Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

How to demonstrate a cabal?

With all the talk and the reference saying it is difficult to demonstrate a cabal. Here's the method I propose (without email evidence).

1. demonstrate a group of editors are highly active in locus.
2. demonstrate they consistently support each others reverts.
3. demonstrate they defend each others disruptions.
4. demonstrate they share a conflict of interests in a POV
5. with out time series correlations of cause and effect concordances, apply the duck test, since socks are like cabals.

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See #17, 34, 62 and 64. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And how does your demonstration differentiate between a cabal and people that just happen to agree with each other? If they agree and are active in an area, they can support each others reverts, share a POV, and defend each others disruptions without ever having been to a soopur sekrit meeting with soopur sekrit handshakes. The sock = cabal thing is just way out. The very idea that someone could just say "well... it looks like a cabal, so it must be one" and people would simply accept it is frightening. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference between a cabal and when folks that happen to agree with each other, is when folks violate Wikipedia principles with harm, then there is a cabal. When there is no harm, their is no fowl. Cabals are like meat puppets, where like with sock puppets, the scary duck test seems about the only way to go right now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

No fowl? I can't tell if you were being unintentionally brilliant or not! TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And where does your method make the call that one is honest agreement and the other is not? 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5? None of them, inherently or together, make that call. 3 tries to, but requires bad faith to fulfill because it automatically assumes the person guilty of disruption. Without that distinction, 5 is just a witch-hunt. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required." Now is intentionality pushing SPOV an overact against NPOV? Maybe after being warned by arbcom. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. Try as I might, I can't figure out how that even addresses my question, let alone answers it. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he mistook "overt act" as a typo for "overact". Art LaPella (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I caught that. Still don't understand how that relates to the conversation at hand, though. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...it probably doesn't help the situation when editors prominently feature "CABAL APPROVED" logos on their talk pages.(capitalization not mine)[1][2][3] I wonder how WP:BAIT fits into this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A = A large portion of them are facebook friends with each other

B = Some have admitted or been discovered emailing each other - even asking to "ping" them if they need help in a topic area

C = For years they've been showing up, even at articles they've never edited before, in order to help edit war their POV

D = Extremely "cliquey" behavior observed at their talk pages

E = Always seem to show up to vote with each other at odd places

A+B+C+D+E = Not a cabal? Indeed...my damn lying eyes again I suppose. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse editors of being in a cabal, you need to provide evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided as much evidence as space/time allows, which backs up several of my key assertions quite nicely. AFAIK the only criticisms of it were from the rough draft version (stated as such) and the main defense has been to attack me by digging up some light trolling from a couple years ago and finding a few instances of me being frustrated with other fanboys. It is rather telling that they haven't shown any amazing history of "anti-science" edits and instead have to lie about my actual article contributions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A. Neither a crime nor against policy B. Neither a crime nor against policy C. If they POV edit war it can be shown. Focus on that. D. Neither a crime nor against policy AAAAAAAND E. Neither a crime nor against policy.

You have to show actual improper coordination. Proving that people can agree on a subject and be friends at the same time is neither new nor noteworthy. You want to bring down a cabal? Half the Arbs are even meeting up in real life. This very week! I bet they even know each others emails and talk to each other about articles. And did you notice they all seem to vote on the same things? If they don't accept all your evidence and ban the people you want then the only rational explination is they have been infiltrated by the cabal. On the plus side, I bet they get spiffy robes. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh they shouldn't be banned because they are a cabal. They should be banned because arrogance breeds ignorance and the IPOV is not a good way to write any encyclopedia articles, but since that isn't against policy my evidence page contains a plethora of reasons, symptoms of the IPOV in many cases, which are indeed against policy and provide not only sufficient justification for bans, but demand them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gonna have to help me out with the acronym party... IPOV? International? Irrational? Irrepressible? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to show that editors are part of a "faction", mentioned in WP:BATTLE. If that faction is doing things contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia (creating WP:DISRUPTION, violating WP:BATTLE, often creating a battleground atmosphere by supporting each other in (a) WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations, (b) edit warring, (c) violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, then proof of that is one dandy ArbCom case. In theory, all this should be provable with evidence from Wikipedia diffs. I think the evidence page gives us one dandy ArbCom case, with just that evidence. The proof of (a) is obvious; proof of (b) and (c) can be found if you look on the evidence page, but I'm not sure how good it is or how extensive it is. I think, overall, a good case can be made that this all ties into one stinkin', bleedin', festerin' WP:BATTLE violation which pretty much sums the whole thing up. It may well be that it's too much of a bother to try to prove there's a faction, never mind a cabal involved, and with all the other evidence at hand, once findings of these massive violations are made, ArbCom could simply declare WP:BATTLE has been violated (and I would use that as a means of upping the penalties here, because the individual violations are more serious as they contribute to this larger problem). ArbCom may decide it has enough (a), (b) and (c) violations (and enough work on its hands) to simply avoid the question of cabals or even factions. I think ArbCom should consider whether or not it would be useful to the encyclopedia to identify members of this faction, some of whom probably won't get penalized in this case much. I don't really know, but ArbCom might identify a skeptic faction as well as a "pro-AGW" faction -- if there's evidence for it, that would probably be a good thing to do. The questions I would consider on this:

1. Would it be useful (to editors themselves and to admins who may look over the future behavior of those editors) to identify members of a faction and then tell them, formally and by name in the final decision, to be careful to avoid faction-related problems in the future (at least an admonition if they've been found to have violated policies but perhaps even a warning if they haven't)?
2. Would it be useful to identify a faction or factions in this case as a justification for taking the unusual step of setting up a different sanctions regime for climate-change related articles?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I'm sure we'll discuss them on the workshop page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that talking about "factions" is more accurate and less judgmental. It really depends on the context. If you're talking about a specific discussion then yes, there will be one faction arguing X and another Y. For instance, in this arbcom case I think it's fair to say that a person is in the "faction" endoring this principle or that principle. What I object to about "cabal" is that it implies automaton-like behavior and an insinuation of serious misconduct. "Faction" just means you're on one side of an issue or another. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I agree, WP:BATTLE seems like a better approach than cabals or conspiracy law based in contracts, since Wikipedia seems to have developed in the prevent "edit waring" form of justice. There always seem to be someone looking to define groups and boundaries and to pick a POV fight over working to a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I would amend my comment to point out that the existence of "factions" is not something to celebrate or endorse, but is simply a more accurate way of describing what is happening. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious: those editors who believe in the Cabal: do you think there is only one? Or is there a "skeptic" cabal too? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of those who oppose you actually buy into the AGW theory then the "skeptic" label wouldn't really apply now would it? As for myself, like Lindzen I'm only skeptical of the magnitude of the AGW models since the catastrophic models are based on theoretical concepts. It should give your group pause to consider why there is so much variety in the viewpoints of those that oppose you. Perhaps we are all fossil fuel industry funded shills? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question - with great difficulty. Causality and connectivity in social networks is an active area of research; see, for example, Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies (yes, this is the same research I linked at WT/RfC/Lar; no, I am not involved with this research or anything like that). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on the workshop page, a faction/cabal of editors is only bad if they, as a mutually-supporting group, engage in behavior that consistently and clearly violates WP's policies, in addition to NPOV. With that definition, it isn't necessary to find evidence of off-wiki, secret coordination. I think in this case there is one clear example of this, and that is the long-running and continuous POV-editing and abuse of BLPs by a handful of editors. That's the criteria I would use. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So I think it becomes clear (cf Cla above, Lar elsewhere) that the meaning of "cabal" being used by them is not the usual one - a group of editors secretly or semi-secretly co-ordinating their activities - but an entirely new one: a group of editors who happen to share a common viewpoint, in this case the scientific consensus on global warming. There is another loosely allied group - those editors who oppose this scientific viewpoint and wish it to be diluted by politics - which is the likes of Cla, MN, etc etc. Somehow this grouping can't possibly be a "cabal" because... err, becuase they are in it, I suppose. So fundamentally this amounts to abuse of language: the "cabal" accusations are meaningless, and are an attempt to tar editors with anughty words William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "cabal" is ordinarily used as a personal attack, and that it is used casually and without much thought. In an exchange with Lar on the issue, in which I questioned the value of labeling people that way, he said[4] as follows: "Let me understand your question... you're asking whether there is utility in knowing that consensus is being falsified or not, for example? ArbCom has already established (in EEML) that concerted, or effectively concerted actions, are not acceptable, so the answer seems obvious to me. Did you want to try asking your question another way?" In other words, what is being alleged in use of the term "cabal" is grave misconduct. In a subsequent exchange I asked him to name the editors engaged in that conduct, and provide evidence that they have participated in "falsification of consensus" and "engaging in concerted action," and alternatively to withdraw the accusation. He responded[5]: "Name the editors? Cla's evidence, lead paragraph names names. (permlink) That list seems about right to me. Hope that helps." Then I went to the links he cited and did not find either collusion or manufacturing of consensus demonstrated, or even specifically alleged. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, again. The word cabal takes on significant meaning when a group acts cohesively in violation of Wikipedia principles WMC, et al. Say for example, abusing due weight to distort NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My problem is with the intimation of conspiracy at work in that word. Yes, there are certainly factions in the CC articles. That term implies that like-minded people take generally similar positions on issues that arise in articles on the subject that interests them. "Cabal" explicitly (it has been explained to me as such) involves collusion; in effect a conspiracy to violate Wiki policies. Unless there is proof of collusion, editors, and certainly administrators, should avoid use of the term. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with demonstrating this kind of thing is it requires mountains of evidence and there is no easy way to present that without exceeding limits. So perhaps the next best thing would be to demonstrate individual case studies of coordinated editing against policy. Possible examples are Lawrence Solomon and Fred Singer, where the edits are obviously bad (on Solomon, 4 separate reliable sources being regularly removed to suppress the "environmentalist" label: several editors were involved in that over a long period of time).

