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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Archives

Archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion.

Statements

Archives

Archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Statements

Discussion

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

Archives

Archived discussions about the decision using the case format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of decision

General discussion archives can be found at:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Proposed principles

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

P22 Enough is enough

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

Proposed findings of fact

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

F21 A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct

Roger Davies, regarding the second alleged BLP violation, here [1] -- how is that a BLP violation? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I said it was inappropriate.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: That doesn't even make any sense. The article is about the Climategate scandal. It's supposed cover the allegations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" seems a little insignificant for an ArbCom finding. How does that differ from violating a policy? Why include either of the two BLP findings as inappropriate? More generally -- and this is addressed also to Shell and Coren -- not that I necessarily disagree with the tactic, but what is the reason for delving down into what are normally considered minor breaches of policy that (I think) would usually receive warnings? I mean, what do you hope to accomplish? If the bar is set as low as "inappropriate", I suppose the result will be that everyone involved will eventually get swept into the case, but as I said before, that makes Wikipedia effectively a trap for anyone involving themselves in any long-term controversial topic on the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia tempts and frustrates with the promise that anyone can edit and deludes editors into thinking that policy will be enforced, the encyclopedia doesn't enforce policy for months or years, then ArbCom swoops in and sanctions on the basis of not even a violation of policy, but inappropriate conduct involving the policy. Ninety-nine percent of the editors who edit pages connected to controversies would be swept up in the trap, and the other one percent would not be the best editors. I'm not actually saying I disagree with the tactic, but I don't know why you're casting these big, fine nets. Why are you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't even apply since the University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. But even if it were a person, it's still reliably sourced to three different articles.[2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources talk about the unit as a distinct legal/corporate entity: the comment applies this to the people involved (some of whom are identifed in the article).  Roger Davies ^talk 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, an allegation that authorities comment on, and in which they say no prosecution will take place because of a statute-of-limitation type issue, is fair game for any BLP, let alone an article about the controversy in which the law violations are a prominent feature. I suggest you take some time and rethink this. Also, you've recently commented in the Rd232 section that you didn't see a pattern of conduct. The same problem presents itself here, regarding BLP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Minor4th 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:BLP: "The policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must comply with the other content policies." The diff in question is an edit about the UAE -- a university employing 2,500 staff -- you cannot violate BLP policy with respect to a large university. What is going on here? And, yes, please do take another look at the proposed finding about Rd232 because there are some wide disrepancies in the way that policy is being applied and stretched by the Arbs. Minor4th 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's normally true but in this instance the commentary weren't talking about the UAE as a whole but a small unit within it, to which BLP probably does apply.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

←(after edit conflicts) - "The article is about the Climategate scandal." - Actually, it was about the theft of some documents and the manufactured controversy that subsequently arose. There was no "scandal" to speak of. Nor was the word used by reliable sources. It is perhaps terminology like this that ratcheted up the rhetoric at that particular article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From The Guardian on July 7. [5] So what are the issues raised? [...] The emails show the scientists [...] appeared to work to block requests filed under Freedom of Information law and even suggested deleting information to prevent it being released." Going by what the sources say, and this is only one among many, the possibility of a violation of FOIA law was part of the controversy. This [6] is what The Guardian published the day before AQFK's January 28 edit. It's a little hard for AQFK to be promoting a "battleground atmosphere" in that article by adding to the lead a straightforward reflection of what was in newspapers like The Guardian at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

People seem to be trying to excuse the use of words like 'criminals' here. Here are some reminders: The ICO wrote, "The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information."[7] Before any conviction (which would not be a criminal law matter anyway) it would have been necessary to show that (a) some information was deleted and (b) this was done to defeat FOI disclosure (rather than as a routine matter or as part of commercial copyright terms). Sure an email talks about deleting stuff, but further investigations have shown that nothing was ever actually deleted in this way by its sender or by any of its few recipients (afaik). The sender and recipients of the email are easily ascertained. That is why sensible commentators have used moderate language, and so should we. --Nigelj (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[8] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats very interesting - but none of the two definitions fit here - do they? No evidence of crime committed, and no conviction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, more than just interesting. The diff in question stated: Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late Lead paragraph from The Guardian coverage [9] from the day before the edit: The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act. [...] Smith said no action could be taken against the university because the specific request they had looked at happened in May 2008, well outside the six-month limit for such prosecutions under the act. That article remains on the Guardian website without a correction. Following the sources is not the stuff ArbCom findings are built on. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: I'm glad to see that you seem to be conceding that this wasn't a BLP violation. This is good. However, you're claiming that I made "inappropriate allegations". I did not make any allegation at all in this diff.[10] I simply reported back what BBC News,[11] The Guardian[12] and The Telegraph[13] said. You seem to be confusing personal opinion with writing in a disinterested tone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let me rephrase that. I did not make the allegation. The Information Commissioner's Office made the allegation which was then covered by secondary, reliable sources. All I did was report what the sources said in a disinterested tone. You seem to be confusing personal opinion with the opinion of the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you decided to cite this in the lead section of an article. It was a sign of poor judgement on a BLP issue. It's not really sensible to blame the source for this. I think it's possible that you're dwelling exclusively on this and failing to see the bigger picture. Coupled with your insistence that it's okay to say that the CRU scientists are criminals, which they are not, this is worrying. --TS 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway: There was nothing wrong with that edit and I'd be happy to bring this up at the BLP Noticeboard. I'll respond to the latter point once Roger Davies has had an opportunity to explain why it's "inappropriate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we've been through this a few times already. The noticeboards are useful for basic stuff, but when we're examining how a person approaches editing they're not going to be much use. I'm sure the other arbitrators all have opinions on this, so perhaps trying so strenuously to examine his opinion isn't the best use of our time. Why do I, for instance, find your attitude to editing on the subject a little disturbing? I'm not Roger. --TS 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is the dictionary definition of crime:
  • "an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law".
• This is the dictionary definition of criminal:
  • "1: one who has committed a crime 2: a person who has been convicted of a crime".
• Did not all the three RS, the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, state the Commissioner's view that there had been a breach of freedom of information law that was, by its nature, prosecutable and punishable, but could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired? --JN466 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Jayen466, have you looked at the full statement made by Graham Smith that the sources are reporting? What does it say? Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I haven't, and would indeed be grateful if you could point me to it. For present purposes, however, I maintain that what we need to look at is whether AQFK's comments and conclusions drawn from reading the Guardian, BBC and Telegraph reports were reasonable, and conclusions of the sort that any editor who had read these sources might draw. --JN466 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • But, AQFK's additions to the lead were drawn from a summary of the article, an article written by a consensus of interested editors. He made them without pointing to a specific source or adding a citation, and avoided having to deal with that pesky consensus thing. What does the current article say? Is this edit still preserved? Why or why not? Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I have now (re-)read the Times article, which says, "A spokesman for the ICO said: 'The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.' Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine. ... In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: 'The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.' He added: 'The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.'" --JN466 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Who is the spokesman? Is it the same person as Graham Smith? Can you confirm they are the same person? I could not. They apparently were misquoted, as the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report says that there may have been a breach. It does not confirm that a breach occurred.[14] According to the latest report, dated September 2010, "Handling of the Freedom of Information requests was found to be inadequate, but it was concluded that the responsibility lies primarily with the university administration, not individual research units such as CRU."[15] AQFK's disputed and controversial addition to the lead section, which was not a summary of the article as he claimed, stated "Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late." Well, according to the most recent investigation "the people involved" are not responsible. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • We have to look at AQFK's talk page statement in the temporal context in which it was made, do we not? AQFK made his talk page comment on 28 January, the day all these news reports appeared. The Times stated on that day, bluntly, "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. ... The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late. ...The stolen e-mails ... showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. Given this backdrop of news reporting, I do not find it just to condemn AQFK for the talk page comment he made on that day, given the information before him at the time. Whether or not the findings changed later on (a point I am not clear about at this time) should not enter our considerations, as it would be unfair to expect AQFK to know the future. This relates just to the talk page statement whose diff was included in the FoF proposed by Roger. --JN466 01:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Grahm Smith of the ICO refers to errors "frequently made in press reports" on p.30 of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report.[16] Careful Wikipedia editors know all about these errors published during current events, and follow Wikipedia:Recentism whenever possible, paying especially close attention to damaging claims in regards to WP:BLPs. AQFK had been participating on the talk page for quite some time before this edit, and was well aware and acquainted with the danger of using sources carelessly. That still does not explain his edit to the lead section, which contrary to his claim, did not summarize the body of the article. How do you explain his edit to the lead? As far as I can tell, AQFK put his own POV above that of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Viriditas, go to the diff in question, scroll down to the bottom of the "Timeline" section. It's there in the last paragraph. Not that it matters. I don't care how small-bore this ArbCom decision is going to get, it is never going to sanction AQFK for violating WP:LEAD, a style guideline. And as a matter of fact, it isn't even prohibited to have information only in the lead and not the rest of the article. So: This horse has officially been beaten to death, every which way it possibly can be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
              • The source is there, but the content is not. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
            • This is the edit in question, is it not? It does not claim to summarise the article content (although content on the commissioner's statement had been added a couple of hours prior). AQFK's edit summary was, "Added IOC ruling to lede." The hidden comment in the lede ("... this summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article ...") was there before his edit, and does not seem to have been introduced by AQFK. So all he said was, "Added IOC ruling to lede." This was breaking news on the day, and what AQFK added to the lead adequately summarised what the Times, BBC, Guardian and Telegraph were reporting that day. His wording does in fact seem to owe more to the Times, which appears to have broken the story first (according to the Telegraph, the statement by Smith that all four sources are quoting was made to the Times). So we have an editor who, on a day when all quality UK media covered this as a major breaking news item, added this piece of news, which had just been added to the body of the article, to the lead, adequately reflecting the sources. This is something that editors do here every day. I am not saying that there may not be lessons here for editors, including AQFK, but it is not something worth sanctioning AQFK for, and it is not a BLP violation in my view, given the variety of quality media all covering this in pretty much the same terms AQFK used in his edit. --JN466 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
              • What we have seen so far, is evidence for AQFK's "inappropriate" statements on the talk page, and his disputed edit citing newspaper sources claiming the ICO said the CRU broke the law. The facts show that after these claims were subsequently corrected in the 31 March 2010 Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry,[17] AQFK continued to tendentiously maintain that the scientists broke the law, and his argument continued to focus on the lead section material, even as late as 30 June 2010, six months after the initial edit above. After all of this time, and the subsequent comments from the ICO and investigations correcting the errors made in the original news reports, AQFK was still arguing that "FOA violations were found to be valid".[18] This was after the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee reported: "We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight...The Deputy Information Commissioner's letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.[130] As, however, UEA pointed out, no investigation has been carried out...There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act." AQFK maintained that this statement by the ICO proved that the UEA violated the FOIA. When corrected by many editors, AQFK failed to acknowledge the error of his position:[19] ChrisO explained the problem to AQFK, saying, "The statement "there was evidence that a breach may have occurred" is not equivalent to "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid".[20] Again, AQFK refused to recognize the difference, and responded with, "It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act but there won't be prosecutions because the statute of limitations had passed. So, they were not vindicated of all charges. Just like I said."[21] ChrisO again corrected AQFK, saying, "No, that's not what it says. It says there was "evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred." The word "may" is critically important here. They did not make any determination that a violation had occurred. When you say "there's evidence that they violated the FOI Act", that's wrong."[22] Finally, on July 1, 2010, AQFK gives away the game: "...the editors who control this article won't allow us to write in a editorially neutral point of view so I choose battles I have a reasonable shot at."[23] Ten minutes later, AQFK has a change of heart, and modifies his comment.[24] This shows that we have direct evidence of tendentious editing over BLP material and a clear and unambiguous admission of battlefield conduct occurring six months after the initial problematic edit. This was not a one time event as AQFK and JohnWBarber maintain, but a regular, daily occurrence lasting half a year. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many things wrong with Viriditas' post, I'm not even sure where to begin. Viriditas is confusing and conflating issues of little relevance to what I am saying. But let me try to get down to the heart of the matter. The "errors" that Viriditas is talking about are whether the ICO issued a statement or a formal statement, whether this was really a statement or a decision, and whether this was an investigation or a thorough investigation. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the ICO looked into allegations and found that that the UAE did not follow FOIA but did not pursue the matter further because the 6 month statute of limitations had expired. Everything else is smoke and mirrors and nitpicking. Also, yet again Viriditas is claiming that the UAE is a person and is attempting to apply BLP where it doesn't apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFN, I have three questions for you. One: On 27 February 2010, you deleted [25] content about the Information Commissioner's Office and the FOI claims, and the UEA's Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee. Could you explain why you deleted the opinion of the UEA defending their position, leaving only allegations of FOI violations against them, allegations that were not accurately covered by the media? At the time, you claimed in the edit summary that you were deleting the content showing the UEA's position on the matter "Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV". Can you explain how those two things support your edits here? Two: Could you please give me a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether you are still maintaining the position that "FOA violations were found to be valid"?[26] If the answer is yes, could you please provide the evidence that supports your position? And, if the answer is no, could you explain what made you change your mind? Three: Could you also take a moment to answer the question I asked you below, namely, why on 23 July 2010, on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, you said "I wasn't around here in November 2009",[27] when in fact, you were?[28][29] Again, thanks for any light you can shed on these three questions. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ArbCom isn't going to rule on content issues, but it looks like an NPOV violation, giving undue weight to a position sourced mostly to primary sources. Again, IMHO, primary sources should be used with caution, especially for contentious material, because they are easy to misuse. If it were up to me, I'd rip most, if not all, primary source out of that article and only cite secondary, reliable sources.
2. You are confusing an editor's opinion with the opinions of the sources. The ICO - which is the body responsible for FOIA - looked into the allegations and said that the UEA failed to follow the FOIA. To the best of my knowledge, the ICO has not retracted their opinion.
3. Yet again, your argument focuses on irrelevant details and misses the big picture. What I was saying was that I wasn't around when that discussion took place. Since I didn't start editing the article until the end of November, I assumed that it must have occurred before I discovered the article. In any case, I checked the talk page archives and I don't even see a discussion about this image. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about content, AQFN, this is about your battlefield conduct and mistreatment of BLP material. In regards to what you call a NPOV violation,[30] you unilaterally decided to remove the material without discussion, and you had the nerve to write "see forthcoming discussion on talk page" in your edit summary. That is incredibly disruptive, especially so on a page that was already on article probation. Not good, AQFN. Again, you repeat the same claims about the ICO. You say they said that "the UEA failed to follow the FOIA." Could you show me where they said that, AQFN? I'm looking at a copy of the ICO Press Office statement from Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner. He said: "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation." That's it. Where do you get the "UEA failed to follow the FOIA" part from? Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: You seem mad at me for what the ICO said. I'm sorry, but that's not my concern. I'm not here to right great wrongs or engage in advocacy. My goal here as a Wikipedia editor is to, as best I can, report back what reliable sources are saying about an article's subject matter. Yes, I take our WP:NPOV policy seriously, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Also, I'm not going to squabble over minor verbiage issues in informal talk page discussions. And please stop wrapping your arguments in our BLP policy. The UEA is not a person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFN, the evidence shows that you haven't used reliable sources correctly or carefully, nor have you attempted to fix the mistakes you introduced into articles. You have claimed that "FOA violations were found to be valid", and now you claim that the "UEA failed to follow the FOIA". Could you please show me where you got that information from? That's not in the statement released from the ICO Press Office. Your diffs show a pattern of battlefield editing, disruption on the talk page, and a disregard for article probation. Your deliberate removal of defensive claims from the UEA and your purposeful placement of poorly sourced negative claims against the UEA (which turned out to be erroneous) is not classified as NPOV, it's called POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Are you seriously going to argue that there's substantive difference between "failed to follow" and "violations"? I'm sorry, but I am not engaging in petty arguments regarding informal comments on talk page discussions. The sources for my edit have already been provided for you umpteen times. Here they are again.[31][32][33] To the best of my knowledge, the ICO has not retracted their opinion that the UAE failed to follow FOIA but will not pursue the matter further because the statute of limitations has expired. Please, if you have a problem with the ICO, take it up with them, not me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, I'm not going to argue with you about the differences in words, we go with what the most current sources say, paying special attention to errors and mistakes. The links you post above are quite telling: A BBC article from Jan 28, 2010, a Guardian article from Jan 27, 2010, and a Telegraph article from Jan 28, 2010. AQFK, since January, there have been at least three major reports and findings published: the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Science Assessment Panel, and the Independent Climate Change Email Review. There have also been many retractions, apologies, and further publications since January. Are you going to honestly say here, on this arbcom case, that old, sensationalistic media reports from the time of the initial incident, are still current and accurate? This error of yours has been pointed out many times on the CRU talk page, but here you are, engaging in the same tendentious behavior for everyone to see in the light of day. Please understand, knowledge changes, it does not stay the same, especially when it's reported in sensationalistic news reports prone to error. When the news media originally reported on the Balloon boy hoax, for example, they said that a six-year-old boy floated away on a helium balloon. However, we now know it is a hoax. Would you, AQFK, go back and cite those old, initial reports today, and claim that is what happened, even though we know now, today, that it did not? This is a serious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, as the talk page shows this has been explained to you several times. Viriditas (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: You are misrepresenting the other reports. Not one of them exonerated the UEA. Let me sum up all four as they relate to this discussion:

