Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions		17 March 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), co-filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Stephan Schulz
• Mackan 79
• Ratel

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I don't see where Stephan has been notified of the Climate Change probation, but he has notified many others of it. Here are just a few: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Request for him to recuse as an involved admin: (thread)

Statement by Cla68

User:Stephan Schulz is an editor heavily involved in AGW articles. He is also an admin. As far as I know, he has not used his admin tools related to those articles, except perhaps to block Scibaby accounts after sockpuppet investigations. I believe he crossed the line today during a climate change probation enforcement request. The enforcement request concerned Ratel in an AGW article that Stephan is also involved in [5] [6]. During the enforcement request, and after Ratel notified him (among a few others) of the request, Stephan commented in the admin-only, "results" section of the request, where admin actions, including possible sanctions, are discussed concerning the parties to the enforcement request. Note that only admins are allowed to comment in that section. This means that Stephan was acting as an enforcing admin in an action in which he was definitely involved. I request ArbCom review.

Re:Short Brigade's statement below...if he has a concern with Lar, I suggest he open a separate request for review. Lar has not been involved in the enforcement request at issue here. Also, I and Short Brigade did not cooperate or "co-file" this request together. It was just me asking for a review of Stephan's actions as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie and Shell Kinney...if the AGW probation forum is going to work, it's got to be tight, and I mean tight. AGW is one of the most contentious and problemmatic areas in Wikipedia right now. That means that everything, including admin involvement needs to be strictly by the rules if the probation process is going to have credibility and be effective. Stephan Schulz cannot act as an admin in enforcement actions related to this area. As you're apparently agreeing, his remarks need to stay out of the "admin only" section. He does that, there's no problem. Cla68 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I share Cla68's concern about the integrity of the probationary sanctions. Admins enforcing sanctions should not only be uninvolved in a narrow, technical sense but must have the community's confidence that they are truly uninvolved and impartial.

In this regard the conduct of User:Lar while taking part in enforcing the sanctions also raises concern. He has referred to a group of editors involved in the sanctions area as a "science cabal" and "socially inept,"[7] which may not violate the narrow legalistic definition of "uninvolved" but but does not inspire confidence that sanctions will be administered impartially. Of perhaps greater concern, User:dave souza opposed Lar's recent steward reconfirmation on Meta.[8] Lar then threw these words back in his face on the probation enforcement page.[9] Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue.

We all have an interest in the probationary sanctions being effective. Sanctions work best if those administering them are clearly seen to be fair, impartial, and uninvolved. I request that the committee lay down crystal-clear rules for "uninvolved" administrators to avoid future episodes of the kind that Cla68 and I have noted.

Regarding Cla68's statment above the concerns he and I have raised have a clear thread in common; i.e., conduct of administrators on a particular enforcement page. I thought it was logical to consider them together so that the principles and concerns they have in common could be addressed in a consistent way. If the Committee or a clerk feels it would be best to consider them separately I will of course split off my statement into a separate action. (I really don't want this to turn into a threaded discussion, but since Cla68 raised the issue I thought it best to explain my reasoning for joining this into one case.)

Statement by User:Stephan Schulz

Butterfly. Wheel. CET. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ratel

• I am not an expert in these matters, but it appears that according to the way the rules are written, SS has not breached any provisions. ► RATEL ◄ 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse Literaturegeek's comment below. This must be done, sooner rather than later. ► RATEL ◄ 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:ATren

Here are Stephan Schulz's top ten articles edited:

1. 505 - Global warming
2. 138 - Global warming_controversy
3. 98 - Global cooling
4. 91 - Scientific opinion on climate_change
5. 81 - The Great Global Warming Swindle
6. 78 - Effects of global warming
7. 71 - Kyoto Protocol
8. 63 - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scienti...
9. 51 - Waterboarding
10. 49 - An Inconvenient Truth

All but #9 are directly related to the AGW debate. He is not uninvolved. ATren (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Lar's level of involvement in global warming, I have searched his entire contribution history (>24000 edits) and I haven't found a single edit to any climate or AGW (or any related) article in his entire history. Lar is uninvolved. ATren (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Awickert