I think the other possibility (which unfortunately, I didn't have time to properly investigate) is to demonstrate editors piling on at talk pages and dispute forums like AN/I, RS/N, BLP/N. For example, there was a ridiculous dispute involving Alex Harvey and the term "doctor" which went on and on. Alex apologized repeatedly for what was basically an innocuous slight (he didn't call one of his fellow editors "Dr") but WMC and others would not let it drop, and the piling on continued for at least a week. That's an example I recall specifically, but there are others I'm sure. Pretty much any editor who enters this debate with anything but lock-step agreement with the status quo has been subjected to this pile-on treatment, so I'm sure a pattern can be demonstrated, but it takes time to collect AND evidence space to present it compellingly as a long term pattern. ATren (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why the Solomon edits are "bad"? Surely, if an article makes assertion of fact, when sources differ, that's a violation of WP:NPOV. How you deal with an NPOV violation is a matter for editors. But dealing with the problem is better than letting it stand. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's examine it:

1. WMC questions Solomon's environmentalism on his blog in a highly critical post, asking for responses that debunk the claim. He gets nothing tangible, so clearly his POV is not supported. This is 2008.
2. He then comes here and removes the environmentalist label, which is sourced to his Financial Post bio. That first revert somewhat reasonable perhaps, because it was sourced to his own bio.
3. Someone else adds the Washington Times as a reference, clearly calling him an environmentalist. Given other evidence (he founded an environmental group and inspired another with his writings) that should be more than enough. This was 2008 still.
4. Two years later and this same group is still reverting, led by WMC (around 10 more reverts since that first one), despite at least a half dozen very reliable sources establishing Solomon's environmentalist credentials. Most of these reverts removed reliable sources like the Toronto Star, Wash Times, and Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC). Specifically, the Toronto Star had many references to Energy Probe (which Solomon founded and still directs) as an "environmental group" or "environmental research group". The Star also described some of Solomon's activities in the 70s (which WMC also removed).
5. In all that time not a single reliable source was presented which questioned Solomon's environmentalist qualifications. This two year battle was driven solely on the perceptions of WMC, expressed 2 years earlier on his blog.

Solomon himself has summarized this long conflict on his blog.

Now Guettarda, after all that, on what basis do you claim that "sources differ"? I have not seen one source which disputes the environmentalist label, and WMC even admits to that fact in his original blog post, saying he could find little info on Solomon -- what he really meant was he couldn't find negative info which would debunk the claim. In reality, there is plenty of documentation to demonstrate Solomon's environmentalist credential, and none to debunk it -- but because he established those credentials in the 70s and 80s, before the Internet age, most of that documentation is not online.

Does that answer your question, Guettarda? Do you know of a non-partisan source which has called his credentials into question? You said "sources differ" - what are these differing sources? ATren (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Atren's provided yet another fine example of WMC's pattern of editing the biographies of those who disagree with the "Real Climate" approved view of global warming. WMC's very first edit (removing environmental credentials [6])indicates what he and his friends do to perceived enemies [7] (check comments too) - a retaliatory pattern that often shows up in his group's edits. That pattern is clear from several other BLP issues like you've mentioned, but also against other wikipedia editors (note his deletion of IPCC criticism as "boring" when he was flat out proven wrong on another issue in my evidence section), older evidence shows him blocking people he edit wars with - his friends do that for him now) and administrators (e.g. frivolous enforcement requests against Less and attempts to oust Lar). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Atren: I have not seen one source which disputes the environmentalist label - this is rather tiresome nonsense. Here you explain your rejection of one such source because it is "liberal". It's rather hard to claim you have not seen a source just days after you reverted it out of the article because you disagreed with its POV. Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, you're flat out wrong here: that revert was to the "free-market" label, not the "environmentalist" label. The partisan source you cite actually agrees he's an environmentalist, but is unique in that qualifies his environmentalism as "free market", when no other non-partisan source had ever used that qualification. Do you claim that a "free market environmentalist" is not an "environmentalist"? That's a curious argument. And BTW, even despite it's lack of supporting source, I kept the "free market" claim and its partisan source in the footnote but took it out of the lede -- I didn't "revert it out of the article". Please retract these statements. ATren (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ATren, above you write "no other non-partisan source had ever used that qualification." That's a bit tortured (no other non-partisan?). Perhaps it's so tortured because you are aware that another source, 180 degress ideologically removed from the first source, but highly partisan (and reliable), said that he was a "free-market environmentalist." Perhaps there's another reason - you should probably give that other reason, however, because I'm just about to enter this bit here into evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, "free-market" is still in the article -- it's just not in the lede. Are you seriously arguing that the word of two obscure partisan sources should be used to label a person in the opening sentence of his BLP? Really? Then go ahead and enter it into evidence, because I am more than happy to defend it. ATren (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Atren: that revert was to the "free-market" label, not the "environmentalist" label - nope, you reverted from free market environmentalist to environmentalist. These are very different things. So either you're misrepresenting the situation now, or you simply reverted without bothering to educate yourself about the topic. So what is it - are you misrepresenting your edit, or was it simply tendentious editing? Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of tendentious argumentation that happens on the talk pages, and it's always the same 4 or 5 editors. I'm done here, my evidence speaks for itself. ATren (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're either not telling the truth here, or you were editing tendentiously there...but it's a secret? Very constructive. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be Guettarda's argument:

• "environmentalist" is inappropriate, even though it's been referenced in half a dozen reliable sources such as the Washington Times, CBC, National Post, and Toronto Star, not to mention it's what Solomon calls himself.
• "free market environmentalist" is absolutely necessary because of a passing mention in an obscure liberal Canadian monthly and a right wing think tank press release, two very obscure, partisan sources. Note also, Solomon has indicated (privately, via email) that he considers the term to be used pejoratively by those groups.

So, extensive references non-partisan sources like the Washington Times are ignored as irrelevant, while a passing mention in Canadian Dimension dictates what appears in the lede. It seems surreal that such arguments can go anywhere, but they are a regular occurrence on the BLPs of skeptics, because the same group of editors invariably shows up and sways the debate to their POV regardless of the weight of sources. And thus, Canadian Dimension trumps the Toronto Star and Washington Times. ATren (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"environmentalist" is inappropriate - nope, never said anything of the sort.

"free market environmentalist" is absolutely necessary because... - nope. Never said that either.

Solomon has indicated (privately, via email) that he considers the term to be used pejoratively by those groups - In other words, you're saying that (a) the subject of a biography should be allowed to dictate which sources he considers acceptable, and (b) we're supposed to take your word on it?

non-partisan sources like the Washington Times - Non-partisan? Is that meant to be funny?

It seems surreal that such arguments can go anywhere - not seems surreal, is surreal. Mostly because you're making things up... But getting back to the original question - were you not telling the truth when you said that you not seen one source, or were you deleting free market environmentalist without bothering to find out what the term meant, and thus editing tendentiously?