1. The ICO - which is the ruling authority regarding FOIA violations - said that the UEA failed to follow FOIA but will not pursue the matter further because the statute of limitations has expired.
2. The review conducted by Penn State only examined the conduct of Michael Mann, not the UEA.
3. The report issued by HoC said they found evidence of FOIA violations, but left it unresolved because a more thorough investigation was required.
4. The investigation conducted by UEA itself, also failed to exonerate the UEA. It said that there was evidence that e-mails might have been deleted to prevent them from being released by FOIA requests and that they didn't respond to FOIA requests properly but blamed the university management.

That is a current and accurate portrayal of the situation. Yes, I will stand before ArbCom and say that those news articles are essentially correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Of key importance here is that no body or investigation found the UEA guilty of anything. Even the ICO statement was irrelevant because they were unable to conduct of proper investigation due to the statute of limitations being passed. ICO officials believed the Freedom of Information Act had not been properly followed by the UEA scientists, but there was no pronouncment of guilt because there couldn't be. Sources made that clear at the time. That means that any suggestion of criminal acts or criminality in general would be a serious violation of WP:BLP. You cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal act and it has been described as such in reliable sources. At most, you could say the UEA had a "whiff on impropriety" where FOIA procedure was concerned, but that's as far as you could reasonably go without violating Wikipedia's most sacred rule. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. The worst sources repeatedly claimed, over and over again, for weeks, that because a FOIA violation might have occurred, climate science as a whole was debunked. This of course, makes no sense, but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles. If they could somehow show that the hacked, private e-mails, which were unlawfully released to the public, contained some kind of impropriety, any kind, this could be twisted and framed in such a way as to attack the entire scientific dataset on climate change. And, that is exactly what they tried to do. If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please provide some diffs that support these claims? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is the very exemplification of a battleground mentality: And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. [...] but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles. [...] If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. What needs to stop, Viriditas, is censoring facts from articles because The Other Side might happen to get a boost from those facts. When a fact is important enough, it should stay in the article no matter what side benefits. That's called NPOV. I realize that it's a motivation that conflicts with partisan efforts to promote The Truth, but those partisan efforts are not supposed to prevail over the idea that whatever is most important to say in a neutral magazine article should be in that article if we can possibly fit it in. Such as, for instance, the fact that possible violations of FOIA were some of the biggest concerns journalists and government officials and others had with the Climategate matter. David Frum, Walter Russell Mead, George Monbiot and others who believe in AGW also stated that the were very concerned about the behavior of the scientists, including whether or not they violated FOIA law. There is no reason why concern about that would only be among skeptics and those who deny global warming. Your statement at 02:30 is more of a battleground-promoting act than nearly all of what AQFK is accused of. Roger, other arbitrators, are you reading this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I've noted, observed, and documented the "battlefield" tactics of AQFK and other editors like him, who continue to make erroneous claims about climate change-related BLP's and organizations to push their POV. I've provided enough diffs showing this to be the case. When AQFK and others like him repeatedly claim that "FOA violations were found to be valid", over and over again, for six months, even after such claims have been refuted, we have a serious problem. And he's not alone, John. We see throughout this case, willful, deliberate misrepresentation of sources to push a POV. I fully accept your right to refuse to recognize these facts, John. However, documenting this bad behavior does not equate to "battleground mentality". When you have AQFK openly stating "I choose battles I have a reasonable shot at",[34] and rallying the troops for war against the infidels,[35] it becomes obvious that something needs to be done. Please don't attack the messenger. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: None of what you said is true, or even accurately describes the dispute. Again, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a place to engage in WP:ADVOCACY. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you find to be personally true, AQFK, looking at the diffs shows you engaging in battlefield behavior for six months on climate change related articles and advocating for the use of poor sources supporting climate change denial and unsupported attacks on scientists. Describing your edits and your time here as furthering and supporting "anti-science propaganda" appears to be an accurate reading of the problem. You are welcome to describe it differently. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: But you haven't provided any diffs to support your allegations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, you said above, at 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC), ChrisO explained the problem to AQFK, saying, "The statement "there was evidence that a breach may have occurred" is not equivalent to "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid".[20] Again, AQFK refused to recognize the difference, and responded with, "It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act but there won't be prosecutions because the statute of limitations had passed. So, they were not vindicated of all charges. Just like I said."[21] ChrisO again corrected AQFK, saying, "No, that's not what it says. It says there was "evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred." The word "may" is critically important here. They did not make any determination that a violation had occurred. When you say "there's evidence that they violated the FOI Act", that's wrong."

However, your own post from 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) quotes the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee saying, in paragraph 93,

• "It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000."

This (also repeated in paragraph 11 of the document's "Conclusions and recommendations" section, p. 48) is closer to what AQFK was saying ("It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act") than to what ChrisO was saying ("No, that's not what it says."). The difference is in the words "prima facie". If I had been ChrisO, I would have said, "Well, yes, it says there is prima facie evidence that they broke the FOIA. Which means in the opinion of the HoC committee, it looks, on the face of it, like they did break it." And I sympathise with AQFK's view that the development of the lead shown here is not necessarily reflective of "It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000", or the conclusions expressed in paragraph 104 of the House of Commons document,

• "We cannot reach a firm conclusion on the basis of the evidence we took but we must put on record our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle FOIA requests. Further, we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the nondisclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited."

Was the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee document the most recent word on the matter in June 2010? --JN466 12:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the most recent report/analysis was published by Deutsche Bank on September 8, 2010.[36] I highly recommend taking the time to read the report. It is well written and highly informative, and covers all the relevant issues. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That would have been after the events we were discussing here. But the Oxburgh report (on the unit's scientific work) and the Muir Russell report (on the e-mail controversy) had been out in June, after the HoC Committee report. Both expressed their confidence in the validity of the UEA's scientific work, but the Muir Russell report did criticise the scientists for being "unhelpful and defensive" in response to reasonable requests for information, finding that '"emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Scientists also failed to appreciate the risk their lack of transparency posed to the university and "indeed to the credibility of UK climate science".' That's not reflected in the [37] lead edits AQFK complained about. --JN466 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake -- the Muir Russell report appeared a few days later, in early July. --JN466 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt a banking institution qualifies as a reliable source, but there's only one sentence about the UEA violating the freedom of information act and it's only about the UEA's investigation. In any case, it agrees what I already I said: The UEA's own investigation said that there was evidence that e-mails were deleted to prevent them from being released by FOIA requests. They also said they didn't respond to FOIA requests properly but blamed the university management. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deutsche Bank published a white paper authored by scientists at The Earth Institute and the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.[38] The paper received coverage in the media. Is a white paper written by scientists at Columbia University a reliable secondary source? The source "lists 12 common claims used to argue against global warming and refutes each of them, pointing readers to corroborating sources". Can you show me a single source you've cited that uses corroborating sources? That's a significant aspect of reliability. I don't think you can, as the sources you rely on are composed entirely of hearsay, rumor, and erroneous opinion based on zero corroborating evidence. Your favorite sources like The Daily Telegraph are not more reliable than the opinions of scientists at leading institutions, and papers like The Daily Telegraph have been seriously criticized for years in scholarly journals for their promotion of climate change denial. In fact, AQFK, the sources you cite are contributing to false information in the encyclopedia, which according to the DB report, is "mistakenly shaping public attitudes on climate." According to Reuters, this kind of misinformation has cost the U.S. economy foreign investment, due to the "U.S. government's inability to pass climate change and alternative energy incentive programs". As a result, Deutsche Bank has decided "to look to Western Europe and China to place its green investment dollars."[39] Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

... there was evidence that e-mails might have been deleted ... --JN466 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. In fact, that's what I said here.[40] I usually take more time tweaking my verbiage in article space than talk space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you've been erroneously claiming for six months that "FOA violations were found to be valid"[41] There were no violations. When asked if you understood this the other day on this arbcom case, you maintained that there were violations, and you cited old, outdated, erroneous sources from January in your defense. I don't think you have shown any understanding as to how we use sources or how information changes over time based on subsequent reporting and findings, and your unhealthy obsession with the non-existent FOIA violations shows undue weight out of proportion with the evidence at hand. You are POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the major point I'm trying to make here is that Viriditas is portraying these reports as having exonerated the UEA when that's clearly not the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the kind. The point you're trying to make is that you feel that your job, your mission on Wikipedia, is to prosecute the scientists (whom you refer to as "criminals") for their non-existent crimes, using the worst sources you can possibly find. Your argument is the same as climate deniers like Christopher Monckton. The facts are clear. You've made 1442 edits to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy and you've been instrumental in continuing disputes instead of resolving them. Tell me, AQFK, why is there still a POV tag on the article? Please explain that for us. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Sorry to take so long to respond everyone, real life intervened. As I mentioned above, my concern here focused narrowly on a single point: the sources talk about legal action against the unit itself (separate legal entity) but the article personalises it by referring to prosecution of individuals. At the time of writing the FoF, this appeared to be unsupported by the sources, However, from reading JN466's cogent analysis, I see that The Times covered this precise point and, on closer review, the Daily Telegraph specifically refers to "the people involved" as well. In the circumstances, fairest and best is to remove the diff. However, it remains inappropriate to sensationalise/polarise the matter by describing the individuals involved as "criminals" when the expression doesn't appear in any of the sources.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, thank you for removing the diff in question. The other BLP-related diff is this [42], introduced this way "has helped contribute to the battleground atmosphere by [...] by making an inappropriate remark in discussions about biographies of living people". In that diff, AQFK says (both in the edit summary and on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page: Wow...so the criminals are going to get off on a legal technicality. The link to WP:BLP seems to hint that this is a BLP violation (although it's frustrating to try to figure out just what role you're asserting BLP plays in this since what you're directly stating is that it's a WP:BATTLE violation). I completely object to that. If a crime has been committed, as the sources state, there must be at least one criminal to go along with it. AQFK does not directly identify who the criminals are. This was done on a talk page, and while it's still prohibited to violate BLP on a talk page, there's no doubt that this further minimizes the harm. Finally, the matter is a public issue and it's absolutely understandable that someone would think a six-month statute-of-limitation is rather ridiculous and an outrage (whether or not you agree that it is). So expressing frustration is understandable, as anyone who approaches this in a fairminded way will concede. I think this comment does contribute to a battleground mentality on the pages, but I consider it minimal for these reasons:

• It's not a comment directed at any Wikipedia editors. It doesn't disparage fellow editors even indirectly (as would a comment attacking all believers in anthropogenic global warming)
• It's a comment about subject matter. Editors need to be able to discuss and debate subject matter freely. The edit as a whole is clearly intended to try to figure out what should and should not be included in the article. The statement Roger objects to may be a little bit of WP:SOAP-boxing (not much), but it also seems meant to try to help figure out whether certain information belongs in the article.