Both sides seem to think that they are in the right per the letter of the law. Seems like a case in which clarification is needed, and nothing more. Awickert (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZP5*

Admin Stephan Schulz is heavily involved in the Climate Change articles under probation. I have several disputes underway on talk pages with this admin. I don't recall him applying his admin capabilities; however, to avoid becoming analogous to an activist judge, the admin should clearly abstain from any administrative related activities in the Climate Change articles, unless following another admin's objectively decided instructions. This admin requires clear oversight in these articles, power has been abused in the Request for Enforcement proceedings, and this should not be allowed to continue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I would urge that when the Committee inevitably takes up the climate-change disaster, it should choose the terms of the case carefully. This isn't it. The prior efforts at "dispute resolution" are woefully cursory, and there is clearly no emergency requiring that this go straight to ArbCom. Hell, there hasn't even been an administrative action to discuss - this appears to literally be a fight over the placement of a comment that has somehow reached ArbCom.

If I'm being uncharitable, I think the Committee does share some blame for actively propagating multiple, and sometimes widely disparate, definitions of the term "uninvolved". Be that as it may, Stephan should recuse himself. If not, the Committee should pass a motion officially moving his comment one section up on the enforcement page. That would be a ridiculous use of everyone's time, but still preferable to the alternative of an actual case over this. MastCell ^Talk 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

This is certainly something for ArbCom to clarify. Stephan states that he is entitled to comment as an uninvolved administrator because, under the sanctions, "uninvolved" is defined as someone who is not in an immediate dispute with the sanctioned editor. Presumably this has nothing to do with the noticeboard, but has simply to do with when an admin is permitted to sanction an editor. So, Stephan could sanction Ratel under the rules despite supporting him in any particular dispute. Certainly it cannot mean that he is otherwise free to comment as "uninvolved" when in fact he is heavily involved.

Stephan's comments are also offensive. In response to my report regarding repeated reverting and an unwillingness to engage in discussion by User:Ratel, Ratel posted a series of utterly false and baseless accusations, including that I "despise" a writer whom I have never criticized in any way and do not in the least, and that I am on a long term anti-science campaign.[10] No diffs were provided. Administrator LessHeard vanU commented that he found the response "startling."[11] Stephan responds to LessHeard that "AGF is not a suicide pact."[12] This, from a thoroughly involved administrator who does not mention his involvement in the very content dispute giving rise to the request. This is not what these pages need. Mackan79 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie: Perhaps you follow this board, but the structure is quite rigid. On most of the page, editors can post as they please. In the "uninvolved administrator" section, admins hash out a consensus over the appropriate result. In fact I am not sure any sanctions have been concluded without agreement from all admins posting in that section. If Stephan can post there as a heavily involved editor, can others also respond? It is not simply a matter of where he places the comment, but whether he sits on the panel that resolves disputes in which he is involved. Mackan79 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification about involvement

Stephan was involved in the very dispute that gave rise to the request. He made the initial edit to the article here. He then left three comments challenging specific points,[13][14][15] each of which were specifically answered,[16][17][18] but did not clarify his position further. This is precisely the ongoing dispute that gave rise to the enforcement request.[19] Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vsmith

Why is this here? First from [20]:

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

Stephan Schulz has not "imposed sanctions", only commented on a case as an admin. By the definition quoted above he appears to be not involved unless it can be shown that he is engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions.
And secondly, what prior dispute resolution steps have been used?
Vsmith (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

It appears to me that the serious nature of the concerns raised by Short Brigade Harvester Boris may mean that a case or motion is the only means of resolving the issue (unless an arbitrator wants to try another informal "back off"). Maybe a review of probation is also in order. But frankly, I don't agree that this should be restricted to Stephen just because the filing party says so or because the functionary is the filing party's friend - the other concerns being raised cannot be resolved by any community mechanism, and moreover, those concerns are far more serious.