All I said that when sources differ, we shouldn't pick one and assert it as if it were a fact. The two terms are distinct enough that you can't use them interchangeably - not, at least, if your aim is the clear communication of ideas to your audience. When sources differ, we don't simply throw out one and assert the other as a fact - certainly not when we're talking about news stories that merely apply a label, without getting into any depth as to what it means. It's different if we're talking about sources that look at an issue in depth. We aren't talking about that here. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

More examples of tendentious argumentation. Responses:

• Solomon doesn't dictate, but his view is supporting evidence when independent reliable sources also indicate it.
• Wash Times -- it's a major newspaper in a major city. It has an editorial bent, like most newspapers, but it is primarily a newspaper. Much more reliable than your favored source, Canadian Dimension. I can't believe I actually have to say this stuff.
• There is no source which disputes "environmentalist". The problem is, you apparently consider "free market environmentalist" to be incompatible "environmentalist". That's very puzzling. They're different, sure, but are you really making the point that a FME is not and E? Come on. Calling him FME does not dispute the E, it qualifies the E, where the E is still implied. There are no sources which question the E. I can't believe I'm defending this.
• For the third time, I didn't throw out the source, I kept it in the extended footnote which described their view but didn't elevate it to the weight of the lede! Again, your claim that I removed it is a blatant misrepresentation.

This is frustrating to have to explain over and over, but thank you for demonstrating for the arbs what the atmosphere is like on these pages even when arguing something so trivial and obvious as whether we should believe major metropolitan newspapers over partisan Canadian monthlies. ATren (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues to be addressed?

Do arbcomm ever plan to tell us what issues they have selected? Do they indeed ever plan to use any of the info in that section? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the porridge bird lay its egg in the air? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the total incoherence prize for an arb case statement has already been awarded for this case William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When arbcom stows the lawn, we really needed to understand that the apple was very crisp. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I received an unintended psudo psychic message from them ... to be fair and share ... it says have good faith in others with civility to make a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is the 'non Scientific consensus pov'?

There has been a lot of talk in recent months, including from admins acting as such, about 'balance', and 'levelling the playing field'. This has been introduced into this case, specifically by User:LessHeard vanU using this phrase here.

I would like to look into this concept, as it appears fairly central to the problem as I see it. Thousands of highly educated, trained and experienced scientists have worked for decades and produced a body of scientific literature on current climate change. There is a very good degree of consensus; this paper concludes 97-98% agreement among publishing practitioners, and our own article on the scientific opinion on climate change says that 'No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion' for some years. So where do people stand who want to propagate a 'non scientific' point of view on the same matters?

When people learn science at school and at university, there are often misconceptions that have to be corrected by their teachers. No, scientists do not use very powerful microscopes to see what they are doing when they 'split the atom'. Yes, there are differences between spiders and insects. Sometimes in the early days of scientific works, not only children make mistakes that turn out to be 'non scientific' in the future - for example, it is not safe to watch nuclear explosions if you wear dark glasses, smoking is not good for you, and the cod population of the N. Atlantic will not bounce back if we fish it beyond the point of collapse. In the early years of climate science (the 1960s? Before that?) there were legitimate debates even about the big picture, but these have died down now in the serious literature.

So what do we do about the writings and beliefs of those who do not understand the current science of global warming? The problem is germane in that there are quite a few of them, including some journalists, politicians, meteorologists, botanists... What do we do with other such beliefs and writings? Phlogiston theory, alchemy, aether theories, humorism and phrenology all have their own articles, but per WP:FRINGE, I don't see them dominating mainstream coverage in the combustion, chemistry, physics, medicine and psychology articles. We don't have to say, "Combustion or burning is a theory about exothermic chemical reactions...", and then give due weight to other theories and misconceptions such as phlogiston and magic smoke.

So. I am not proposing that these non-scientific explanations, pseudoscience and previous misconceptions be expunged from the encyclopedia; far from it, the format of WP is ideally suited to capturing and explaining these in some depth. My point is that WP:FRINGE should be applied in this case like all the others: "editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views". Worldwide, among the mainstream scientific community, there is vanishingly small dissent regarding the basics of climate science (while the details continue to be tidied, and projections improved), so that "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas". The only thing we have to agree is that we are talking about "a tiny minority" of educated, practising scientists in the field, and that the coverage shouldn't be confused by a larger minority of journalists, politicians, right-wing think tanks and vested interests who have either relative scientific illiteracy or political or financial bias on their side. Regarding this last point, of all the references in our climate change denial article, I have found Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt to be one of the best, but there are several others there including shorter articles, e.g. George Monbiot's The denial industry.

Those arguing for a level playing field, and for articles to provide a balance of views between science and 'non science' in the core coverage of a scientific topic seem not to be helping with the development of encyclopedic coverage of such matters. --Nigelj (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

At the least, it needs parsing. Is it the "non Scientific" consensus pov or the non "Scientific consensus" pov? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think which reading you choose makes any real difference to what I say above. If there is such a pov, then shoehorning it into articles either about the science, or articles about things (like politics, economics, technology, etc) that follow directly from the science, is other than helpful to progress. There are, and should be, articles about the un-, non-, pseudo- and anti-scientific campaigns, ignorances and points of view that have been well documented, as well as on the people involved in them. But they should have no more other effect on the wording and content of the mainstream coverage than they are WP:DUE; apart from to point out whatever influence they have actually had, where they have made any documented impact. --Nigelj (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that LHvU "find[s] it unbalanced that such extreme positions [as this] have been permitted to remain largely unchallenged within the AGW article space",* especially as he has been administering the CC probation. It was also surprising to me that he likened the difference between science and 'non science' to the difference between Catholic and Protestant in the Bogside during the Northern Ireland 'Troubles'[8] above. --Nigelj (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this does not address what "leveling the playing field" means. It has been stated before that this is about the process, not the results. LHvU and others have been arguing that all editors should receive receive roughly equivalent treatment. This is not saying that all ideas should be treated equally, nor that articles should be "balanced" between opposing viewpoints. It is that editors should not get a pass for behavior that would get others blocked because of what viewpoint they argue for, or because they have a cadre of supporters ready to mob any critics; in the same way, those supporting fringe viewpoints should not be treated in unfairly harsh ways. The "extreme positions" LHvU is arguing against is when those perceived as having fringe viewpoints are sometimes treated as second-class citizens.

I would also point out that, unlike your examples, there are notable social and political issues that are relevant to global warming, meaning that they are not fringe issues in that context. A closer example would be creationism which does get a mention on the evolution article.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, global warming has a reasonably similar proportion of coverage of such views when compared to evolution#Social and cultural responses. If you've reliable third party sources giving a suitable overview of non-scientific responses to GW, improvements would be welcome. Note that the evolution article cites reputable historians and peer reviewed papers for coverage of these fringe views, not proponents of creationism or the popular press. Equivalent sources covering GW inactivism would be welcome.

As for treating editors equally, the "level playing field" seems to have meant affirmative action to condone persistent incivility from some fringe promoting editors, for example MarkNutley, at the same time as demanding standards of etiquette going beyond normal application of civility policy from some scientifically literate editors. Thus enabling WP:Civil POV pushing. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of your "fair" treatment, I can say that what you call "affirmative action" is probably reasonably equal treatment. Additionally, the solution to POV pushing, civil or otherwise, is not incivility. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your problem is that policy requires that minority and fringe views do not get "equal treatment". Civil POV pushing is a way of trying to win arguments, the solution is increased civility. Not easy, but necessary. . dave souza, talk 08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a few paragraphs down, and you're already trying to turn what I'd previously posted into the exact opposite of my words: "This is not saying that all ideas should be treated equally, nor that articles should be 'balanced' between opposing viewpoints." [9] This is one of the very problems I have with your supposedly fair treatment. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, I'm in agreement that the same standards should be expected of all editors. My complaint about "affirmative action" is purely to the extent that lower standards are accepted for an editor who appears to have difficulty in understanding policies, while higher standards have been demanded of a well informed editor who has made valuable contributions to articles. Both should be treated on the same basis. There's precedent for taking value of contributions into account when setting sanctions, do you think that's something that should be disregarded? . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The non scientific consensus pov is the point of view of those who do not agree with the scientific consensus, that is the pov held by denialist or skeptic commentators. It builds from the recognition by most that the scientific community - and especially that part of it that is actively involved in researching the various areas relating to climate change - concur that climate change is happening and the prime cause is the effect of human activity. It then extends to recognising that there is a body of opinion, a very small minority within scientific circles and a larger - but very vocal - minority outside of it, that either climate change is not occuring or that whatever trends that may be apparent are not the result of human activity. That is the "non scientific consensus pov".
  I have noted that it is my opinion that NPOV is better served by recognising that much of the debate outside of scientific circles is driven by those who are skeptic toward or deny the occurrence of climate change, which therefore needs to be better reflected and explained within the main climate change articles. I would note here that it appears that my opinion as regards the proper presentation of NPOV has only been apparent to most interested editors since I clarified it at the Climate Change RfC and expanded upon it within this case. While some may be claiming 20/20 hindsight, it was not remarked upon during my administrating of the Probation enforcement request page (SBHB being the only exception I can quickly recall). I suggest that this points to the conclusion that either editors were unobservant, or that my comments and actions were in keeping to a definition of uninvolved and the appropriate application of sysop consideration. Even beyond AGF, I am aware that many editors on those pages are or were scientists and are thus well versed in the process of observation and the drawing of conclusions from same and so I posit that it is the latter reason that my now known disposition relating to how I see NPOV in relation to CC has come as something of a surprise to some editors. Simply, I did not act upon my own views in regard to these matters but only in consideration of the policies of Wikipedia and the provisions of the probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahem - "Though I retain my doubts about LHvU's objectivity in this area" - Hipocrite 13:06, 28 April 2010