I argued near the beginning of this case that WP:BATTLEGROUND is an important issue (so is WP:DISRUPT), and this comment did contribute to the bad atmosphere a bit. But the problem here is that it contributed so little that ArbCom would need a very large number of similar comments to show AQFK's behavior is worth criticizing. Minor contributors to the battleground atmosphere should be included in the ArbCom case, but AQFK's behavior is beneath minor -- it's minimal. It should be understandable that an editor who has participated in this extremely contentious topic area since at least late November will become frustrated. In all that time, what's been brought up is this minor WP:BATTLE violation, one civility violation and another minor civility violation. That's it. Not bad for about 11 months of participation, and not worth an ArbCom finding. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John, are you requesting more diffs showing that AQFK's behavior is worth criticizing? You mean behavior that contributes to a battleground atmosphere, such as personal attacks like this? Or what about the time AQFK put on his battle gear and gave this battle cry, rallying the troops? And, who could forget the time he compared long term contributors with SPA sock puppets? John, you may want to have a look at the archives. There are dozens of diffs from AQFK showing assumptions of bad faith and accusations against his fellow editors, a refusal to listen to or compromise with those same editors, and massive amounts of wikilawyering, all of which contributes to a battle ground mentality. Perhaps, I should spend the next week, adding diffs? Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There's an incredible double standard being pursued here by JohnWBarber. His characterization of AQFK's "beneath minor" transgressions contrasts markedly with his characterization of similar edits I have made. His vigorous defense of individuals that share his POV and vigorous offense of individuals that do not share his POV should be noted by arbitrators, because it is contributing to the battleground atmosphere on this very page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the solution to concerns about double standards is to compare the evidence at various spots on the PD page as well as with evidence arbitrators on this page have said is not worthy of inclusion. That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm sure others are doing it, so I'm sure ArbCom members will do it before the final decision is made. I'll leave it to others to compare your conduct with AQFK's. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be all well and good, but for the fact you've already compared my conduct with AQFK's by going to extraordinary lengths to portray my conduct negatively while downplaying AQFK's. Since we've had very little interaction in this topic, I can only assume your dedicated onslaught is motivated by a personal dislike of me or your perception of my point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To all: I plan on posting an official statement soon, but I'm waiting because there are 3 diffs which require further explanation. However, I will say that the issues here are stale. I was still a relative newbie when I started editing this topic-space last year and because of my inexperience, I did not know that words like "cabal" had negative connotations. I've since learned to avoid using these types of words. In short, I began correcting my behavior around December/January of this year. That's why all these diffs are so old. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement. I welcome feedback and constructive criticism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then how do you explain all the diffs showing edit warring as late as June on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and possibly even more recently? That's battleground behavior. One thing I'm confused about. Somewhat recently, on 23:39, 23 July 2010, you made this comment, saying you weren't around in November 2009. Can you explain? As far as I can tell, your first edit to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy was at 00:42, 24 November 2009[43] and your first edit to the article was two hours later, at 02:12, 24 November 2009[44]. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK's alleged incivility / promoting-battleground-mentalitydiffs

A total of six comments are cited that were "incivil or promoted a battleground mentality":

• In this diff [45] AQFK said: Gwen, you've been told ~7 times now (I believe that this is number 8) that this is an opinion piece. Please stop wasting our time. He obviously didn't get what Gwen Gale was saying. If I didn't get it, I'd be as frustrated as AQFK appears to have been. I don't see the incivility or battleground behavior, however, just frustration and some curtness.
• The second one [46]. OK. Fair enough. It promoted a battleground mentality.
• The third one [47] expresses frustration with editors. I experienced the same frustration and left the article he was talking about several days before this comment was made. The discussion on his talk page is similar to about a thousand discussions on the talk pages of other editors involved in this case. I see frustration expressed, but I don't see anything that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think an explanation is in order.
• The fourth diff [48] Again, I fail to see any vio of WP:BATTLEGROUND. He states that he and others need to take disputes to proper content-resolution or dispute-resolution venues on Wikipedia. It's what he's supposed to do if he feels something wrong is being done. It's an option we're all supposed to have.
• The fifth diff [49] If every editor here actually followed Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy I would agree with you. However, the past 3 months have shown that discussion with both of the two warring factions is, for the most part, completely pointless. Mildly battleground behavior.
• Sixth and final diff [50] A simple request, accompanied by seven diffs of edit warring, asking at WP:GSCCRE that an admin "lock down" the article. I don't see how this is an example of comments that were incivil or promoted a battleground mentality.

In short, the case for AFQK making comments that were incivil or promoted a battleground mentality is unproven except for the second and fifth diff, and the fifth only mildly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm baffled by that last diff. Maybe it was a copy and paste error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Chilling effect: Community-wide findings require community-wide discussion

We have roughly 40,000 editors and over 3 million articles, many of which contain some BLP material. I'm concerned that this FoF, if passed, has community-wide repercussions. If ArbCom rules that editors can be sanctioned even when following our WP:BLP policy, this might have a chilling effect across the project. If passed, any editor can be dragged before ArbCom for making good faith edits that followed WP:BLP. If you make a valid and good faith edit about Barry Bonds and steroids?[51] You can be dragged before ArbCom. Make a valid and good faith edit about George W. Bush and weapons of mass destruction?[52] You can be dragged before ArbCom. Make a valid and good faith edit about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski?[53] You can be dragged before ArbCom. If ArbCom is actually serious about this FoF, then I think that a ruling of this magnitude requires community-wide discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Relax. They'll never pass it. We over-discussed it on this page. Famous last words. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response by A Quest for Knowledge

[54][55][56][57] The first 4 diffs all relate to a single incident that happened over the course of a half a day . Yes, it's true that I edit-warred on a 1RR article over what I thought at the time was a BLP violation. In retrospect, I was naive and took the BLP policy too literally. As a result, I was blocked for 24 hours. I kicked and screamed a bit on my talk page, but I learned my lesson and have never repeated the offense.

[58][59][60][61][62] It's also true that when I first started editing this topic space, I said things that were less than ideal. At the time, I was still somewhat of a newbie and did not understand the nuances of which comments were acceptable and which ones weren't. In fact, I'm still learning. To be honest, an experienced editor should have taken me aside and helped explain this to me. In any case, I changed the tone of my comments around January of this year, and continue to make improvements as I continue to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better.

I'd also like to point out that this improvement spans not just the CC topic space, but across Wikipedia. As evidence, I would like to point ArbCom to the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article.

Example

As evidence of improved conduct, I want to point out the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article. An IP posts a message saying that the 9/11 was a false flag operation.[63] Rather than attacking the IP, I thanked them for their comments and patiently tried to explain our policies on neutrality, reliability, and WP:FRINGE.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] When another editor used insulting language "utter morons",[71][72] I politely reminded the editor of our policies on being welcoming and civil.[73] The editor admitted his mistake, "Alas, you're right. My bad".[74] The IP even thanked me.[75] I then make a few edits on the FAQ regarding the importance of being civil.[76][77][78] The full discussion can be seen in its entirety here.[79]

[80] It's true that I once used the word "criminals" on an article talk page. But this is not a BLP violation. The University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. According to our article,[81] the UEA has a staff of 2,966 people. Not a single person is mentioned anywhere in my comment or even the entire discussion. In any case, this comment was a one-time incident. I have never repeated the remark.

My point being is that I am not the same editor that I was around December/January and that I continue to look for ways in which to improve my conduct.

[82] This one is baffling. I notified the admins of an edit war and asked them to protect the page which NuclearWarefare eventually did.[83] I'm not sure what I did wrong. I wasn't a participant in the dispute, nor was I assessing blame. I simply used an admin board to notify admins of a problem.

In short, with the exception of this diff,[84] - which I don't understand what I did wrong - any issues with my conduct have already been corrected and there is no evidence of any continuing pattern of misconduct that warrants this FoF in an Arbitration Case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Remedy 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedy 3

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

Remedy 4

"William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)". This states, "User:William M. Connolley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change." It does not specify whether or not William is permitted to edit the talk pages of such BLPs, leaving the scope of the remedy unclear. Compare remedy 3.2 for example, which includes the clear statement: "He may edit their talk pages". So, BLP talk pages: yay or nay? --JN466 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Remedy 4.2

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

Proposed enforcement

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

New proposals

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

Archives

Archived proposals can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals.