If Cla68 wanted a case limited to Stephen's action/comment/whatever, she should have filed a request for clarification, or better yet, actually engaged in dispute resolution before invoking any part of arbitration - the last resort. She did neither. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Random comment (not to arbitrators) - I might have been unclear, but I'm certainly not confused. The situation is indefinite and 1 year has passed; having reviewed SBHB's diffs, clearly nothing's changed. Frankly, I hope that he will not act as foolishly or act in such a misguided manner as the filing party did in making this case request. And...I would suggest against inviting another response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Lar

Stephan Schulz is heavily involved in this area, as the list of his most edited articles given above shows. If this case is accepted or if requested, I will give diffs of his being questioned about his involvement showing general unhelpfulness and evasion. The butterfly comment is more of the same.

On the other hand, SBHB's thesis is frankly, off the mark. I have a viewpoint about these articles, but I'm not an involved admin as I never edit in the space. I just happen to disagree with SBHB, WMC, et al about whether their editing in this space is uniformly positive and proper or not. That apparently got me a fair number of opposes in my recent confirmation, as apparently holding a view that the science club is less than lily white is verboten.

As always, I welcome review of my actions. But I'd urge ArbCom to clarify this matter, and do so in a way that doesn't hamper continued enforcement. I think my enforcement actions have been pretty even handed. Finally, Ncmvocalist appears to be a bit confused. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS... SBHB says "Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue." I absolutely agree. Too bad it didn't work out that way. My editing on en:wp, and my views about en:wp specific matters have little or nothing to do with my exemplary record as a steward, but I nevertheless got lots of retaliation anyway. So I'm curious what SBHB means there. Maybe it applies to him and his club, but not me? ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PPS... This is not the first time Stephan Schulz had to have remarks moved out of the uninvolved admin section. Do we need a whole case? Nope, not necessarily. But apparently Stephan Schulz needs a strong reminder that his remarks don't belong there, in that section, and he's involved, and needs to dial the snark way down. As strong a reminder as necessary. Hipocrite: As for what to call this group of editors, I'm open. Club, unless I'm recalling incorrectly, is the term Tony used on my talk and it seemed to be accepted. You used "bunker guys". What would you call this bunch of vested contributors? As for the steward matter, you're confused. The long knives were brought out in that... by many factions annoyed by my willingness to speak truth to power. None of which had anything to do with stewardry. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to make this threaded but... Hipocrite: as I pointed out on my talk previously, I'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". I just don't support all the tactics used by those who regularly edit in this area. (which I am not one of) On either side. So that name won't work. Let's take this to my talk if you want to belabor the point further. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to WMC, who states Lar claims I'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". But there is no evidence for this. Not from his editing of articles; and there is no evidence from his admin-type activities. WMC labors under a grave misconception. If he, or anyone else, finds evidence of my support for a particular position (or J Random Editor's opposition, or what have you) in article space, it is a sign that the edits so identified are flawed. If WMC does not know this, does not understand this, does not internalise why this MUST be so, I submit he is unqualified to edit here as he will be unable to edit in an WP:NPOV manner. This is a serious charge, but it's a fundamental issue that needs surfacing and resolving.

Further, WMC states Lar feels the need to make these unsupported and apparently irrelevant claims; one wonders why. They are relevant claims. I have explained why before, but I will again. I introduce them to demonstrate that there are folk who agree with WMC, et. al., as to the science, but who disagree with WMC et. al. as to the appropriate way to edit. This is, again, a fundamental issue, because WMC et. al. give the appearance of a "if you're not with us (in form of editing) you must be against us (on the science)" which is a "bunker mentality" that is manifestly unhelpful. If ArbCom wanted to do some good here, it could remind WMC et. al. of this, yet again. They all have had this pointed out before, but apparently it may not be sinking in. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BozMo

In practise there are only about six admins who are doing all the work on CC probation all of whom have a pretty accurate view on SS's involvement so this case seems to me to be more about form than of substance. On top of which the other admins could have dealt with it without bringing it here. The current rules are clear and I don't personally see enough grounds for changing them, but it cannot do much harm either way, except waste time. --BozMo talk 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

Reviewing the situation, as with much of the climate change conflict here, raises some questions. But - it appears premature to invoke Arbcom. An admin who is topic involved but not specific user involved commented - but didn't act - in a result section. The incident is perhaps not up to our best standards. But Arbcom should not be getting involved in admin actions which are not up to best standards. They should get involved if there's a clear breach, if there's very serious one time misconduct or ongoing patterns of serious misconduct. There is no allegation, and as far as I can tell no evidence or history, of ongoing misconduct, even if we assume the worst of this.