"It is certainly beginning to appear that sceptical editors believe you to be on their side and are approaching you directly in an attempt to avoid neutral review. Please don't allow this perception to continue." - Hipocrite 20:42, 26 March 2010

"I'd say that there's little reason to trust you as a fair player in this matter. You earned your status as the go-to guy for that side." - Guettarda 22:06, 26 March 2010

And that's only discussions that I knew about off the top of my head. Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are allegations of bias, or perceptions of bias, toward the skeptic viewpoint or accounts who edit toward that viewpoint. Only SBHB of the non uninvolved admins commented that I might be working within the parameters of someone who believed that NPOV might permit the discussion of non scientific viewpoints within these articles - everyone else who objected to my comments or opinions instead inferred that I was countering their own bias' with that of my own. I note that it continues, even now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Only SBHB of the non uninvolved admins -- that should be "non uninvolved non admins," comrade. That would make you a non non-uninvolved non non-admin. (I think, but it's getting late for such complex math.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not an uninvolved admin - mostly because you are not an admin, and because you are not an admin that is not a personal attack, Brother Contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he's still eligible to get his admin tools back on BN, I believe. Actually, that's rather interesting. Is he allowed to act as an uninvolved administrator right now on, for example, Arab-Israeli articles? NW (Talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you hate me? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No reason is needed. Admins can hate you and still act as uninvolved just so long as they never openly state that they hate you. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your argument is far too nuanced for me to understand. Apparently you are the bestest editor of all time, and people that think you are biased just don't see it, except now, when their ability to see it makes it clear that you are a master deceiver, or something. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If I was the bestest editor of all time, do you think I would spend most of my time adminning? There appears to be continuing issues with my ability to communicate, for instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@LHvU: it was not remarked upon during my administrating of the Probation enforcement request page...either editors were unobservant, or that my comments and actions were in keeping to a definition of uninvolved and the appropriate application of sysop consideration - as I recall, it was pretty obvious by, say, January, and people commented on it from the start. They did more than comment on it when you chose to revert a page to your favoured version and then protect it. If anyone was "unobservant", it would probably be you. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, I take it that this is an admission that those actions were an abuse of the tools? Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe you do, but then you also feel there was obvious disquiet as regards my motives "by, say, January" - when I made my appearance in those pages on around 22nd of that month. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that still gives a person 1/3 of a month. But, obviously, my comment was not actually meant to refer to a specific date, just "early on". Hence the "by, say, January". In other words "very early on". You're free to split hairs needlessly, but my question still stands - am I correct in taking your comment as an admission that you abused your admin tools? Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. What I said was, that with one exception it was only with the CC RfC and this case that editors became aware of my concern that NPOV was not being applied appropriately, and the reason why persons were not aware was because they could not determine my viewpoint from my use of tools (because they were used only as permitted by the sysop remit and the conditions prevailing within the probation). The fact some editors inferred a skeptic pov from my comments and actions speaks of their own bias and misunderstanding of how neutrality and collegiate editing is supposed to inform article writing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The non scientific consensus pov is the point of view of those who do not agree with the scientific consensus, that is the pov held by denialist or skeptic commentators" - this is wrong/ There is no such POV. There is, in essence, *one* "scientific" viewpoint, and that is the one exponded by the IPCC. There is no one "skeptic" viewpoint; there is no one "non scientific consensus pov"; the phrase is meaningless. Some of them don't believe the CO2 rise is real. Some accept that, but don't think the T rise is real. Some accept that but... and so it goes on William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The "non scientific consensus pov" is any and all that is not the scientific consensus pov, but specifically that the scientific consensus is wrong - for whatever reason(s). In fact if there is one skeptic/denialist view, it is only that the scientific consensus is wrong (from what I read, but then why should I know; I agree with the scientific consensus?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I showed in my evidence section that this is not all "about science" as appears to have been claimed by some in this case. The POV edits to Watts Up With That and other articles, such as The Gore Effect (which is about a joke!), show that the AGW "science" editors are just as apt, or perhaps even more so, to engage in political advocacy in the AGW topic area as to add scientific information. Then, for any of them to come here and say, "It's only about the science, always has been, and always will be" is extremely disingenuous. There is definitely a significant political and social aspect to the AGW debate, and that is one of the areas where there has been some of the most blatent POV pushing, tendentious editing, and unfair treatment of editors that I think LHVU may be referring to. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that, if it wasn't for scientific endeavour, no one would know that the earth was warming due to man's activities. The political and social debate is about what to do about that. There is nothing but confusion spread by those who claim that all the scientists are wrong (without first understanding their work), that bloggers and members of the public can do better (with no qualifications or training), that scientists are lying, that it's all a left-wing conspiracy, that God (or faith) will provide, that the free market will come up with a quick technical fix (it always has in the past) etc etc. Those seem to represent the 'non scientific consensus pov', and it is an extreme fringe view. It is being vehemently pushed by a handful of editors here, and I was surprised to find the main administrating admin implicitly advocating it through the wording of his evidence. --Nigelj (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact if there is one skeptic/denialist view, it is only that the scientific consensus is wrong - I absolutely agree; and the truth of this is to the great discredit of the "skeptic" movement (they have no theory of their own; al lthey know is they disagree with the science). However, this is not an easy viewpoint to put into any of our articles - certainly hard for any of the science articles, since it is fundamentally a non-science viewpoint. Further, it means for every science view their are 10 barely notable non-science "contrary views". Even trying to mention them all would inevitably given undue weight to these views. If you have any means for resolving this problem, I haven't seen you propose it, or indeed make any constructive efforts to implement it. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful for your acknowledgement that I have not made any constructive efforts to implement resolving the issue of addressing the lack of a definitive "answer" to the scientific consensus (I would say I have not made any effort). The reason why is, of course, is that I have been acting as an uninvolved admin on the Probation enforcement page; I would have prejudiced my status by becoming involved within the editing of articles. Per my concerns regarding NPOV, though, I would comment that if the effects of dissent from the scientific consensus are by themselves notable then the nature of the cause(s) is irrelevant. I have also previously made comment that where there was one theory that a majority held to, the fact that there were several competing theories that attempted to discredit the consensus should not alter WP:Balance simply because there is a high ratio of one to the other - if 90% of informed individuals agree the A theory best describes the situation, then it is only a matter of noting which theories that the other 10% subscribe to are noteworthy (and not necessarily for the "science", but the visibility promoted by adherents) without losing sight of where expert opinion chiefly lies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said LHvU, your care in acting as uninvolved has been to your credit. My only quibble with that you say above is that minority views have to be significant to be shown, rather than notable. WP:WEIGHT requires us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints", not all viewpoints that merely meet notability requirements. This may be a quirk of our specialised use of "notable" and I think your usage of "noteworthy" implies a requirement of significance, please correct me if that thought is incorrect. dave souza, talk 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The thought is correct, although I recognise the argument starts around whether a view that is notable per WP is also significant in regard to another subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Content discussion