Proposed finding: Rd232's battlefield conduct

Collapsing for readability, with the tacit consent of the main players.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [85] ,[86],[87] ,[88] ,[89] ,[90], [91],[92],[93],[94], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[95],[96], [97],[98]. Minor4th 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your first few diffs did not check out, so I didn't look at the rest. It is not "edit warring" to revert a disputed edit. Reverting is not inherently bad. In fact, reverting can be good if it improves the article. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure you're correct. When I reverted a disputed edit, once, it was called edit warring and a finding was made in this case. I'm confused. But hold your horses because there are more diffs that I forgot to add. Minor4th 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC) The best example is Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, where reversion is part of the job. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (od) Nothing obviously sanctionable here.  Roger Davies talk 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) That's interesting because some of the diffs were from the same "revert war" in a finding against me, and Rd232 reverted twice, to my once. Can you please remove those from the finding about me if they are not obviously sanctionable -- alternatively, make a similar finding about Rd232. Oh, and I just remembered another couple of edit wars Rd232 was engaged in. I'll grab those diffs too. Thanks for your help Roger Davies. Minor4th 06:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC) No. Yours are evidence of a larger pattern, which is absent in Rd232's case.  Roger Davies talk 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Really? Hold that thought, while I present Rd232's larger pattern. Minor4th 06:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Amended proposed finding: Rd232's disruptive conduct (the larger pattern) Rd232 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. Diane Francis [99]first revert, [100] second revert [101]third revert, [102]fourth revert, [103] fifth revert, :[104] sixth revert, [105] seventh revert of unrelated material, no BLP claim & Rd232 blocked the editor he was in a content dispute with Richard North [106]first revert, [107] second revert, [108] third revert, Christopher Booker [109] first revert, [110] second revert, (I would not call this an edit war - I am citing this only because this same episode was cited as disruptive behavior in a finding about me) Fred Seitz [111] first revert, [112] second revert, [113] third revert, Michael Mann [114] first revert, [115] second revert, [116] third revert [117] added POV tag against CC probation imposed by NW Incivil comments/battleground mentality [118] "this is bullshit", [119] "you're wrong. I'm tired of repeating myself." Minor4th 07:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the extra diffs. These are almost all BLPs which are a special case. My reactions? Diane Francis edit war BLP claim: presumably because of the arguably pointy two children remark. Richard North edit war Not really an edit war Christopher Booker edit war Moving stuff about is not edit-warring. Fred Seitz edit war Not really edit warring Michael Mann edit war BLP claim - presumably because of the incomplete nature of the investigation / WP:UNDUE / WP:NOTNEWS Incivil comments/battleground mentality Only one even slightly actionable diff there. Other arbitrators review these pages and might find these allegations actionable. I'm afraid I don't.  Roger Davies talk 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything much here either. There are appropriate times to revert, the BLP policy being the main example which seems to be much of the case here. "Bullshit" is probably not terribly helpful, but pointing out that circular discussion is wearing and unhelpful isn't what I'd call incivil. Shell babelfish 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC) In that case, the Arb findings and lack thereof are "bullshit." Now, 3RR is out the window and edit wars are A-Ok based on Roger's evaluation of content? Wow. Minor4th 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I'd like some clarification here from the Arbs -- Roger's comment appears to be saying that reverting 7 times is not edit warring as long as you claim "BLP exemption", even if there's no BLP issue. That cannot possibly be what he means. Please, take a moment and look carefully at the diffs in the context of the article, not just the pop-up. Note also that Rd232 blocked the other editor to win the content dispute. Then Rd232 continued to "taunt" the blocked editor on his talk page, despite the fact that the editor had asked R to stay off his talk page. (I'm not inclined to dig up the diffs because they do not seem to be taken seriously.) Then R dug up articles the blocked editor had created and tried to speedy delete them under G5 but was reversed -- so he then took them to AfD. In the middle of a very contentious redirect war, Rd232 disregarded an ongoing merge discussion and redirected the article to user space -- a fully sourced, 54 kb brand new article. (again, no diffs ....). Those diffs above show edit warring -- a legitimate BLP issue may be appropriate to cross the 3RR threshold, but those diffs do not show a BLP violation for the 7 reverts. Yesterday, Roger said the editing was not actionable because there was no "pattern." I revealed the pattern with a variety of diffs across several articles, and now the pattern is not sanctionable because it's appropriate to revert 3, 5, and 7 times and Roger appears to be citing UNDUE and NOTNEWS as good justification to revert several times. Do I really want Rd232 to be sanctioned? No, I don't. I was in favor of a clean slate approach with some strict enforcement of policy. But, if you're going to single out editors based on thin, tenuous diffs (look at ATren's finding and Cla's for example), just be consistent -- you all are applying different standards for different editors, and the appearance is it cuts across POV lines. What about Verbal? What about ScienceApologist? Look again at the diffs used to support the finding against me please. Compare them to the diffs I provided above for Rd2332. This is very unbalanced. Minor4th 17:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Note: the Diane Francis issue is fairly well described at User talk:Rd232#Freakshownerd, including the BLP issue and the FSN block. On the alleged "taunting" which Minor4th declines to provide diffs for - possibly he is taking Freakshownerd's user talk page claims at face value, which is a mistake (FSN's selective removal and editorialising of my comments there can be seen from the talk page history). Rd232 talk 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Minor4th, I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia editors in general want to do the best for Wikipedia, that includes you. I also suggest that admins in general are more dedicated to the good of Wikipedia than other Wikipedia editors. I suggest that Wikipedia Arbitration Committee members can be counted on to be very dedicated to the good of Wikipedia. When many fellow Wikipedians are all telling you the same thing, especially when they are members of the more elite groups that I mentioned, I suggest that it is extremely important to listen to them. Try to better understand their point of view, their goal is the good of Wikipedia. I assume that is also your goal. I further suggest that if we disagree with what we're being told that it is even more important to try to understand because they are much more experienced than we are and they are likely correct. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Bill Huffman, I agree completely that probably everyone here is motivated for the good of Wiki, including me, Rd232, you, Arb, marknutley and WMC. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be here trying to figure this all out. We all have different ideas about how to best serve Wiki, however, and we also all have very strong opinions and are not shy about expressing them -- and we all think we are 100% right, 100% of the time. For what it's worth, I have tried to understand -- I have asked for clarification on many issues and have asked for feedback on my behavior, and I have paid very close attention to everything that has been happening in the case because I am trying to learn and become a better editor. Although the elite groups have more experience, I do not think that always translates into having a monopoly on good judgment or critical evaluation -- on those things, reasonable people can and will disagree, irrespective of the status they have attained. I don't have a problem being wrong or having a disagreement over a finding -- but I would really like an explanation about some of these issues I raised because I cannot make sense of them. Minor4th 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC) For a little tough love, Minor4th, I think some of you need to get more effective at both seeing and presenting inappropriate conduct. When I look at the first series of reverts relating to Francis, it's painfully obvious that the material should not have been in the article. Looking at the source, it says nothing about her having two children, and in fact she doesn't even argue that overpopulation is a big issue with regard to climate change. When an arbitrator reads this as supposed evidence of misconduct by Rd232, it suggests the complete opposite: that you simply do not "get" appropriate editing on a BLP, and not only that, but that you are nevertheless making accusations against people do. Basically, you're shooting yourself in the foot, when you'd be much, much better off asking questions, making suggestions, and trying to learn more about how things work. From looking briefly at the dispute on Christopher Booker I notice that in fact the last edit by Rd232 replaces material which directly states that Booker made an accusation "falsely." If you had focused on something like that, perhaps it could have been misconduct. On the other hand, then Rd232 seems to have seen the problem himself and fixed it.[120] Ultimately, he doesn't come across looking bad at all. You come across looking like you don't quite get the issues. It's tough stuff, not simple, and when you pick fights on terrain where you aren't familiar, it's almost inevitable that you will get into trouble. Get some more experience, I say, and hopefully you can learn how to stay out of the fray in the first place. Mackan79 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Mackan -- please look at my revised diffs on Booker and my explanation below. On Diane Francis -- I agreed with the removal of the bit about two children, as you'll see on the talk page. Whether or not it's BLP, it's SYNTH and UNDUE, and I agreed that it should be removed. The problem is Rd232 reverted that same material 6 times -- he removed the whole paragraph though, and not just the controversial part. His 7th revert and block was unrelated to the BLP issue, and he blocked the editor at the same time, even though the editor had not reinserted the content after Rd232's warning. It's the overall behavior taken as a whole that is problematic, and his subsequent taunting the blocked editor on his talk page and then nominating several of the blocked editor's articles for deletion -- just looking at the individual diffs, there's not enough context. Thanks for your advice though and I will consider it carefully. Minor4th 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe I've misread something in the diffs, but there seems to be an inconsistency in Roger Davies and Shell rejecting the edit war evidence against Rd232 at the Christopher Booker article when two diffs from Minor4th in the same series of reverts are identified as edit warring on the PD finding [121] (see second and third edit-warring diffs) which both Roger and Shell have voted to support. I assume Shell and Roger Davies forgot that they'd voted to sanction Minor4th for the same thing, but it's nevertheless very troubling. It looks like bias (unconscious bias, I assume). I'm asking Roger and Shell to explain what happened here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Glad to explain, JWB. Minor4th's diffs slightly (and probably unintentionally) misrepresent events by presenting them out of sequence. The actual chronological order is: [122] (Minor4th's 3rd diff) [123] (Minor4th's 1st diff) [124] (Minor4th's 2nd diff) As there were no intervening edits between edits #1 and #2, that counts as one revert. So we have one revert of the paragraph (but with a reference added) and one positional revert. That really doesn't seem so heinous to me, especially when they're part of a much larger string of edits which are unrelated. In contrast, Minor4th either moved or removed substantially the same material four times in ten hours: [125] [126] [127] [128] I hope this helps.  Roger Davies talk 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Roger, thanks, but would you please look at those diffs again? In the four you listed, I reverted once. The first diff was my initial edit, removing BLP vio sourced to an article that no longer existed. The second two were part of the same edit, and I was not reverting -- I was moving a paragraph from "Career" to "Criticism". It took two edits to move it because in your diff #2, I accidentally left the paragraph in both sections, so your diff #3 shows me removing the duplicate from the old section. There are no intervening edits between your #2 and #3 diffs. Those were not reverts and they werent removing content. Your fourth diff was my only revert -- after Rd232 came in and reverted me. That was not his only revert, however, but it was my only one. Please take a look again and see if what I'm explaining bears out. See the talk page discussion also. Irrespective of Rd232, those diffs should be removed from my finding. Thanks. Minor4th 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Roger -- you're right that I did inadvertently list the Rd232 diffs out of order, which can be confusing. I will go revise my proposal. And the disregarding Rd232's contiguous diffs, he still reverted twice: The first revert in question: [129], he reverted my attempt to bring the language into NPOV compliance by changing "accused" to "questioned whether" and changing "allegations" to "statements". And he also reverted my paragraph move: [130]. So even if you eliminate Rd232's contiguous edits and don't count one revert because he made some other changes to the content, he still reverted me twice in that time period, and I only reverted once. Taken as a whole, I would not call either of our editing on that article particularly contentious. I think either the Booker diffs should be removed from my finding or they should be added to a finding about Rd232 -- I really don't care which, but either would be fair and consistent. Minor4th 15:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC) In the interest of clarity and trying to be helpful, this is the timeline of the reverts, moves, and deletions noted above: [131] ChrisO added the Pachauri material to the article on 26 Aug at 13:58 (all times will be US Central time for my convenience - rather than converting them back to UTC), followed by 2 minor edits for formatting. [132] Marknutley removes material, WP:UNDUE / Monbiot blog on 26 Aug at 14:11 [133] ChrisO reverts, adds a 2nd source (also Monbiot), leaves blog as 1st source on 26 Aug at 16:24 [134] Marknutley removes ref that does not mention the subject, cites WP:BLP on 26 Aug at 17:07 [135] Marknutley self-reverts, asks ChrisO to revert on 26 Aug at 17:08 [136] IP adds POV material on 27 Aug at 07:28, in 2 edits [137] Marknutley reverts ChrisO's material and IP's material on 27 Aug at 14:45 [138] Connolley reverts Marknutley on 27 Aug at 15:02, followed by adding ref to retraction, removing Monbiot's opinion [139] Marknutley adds OR & SYNTH in-line tags on 28 Aug at 02:39 [140] IP adds POV comment back in on 28 Aug at 06:19 [141] Ocaasi reverts IP on 28 Aug at 06:25 [142] Marknutley reverts back to his earlier version on 28 Aug 18:02 [143] IP restored ChrisO's material on 30 Aug at 11:21 [144] Marknutley reverts, BLP, on 30 Aug at 11:29 [145] Connolley reverts, states no BLP, on 30 Aug at 14:06 [146] Active Banana tags for sourcing on 30 Aug at 14:26 [147] Rd232 restores ChrisO's material, adds Monbiot blog as source, on 30 Aug at 16:05 (1st Rd232 revert) [148] Active Banana tags article for refimprove on 30 Aug at 16:07 [149] Minor4th removes material as marginally connected on 31 Aug at 00:49 (1st M4 revert) [150] Rd232 reverts on 31 Aug at 02:07, added ref, moved, etc, series of 11 edits through 07:57 (2nd Rd232 revert) [151] Minor4th, minor copy-edits, on 31 Aug at 08:41 [152] Rd232 reverts on 31 Aug at 08:53 (3rd Rd232 revert) [153] Minor4th moves it within article on 31 Aug at 08:56 [154] Rd232 removes tag, adds separate tag on 31 Aug at 08:57 [155] Minor4th removes duplicate material that was left from last move, cleanup at 08:56, on 31 Aug at 08:58 [156] Rd232 reverts move on 31 Aug at 09:03, with 1 additional edit (4th Rd232 revert) and violation of 3RR [157] Minor4th reverts on 31 Aug at 09:07 (2nd M4 revert) Clearly Rd232 reverted 4 times, while Minor4th reverted 2 times. 3RR clearly states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." Rd232 is an admin and should know this. I missed that Roger Davies said that moving material within an article is not a revert, so M4 only has 2, instead of 3 reverts. Rd232 still has 4. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I did not consider my first ever edit on that page [158] which you label my first revert to be a revert, because in restoring the deleted topic it added a source, important details, and made a key correction. That's why I stopped at what you labelled my fourth revert - I considered that my third. All I can say is, if as a matter of policy we insist on seeing such edits as reverts, we encourage the distinction between constructive editing and edit-warry reverting to collapse into meaninglessness, which encourages WP:GAMEing. This lengthy list is an example of placing simplistic rule above substance: Minor4th once deleting and twice moving a paragraph to the wrong section is treated as equivalent to my substantive revisions. Rd232 talk 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC) PS There are substantially misleading inaccuracies in your list. this is no "minor copy-edits", it's a substantial change in meaning incompatible with WP:V, and the deletion of a sourced and highly relevant detail; and without any edit summary I might add. What you label as simply "Rd232 reverts" (supposedly my 3rd) is actually a partial reversion, taking on board part of the changes Minor4th made (shortening the quote), with an explanatory edit summary. This makes a difference not so much for counting reverts, as for the overall point being debated, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Rd232 talk 10:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Regards. I would hope that you can see this as it was intended, as helpful and meant to clarify the matter. I thought that the isolated diffs did not lay out the matter in a easily understandable way and that this would help. I considered that to be your first revert because the material had been added, deleted, added, modified, etc. previously, and you had come in and reverted the previous deletion. The source that you included had already been in and out of the article also. I counted Minor4th's first edit as a revert also, trying to be fair on how it was laid out. Even if we consider what I labeled as Minor4th's minor copy-edit (and I would hope that you agree that reasonable people can disagree), he just has 3, because as Roger Davies pointed out, internal moves are not considered reverts. I was not intending to start a battle over this, just to lay out the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Fine, I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but there were significant errors; and whilst reasonable people may disagree, a close examination of that edit, especially knowing what the sources say, prohibits "minor copyedit" as an accurate summary. Incidentally, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong about the Monbiot source having been in the article before I got there, but when I came there from BLPN I didn't see it in the history (I still don't, but I may not be looking hard enough). Rd232 talk 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ChrisO posted the blog source on his first post here. GregJackP Boomer! 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) GJP, Sorry, I do just not agree with your analysis, in particularly your revert numbering. The context here is everything: Rd232 appears to making a good faith attempt to address various article problems; Minor4th appears focused entirely on one aspect. (I'm still utterly bewildered why the retraction of the Sunday Telegraph's article should justify removing commentary about it. Although it's gone from their website, plenty of mirrors exist and the Sunday Telegraph is a newspaper of record so full archival copies will be available in librairies.) Just to clarify, any edit can be edit-warring. The reason why moving stuff about didn't count as a revert was because there was no intervening edit. Apologies: I should probably have spelled this out more.  Roger Davies talk 14:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC) No problem, I am not so petty that I think that everyone has to agree with my analysis (although things would be better if I were God, Emperor of Dune). I agree that the fact that the article was removed does not mean it should not be commented on, and my analysis of Minor4th's edits was that it was a question of where it needed to go, and whether Monbiot's blog was an appropriate source. I don't have an issue with a FoF on this for Minor4th based on his actions, but it is based on actions and not intentions, and if there is a finding on him, the actions of Rd232 are identical and call for a similar FoF. When you attempt to judge intentions rather than actions, you are in a position of assuming good faith on one editor and bad faith on the other editor, which can appear to be biased. It is far better to address this evenly, judging actions equitably across the board. JMO. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your additional comments,  Roger Davies talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I'm also curious why we allow negative information to be added to a BLP without being impeccably sourced. I have found no source that used the term "falsely accused" and it did not appear in the Sunday Telegraph article, nor anywhere else. Why would removal of that term be considered anything other than good faith editing to improve the article? GregJackP Boomer! 17:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Slightly strange question to ask - the only person who removed that specific term was me [159]. Others were removing the entire paragraph. And whilst the term is technically correct (it was an accusation, it wasn't true), it can be read as implying the accusation was made knowing that it was false. That's why I removed it, as I said in the edit summary. [Thought: is such a detailed post mortem of this one editing issue really necessary for Arbcom?] Rd232 talk 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (od) This one looks pretty much as if it's run its course as far s substantive material is concerned. I'll collapse it tonight or tomorrow.  Roger Davies talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I agree. I think everything that could possibly be said has been said. Thanks for hearing me out. Minor4th 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I haven't been able to follow up on Roger's explanation. I haven't had time to check into the edit history and still don't fully understand it, but I don't want to hold this up, either. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Additions (Venezuela) If evidence of a pattern is needed, some more diffs of personal attacks, edit warring, POV pushing, and failure to AGF can be found at: User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Rd232. The personal attacks have diminished since I started keeping diffs, but the tendentious editing and creating of entire articles that overrely on one partisan source continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Oh Sandy! Apart from being irrelevant (completely different topic), that genuinely hurts. I've put a lot of effort into trying to make less use of the source you object to, purely because you object to it - not because there's anything wrong with it (as demonstrated by lengthy RSN discussion). Rd232 talk 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC) In fairness, I did note that the personal attacks have diminished (recently); however, the tendentious editing and failure to AGF continues (which is beyond the scope of this particular case, so I won't add evidence here). I stopped keeping diffs when your behavior improved (and others simultaneously worsened), but I can't deny that I see a pattern, specifically in terms of "collective blocs of editors" trying to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki pillars on the Chavez articles, now that others have presented that here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC) As someone familiar with that page, I do not see the problems that SandyGeorgia does. If she believes that better sources are available then she should provide them. I have never seen another editor present the same level of hostility to a subject than she does to Hugo Chavez. TFD (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I have presented reliable mainstream sources in spades, but you characterize the OAS, European Parliament, Wall Street Journal, Economist, CNN, the New York Times and UPI.com (and *many* others) as a fringe, TeaParty view that SandyGeorgia is presenting, and say I have never presented mainstream sources and my sources are "opeds" (a charge repeated by unsuspecting new editors who end up blocked)-- hence, the similarities in battleground, and collective blocs of editors using mere numbers to overrule Wiki sourcing policies who are involved in these cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC) If there are diffs showing the same kind of behavior on non-CC pages as can be found on CC pages, the diffs would help show a general pattern that I think ArbCom would be very interested in. The behavior Roger Davies has said (elsewhere on this page) that he's interested in seeing editors provide evidence of follows, generally, this pattern on the PD page: [Editor] has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff], inappropriate use of sources [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff]. Diffs that fall into these descriptions or others found on the PD page will likely get some careful consideration by several arbs. But it is going to take diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) <sigh> ... if you insist, but I regret having to spell this out when it's already documented above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Rd232 at Venezuela articles Rd232 furthers a battleground mentality at Venezuela and Hugo Chavez-related articles, where a collective bloc of editors use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's NPOV and sourcing policies, fail to AGF, make personal attacks, cleanse the article of highly reliable sources critical of Chavez, and edit war, which results in a toxic environment that encourages new editors to engage in same, and has maintained the entire suite of articles in a POV state for more than four years. For general problems of collective behavior, see User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles. In Rd232's case, because he is an admin, other editors believe this behavior is acceptable on Wiki, give up and leave (too many to name, but they regularly show up on my talk page pleading for help), or model it across these articles and have been subsequently blocked (see User talk:ValenShephard). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Personal attacks You are a malicious and manipulative editor of the highest order It is sadly ironic that Sandy is pressuring me to either fuck off into retirement or take the semiretirement tag off, given that I largely semi-retired because of her harassment. Unfortunately, she is incredibly good at it. Unsolicited messages and emails of support from people who have had similar issues with her on unrelated topics have made me feel less alone; but also more exposed. People seem scared to take her on - and it's bloody obvious why! (The prolific sockpuppet who followed me to Venezuela articles and apparently e-mailed him is now indeffed.) that's both ludicrous and yet entirely typical of Sandy This alone should tell people who do not know Sandy's dark side that there are shenanigans here. prolonged personal attacks, including: "Sandy's crazy talk discussion I read all about the controversy between you and her. She is really a crazy person ...", "I just wanted to thank you for the constant harassment by SandyGeorgia you put up with ..." Failure to AGF Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests Given the tenuousness of the links and the gravity of the insinuation, an editor of your experience cannot possibly pretend that you do not know *exactly* what you are doing - which is to seek to discredit anyone writing about Venezuela in a way you don't like. Battleground I believe it to be true that you are conducting a smear campaign ... you are conducting a concerted campaign Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser! Ah, sweet, innocent Sandy suddenly has no idea why anyone would seek to connect a US person who has written about Venezuela (amongst other Latin American countries) to the Venezuelan government, and in particular to Chavez, a person she considers a dictator and who is a self-professed socialist - a very dirty word in the US. No idea at all. (Note, I would be interested in a diff where I said Chavez was a dictator) you think you should get your way by voicing your opinion loudly enough and frequently enough, and accusing any who disagree of all manner of bad faith. Actually producing evidence to support your arguments is too much like hard work, is it? Snarky edit summary while reverting to install original research Snarky edit summary while removing reliably sourced text (in fact, Mark Weisbrot was co-writer of South of the Border (film) Other Rollback to revert an edit that is not vandalism or BLP vio: [160], in fact, multiple reliable sources indicate Mark Weisbrot is pro-Chavez, and he was the co-writer of South of the Border (film), a pro-Chavez Oliver Stone film. This is not a BLP issue because of the strength of the sources. Romero, Simon (May 18, 2008). "Chávez Seizes Greater Economic Power". New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2010. Mark Weisbrot, a Washington-based economist who is broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez's economic policies, ... and "Polls: Support for Chavez government falling". USA Today. March 18, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2010. ... Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies. and Film's website BLP vio at Manuel Rosales, Chavez opponent forced into exile: [161] [162] Edit warring To be continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Not that this stuff is uninteresting, but it is going pretty far afield of the current conflict about Climate Change. It seems that Venezuela and Hugo Chavez ought not be discussed here and now. You seem to have voluminous evidence that could be brought to WP:RFC for the community to look at it. Might that resolve the problem? If not, you could start a separate arbitration afterwards. This case is already overloaded with too many parties and issues. It seems unlikely that this stuff is going to get through consideration, nor that Rd232 would have a fair chance to respond in this forum. Keep in mind that voting on the proposed decision is well underway. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I'm happy not to continue (heck, it's a lot of work) ... but Roger mentioned no pattern, I see a pattern, I put up one link to show this has occurred elsewhere, someone asked for specific diffs, so I put up diffs. If arbs want me to continue, I can, otherwise, I've got plenty to do elsewhere. The Chavez problem isn't going to be solved, though, because admins won't touch it in any dispute resolution forum, precisely because it's such a big mess and they don't want to get involved, but TheFourDeuces can always be counted on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the input, Sandy. The difficulty, as John mentions, is that this isn't directly relevant to this case and certainly incivility on this scale hasn't occurred in it. The Committee is usually reluctant to support tangential background findings.  Roger Davies talk 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Roger, and I'm sorry for the excess detail, but someone asked for specific diffs. I'm happy to leave it, since Rd232 is only one piece of a very big problem, and this felt like targeting him, when he has improved. If anyone wants to cap this off, fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Comment: I think the quality of Sandy's evidence can be seen by the fact that (a) she quotes somebody else addressing me on my talk page as if it was a personal attack from me (b) cites what she claimed to be a BLP vio at Manuel Rosales, but is now happy to have in the article. Beyond that, there were specific circumstances in Feb this year (the vast majority of diffs are from 16-18 Feb) relating to what I saw as Sandy's concerted effort, along with some others, to link a couple of people (notably Mark Weisbrot) who present a non-mainstream media view on Venezuela with the Venezuela Information Office (VIO). VIO was a US PR office of the Venezuelan government, and obviously a connection would influence perceptions of the people's credibility (and given the persistence despite weak to no evidence it was hard to avoid feeling this was the intent), in a manner which might affect their livelihood. This got very heated (with OTRS involved), but eventually the debate did manage to reach a conclusion, and Sandy and I even managed to put the thing behind us and be civil and cooperative (notably at Talk:Eva Golinger). I'm extremely disappointed that she brings this up (a) here and (b) now. The degree to which I thought we'd put this behind us (after substantial airing at ANI) is illustrated by my deleting in May of my record of Sandy's behaviour [163]. Very, very disappointing. Rd232 talk 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: Verbal's battlefield conduct

