly slap in the face from arbcom and should this pass I will retire from wikipedia with immediate effect. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for the record here, Mark Nutley and Heyitspeter both have retired templates on their accounts. I don't know of any others who have retired other than ChrisO. Last I saw Atren and Verbal were on an extended wikibreak. Just thought this should be known with the discussion above. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley has now returned from retirement.[59] TFD (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As has Polargeo, which has been noted by Roger Davies on the PD page so I'm not giving a dif or it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (remedies)

Topic bans, fairness or rational please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall effect of the proposed remedies

See also: Scorched earth approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Drifting off-topic. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 (talk • contribs) 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) See here. Not even signbot can keep up with this page. Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 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)

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)

harsh but unfair

As one of the main issues is that whatever we do it won't work then lets be harsh but unfair. Perma ban all usrs from the articles in question who have reverted more then twice in one day. Impose a subject wide 1RR restriction (perimenatly) and permeantly block any user who breaches 1RR after that point. No this is not a joke, but it is an example of about the only thing that wouold work (assuming the fears expresed by many of the users is true, which I think it is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, all that would do is slow down the conflict, not diffuse it. And we would have the same endless debates about reverting socks and BLPs we have now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps slowing it down (or accepting there is nothing we can do about it) is the best we can do. Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas (a bit childish if you ask me, its not as if any one takes wiki that seriously). Under those circumstances even if we block all users mentioned here and do nothing else (as others have pointed out) someone else will repalce them. Effectivly its a war of attrition with an inexustable supply of canon fodder (how Haig must envy us). So at the end of the day the only answer is eaither let them fight it oout, have these silly debates every so often, or put them all in a field and bomb the basterds.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very strange argument. Why is being unfair likely to settle any disputes? Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas - not at all sure what you mean here. Could you provide links? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding since I started being an editor is that the project wanted and needed experts in different fields, like this one. Is there anyone else concerned about the possibility that most of the experts in the science field of Climate change may now be banned? What happens to the articles? It's been shown undeniably that there has been off wikipedia blogs recruiting to get editors sanctioned as this "How-to-guide" dif shows and this one that I just heard about. I was aware from comments and the PD page that there are off project blogs interference but this dif provide by Noren above was my first look at it actually being shown. I don't know if there are other blogs doing this but I guess checking Wikipedia Review wouldn't hurt to see if there are discussions going on there about this case and if so, who is involved. Are there any editors here who are members there who can check on this and provide difs if there is something important to this case? I am aware that off project stuff isn't supposed to be brought on project but with this case I find it extremely important because the PD is looking like it's going to reward the off project behavior by doing what they wanted to happen to begin with. If arbitrators haven't looked at this reference, I would suggest they do so to see what is going on over there at pediawatch.wordpress.com. I just think that the PD should be fair and that not all that are named are equally wrong in all of this. I am also concerned that too much thought is being given to the edit warring with too little thought given to more serious breaches of policies. Thank you again for considering my opinions, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in many cases that come to ArbCom there are off wiki issues between rival factions related to a topic. ArbCom knows this to be true because they often see material that is submitted privately that needs to be deleted or suppressed. Unfortunately, there is not much that ArbCom can do about it except to advise users to follow up off wiki with the appropriate authorities as needed, and to keep it off wiki. Any other approach would take too much investigation to give any thing approaching a fair remedy. (Meaning that there is often a long tangled history between people that come to Wikipedia and dispute with each other.) So usually, ArbCom does not explore off wiki activity in the level of detail that you want to when drafting the case (with occasional exceptions if it specifically addresses sanctionable on site editor conduct.) See my comment below for the reason that I support indefinite bans for this group of editors. (my opinions based on my prior experience as a member of arbcom. Of course other arbitrators may see it differently). FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the term unfair to aknowedge before the first reply that those affected by it would consider it unfair. After all (it seems to me) its the other side causing the trouble, so why should those who only want to make wikipedia better be punished as well, goes many of the arguments. It will solve anything, but it might discourage those who want to edit war to push agendas. I don't think its a perfect answer but is I think the only one that will have some impact on this. However I am not aware of what solution was tired (and seemed to work) on scientology relatesd pages, but I am not sure its quite the saem situtation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the points raised in this section, in a new section below[60]. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you FloNight for your polite detailed response as a former arbitrator. I really appreciate what you say. That being said, looking at what is said on these off site blogs shows who is being targeted and why. It also shows that editors that are active on this page is also active on those blogs. WMC seems to be the biggest target by them too so as an outsider I find it quite disturbing that the ones who are blogging off project to get editors on the project banned are going to feel rewarded by the way the PD is looking. I guess I am frustrated that there is no way to stop this kind of behavior. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is, don't acecept the bait and report the activities. The problom is edds reacting to baiting in kind, not according to policy. Now there may be a case for greater and more proactive sanctions against disruptive edds (rather then the 'he's been blocked three times already lets block him again so he learns his leason' mentaility). But that is the fault of admins not enforcing rules with enough severity and users who will defend disruptive editing based upon content rather then actvivity. Perhaps a three strikes and your out rule may be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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

E1: Enforcement by block

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

• To me, it comes across like, here are some users who have long histories of being warned and sanctioned before, and what we are doing here is giving them a little time to think about it before coming back, and then we'll have AE do the serious work. I worry that the Committee may be leaving too much to be dealt with later, through enforcement, rather than simply issuing stronger sanctions now. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (enforcement)

Discussion of possible minor modification to ArbCom proposal

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

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

Proposed remedy

JWB appears to be the only individual with a battelfield finding of fact without a cooresponding topic ban currently being considered. Is this intentional? As usual, I will respond only to members of AC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the placeholder just hadn't been filled in yet (my fault). Thanks for the reminder. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cla (15) and KDP (19, 19.1) remedies

Resolved

I would ask that the RfAr not be closed until a consensus is obtained on those remedies. Although I generally support Cla's positions and opposed KDP's a 4/8 vote does no one any good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If one of the active non-recused Arbs would vote yes or abstain, that would solve that problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

15 is passing (only 4 support votes are needed with 1-2 recusals). 19.1 was just posted a few hours ago; since the idea was originally suggested by Risker (who hasn't voted yet) I strongly suspect it will get the votes to pass. Guettarda (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the general recusals were already included in the header list at #Arbitrators active on this case, leaving 8 active arbitrators. If I'm wrong, I this section is unnecessary, and I apologize for wasting time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant arbs who abstained (Roger used the word "recuse" in his abstention). With two of the 8 arbs in the 'abstain' column, only four votes are needed (see the table at the top of the PD page). Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, 15 is passing because of the abstentions/recusals, and 19.1 is now passing. I'll tag this "resolved". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)