Some things are pretty obviously wrong on their face WMC - it is ridiculous to assert that .038% of the atmosphere, man's emissions making up about 4% of that per year, is the primary driver of the climate - which is why the theory has to rely on computer model predictions based upon theoretical positive feedbacks. Similarly, it was obvious from looking at how South America and Africa connected that continental drift was the correct theory - but it took decades for scientists to admit it even in the face of fossil evidence. It is incredibly obvious that the temperatures are mostly based on solar activity and oceanic cycles - look at how well the PDO and AMO line up with the warming/cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) And here you demonstrate that you neither know the science nor the history of science. Computer models allow us to look into more effects, and to describe processes more accurately. But the basic feedbacks have been computed by hand more than a hundred years ago. And drop the stupid small numbers game, please. "It's ridiculous to claim that 45g of metal can kill an elephant". There is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 has increased over the last 200 years, that the increase is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions, and that it significantly affects the climate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I think the concept of catalyst is also what you are describing, the effect of how the changing of the state of a small portion of a larger mass can alter it significantly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The problem with CO2 being such a catalyst is not only that water vapor has a similar but stronger effect (absorbs IR radiation), but also that water vapor is far more prevalent. The data simply does not show a steady warming as CO2 rises. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I am not saying that CO2 is a catalyst (because I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject) in respect of global warming, but only noting that the general argument that alterations in the state of a very small component cannot effect the greater mass to any great degree is incorrect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The only thing you've been able to describe accurately with computer models is the past - this is not a difficult feat since we have records for the past. I know you like talking about how CO2 was described of as a greenhouse gas "a hundred years ago," fallaciously implying that the age of a belief lends it credence (do you apply this reasoning to religion as well?), but you forget that the idea was rejected as having any meaningful effect for a very long time - which is why the very young (decades) old "science" of climatology, historically a laughingstock, has resorted to feedback effects and computer models. Hell, you HAVE to rely on these models, which would predict, based on current growth rates, that my niece would be 20 feet tall by her 30th birthday, since we both know that CO2's effects are logarithmic in nature and essentially masked by water vapor's much stronger greenhouse effect (i.e. the frequency bands WV absorbs cover CO2 ranges - and affect even more bands) in most parts of the world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) TGL, you're wrong about the predictive power of computer models – as a reputable historian states, "When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in June 1991, sharply increasing the amount of sulfuric acid haze in the stratosphere world-wide, Hansen's group declared that "this volcano will provide an acid test for global climate models." .... By 1995 their predictions for different levels of the atmosphere were seen to be on the mark..... The ability of modelers to reproduce Pinatubo's effects was a particularly strong reason for confidence that the GCMs were sound."[10] While contrarians will keep denying it, models have improved since then.. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hansen? Wasn't he arrested for protesting at a coal plant? Yes, I have no doubt that he would say the models are accurate and I'm sure they can predict some things - we've known for a very long time that certain types of volcanic eruptions will cool the planet. However, if the models were really so incredibly accurate then the various models wouldn't vary by 5 or more degrees Celsius - and still manage to be proven incorrect as time marches on. As Trenberth said in one of the Climategate emails, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." He then opines that the data must be wrong - that sounds incredibly scientific to me. Alternatively, we could look at how the IPCC's past models compare to measured reality - I mean, you do believe that AGW is falsifiable right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• The basic premise is that certain editors "oppose acknowledgement of non Scientific consensus pov within articles," and the examples cited clearly show that this is a question of WP:WEIGHT. Global warming is basically a question of science, the economic, social and political aspects are responses to the developing science of climate change. Where articles discuss the science, the overwhelming majority view in science has to be given due weight, and tiny minority or non-scientific views don't need to be mentioned at all, according to policy. The economic, social and political aspects are significant in themselves, and as well as brief mention in the main articles on the topic, are appropriately developed in detailed articles, each of which should make clear the majority scientific view and how the minority view differs from it. All as policy. Where articles are about politics, NPOV will involve giving due weight to the various political views, but such views should not obscure the science even if a majority of political sources deny the science. Not that this is likely to be the case internationally, but WP:BIAS tends to lead to disproportionate attention to political situations where the science is widely rejected. Hope that answers LHvU's concerns. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What I wanted to say here in the Workshop is that what e.g. TheGoodLocust just wrote in this thread is a view that is held by tens of millions of Americans who are indoctrinated by misleading news reports in the popular media. We can then no longer deal with this situation in a similar way as e.g. cold fusion. In that case you could just topic ban a few editors who were seeking out fringe sources in which dubious research was published. In case of cold fusion you don't have e.g. FOX NEWS and Wall Street Journal news reports and editorials that suggest that nuclear physicists are denying that cold fusion exists by falsifying scientific results, exerting pressure, perverting the peer review process etc. etc.

We cannot deny that the propaganda against the integrity of climate science has had some level of success, particularly in the US. So, it is inevitable that some fraction of the Wiki-editors will be indoctrinated by this. That indoctrination cannot be easily undone. This then means that a Wiki climate change article that is truly NPOV, will look biased to those editors. From there POV, it then looks like the Wiki-policies for NPOV are not applied correctly as they feel that serious objections to the science that are published in the journals they find reliable (which are considered to be RS for many topics) have not been taken into account at all.

This is why it is better to have a more official SPOV policy. One can also think of modifying the RS policy by including a list there of sources that are a priori considered to be unreliable for certain topics. What happens in the absence of such extra rules is that people with opinions similar to that of TheGoodLocust, see some room in the existing Wiki-policies to get their POV accross. If we invoke the WEIGHT policy, then it is still not clear that the weight for a contrarian POV should be exactly zero and not 0.0001. So this invites disputes that can escalate a lot.

With new rules making SPOV explicit, it will be the rules and not the editors that are enforcing the "pro-AGW" bias (as it looks from the perspective of the climate sceptical editors). This will lower tensions on te climate science pages. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful and unnecessary to refer to "SPOV" as the current NPOV policy covers the issue in more general terms. However, rulings on this arbitration request can set more specific standards in relation to this topic, and that's something to discuss more fully in the workshop. . .dave souza, talk 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if "SPOV" means 1. a disclaimer like "This article presents the scientific point of view", 2. "academic" instead of "scientific" (remember, the likes of the Wall Street Journal consider themselves pro-science), or 3. present the academic point of view as if there were no criticism? Art LaPella (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think SPOV should mean that when a statement in a non-scientific source contradicts statements in peer reviewed sources, one has to completely ignore such statements in Wiki articles. This then only applies to statements about the science. Also to determine that there is a contradiction, one has to accept a liberal attitude w.r.t. OR and Synt rules. So, a reasonable determination that there is a contradiction that most editors accept, should not be Wikilawyered to be in violation of the OR policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Iblis, I don't think I've ever tried to push anything you'd consider "fringe" into the climate change articles. My basic belief is that neutrally presented information will eventually favor my side and failing that the test of time will since the temperature are going to start cooling drastically now with the upcoming La Nina and the PDO going into its cool phase. In fact, my beliefs are very similar to Richard Lindzen's, atmospheric physicist at MIT, and are supported by scientific literature - just not the "Real Climate" approved and pumped literature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you like I can provide examples of me editing against my personal POV and in favor of the NPOV. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very good that you can prevent your own POV from influencing your objectivity when evaluating sources. However, it is not reasonable to expect that every reasonable editor can do that. That's why I think we need to modify the policies. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The only issue with that, is that Wikipedia does not (should not, anyhoo) decide that those other views are propoganda. Wikipedia can report reliable sources noting that some experts have declared that skeptic viewpoints are bolstered and informed by propoganda - but will then also report any rebuttal noted by a reliable source. This is at the core of my concern over NPOV (and the substitution of SPOV for NPOV); that WP can only report the reliable sources, and not take its own stance on a subject. It would be much easier for everyone if WP were to institutionally come out on the side of the scientific consensus, but it would destroy the pillar of neutrality - and it isn't supposed to be easy, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That may just be appropriate if this were the American WP, because as Count Iblis says above, anti-science and denialist efforts have been particularly vehement, powerful and successful in the US in recent times. With so many Americans having this skewed popular perception (based, e.g., on prime time TV ads, biased 'news' etc), writing articles that suits their perception would produce a view that is ludicrously skewed against the science by the standards of UK and other European readers, as well as those in many developing countries, where these campaigns have not been run. The science itself does not alter from country to country, which is why it is important that it is well reflected across the board, and that national popular biases are mentioned only where relevant and covered in their own sub-articles, not allowed to colour all general CC/GW (not just scientific) coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read this interesting article about the bias in the media. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator involvement

One of the most important aspects of the case concerns administrator involvement, and identifying when an administrator transitions from uninvolved to involved. There is an extremely close parallel between this case and another case in which this was an issue, Macedonia 2. Since the issue directly involved me, an administrator whose only edits to the topic had been protecting the article Greece and participating in a discussion of the issue which prompted the protection (over the name of the Republic of Macedonia), I was concerned that several editors in one of the two factions identified me as too biased to file the arbitration request. I'm seeing the same issue here, where an editor who has not edited the articles (at all) but has expressed a view on their content is being decried as "involved". The arbitration committee needs to make absolutely clear the definition of "involvement"; when the question was first raised (by another user, regarding his involvement) on the talk page of the proposed decision [11], I asked for an answer regarding my involvement [12], got a somewhat vague answer from one of the arbs [13], and asked for a more definitive answer [14], a request which went unfulfilled. MastCell also noted that a principle needed to be adopted, since the whole issue of involvement (for all users in that arbitration) was so muddled [15]. A clear answer there might have averted this case, or at the very least removed the whole involvement issue from the discussion.