Verbal (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality[164],[165],[166],[167], [168],[169],[170], [171], [172], [173]

Minor4th 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Verbal's conduct is disruptive and contributes to a battleground atmosphere. He frequently engages in edit-wars, often with solo drive-by reverts, and without discussing issues on the talk page. I was about to organize some diffs myself[174][175] but I see that someone else beat me to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Explanation of diffs because I would really like Arbs to understand why this is a problem in context -- these are all drive by reverts:

1. [176]- Verbal reverted 6 edits by ATren to restore Hipocrite's version on Lawrence Solomon after Hipocrite had already reverted 3 times. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert in POV labels of this skeptic BLP. ATren attempted to address Verbal on the talk page, but Verbal did not respond or otherwise comment or explain his reverts on the talk page. (July 10)
2. [177] Verbal reverted Kelly Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted 1 time while on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 5)
3. [178] - Verbal reverted SlimVirgin on Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted and while WMC was on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 3)
4. [179], [180]-Verbal reverted Minor4th twice on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming back to WMC version after WMC had already reverted. Verbal disregarded the talk page discussion and did not make a comment until a day later. (August 21)
5. [181] - Verbal reverted marknutley on Anthony Watts (blogger) following 1 revert by WMC while on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. The WMC and Verbal reverts were removing reference to The Hockey Stick Illusion as a reliable source. (July 20) Verbal reverted marknutley two other times to reinsert COATRACK tag on July 16 [182] and July 19 [183] and did not engage in comments on the talk page until warned after the July 19 revert. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert.
6. [184] -- Verbal reverted on Fred Singer to KDP's version after a series of other reverts. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert. Verbal made no comment on the talk page and made no explanation in edit summary.
7. [185]- Verbal reverted GregJackP on Robert Watson (scientist) following 1 revert by WMC when WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made (WMC did not initiate talk page discussion when he reverted on this occasion). Verbal disregarded GJP's explanation of his edit on the talk page and Verbal did not explain his own edit on the talk page other than "obvious reasons" after the fact. This was part of a revert war that was made a finding in this case.
8. [186] -- Verbal reverted ATren on Hockey stick controversy after 1 revert by WMC while WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate discussion on the talk page for any revert he made. Verbal did not particpate in editing the article other than to revert. Verbal made no comment on the talk page and no explanation in edit summary.

Most of these drive-by reverts were to revert back to WMC version when he was on an editing restriction and had already reverted. All of these articles have BLP issues, except HSI. In each case, Verbal did not participate in editing the article or engaging in discussion on the talk page to try to resolve issues. Minor4th 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got duplicates in your list of diffs. Please clean up your evidence and make sure it supports what you claim. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Minor4th 07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: I've begun working on my own FoF regarding Verbal. It's in my user space here.[187] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors of interest

As we continue to work through individual findings, we've noted that a number of editors have been mentioned in discussion here as having problematic battleground behavior. We would welcome suggestions for proposed findings using the model seen in the most recent additions here. Though by no means exhaustive, in alphabetical order for no particular reason and for everyone's reference some of those mentioned have been:

• ChrisO (talk · contribs)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs)
• GoRight (talk · contribs)
• GregJackP (talk · contribs)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs)
• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)
• KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs)
• Lar (talk · contribs)
• Marknutley (talk · contribs)
• Polargeo (talk · contribs)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
• Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
• ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs)

Shell ^babelfish 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit in the area. My only actions are that of a bouncer trying to break up a brawl. I think it would be best to separate the involved from the uninvolved for the sake of clarity. I believe the only sysop action I have taken was to issue a topic ban to WMC. This was lifted after some discussion, and then WMC wisely volunteered to cease editing in the area pending ArbCom posting a decision. Otherwise, I organized a voluntary recusal by about 15 editors. Not sure what I've done that could be construed as battling; a referee usually doesn't get called for a penalty (though often people on both sides will dispute some of the referee's actions, quite passionately.) Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would add :

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) for edit warring, battleground: [188], [189], [190],[191],[192],[193],[194],[195]
• Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for edit warring, battleground : [196]
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) for incivility [197]

I will add more diffs later. Minor4th 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What is that single Rd232 diff supposed to show? Whatever it is, I'm not seeing it. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really supposed to show anything -- it was the beginning of what ultimately was a collection of diffs. See the section above with the proposed finding. There you will find the diffs for this user. Minor4th 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest adding

• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) for completeness
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs) whose sole purpose in being here seems to be to run down Cla at every opportunity.
• dave souza (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• FellGleaming (talk · contribs) who has been involved in GS/CC/RE requests
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) whose administrative actions have not been without controversy.
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) who has had recent accusations of bias and involvement levied
• Ratel (talk · contribs) who has been cautioned for disruption, and who was running a string of socks at one point
• ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) who is recent but seems to be quite partisan
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) who is mentioned below for excessive clerking/hatting, and who has contributed to the battleground atmosphere.
• Viriditas (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant

to your list ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also add

• Verbal (talk · contribs) See prior discussion on this page: [198] Minor4th 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is shaping up to be a list of everyone who edits in the area. There's a reason for that. The editing environment is so toxic, one cannot edit in the area for more than a handful of edits unless one is aggressive. A closer look will reveal that some are aggressively trying to enforce policy while others are aggressively violating it. Minor4th 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time and ask you to remove some of the "skeptics" from the list, but I don't think Count Iblis should be on there. Perhaps the evidence shows otherwise, but he seems reasonable to me. The others make some very good suggestions, but I think it is diluted somewhat with the inclusion of editors with less behavioral issues - I don't blame them though because the minimal threshold for such behavior seems quite low in some cases. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove Jehochman as well. He has certainly said and done things that I disagree with, and I have no love for the man, but I don't think his behavior needs to be addressed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would of course agree that I am reasonable :) . However, what we can also do is look at the contributions of a large fraction of all the editors who have been heavily involved in the CC field to get a better understanding of the sources of the problems, what provokes bad behavior, what kind of restrictions would work best etc. etc. For this you also need to look at editors who have been heavily involved in the CC area and have behaved in a good way. I would suggest adding the following editors:

• Awickert (talk · contribs)
• ATren (talk · contribs)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Minor4th (talk · contribs)

and the old-timers:

• Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Ed Poor (talk · contribs)
• SEWilco (talk · contribs)
• Sm8900 (talk · contribs)
• Blue Tie (talk · contribs)
• UBeR (talk · contribs)
• Tjsynkral (talk · contribs)

I.m.o., it is very important for ArbCom to look at these old-timers. This puts the present conflicts into a better perspective. Looking at this shows i.m.o. that the source of the problem is the entrenched position of sceptics that climate science is fundamentally flawed, which clashes with the opinion of other editors who treat climate science as any other scientific topic.