I urge Cla68 to abandon this and refile at ANI - the appropriate first venue. Comments here indicate a reasonable hearing and discussion can happen there, that the underlying concern isn't specious or misguided. But Arbcom needs to be limited to issues which are both serious and unable to be resolved elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sarcastic comment by Hans Adler

There is no need for Arbcom to be surprised by this request. This is simply one of the fruits of the SlimVirgin decision and the recent clarification that you are prepared to enforce it under all circumstances. You have deprived arbitration enforcement of the normal corrective mechanisms that everybody on this wiki is used to. There is no reason to be surprised that some people exploit this unethically and others complain to the only instance that can fix such problems.

You have created an area of Wikipedia where you rule absolutely. Now you are asked to micro-manage it. Do it, or wait until the situation is so much out of control that you have to rethink arbitration enforcement completely. It's your choice. Hans Adler 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Literaturegeek

I think that the case should be accepted but not as currently named nor the current narrow scope. What is needed and has been needed for years now is a case investigating climate change articles, enforecement the whole heap. The sooner this drama associated with these articles is over the better. A case focusing on one admin or one aspect of this drama is just going to be chopping at branches of the issue rather than the root system of the issue. I would suggest a full case into climate change related issues. Singling out one admin/contributer at a time or one issue at a time is counter productive, may do more harm than good and is a waste of arbcom's and everyone elses time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by involved Hipocrite

Lar's statement is directly backwards. His behavior on en-wp has a direct relationship towards his fitness as a steward. If he is a poor adminstrator of the CC probation, which I take no position on currently, then that would bear on his fitness as a steward.

However, ones voting on Lar's steward request has no bearing on their climate change editing. That Lar dosen't understand the difference between evaluating his fitness for a role based on his conduct elsewhere vs evaluating behavior based on their voting makes it clear that Lar is too emotionally attached to his Steward application to neutrally evaluate individuals who opposed him there in other venues.

An analogy would be opposing a hypothetical Hipocrite RFA based on my conduct in CC issues and, after that RFA passed, a hypothetical position that individuals who opposed me were ineligible to edit in CC areas due to their conflict of interest with me. It dosen't wash.

Further, it is incivil to call people members of a "club," in an obviously demeaning fashion. Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that when adressing people directly, you should refer to them by the names they have chosen. In this case, that would be "editors who support the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming." Your willingness to "speak truth to power," directly relates to your fitness for extra tools. For instance, I would oppose the RFA of otherwise qualified admin candidates who "speak truth to power," if the "truth" they are speaking is the "truth" of the relative importance of WP:BEFORE vs WP:BURDEN. I didn't have an opinion on your steward application then - I'd continue to have no opinion now, but I think that your taking SS's steward !vote and assaulting him with it on the CC pages was a gross abuse of power. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Jehochman Why aren't more people being topic banned, then? Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU

This is the first time that Stephan Schulz has commented in the "admin section" of an enforcement request since I got involved. I don't see much difference in his comments than some other admins who apparently have a pro GW viewpoint, and nor do I believe that there is any apparent difficulty in communicating there. Unless StS or any other admin appears to disregard or veto a consensus (which is, of course, "Not A Vote") then I do not see any problem in them participating; it is only by their actions - or lack - that an issue that may require addressing would arise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(to WMC) I note you have not edited William Connolley... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fruity comments by Jehochman

This isn't an arbitration enforcement issue. There is a community sanction in effect, and several of us are attempting to enforce it. I'm fairly pessimistic about the outcome because every comment or action seems to provoke a disproportionate response by those editors participating in the underlying content dispute. The level of bad faith assuming, tendentious editing, and jockeying to get perceived opponents sanctioned is going up, rather than down. It's disheartening, and will eventually lead to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Hipocrite: More people aren't being topic banned because such action will invariably provoke a massive ruckus. There are multiple partisans on either site screaming their heads off about complicated editing patterns. Noticeboards are not particularly useful for resolving complex disputes with multiple parties. I believe arbitration is needed to sort out the naughty from the nice and restore order. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Tony Sidaway

This case looks set to be rejected, but I suppose I should try to make a constructive statement.