What I said before still applies: if any group of editors can prevent use of the tools by claiming involvement by the admin, no admin in their right mind would ever bother to step in if needed. This is why administrators don't get involved in contentious issues, because of nonsense like this, which really smacks of gaming the system. Note that I have linked a guideline, and quite a few of the examples cited in that guideline have been violated here by both factions. The arbcom is once again faced with a situation which could have been averted by not punting on an issue raised in a previous arbitration. Don't avoid the issue again, please. Horologium (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for linking my earlier comment - I was actually looking for that. I beat the drum a few times with little response, but I'll repeat my plea again here - please, please, do not create yet another definition of "involvement". There are already at least 3 sometimes conflicting definitions, between policy and previous ArbCom rulings. I have been on the receiving end of the practice that Horologium describes, on the rare occasions when I ventured to admin in the Israel-Palestine area. I agree that it cannot be sufficient to simply accuse an admin of bias and then demand that they remove themselves because they've been accused of bias. Most of the active admins in the area have experienced this, including 2/0, BozMo, LHvU, and Lar.

On the other hand, there needs to be some level of common-sense self-awareness that can't be legislated in a strict definition of involvement. If an admin expresses a clear opinion that one "side" of a dispute has been disadvantaged, and an intent to correct that perceived imbalance, then they will find it difficult to be taken seriously as an impartial arbiter of individual enforcement requests. It can reasonably be understood that they view the enforcement board as a tool to correct a perceived systemic imbalance. In general, that raises concern, because I think most people expect individual cases to be adjudicated on their own merits, rather than as pieces of a global effort to "level the playing field".

The problem arises when an admin overseeing an area has an expressed agenda. The agenda could be directly content-related, in which case it's relatively straightforward to demonstrate involvement. But the agenda can also be more wikipolitical, as with an expressed desire to "level the playing field". Either way, once an admin has made clear that they are reviewing enforcement requests in light of a specific stated agenda, then problems arise. I'm not sure that the latter sort of agenda should explicitly disqualify an admin from enforcement, but I can also understand the source of concern on the part of those expressing it. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"The problem arises when an admin overseeing an area has an expressed agenda." - or, indeed, when that agenda only comes out clearly afterwards, as with the case with LHVU during this arb case William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you or Raul would never use your admin tools while edit warring in climate change areas now would you? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@ TheGoodLocust. you've apparently forgotten that WMC doesn't have admin tools. Your innuendo is inappropriate. . dave souza, talk 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My "innuendo" is merely a reminder of historical fact - I suggest you look at some of WMC's actions while he had admin tools. The current crop of admins on his side have learned their lessons and now simply employ a one-sided hair-trigger targeting system while avoiding edit wars with their future victims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you should be clear that your accusations relate to the historical past, not the present discussion. As for the "current crop of admins on his side", rules have been tightened on not using the tools when involved in an area. If you've accusations then you should back them with diffs. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My "accusations" (facts) were simply highlighting the hypocrisy of a former admin claiming admins overseeing the area shouldn't have an expressed "agenda" when that former admin was guilty of far worse. In a similar fashion one could also find it hipocritical that a user who had a bunch of socks has made it his mission to root out other socks. As for your claim that the "current crop of admins" doesn't use their tools while involved in the area then I recommend you look at Bozmo's heavy involvement with climate change articles and editors or at 2over0's past statements/actions on the matter (much in my evidence section) - far more clearcut cases of a COI/involvement and yet oddly not prosecuted by your side who choose instead to file request after request against Lar and Less. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hold my hands up, I did not and do not believe that the majority of editors were either interested or indeed capable of working to creating a NPOV article, since mostly they were concerned with promoting one viewpoint and deprecating anything that did not confirm to it. My "agenda" was to create an environment where NPOV was the only possible outcome by making it difficult for editors to contribute outside of appropriate Wikipedia practice, by sanctioning where necessary any violation or gaming of policies, guidelines and the probation. I admit it, and I only regret that I was not given the time to bring forth a collegiate and respectful editorship working to create the best articles possible. I don't, of course, blame myself for this failure... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A collegiate atmosphere is never created through use of admin tools. Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The above insinuations about Lar (by MastCell) and LHvU (by WMC) are precisely the kinds of "gaming the system" which has prevented action against certain editors in this topic area. The game is this: when they opine on a conflict, like "editor A should be sanctioned", they immediately draw accusations of involvement; then when they defend their uninvolvement, the gamers use that defense against them further, and the cycle continues until the editors have disqualified an otherwise neutral admin who happens to find fault with their actions. The fact that it's happening on this very thread is striking. ATren (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, no. You're failing to read what is written, as is all too common. You need to read LHVU's proposals for this arbcomm, which are an attempt to reshape the global-warming related articles, but not through editing. LHVU is certainly entitled to his opinion that the GW articles need reshaping; indeed, he is welcome to help *by editing*. He is not welcome to try to do so by admining and by arbcomming - that is fundamentally dishonest William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@ATren: I'm not insinuating anything about Lar. I've actually come out and said what I have to say about him in my evidence section and elsewhere in these proceedings, so there isn't really anything left to insinuate. I think Lar, like LHvU, 2/0, BozMo, and others, has been the victim of some unfair criticism as a result of adminning this probation (I think I said as much above).

Do you see where I'm coming from? If an admin declared that they thought the scientific consensus was underrepresented in climate-change articles, and then proceeded to opine on enforcement requests in a manner reinforcing that viewpoint, you (ATren) would have a problem with it. I know you would, because you leveled exactly these sorts of allegations about 2/0. Whether they are "right" or "wrong", surely you can at least understand where such concerns might arise?

I'm not trying to "disqualify" Lar - in fact, I think he deserves credit for generally respecting consensus when it has gone against him, and for not acting unilaterally. I think his administrative viewpoint has the potential to be useful, and I would not be in favor of legislatively excluding him from climate-change enforcement, provided he is able to rise above the bickering, avoid descending into petty exchanges, and set a good example. I think this last bit is vitally important, but apparently I lack the credibility to convince him of it; hence the appeal to ArbCom to help.

I have absolutely no complaints about LessHeardVanU - in fact, I think he's generally set an excellent example in dealing with provocative remarks and attacks. Like Lar, I have not seen him act against a consensus of his fellow admins, and I have long been impressed by his sensible (if somewhat unpredictable, in a good way) work as an admin. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr Connolley, I think you will find that I am perfectly at liberty to use the offices of an ArbCom case to propose both reasons why a subject is not conversant with policy, and the means by which it can be made so. Indeed, I think it is one of the functions of arbitration to take on such views and weigh them against the evidence presented. You are also at liberty to present your case. Indeed I also attempted to reshape the Climate Change articles; they were under probation (before I became involved) because of the issues identified in editing the the pages, and I tried to create an environment were editors had to communicate with each other to resolve issues, and did not take part in edit wars, and were not uncivil toward each other, did not ignore or deprecate other editors contributions on the basis of the viewpoint they edited toward. I tried to change articles from examples of pov and edit warring to those of consensus and neutrality, through my efforts (along with others, it should be noted) of having editors comply with WP policy and practice. It is the way the project is supposed to work. Honestly! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: "a clear opinion that one "side" of a dispute has been disadvantaged" ... Suppose that is actually true though? What then? For the purposes of answering the question, assume it is, please. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And what if the basic policy of weight disadvantages minority views by requiring that they be shown as such, and the majority views shown as such? I was about to add that I've not seen Lar acting against consensus in imposing sanctions, but my concerns remain about him promoting the claims of one faction when supposedly acting as an "uninvolved admin". I've been much better impressed by LHvU's work. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point, perhaps because it's convenient to always paint this as "skeptics" vs the forces of truth. I speak of the lack of calm/civil/collegial editing, not the weight given to various scientific (or non scientific as it may be) views. Restating: Suppose that there indeed are factions active in a given area, battling it out, and one faction is much more powerful than another, to the point where good faith editors (even those who share views about the topic area) are driven away. What's to be done? Please either answer the specific question or leave it to MastCell to answer. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I said that if an admin expresses a clear opinion that one "side" of a dispute has been disadvantaged, and an intent to correct that perceived imbalance, then they will find it difficult to be taken seriously as an impartial arbiter of individual enforcement requests. I think you have encountered that difficulty. I also said that once an admin has made clear that they are reviewing enforcement requests in light of a specific stated agenda, then problems arise. The obvious solution would be to make an effort to review enforcement requests on their individual merits, rather than as a way to promote or undermine a specific "faction" of editors.

If your concern is the lack of a collegial editing environment, then the correct approach in my mind is to a) model collegiality yourself, and b) consistently apply your expectation of collegiality when handling enforcement requests. It's not necessary to politicize things into "factions" - if you consistently apply your expectations, and the incivility comes predominantly from one side, then you will effectively address the problem regardless.