You'll also see that Andrewjlockley had been pushing views suggesting that the consequences of climate change may be far more serious than the consensus view suggests. His edits were based on bad science and poor understanding of what sources say. This led to the "pro-science faction" (most of whom are active today) giving Andrewjlockley warnings see here and also in later sections on his talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We also had one chap earlier this year on Talk:Global warming saying the article was flawed because it didn't have anything about the Amazon rainforests bursting into flames, which he seemed to have read on some website or other. He got really upset when we said we weren't going to include such unsourced nonsense. I was never quite sure he was serious. --TS 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He might have been referring to another one of the IPCC's errors about the Amazon being massively more vulnerable to forest fires/drought from global warming (some insane figure from greenpeace I think). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was WWF, based on peer reviewed research. The nonsense came from a Sunday Times journalist who grossly misrepresented the facts and sought to blame the IPCC. The newspaper also misrepresented the words of a scientist they sought out for comment. According to the Press Complaints Commission, whose decisions carry regulatory weight in the UK, the newspaper has acknowledged this and published a correction and apology.[199]. --TS 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Based" on peer-review research isn't the same as actually being peer-review research. I haven't looked into details about that particular case, but I've looked at their other incredibly stupid errors based on pamphlets from various advocacy groups and if that history is any indicator then their claims were quite ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. The Sunday Times has publicly acknowledged that WWF's claim that "up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall." is in fact supported by the scientific research. --TS 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is getting off-topic then hat the conversation - beginning with your comment. In any case I'll link WUWT's article on the retraction. It is clearly a ridiculous claim anyway, challenged by scientific research (in the article) - if someone thinks global warming is going to screw over 40% of the Amazon then they should demand a refund for the time and money spent educating them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cited the Press Complaints Commission, you have cited a blog. It seems appropriate to leave it there. --TS 19:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Tony, I linked the article so you could read it and judge its merits rather than evoking an argument from authority. We aren't writing an article here so it is okay to read the blog. But hey, since you didn't read it then name the peer-reviewed paper that the 40% claim was based on. You say it is peer-reviewed so name the paper, the author(s) and the journal. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll admit if I am, and you now have an easy way of doing it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else in this thread, GoRight (talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely banned. I do not think that we should discuss sanctions without offering the right of reply. If they appeal the community ban and return to problematic editing, WP:AE should be able to handle it even without explicit mention in this case. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the information.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, the subject of this comment appears to have been editing very similarly to GoRight and was clearly causing the same level of frustration to other contributors due to tendentious editing and wikilawyering (see also the other comments that the subject made on that version of the page). I'm a bit surprised at the limited evidence that was presented on this editor - evidently, the evidence does exist even in diffs like that, and editors were frustrated by the behavior (eg; on that version of that page, see where someone else says "But that's the end of my patience; one more accusation from you and I will have a LOI due to unpleasantness of working with you"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"The editing environment is so toxic, one cannot edit in the area for more than a handful of edits unless one is aggressive." This is the culture, but it isn't necessary. The alternative is to be bureaucratic: strictly adhere to policy, try to gain consensus, and if others seriously violate policy then take it through the proper channels. Especially don't criticize others except as required to make very specific requests about what you are certain needs to happen. It's isn't impossible to be professional, it's just very difficult and not immediately rewarding. However, it becomes easier the more ArbCom does to clean things up. Mackan79 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping on topic

In response to the desire expressed here to broaden the scope of the findings, Shell posted a request for draft FoFs. She and I are happy to review them and include them in the proposed decision if appropriate. However, little of the response has been usable. Instead, we've seen (i) endless meta discussion about areas that ArbCom is unlikely to touch and (ii) lists of potential FoF candidates that we simply do not have the time or resources to research from scratch. So, if there is someone is clearly missing, and a FoF would be appropriate, please post a draft, supported by good unambiguous diffs. The FoF should focus on obvious examples of battleground editing: incivility, blatant POV-pushing, dubious reverting, edit-warring etc. There's zero point in dwelling on content.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: It's been a lot of work, but I've created FoF for Stephan Schultz and KimDabelsteinPetersen as requested. I've also created one of my own regarding Tony Sidaway. I've begun working on some more FoFs but they're mostly stubs. I'm getting a little burnt out so I might leave it to other editors to work on, not sure. They are available here: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Climate_change_Proposed_decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for stepping out of the peanut gallery, but in light of There's zero point in dwelling on content, could you expand a bit on sourcing? There's been a great deal of discussion lately on "inappropriate use of sources" which has even made it into two of the proposed FoFs. From what I've been reading on the talk page here, it seems like the sourcing disputes are content related. Or, at least it seems nigh impossible to prove anyone is deliberately misusing a source. If those items remain in any FoFs, could ArbCom expand on Principle 11: Sourcing, or add an additional principle to explain 'inappropriate use' of a non-content nature? --InkSplotch (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In a sense, it's all about content: few of us are here for purely social reasons, the purpose of getting involved is to build the content of an encyclopedia. Roger Davies' list above includes 'blatant POV-pushing' and 'dubious reverting', but there are many people here who will say, "I wasn't POV pushing, they were" and "My revert wasn't dubious, but theirs was". The only way to decide on these points is to look at the sources for, and the notability of, the content in question. I don't see how this can be settled without some view (implicit or explicit) on the content. --Nigelj (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz

Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct

Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206], including edit warring [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] , inappropriate use of admin privileges [216] and comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [217] [218] [219] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mudflinging to me - indeed this proposed FoF looks like scorched-earth battlefield behaviour itself. Are you ready to defned those diffs you've put up? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've looked. Even unwrapped, they still look like mudflinging. Hopefully, arbcomm will judge you on that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that ArbCom was the one who asked for a FoF regarding StS, I doubt that will happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct (Alternative wording)

User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[220][221][222] participated in several edit-wars, including BLPs,[223][224][225] editing to make a point,[226] [227][228] and inappropriate use of admin privileges.[229][230][231] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Detailed explanation

User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated edit-wars, including edit-wars regarding contentious material to BLPs, editing to make a point, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Incivil Comments "Oh, not all of them are idiots. And only the better ones are honestly clueless." "Talking about the stupidity/idiocy/yahooness of Wikipedia editors in general is an opinion, not a personal attack" "Trigger-happy, stubborn, misguided, and uninterested in the difference between form and content, yes. Biased, not very. I'd say about 1e-17 micro Lar. Of course a Lar is a unit where an object with a full Lar of bias has to rotate at near light-speed to avoid collapsing into a black hole from the sheer weight of it" Editing to make a point [232] Stephan Schulz, an involved admin in the CC dispute, disruptively posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section for an RfE. [233] This was then moved to its proper place. [234] Schulz then falsely accuses Lar of being disruptive for moving his comment to the correct location. [235] A Quest for Knowledge asked Schulz if he is intentionally posting in the uninvolved admin section. [236] but Schulz responded with a less than helpful "Ummm....?" [237] which he then changed to an equally unhelpful "What....?". [238] Then, Schulz disruptively posted a second comment in the uninvolved admin section knowing that he's an involved admin, and daring uninvolved admins to edit war with him. Edit-warring to include contentious material in a BLP (Fred Singer) [239] Participates in edit-war to include a BLP violation sourced to a blog. Participates in long-term edit war to remove "environmentalist" from Lawrence Solomon article [240] Removes "environmentalist". [241] Participates in edit war at Lawrence_Solomon - Removes "environmentalist" Edit-warring at Lawrence Solomon article [242] Yet another edit war at Lawrence Solomon. Removes external link. Note: StS rationale about EL may be correct. But he still shouldn't edit-war over this. [243] Does it again. [244] Does it again. Misc [245] Protects Phil Jones (climatologist) to preferred version[246] claiming dubious BLP violation.

Proposed FoF: ScienceApologist (SA) disruptive editing

SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that SA's editing needs to be reviewed. While you are at it, please look into the editing by 99.141.241.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) who has also been a cause of concern in the venue. There is background info at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal. See the info that was emailed to functionaries-en today. I believe most of you (arbitrators) subscribe to that list. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you were referring to arbitrators being subscribed to that mailing list, Jehochman? It is a restricted list so most other readers/editors of this page would not be subscribed. Risker (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ScienceApologist merged and redirected the two web sites to Anthony Watts (blogger), in these edits he also expanded the Watts article four-fold by 19,000 bytes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What info was emailed to functionaries today? Minor4th 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the functionaries list. Its for sensitive information not suitable for wider dissemination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I didn't know -- and if it's so sensitive, why would Jeh be on here telling everyone to go read it? Minor4th 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume Jehochman's exhortation was addressed to the active arbitrators. --TS 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. My entire comment was addressed to arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 08:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As the only editor to agree with Marknutley at the time, please see my comment (Sept. 8) why, on balance, I think it was unnecessary to split this information from the article in the first place. It may help explain why ScienceApologist acted boldly and moved it back. [247] Wikispan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. --TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[248] It was discussed mark nutley (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention was that the WUWT article is currently in the queue for Good Article review. SA should have known that when he redirected it and the Surfacestations articles. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not properly discussed, as "Blimey, that was quick!" on the talk page rather indicates. And no: putting an article up for GA does not shield it from editing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article candidacy does not supercede normal editorial process. Jehochman ^Talk 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, it was in the GA queue, and not under any active review. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If an article is in such a state that it's a position to be good faith nominated for good article status, it doesn't shield it from normal editing, it does shield it from being boldly redirected. Unless there is evidence the good article nomination was in some way made in faith on an article/subject that didn't otherwise merit it. It is obvious to any reasonable editor that doing that would be opposed, so discussion should have absolutely been first.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also in the middle of peer review. Minor4th 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:BOLD is not some kind of shield that let's you do whatever you want with no repercussions in every situation. While we often appreciate someone just going ahead and getting the job done, there are some situations where it is quite obvious that isn't going to help and this was one of them. Unless SA can give some evidence that the GA nomination and peer review were being done in bad faith this was purely disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:BOLD sort of is a shield that lets you do whatever you want - once. If other people don't like it, then you can't keep doing it. That's the rub. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not is it? I couldn't go redirect Obama to Presidents of the United states and expect no one to say anything. As I quoted on AN/I (keep in mind Bold is a guideline, not policy to start with), it repeatedly instructs users to be careful. ...but please be careful Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." Redirecting an article that is in a good faith state to be nominated for good article status is reckless and too bold, plain and simple.--Crossmr (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist Has been highly disruptive within the CC related articles.

He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP

1. [249] Inserts the pejorative Denier into a BLP claiming the three sources are peer reviewed.
2. [250] User:Wenchell changes it to sceptic (note edit summary) and SA reverts Denier back in

The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [251] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [252] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [253] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [254] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [255] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them.

The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling.

He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations

1. Creates redirect without discussion [Surfacestations]
2. Creates redirect without discussion on an article currently up for GA status Watts Up With That? A highly disruptive move.

After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess [256] please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a pity to have another section on this - oh well, I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel in order to validate their existence. The claims of disrutpion are groundless. At Watts, SA was bold, but didn't edit war over it. What he did was reasonable, but people didn't like it, so it has been undone. There is nothing wrong with that. There is already an ANI thread over this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:ScienceApologist which says much the same.

Surfacestations is an even clearer case of SA doing the right thing. Because, as I've said in the previous section, MN / Cla are being deliberately deceptive by failing to mention that MN demerged it with no discussion only a little while ago. So MN's position, as I understand it, is taht he may make controversial demergers with no discussion, but anyone undoing that demerge is obliged to discuss endlessly before taking any action. The problem with that reasoning is obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To be completely clear, what he did has NOT been undone. Only the 2 redirects have been undone, not the 23 related changes to Anthony Watts (blogger). Q Science (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Q Science, are you saying that the edit weren't undone because they were good edits, or are you saying that they were bad edits and still need to be undone? SA WMC, could you please strike "I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel in order to validate their existence." That's the sort of thing that will turn into a diff in a finding against you. If you strike it, then it probably won't be used that way. Jehochman ^Talk 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SA can't, cos *I* said that (I did sign, but then QS rather rudely interjected, so it isn't obvious) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just responding to the content of that paragraph. [To everyone] What I am saying is that the edits merged 3 article together. When the redirects were removed, the merged content was not removed. As a result, the same data was located in separate articles. (After my post above, there was an edit war to fix this. The old text was restored 4 times by IP editors, no less. ClueBot removed the changes twice.) This is not a matter of good or bad edits, but of claims of whether the disruptive changes were "undone". At the time I posted that, they were not "undone". Q Science (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well with the different threads about the same thing I guess I'll make a comment here, if in the wrong section please feel free to move it to the correct location. MN said he was removing himself from this, at least that is my understanding. If I am correct than why is he starting this thread at all? Second, if I am correct, MN also is the one who started both of these articles so again why is it he that is bringing this complaint about another editor? From what I could see SA did do the redirects stating that he was boldly doing it and was reverted. He didn't undo the reverts so where is the problem? As for him adding more information to an article, other editors have since edited and not one removed what SA added, so again, what's the problem? Something needs to be done about the socking going on since I just saw this which is astounding to me. I've seen a lot of the confirmed socks of this editor at the SPI cases. That some of the long time editors to these articles can't seem to see that these new accounts and IP's that just 'appear' out of the blue are socks are not believable to me at this time anymore, sorry. You can help remove the socking by also reporting the socking or you can hide your head in the sand and make it look like others have a vendetta against, heck, I'm not sure what to call it anymore. I put on the AN/i a request to close the discussion there because of the threads clogging up this page about SA. I think these multiple threads about the same thing in multiple locations also needs to stop. I think they should also be closed/hatted. Suggestions from arbitrators? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am posting here because i am constantly mentioned here. I have withdrawn from CC articles, this is not a CC article. I posted the above findings because SA has deliberately misrepresented sources in a BLP, an error he refuses to admit to as he continues to insist they call a BLP a "Denier" and that they are peer reviewed, none of which is actually true. I added the most recent disruption as nobody else had added it to a proposal. There is no need to hat this, it just needs to be moved to the proposed findings section and left for the arbs to decide on a course of action mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Per ArbCom's request, I've begun working on FoF on the editors of interest. However, I cannot do it all by myself. I've started working on one regarding SA in user space.[257] Please help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP policy in the manner expected of an administrator

• User:NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator. [258]

I am not that familiar with NW, and don't know if this was a blip, or part of a larger pattern, or indeed if arbitrators would agree with me that NW vocally defended a blatant BLP (and WP:SPS) violation here. But I think it is worth bringing up, even if only to correct any misunderstanding on my part. If anyone is aware of similar incidents involving NW, please propose diffs to be added. --JN466 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. NuclearWarfare wasn't alone in his view of that particular dispute. One of the other reviewing admins, The Wordsmith (talk · contribs), commented: "I think this issue isn't a clear-cut BLP violation, but a content dispute." Another reviewing admin, BozMo (talk · contribs), suggested a simple solution to the dispute, and concluded that he was "a bit disappointed that everyone went for the mattresses without much attempt to find a compromise text. But I think this is at heart a content dispute where some constructive approach from both sides would help."