Someone said that this is the most contentious area on Wikipedia, or one of the most contentious. I'm not really that convinced. If in December it looked like turning into a pitched battle, the probation instituted in early January seems to have forestalled the melt-down, or at least not stopped the editing atmosphere cooling down considerably. Lots of very good editing is being done.

The science-heavy articles, already a jewel in Wikipedia's crown, continue to make incremental improvements, and the social, political and biographical articles are now being scrutinized to much more rigorous standards of sourcing than I had seen prior to the probation. In both areas constructive, if adversarial, criticism is leading to a strengthening of the content and sourcing.

There are signs that some editors have not taken this change on board. The battleground mentality persists in some quarters and I think this request can be seen as part of a skirmish in that warfare. But the community does seem to be applying the right amount of pressure on this field and the warriors are not really having much of a deleterious effect on article quality.

While it has been suggested that the warfare may drive away reasonable editors, a recent analysis by me of a particularly controversial article and talk page in this area, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, shows that a pretty high number of Wikipedians have edited or commented on that article, many making significant contributions. A very diverse range of views is evident in discussion and editing, so this article at least seems to be quite healthy. If anything, we're paying rather more attention to that area than is merited--in recent days the talk page views for that article equaled and then considerably exceeded article views. --TS 11:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Lar is correct in all particulars. This is a case which ought to be examined with the possibility of establishing rules concerning all "true believer" articles and their editors, and admins acting with regard thereto. There is no question, moreover, that advocacy articles, as a rule, tend to attract such conflicts, and WP, at some point, will have to address such issues in a general manner instead of seeking to stomp out one burning ember at a time. I am also concerned at flippant responses being used to apparently show a lack of respect for a proper process here, and suggest that such shows a major problem on WP. Collect (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to also agree with Lar's added paragraphs. Agreement on social, political, scientific, religious or economic issues does not mean one must, perforce, agree with the methods used by advocates to advance any such issues, which, I think, is part of Lar's position. Collect (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by presumably involved WMC

Lar claims I [that is, Lar] 'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". But there is no evidence for this. Not from his editing of articles; and there is no evidence from his admin-type activities. Lar feels the need to make these unsupported and apparently irrelevant claims; one wonders why William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

• Recused on AGW stuff. Steve Smith (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Ok.. I'm going to sound a bit crass here.. but really? We're arguing over what section of an AE report someone can comment in? Really??? If there was an action taken that he shouldn't because he was an involved editor in the area, that's one thing.. but this? I'm tempted to decline, but I'm willing to be persuaded. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Decline After further thought, an ArbCom request is overkill, a discussion on AN or ANI, and a suggestion that Stephan would be better served posting one section up would do Wikipedia so much more better then the nuclear hand grenade of filing an Arbitration request over this relatively small issue. SirFozzie (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Decline I worked on AE for quite some time and routinely saw involved admins (and sometimes even participants) leave comments in that section, similar to the way people sometimes edit someone else's section here. Since there are no clerks on AE, one of the uninvolved admins could simply move the comment if they felt it was a problem (and I've seen this done before when participants comment) but there is no reason for a case over something this trivial. Stephan should also take this as an indication that he should post above the decision area in his own section from now on if he needs to make comments on cases where he has been involved with the topic. Shell ^babelfish 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Decline I also worked in AE for a long time. Concur with Shell. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per preceding comments. Per Jehochman, I would suggest the community involved here aim to review what progress is being made following the probation that was put in place for this topic area (are things improving or getting worse?). But to avoid reviewing at a possible low point in the cycle, give some warning and then (in a few weeks?) review the entirety of the probationary period so far, not just recent events. If things are getting worse, then ask for arbitration, but please don't ask for arbitration without at least attempting to agree on a summary of how the community probation is progressing, and how it has worked so far. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)