Once you suggest that you're reviewing enforcement requests in light of your personal conception of wikipolitics, or using them to create "balance" between perceived factions, then people are going to get a bit nervous.

Imagine if I said: "Hey, I think that pro-Palestinian editors have an unfair edge over pro-Israeli editors, and I'm now going to be reviewing enforcement requests on I-P articles." That would be a poor approach - even if one set of editors did have an advantage - because I've explicitly cast matters in terms of wikipolitics and reinforced the existing battlefield worldview. A better approach would be to consistently set and enforce expectations - if one side was indeed violating them more frequently than the other, then it would presumably come out in the wash. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So you cannot conceive of any circumstance in which identifying the situation in effect would be useful? ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I can conceive of any number of hypothetical permutations. Do you think it was helpful in this particular instance? Obviously, I think the alternate approach I outlined above could have been more useful. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Even hindsight is not always 20/20. Do I think that identifying that factions exist, and that one in particular is active, quite powerful, and skews the discourse to ensure a particular POV and focus remain paramount is "helpful"? Yes. I did then or I would not have raised the matter then. I still do now, and it is my sincere hope that this case resolves the matter so as to defang that overpowerful faction and return editing closer to normal in this area. But did introducing my view at the time I did and in the way I did have the optimal result? Arguably not.

I tend to speak my mind plainly rather than engage in subterfuge to hide how I think for political advantage. That's how I've always operated, and normally it has stood me in good stead. It seems that you're suggesting that in this case I should have kept what everybody knows to myself and pretended not to recognise matters as they are. To be more judicially opaque. Perhaps you are right. But it's not the way I do things, rightly or wrongly. I've never been very good at politics and I've never wanted to be. I am fortunate that in real life, I've mostly managed my affairs so that I don't need to be. Unfortunately, political infighting is inescapable at WP, and that is especially true in areas of contention. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin involvement, WP:BATTLEGROUND, Lar and GSCC

This is long and a bit tangential to the discussion above, so I'm putting it into a subsection, but it relates to the above thread. There are several interconnected thoughts here that should be presented together. Actually, in looking at it, it is very long. If the clerk wants, I could put it on my own talk page and just link to it here, but I think it's probably better to keep discussion here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have WP:BATTLEGROUND policy, which is part of the remit for administrator enforcement. If an administrator is concerned about factions, the admin has every reason to be very concerned about the biggest, most organized factions so long as the concern is also directed at any faction (it's the difference between prioritizing and ignoring, taking ameliorating/exacerbating circumstances into account and excusing). Lar did not ignore violations by editors with skeptic/denialist views. I can imagine an admin saying: "That faction was big, seemingly well-organized and doing severe harm in the topic area; this faction is smaller, looser and doing less harm. I'm going to take admin actions to reflect Wikipedia's policy against the forming of bad-acting factions, and to do it fairly, that must inevitably affect the big faction more." An editor's action that supports a faction violating WP:BATTLE is itself a violation of WP:BATTLE and it is both a behavioral violation itself and an exacerbating circumstance in considering other violations. The bigger the faction, perhaps the bigger the exacerbating circumstance. Probably, most factions form around a POV. To be concerned about a particular faction is not necessarily to oppose that POV or want to skew articles toward some other POV, but expressing concern that a faction is preventing NPOV treatment of subjects may not in itself be "involvement".

On the other hand, the connection between factions and POV may mean that an admin at GSCCRE can't really comment effectively about factions and their effect on content and be seen as uninvolved or, more importantly, impartial in terms of POV. The suspicion must naturally arise that the admin is really just veiling a POV and improperly using admin tools to advance it. The GSCC regime was set up, I think, with the idea that it would act like a little AN/I, but from the start it began morphing into a little ArbCom, which I think was inevitable because CC article enforcement has from the beginning been more like a series of little ArbCom cases, with specific editors set aside in the judging role. Once you become a judge, you need to start acting more like a judge -- say little, for instance, in order to project impartiality, because the fact that you've been set aside to decide something means everybody else is -- automatically -- going to be concerned about possible bias. This was not expected, I think, when GSCC was set up. It isn't a problem for admins at AN/I, after all -- no one expects someone who has previously expressed an opinion to be disqualified from helping to form a consensus at AN/I that may remove an editor with an opposing POV from a topic area. The GSCC set-up virtually guarantees that editors will come into conflict on these points.

Lar's comments about the AGW faction violated no policy or practice, but now we can see that there is some legitimate reason why other editors would be concerned about them. We can also all see -- easily -- how this concern can be exagerrated by editors pushing their own POV. I don't see how Lar is at fault here. I think the fault lies in the GSCC set-up, which created circumstances in which suspicion would inevitably arise.

One thing that exacerbated this problem was the baiting of Lar, the personal attacks on Lar and the support some editors gave in a disgustingly open way to other editors who baited and personally attacked Lar (itself a group effort that violated WP:BATTLE very clearly -- I'm wondering if I should bring this up on the Workshop page, possibly with new evidence). Concern about Lar imposing his POV in the CC article area does not come close to justifying this bad behavior, although I would call it a minor, ameliorating circumstance because the editors guilty of it were pushed into it a bit by the pressures imposed by the GSCC set-up. When ChildofMidnight attacked 2/0 and other admins and editors, CoM was blocked for a year (I thought his actions were so egregious that they deserved an indef block, even though I think highly of CoM in other respects). I think the CoM case should be an example here. I think ArbCom needs to reform the GSCC by appointing admins, which will make it clear that this is an office with accountability, not a potential unfair advantage that an admin can grab or be thought to be grabbing -- and then I think Lar, who has committed no significant fault here that I can find, should not apply for an appointment to the GSCCRE panel. Out of prudence. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You may take this as a personal attack but this diatribe is largely rubbish. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand I found it interesting, insightful and thought provoking. It's hardly a diatribe, it's a reasoned analysis. Your comment says more about you than it does about JWB. Hope that is food for thought for you. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And the same to you Lar, your comment says plenty about you. You always find your supporters comments insightful and you encourage them at every opportunity as I previously demonstrated on the talkpage of the RfC/U. Polargeo (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so as I am not accused of making allegations against an editor without diffs, which is a regular line of wikilawyer attack used in this situation Lar shows his support for JWB here, his support for Cla here and here, also support for Cla over WMC here (and many off wiki interactions with Cla at wikipedia review). Lar's support for the Good Locust against WMC here. Lar's advice on tactics to ATren here Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you quite sure those diffs show what you think they do? For instance, My cited "support" of JWB consisted of saying "Thank you for letting me know" after he left a notice on my talk page that he had mentioned me... pretty outrageous that people actually say thank you from time to time, isn't it? My "support" for tGL consists of advice not to be rattled after WMC left an extremely snarky comment attacking both tGL and myself for tGL's audacity in... wait for it... giving me a barnstar. For shame! As for my advice to ATren... "pick your battles" is advice my first IBM manager gave me 25 years ago. It's always good advice. Hard to take, but good advice nonetheless. Perhaps I should have took it just now and ignored you, but really, you need to be called on your nonsense from time to time. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those diffs show anything beyond ordinary interaction. While I don't agree with some of the assertions in JWB's comment, I found it insightful as well. In particular, his proposed solution, in the last few sentences, makes as much sense as anything that I can think of (perhaps not saying much, I suppose...) MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some common sense

Can somebody please display some sense here. A clerk or someone. JWB has proposed that I be desysopped with no evidence of me abusing my tools. He has proposed that I be banned from editing CC articles for 1 year with no evidence that I have ever edited such articles in a poor way and he is calling for a 3 month block against me when I have never been blocked previously. I suggested that he was being vindictive and that immediately got thrown back at me as being a personal attack against him. Some common sense is much needed here. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stop responding. It'll make you feel better. If ArbCom puts sanctions against you in the proposed decision, discuss it then. Right now, it's just adding text. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but unfortunately my experience has told me that those who shout loudest and longest seem to come out on top and therefore I am reluctant to let his accusations go unchallenged. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to believe that ArbCom is doing appropriate dilligence. Make your case once and stop. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Arbcom are just editors like you and me but who have kept their asses meticulously clean. Still I trust my judgement and on the whole I trust yours so why not trust arbcom? Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust them not to get annoyed at pointless back-and-forths (an infringement I myself have been guilty both of doing and getting annoyed at). I'd prefer they not get annoyed at you, as they are human. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked over his proposals for you and can give you some insight. JWB's proposals are proper in the sense that they are soundly formatted. It is understandable that you feel attacked, but one must give small account for the fact that the workshop page is essentially a civil attack page. There is no real way to say 'soandso should be desysopped' without it being a type of attack, however the ettiquete rules of the page say this is reasonable to do. Try to swallow your pride a bit when facing it because those are the rules. JWB's language stayed within the bounds of civility while making those proposals against you, and he did in fact provide evidence to back them up. The QUALITY of that evidence may be up to debate, but I do not believe it is out of the bounds of good faith to say the JWB believes the evidence is sound enough to make the proposals. Claiming his proposals are vindictive can reasonably be considered an attack because JWB is doing what he is supposed to. That is, declaring proposals he thinks is borne of the evidence he provided.