  In fact, of the 5 admins reviewing this request (see permalink), 3 saw this as a content dispute without clear BLP violations (NW, The Wordsmith, and BozMo). One (LessHeardvanU) suggested topic-banning all climate-change ArbCom participants, which may well have been a good idea but did not address the BLP question directly. And one (Lar) castigated KDP and William, stating: "I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation."

  Given that a majority of the reviewing admins didn't see a BLP problem here, it seems grossly unwarranted to single out NuclearWarfare, and even more unwarranted to berate him for "failing to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator". It seems more like people looking at this just weren't as convinced as you that this was a major BLP violation, as opposed to a more garden-variety content dispute. I don't think we need to elevate isolated disagreements over gray areas to the level of proposed findings. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If Prof John Abraham had wanted to publish his presentation here on Wikipedia, it might have been a BLP issue (we'd have had to review all his sourcing very carefully indeed). But he didn't; it was published by his University. Stating the fact that it was published there is not a BLP issue - it certainly was published there, and it certainly was very critical of Christopher Monckton. To the extent that that act of publication was reported here, it wasn't a BLP issue. There could be notability or due weight questions to discuss, and like NW I would suggest removal or refactoring of the clause, "rebutting all of Monckton's claims". --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Except it wasn't "published" by the university, it was published by the professor himself. SPS are not reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I've always understood WP:SPS's injunction, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources (emphasis in the original) to be one of those bright lines that you just don't cross. NW argued at length that WP:BLP did not apply to everything in a BLP, only to material that is biographical in character (verbatim: "Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met."), and I disagree with that interpretation. As far as I am concerned, everything in a biography is biographical, and I found that line of argument very disquieting. Let's make no mistake about it: the self-published presentation that was at the heart of this dispute, and was included as an in-text external link, was a self-published hit piece aimed at the BLP subject. I found the other admins' responses just as worrying.

    The relevant part of WP:BLP is, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. The dispute was about an external link to a self-published attack piece. --JN466 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    • Is the slide show currently used as a source in the article? I don't think so. That being said, however, as MastCell pointed out, NuclearWarfare was not the only admin to state that the slideshow might be ok as a source. Unfortunately, since then NW has edited that article and made comments to influence content on that article's talk page. I believe that NW is no longer an uninvolved admin in the CC articles because of this. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, NW's argument was that because it was included as an external link, it wasn't being used as a source, and therefore could be included. NW said, "This is not a source of material about a living person, even though it is in a biography.", which struck me as logically flawed. (Here is one of the edits where the presentation was added to Monckton's BLP. Other diffs can be found in the discussion linked above.) NW also argued in that post, "Therefore, normal WP:SPS rules apply, which this qualifies under as the material is self-published by a notable academic and scientist", which contradicts the categorical injunction in WP:SPS, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. --JN466 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The External links guideline, which is referenced in WP:BLP ("In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline."), states: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. The attack piece was first introduced as a ref citation, and later on as an in-text external link.
      • So the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, and I don't see them reflected in NW's argument. --JN466 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that what I wrote has been misrepresented, but I am not interested in getting involved with this at this moment in time. If Arbitrators do want to look into this and propose a Finding of Fact/Remedy, then I ask that they read the situation in its original context, as linked by Jayen466 in original comment and as I will relink now. Could the matter please be left to the Arbitrators? I don't think anything is served by refighting these disputes. NW (Talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Arbitrators please note that NuclearWarfare also blocked User:Marknutley for edit-warring that day at the Monckton BLP. Marknutley had claimed WP:UNDUE and the BLP exemption to remove the self-published presentation, removing it three times that day: [259][260][261].

As far as I am aware, NuclearWarfare did not warn or block any of the editors who edit-warred to keep the link to the self-published presentation in the article. In my view, justice was not done that day. --JN466 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The material Marknutley had edit-warred over was finally removed by an admin (Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs)) more than one month later, along with other material, while the article was locked for editing. Scott MacDonald claimed BLP exemption to make his series of edits while the article was locked:

• "wow - that type of format is hardly a disinterested way of recording info on a contentious BLP. Yes this is protected, but I've removing this under WP:BLP"
• "whatever else, this violates WP:OR and is unreferenced - removing per WP:BLP"
• "stubbing - BLP material with long-standing neutrality and WP:UNDUE concerns. We err on the side of removal until we are confident of policy compliance. There's a prima-facie case this is not." This edit removed the paragraph about the self-published presentation that Marknutly had tried to remove one month prior, until he was blocked by NuclearWarfare. --JN466 11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) I have been following this discussion since it unfolded and find myself broadly agreeing with Mastcell's comments. Quite apart from that, the guiding policy here is probably the "not perfect" one: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I would incidentally make the observation that Scott MacDonald, an admin for whom I have the very greatest respect, is something of an expert on BLP, has played a major role in the community's discussions on the subject, and is unafraid to make controversial BLP calls.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept Doc's judgement on that subject; I learned to trust his judgement and his mettle in the early days of the BLP when sometimes it seemed impossible to give the policy the teeth it needed. I don't agree with him on this occasion, actually, because I see no BLP issues at all in the expert critique by Dr Abraham of Christopher Monckton's claims (I only wish I could say the same for Monckton's utterly ridiculous mud-throwing response). But the Abraham critique is just one of many and it isn't so important. I don't find it surprising that other good admins can disagree with Doc on this matter. --TS 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, Abraham's presentation is self-published, and we do not permit editors to link to self-published criticisms of BLP subjects, even if the author is a a well-known professional researcher or writer. We either apply this policy consistently, or invite never-ending strife.--JN466 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Roger. MastCell said it was perhaps unfair to single NW out. I disagree that it was unfair; of all the admins involved, NW was the most vocal in stating his view that including the external link to the presentation was not a BLP violation, and it was he who blocked Marknutley for removing the material under BLP. In combination, these factors amply justifies devoting more attention to his actions than to those of the other admins.

The policies and guidelines quoted in green above clearly and unmistakeably direct that the link should have been removed: nevertheless, it was the editor who removed the link who was blocked. Nothing undermines editors' trust in Wikipedia's impartiality, and the fairness of admin processes, more than admins allowing BLP policy to be disregarded for some BLP subjects, while strictly upholding it for others. It has a corrosive effect and engenders feelings of hopelessness and despair. It contributes to a breakdown in civility, to accusations of a cabal, and to a battleground atmosphere. These are not trifling matters.

It should also give us pause for thought that if an acknowledged BLP expert and admin removes the material from the locked article, claiming BLP exemption, he is accorded respect; but if Mark performs the same edit, citing the same BLP exemption, he is reverted and blocked, with his reputation permanently sullied. Again, these are no small matters for an editor. Is there something you can do to give him some redress here, perhaps in the finding of fact related to him? The block log including NW's block is cited as evidence against him.

As for NW, this may well have been an isolated incident on his part. I have not made a study of his admin history in this area, and no one to date has come forward with documentation of any similar incidents. If that remains so, your reluctance to make an FoF and remedy on an isolated error in judgment is understandable and generous; but the same generosity of spirit has so far not been extended to Mark. --JN466 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: NuclearWarfare to cease BLP-related admin actions in the Climate Change topic area

• NuclearWarfare should cease carrying out admin actions related to biographies of living persons, and should not comment as an uninvolved administrator in BLP-related arbitration enforcement discussions in the Climate Change topic area. He may participate in such discussions as an ordinary editor. --JN466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare stated that "Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong." If NuclearWarfare still maintains today that this view is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, then this remedy unfortunately appears necessary to prevent a repeat. --JN466 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: KimDabelsteinPetersen has engaged in disruptive behavior

KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] and policy-violating or inappropriate edits to BLP articles [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283].

I added a few more diffs of edit warring to those that AQFK had compiled showing Kim edit warring at the Climate Audit article declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You might offer the arbitrators [284], [285], [286], [287], etc. for review, with respect to the Monckton BLP issue. --JN466 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? Is it invalid to discuss issues? As far as i can tell, these talk-page comments are from July 2010, and i haven't been editing the Monckton article since April 2010. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim, why did you argue for the use of a self-published slide show as a source for adding negative or pejorative information to the BLP of an AGW sceptic? Article talk pages are where content disputes are usually decided, so you know that your comments there could very well have an influence on the content of that article. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the comments i made? (the links) They explain it quite well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC) nb: i rather dislike your "have you stopped beating your wife" style of questioning, it is rather obvious that several admins and other users disagree with you on your take of this particular content. Could i entice you not to do so again? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the Climate Audit diffs, where Cla68 claims i "declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place":

Climate Audit was merged by Atmoz on Feb 5, 2009 without objections[288]. Then split and remerged again on May 3, 2009 (with discussion here). Finally it was split again on April 25, 2010 by Nsaa[289], with discussions here, and an AfD was created by Nsaa[290] in what i would describe as an attempt to filibuster/force the article into existance during the AfD - The final result of the AfD was[291]:

The result was keep. Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

which was again discussed on talk, with one side arguing that it must mean (singularily) keep, and ignoring the discussion part of the closing admins decision.

Basically the article has been merged into Stephen McIntyre for over a year, when Nsaa and Marknutley decided that this shouldn't be so. Attempts to move the discussion to Talk:Stephen McIntyre unfortunately failed (here fault can be put on all participants). I've reverted back to the redirect 3 times (May 5, 2009; April 25, 2010; and May 4, 2010) which are the 3 diffs given[an apparently very very slow editwar]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim, Atmoz first redirected that article without discussion and then he and WMC reverted to keep it redirected. Can you show me where in this thread there is consensus for the merge? I can't see it. After the thread, you and Guettarda edit warred to keep it redirected, with you falsely claiming a consensus. When marknutley brought up the discussion again, you again claimed this nonexistent consensus. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this diagram. When something stands uncontested for over a year, then it becomes the consensus. Bold is fine - in fact it is important... Atmoz was bold, and no one contested his redirect. But as i said in the edit-comments, it is bold-revert-discuss - not bold-revert-revert-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The next 5 diffs are on Phil Jones where people were inserting "alleged theft" instead of "stolen" about the emails. This is (imho) a significant POV violation by the people inserting it - there is no doubt, and there wasn't at that time either, that the emails were stolen. Even in the hypothetical case where they where "found" on an ftp-site, or "leaked" by an inside source, they were appropriated by data-theft. This was discussed at the time on several articles, and most of the people involved were aware of these discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Has it been proven in a court of law that they were stolen? If not, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to adopt a wording such as "alleged theft". Jprw (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What is determined in court, is not the act of theft, but the guilt of theft. If you steal the Mona Lisa, and you never get caught, then there will never be a trial, but that doesn't make it an "alleged theft". The material was appropriated from the legal owners, and distributed without consent of the owners - that is data-theft, nothing alleged about it. (unless you go out into conspiracy theory, and propose that the CRU themselves leaked the material - but that is a theory that i haven't even seen on sceptic sites - a whisleblower perhaps, but that would still be data-theft) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that unless it is 100% conclusive and there are no grey areas then as WP editors we should still be reserving judgement by using a hedge word like "alleged". Jprw (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The next 2 diffs (i'm assuming that the last one is mislaid?) are reversions of content that Cla68 inserted, i explained the reversion here. Summary: Cla68 inserted content that failed verification when i looked up the references given (which was hard - since Cla68 doesn't give links in his references, despite the content being available). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The "policy violating" edits, seem all to be from S. Fred Singer and are in the same category as the previous discussion on Monckton. It is controversial, and opinions are very much split, every time the issue surfaces. It leads to a question, that i would have loved to have on this ArbCom case, since it is pertinent to a lot of issues raised, but it seems that ArbCom is not going to look into content-issues:

Is or isn't all content in a biography, no matter whether it is biographical or not (ie. about the person), under the strict rules for WP:BLPSPS.

The content in question is critique of a report that Singer was part of. Notice that only the Realclimate part in these diffs seem to be a problem, since the first part is reliably sourced to ABC News. If ArbCom is going to rule on this, then they should be aware that they are taking a policy decision, which they at the beginning of this case, ruled that they would not. Again: I'd love for this issue to be resolved, but then ArbCom will have to take a discussion and a stand to this particular grey-zone. [I won't be able to comment during the weekend, since i'm on a family reunion]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_discussion_of_a_person.27s_work_.22material_about_a_living_person..22 seems to be the most recent incarnation of this particular issue. Please note that i'm not saying that my view on this issue is correct, but rather that this is a grey zone where no resolution so far has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any grey zone here at all. WP:SPS is very clear: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.. The lead section of WP:BLP clearly stakes out the policy scope, and WP:BLP is furthermore absolutely clear on what to do about contentious material from self-published sources: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources ..."

It is impossible to argue in good faith that someone's self-published statement in a blog that "X's writing is rubbish" is (1) not contentious, and (2) "not about X". --JN466 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The grey zone lies in the interpretation of "...as third-party sources about living persons" (and the "about" part is deliberately there (see various discussions on BLP-talk). This isn't about a living person, it is critique of a work written by living persons. As for the "X's writing is rubbish" - well that isn't what the text said.... But lets analyze it a bit: Does the critique raise a red flag? No, there is a mainstream source that is significantly harder in its critique. Would the text be considered a BLP violation if it occurred in a regular article (in the same context)? No. (otherwise we could never present negative reviews of published works - since mostly such are written as opinion) Is the source one of those that are excempt in the SPS guidelines? Yes, it is written by subject matter experts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I put it to you that this is only a grey zone in your mind, because you cannot resist the temptation of using a blog or other self-published source whose POV you agree with. What is the problem in sticking with reliably published sources for contentious material about the value and integrity of someone's work? --JN466 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is rather rude isn't it? I presented a link to a discussion that states that this isn't just something "in my mind", and this is rather similar (but not completely) with the Abrahms case, discussed above. But anyways - you've presented your viewpoint, and i've presented mine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And the arbitrators have presented theirs: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Use_of_blogs. --JN466 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Kim, please contrast and compare your sober attitude here about the use of reliable sources to add neutral information to Lawrence Solomon with your actions above in which you used blogs to add negative information to another BLP. Do you see, on reflection, any contradictions or discrepancies in your reasoning? Also, I take it you don't agree with this outside opinion from a BLPN regular on your interpretation of the sources I added? Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you stand by your assertion that the sources failed verification, why didn't you answer this question? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Because i already answered the question? (the line just before Alex's question). And yes, Cla, i do still stand with my assertion that the sources failed verification - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Now don't get me wrong here, i consider both yours and Alex's input as valuable - but calling Alex Harvey a BLP regular, and his comment "outside opinion" is like calling WMC uninvolved in the climate change area.