The appropriate thing for you to have done is challenge the evidence provided as unreasonable. Do so in a calm, civil and consise manner then leave it at that. Hipocrites advice not to get involved in pointless bickering on arbcom pages is well stated as it is a common pitfall and displays an inability to 'let go' of a dispute (a very common reason listed for topic bans). Anyway, if the evidence can't hold its own weight, the proposals collapse in short order. So focus on showing the evidence does not show what he claims, not that he is being vindictive for claiming it. There is a subtle difference. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You give good advice. I only feel it is difficult because every relatively calm response or questioning of JWBs motives to have me desysopped is construed as a personal attack against him and thrown back at me. I just wish someone sensible could control the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I reread your reactions to his proposals and don't really see anything terribly out of line. I think you got baited once, but thats about it. Basically his evidence that you are attacking people is very thin, in my opinion, and you should just let it go. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing in his eyes as a minor personal attack. He is treating every one as if it was a profanity laced tirade and even acknowledges but seems to get confused at how no one else agrees that you should have been banned on the spot for any one of them (the wife one in particular). Noting that he was, I think, the only one claiming your rebuttals to his proposals were attacks with several people agreeing that the proposals were at minimum, excessive. For your own sanity, unless an arb walks into the discussion, you should walk away. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My view is that this is not the only example where someone has decided to take this opportunity to suggest sanctions that would be harmful to the encyclopedia. I think we have to assume faith in the committee that the good of the encyclopedia is their goal and that they can see that draconian sanctions such as suggested against Polargeo would only make things worse not better. One approach that might be considered here is to approach JWB and simply say that it seems obvious that he harbors a grudge against you, apologize for any perceived transgressions, and ask if you two can "bury the hachet"? Bill Huffman (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC destructive behavior is escalating

WMC's destructive behavior is currently escalating User_talk:William_M._Connolley. I fear he is becoming a nuisance to himself and wikipedia because of the ArbCom proceedings. He's ignoring his parole, ignoring others request not to edit on their talk pages and in general running with the idea that his expertise validates this bad behavior. Perhaps he is self-destructively pushing for Arb-Com validation. I suspect if this continues, he will be placed on a ban or further restrictions during these Arbcom proceedings. Perhaps he wants a ordered vacation from his Wikipedia addiction, but can't bring himself to it by himself. Advice would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC has been advised not to post to Mark Nutley's talk page, and if he continues to do so then that advice could be backed with a block. Beyond that, I don't see the issue - he reverted a clearly inappropriate edit which violated several content policies as well as WP:BLP, and for some reason he's taking a lot of stick for it. De-escalation might start with supporting him when he acts consistently with BLP, instead of trying to leverage it against him. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The tone of your post is unsettling. Wikipedia is not a game where we try to bring about the downfall of other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you support his parole violation MastCell? .... Sorry, I can't bring my self too. The suggested correct behavior to support for WMC is working collaboratively to improve the sourced contribution and avoid un-commented and hostile reverting, while claiming others are idiots. WMC must smarten up about his behavior, which he seems to be ignorant of even after warnings. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Idiots? Can't recall that. But: you make an interesting point: do you think that reverting without justification on talk deserves sanction? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I misquoted you about "idiots"; however, I was searching for a single word to represent what you write in many words on talk pages about other editors competence and coherence. Regarding reverting, I like this part in this essay [16]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 may be referring to this.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson (scientist) edit war - evidence extension

This article was the subject of an edit war today by several parties on the Climate change arg case. Hipocrite reported it on the talk pages of Rlevse, Risker, and Newyorkbrad. I've prot'd the article for a week and am looking into it. This sort of behavior by several parties to an arb case on a BLP topic is part of the arb case is most disappointing. Therefore, it is okay to post evidence and workshop proposals on this one issue, the edit war, and evidence directly pertinent thereto, as well as directly related workshop proposals. Be advised the drafting arbs are planning to post the PD on Sunday, probably in the evening, eastern US time. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue does provide some useful examples; with even a little bit of barricade crossing. What we have is every scientifically literate editor agreeing that the text added - that I, and several others have removed - was wrong. That leaves those who have re-added the material struggling to find good reasons for it. Given the attention to talk page justification it is notable that two of the those reverting this broken material back in - MN and WVB - have not troubled themselves with any talk page justification at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, a similar conflict happened on Lawrence Solomon (2/0 was forced to protect it), and there was also a brief flare up of an old BLP conflict on Zbigniew_Jaworowski which also occurred after the evidence deadline. So I request a similar exemption for these two articles in addition to Watson. ATren (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If they occurred after July 7, 2010, they are included too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ATren (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Subpage of proposals organized by topic rather than editor

I have created an organizational subpage at User:2over0/Climate change arbitration proposals, presenting the proposals organized by topic instead of by proposing editor. We are coming up on the proposed decision phase of this case, and I wanted to be sure that there are at least no glaring holes in the proposals. This is an open subpage - if the organization can be improved, please do so. I have tried to avoid other commentary there, and request that anyone else who edits that page do the same. It is far from impossible that I may have biased the presentation or summaries to favor some proposals over others, but every attempt has been made to avoid this. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone else was wondering, there are about a gross of proposals here, about 2/3 of which are Principles. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. And you're right, some of the proposals are pretty gross. But at least this case isn't (wait for it...) unprincipled. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

<still waiting> ...</still waiting> LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Over here its juts past High Noon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the whisky capital of the old world. And I'm not a native speaker. You cannot expect me to get either grammar or the spelling right! (Speaker juts down note to self about previewing talk page comments).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Total collapse of Scibaby investigation procedures

The usual process of sockpuppet investigations has utterly collapsed. The current SPI request for Scibaby has been sitting for two weeks with no action. Not only does this allow the sockpuppeting to continue, but false positives are not being cleared so that any erroneous accusations are left standing. It would be nice if the committee could say something about whether they feel this is a problem or not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that a) checkusers are overworked and understaffed, and b) the way evidence has been framed by some participants in this case has created a chilling effect - any admin in his right mind is not going to bother applying commonsense or the duck test, since even a 5% chance that it will end up leveraged against him in these proceedings makes it not worth the while. I agree that it would be useful to directly address this situation. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Two things, Boris implies that socking will stop if only people can get convicted faster - if that was true then the socking would've stopped long ago due to the frightful pace and quantity of "Scibaby" bans over an extended period of time. The source of the socking has nothing to do with how fast you ban users (I've seen you get people banned after they've made only one edit - on "behavioral" evidence). Also, MastCell thinks that checkusers have been "chilled" into inaction, this seems unlikely since I don't think any checkusers have been attacked for such reasons - it is more likely that some checkusers, after looking at some of things you people have said here, aren't taking your word at face value anymore. And what about the users that are "chilled" into not participating at wikipedia or in the CC articles due to the "War on Terrorism Scibaby?" I can't even tell you the number of people who've privately contacted me saying they are afraid to edit these articles - they know it is either pointless to try and in trying they'll probably get banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bickering

I do not see the point in allowing the bickering to continue. How about posting a decision, or in the alternative, protecting all the pages of this case and issuing temporary topic bans to anybody who's editing appears dubious. The pendancy of this case tends to interfere with the administration of community remedies in the locus of dispute. (See section immediately above.) Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to bicker but that's probably not the best example of bickering on this page. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an example of bickering. It's an example of administrative constipation caused by a prolonged arbitration case. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry I misread you. A posting of the proposed decision is supposed to be coming today. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That will be helpful. The amount of signal in the workshop has dropped to zero. People are just repeating the same positions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree, some interesting proposals have been put forward that haven't beem mooted before. That's signal. So dropping? yes. Zero? not yet. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Temporary closure of workshop and workshop talk pages

Effective from the time this post is signed, the workshop and workshop talk pages are closed for posting, and will not reopen until the drafting arbitrators post proposals; this will be at minimum 48 hours from now. This will allow the drafting arbitrators to complete their proposals while giving everyone else a break. I hope everyone who has posted on these pages in recent weeks will make use of this break to step back from this topic area for a brief period. I assume those who are immediately affected will have this page on their watchlists and thus will see when the pages are reopened.

Clerks have been advised that they are to remove any and all posts to either page until an arbitrator reopens them. Please do not try to get around this temporary break by posting on other case pages. Thank you. Risker (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)