Context in the two situations are quite different, so they cannot be directly compared. As i've said before: Context is everything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arb Votes Analysis

Arb votes on editor sanctions. Summary, please edit as acceptable

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

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

No, not even close. I am so disappointed in ArbCom (so far, I suppose there's a chance for redemption but my confidence in the committee is shaken). In fact I'm disappointed in the whole Wiki. The bullies who have made this topic area a hellish place to edit are getting rewarded for making it unbearable for the rest of us. Good luck getting new editors in here and good luck getting any new uninvolved admins -- great message being sent -- take a stand against blatant and persistent Wiki policy violations and get topic banned or asked to refrain from taking admin actions. What a complete and total waste of time this has all been. Minor4th 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not over yet; however, the current votes seem to be carelessly imbalanced in fair standards application. If this continues, many disputes may be put back to the admins and newbie admins ... to be bitten by the bullies. The arbitration process just delayed things. I don't believe it will be a waste of time. Folks have matured in this process, no matter how it turns out. For myself, my own voluntary climate change restriction (since I applied before the General Sanctions, which i did not trust to protect my content contributions) has taken away from content development. I look forward to the ArbCom close, so I may focus time on articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No doubt they have. However, whose accounting the bodies left behind in the wake of climate change progress? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Happily for my biases, I was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong about what? WMC, will you agree to a voluntary remedy now to withdraw? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong about Kirill, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In a different analysis, I don't mean this to suck up, but I think that Carcharoth's vote statements at P 4.1 (Collective behavior of blocs of editors (alternate)) and at P 10 (Undue weight) are absolutely beautiful articulations of what should be learned from this process. Well-said! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A principle for edit warring

I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.

For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues).[292] Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.

I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.

It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would solve anything. It may well encourage people to make more contentious edits using dodgy sources, knowing that such material could not easily be removed. Something like one edit a day (whether adding or reverting) might be better -- you get one shot, so you need to do your best with good writing and sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that this is an unwritten (or poorly written) rule that could use clearer articulation. Over the years, reverts have become progressively less acceptable, but the standards are unclear. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But also the problem I often see is an assumption that a smaller number of good editors can overcome a larger number of bad editors simply by reverting more and then having the wiki-bureaucratic complex come down on their behalf. This may have worked at some point, but I don't think it's a long term solution. The risk is that you will get the opposite: bad editors will revert more (because what do they care about Wikipedia anyway), and then you don't have a clear rule to deal with it. My hope would be that by strongly discouraging multiple reverts (as ArbCom always ends up doing), you force real consensus seeking which may be cumbersome but, optimistically, is more structurally aligned with good editing. Anyway, I'm also just curious what principle ArbCom would present if they presented one. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the existing content policies are good enough? If what you add is well-sourced, relevant, notable, within due weight, etc. then if someone deletes it, that is unlikely to find consensus in sensible discussion (WP:BRD). The problems start when you have people who specifically want to 'level the playing field' either by adding lots of fringe stuff, or by removing well-sourced mainstream material, to make a point. It is easy enough when there's only one or two, as consensus is clearly against them. When you get a whole vociferous horde, it can be difficult to sort the sensible from the activist. When they start to adopt all of the arguments ever used against them ("I'm not a fringe activist, you are", etc) it gets messy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "relevance" and "due" are based almost entirely how the info casts the AGW theory and the involved players. All someone has to do is actually edit the area in an NPOV manner to see that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To properly reflect scientific opinion, you need to have about 50 times more on the consensus version than on diverging opinions, whether counting by competent scientists, published literature, or by competent organisations. We already overrepresent pseudo-sceptical positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems, based on my experience, that some editors feel that they are supposed to be ensuring that the "truth" is presented in the CC articles, the truth being what they believe on the topic. Thus, it doesn't matter if the information in question is supported by a reliable source, it gets reverted, then the editor gets told on the article talk page that they don't know what they are talking about, know nothing about the science, and that their proposed addition is "fringe", "psuedo-science", and/or "undue." Revert warring is a symptom, not the core problem, of what is taking place in the CC topic area. The core problem is that a bloc of editors is continuously violating the spirit and letter of WP's policies with the "ends justify the means" goal of keeping the CC articles "on message."

Arbitrators, one thing you will notice about the non-BLP CC articles is that one bloc of editors is constantly engaged in removing and reverting reliably sourced information from them [293], using a variety of rationales, often along the lines of what Stephan said above. The reverts usually begin around 0700 United Kingdom time. You can almost set your watch by it. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting example, Cla68, while Pearce as a source is generally good, the statement you added is inaccurate – you put "simplistic" in quotes, but it's a word used by Pearce and not by the subject of the article who you appear to credit with the term. It's also a simplistic reading of Pearce's brief opening note on "main players", and is better examined in light of pp. 28–31 of the book. Oh, and your info was reverted back in by what may be a SciBaby sock, as commonly seems to happen. . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, if it's really only about "properly reflecting scientific opinion," then why does this bloc of editors remove and revert so much information from non-science articles, like Watts Up With That? [294] [295] [296] [297]? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a "bloc" now? Please check the edit comments, misspelled as they are. How is [298] removing information? And who said that it is "only" about properly reflecting scientific opinion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is "Watts Up With That?" a non-science article? It appears to be a website devoted to putting forward [fringe] views on science. . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave souza brings up an important point in that there is no sharp boundary between "science" and "non-science" articles. The non-science articles often are used as a way to present minority views unimpaired by reference to the majority view. This violates WP:NPOV, which states that even in articles specifically devoted to minority views "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also perhaps behoove the arbcomm and/or the community to come to some resolution about what to do when BLP concerns conflict with fringe concerns. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that a finding on edit warring addresses a larger concern in the CC articles, which is constant civil POV pushing and over- over- over-arguing over settled points. The best example I can cite involves Climate change alarmism and the attempted use of a paper co-authored by WMC, over his protests, to prove that global cooling "alarmism" was a problem in the 1970s. This was a straight-up instance of WP:SYN, and it was settled on AN/I in the context of an action against one of the editors involved, but it still[299] is being argued on the article talk page. Some editors have a "never say die" attitude that complies with the spirit of civility rules while actually undermining settled policies. The lengthy volume of argumentation over these points, a sampling of which we saw earlier on this page, has the effect if not the intent of "wearing down the opposition." That was one of the first things I noticed about the CC pages, months ago. See[300], "too much talking."ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotty, this is not the way to respond to new arguments and new evidence (see "GregJackP's inappropriate use of sources" section above). If the new arguments and evidence hasn't already been addressed, calling for the end of discussion is contrary to maintaining a good working atmosphere here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. I don't see anything materially "new" in that discussion thread. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be difficult to post diffs for the past edits that already refuted the points I and others later made. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic, Mackan79 wrote, Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. All true, and every one of us knows it's all true. Perhaps arbs should have a principle on this ("edit warring" is listed in the "Disruptive editing" principle 12 right now, but that's it). I don't think minor cases of reverting should be in the findings of fact section because we then have Wikipedia dangling the temptation of reverting to editors in emotional situations (where their strong beliefs and what may be hours of previous work is at stake), with admins ignoring the conduct for many months and then ArbCom swooping in at the end and issuing a sanction. Certain admins and editors will then use the findings of fact in the future to disparage these editors. Does anyone disagree with any part of this scenario? In other words, Wikipedia sets up a trap for editors who edit in any contentious area. ArbCom can help Wikipedia avoid entrapping editors by looking the other way on the less egregious reverting (I haven't looked at all the new evidence on that, so I don't know whether the newer Fofs on editor misbehavior already do that.) Other than doing that, and perhaps a separate finding about edit warring, ArbCom can't really do anything and I doubt the community ever will. Maybe the solution is for editors to try like mad to stay out of the most contentious fights, which is a kind of "heckler's veto". Maybe that's the nature of a self-governing wiki. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom could be clearer about the principle it applies, at least. In a similar case it presented the following:

Edit-warring

4) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Assuming this remains the case it would seem sensible to say it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I would add something like Administrators are encouraged to enforce Wikipedia:Edit warring policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this addition, "Editors who revert or remove reliably sourced content are expected to suggest alternate or compromise wording on the article talk page before making further reverts of the same material. An absence of such attempts at compromise may be considered as evidence of a violation of the spirit of the policy on edit warring even if the letter of the policy is not broken." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree with the old Jimbo edict: if something is unsupported, then don't wait around for discussion, just remove it. In theory compromise should come from everyone, in the sense that someone adding material can just as well come up with a compromise if another editor articulates a reason for removing it. You may have noticed Nigelj suggests the opposite presumption, against adding contentious material, below. I think this is why there generally hasn't been a presumption toward removing or including, simply a principle that you should resolve disagreements through discussion and not through reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) However, sometimes the issue is that content, even if reliably sourced, has no place in the article. Compromise is often the right answer, but not always. We don't want to tilt things to a direction where people add 2x the amount of content they actually want in the article just so they can compromise their way down to what they actually want. NW (Talk) 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan79. People who remove or add controversial content repeatedly are expected to discuss their concerns on the article talk page. Otherwise they risk being seen as violating the policy on edit-warring. It's always been that way. I don't see any need to grant artificial and "special" status to adding content, vs. removing it (or vice versa) - that's just going to be relentlessly gamed. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NW, I disagree with you, and perhaps your recent involvement in the topic area is to blame. We don't assign to one group of editors responsibility for ensuring that articles on a topic are weighted a particular way or reflect a particular balance of views. That's not how the wiki works. We're all supposed to work togethter to build these articles. If the resulting article represents compromise wording from many different viewpoints, then the wiki is working. It's just that one bloc of editors, from what I've observed, rarely attempt to suggest alternate or compromise wording when they revert material they disagree with [301] Actually, WMC did propose alternate wording here. It seems they just want it gone completely if they don't agree with it. If you're an editor who has just spent 30 minutes putting together and adding some new, reliably sourced content, it can be very frustrating, and, of course, may lead to increased edit warring. If it is made clear, and enforced, that any editor who reverts sourced information must suggest a compromise on the talk page before they revert again, it will establish that cooperation, compromise, and collaboration is the expected behavior in the CC articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC

It's well known that a requirement for compromise encourages each side to stake out increasingly extreme positions -- see e.g., Overton window or argument to moderation. Rather than compromise, we should aim for principled agreement based in policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean that POV editors will argue from an extreme in order to try to game a compromise which favors their position? It seems to me that if that occurs it would be very easy to see which involved editors are working from an agenda and which ones genuinely want to reach a compromise and get these articles expanded and improved. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Boris, MastCell and Mackan. In any event, the best that can be done here is for ArbCom to encourage enforcement of the policy on edit warring (which would help slightly). Once we see which editors are working from an agenda -- what then? We can see that now. I think the more cunning, diehard editors will game it and the more impatient editors, both agenda-driven and not, will get caught up in not suggesting a compromise. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Principle on edit warring, continued

I think the opening premise of this discussion, that "often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all" is quite mistaken. It's normal to revert disputed edits and I'm aware of no arbitration case in which this has been presented as at all problematic. It's what happens after a dispute is identified that matters. --TS 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There certainly has been edit warring and that needs to be addressed. But I think that this is one part of a larger problem of general fractiousness, POV pushing and inability to edit cooperatively in these articles, the "never say die" attitude I mentioned earlier. One concern I have is that clamping down too hard on edit warring will give an edge to editors who want to add questionable sourcing and content. As others have noted, removing text can improve the encyclopedia as much as adding, depending on the circumstances. I can't speak to previous Arbcom practice, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have been unclear, but I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything stronger than the very common principle seen here. Consider even WP:Revert:

Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's hard to draw a line, but considering that WP:BRD is well supported, I think it's a misconception that to prohibit revert warring bolsters inclusion over exclusion; if anything the strictest interpretations tend to start on the next revert where someone replaces material. Besides that, do good content contributors really revert more often within any dispute than agenda pushers? I doubt that, but especially I'd think they could learn not to. Mackan79 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble relating that to the CC articles. Both sides in any given CC dispute feel they are "on the side of God" and standing forthright for Wikipedia principles. I've noticed that overt edit warring tends to be addressed pretty quickly via page protection, and then, for days or even weeks, we have gridlock of the kind we've seen in the Climate change alarmism article over the use of the WMC paper. Gridlock, "I didn't hear that," misconstruing of policy and endless bickering is the more serious problem, because it is more commonplace and harder to address. I keep returning to the alarmism article because it is a realtime example of this problem. Some arbitrators themselves were swept into the maelstrom, and had the pleasure of personally experiencing gridlock first-hand. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Noise and heat

I don't find it helpful that the "usual" disputants are making accusations back and forth at each other. This just adds to noise and heat. It might be useful for arbitrators to ask the disputants to stop mooting proposals, and instead request uninvolved editors to review the situation and add proposals. Jehochman ^Talk 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a section up above for "New proposals". I propose that the most recent new proposal be moved up into that section. That would help avoid the "I want to be at the bottom of the page where everyone will notice me" problem.

Re noise and heat: there is a desire to have the last word (of which I'm guilty too). Arbs (clerks?) could help avoid this problem by stepping in and saying "OK, we've heard enough on this issue from the current folk" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't say that I have followed this very closely, but I find it odd that the Proposed Decision talk page has been allowed to be utilized in this manner at all, doubly so that voting is now underway. Why were the usual avenues of Workshop and Evidence pages not sufficient? Tarc (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they were shut down last month. See here. Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The best thing anybody can do to lessen the noise is to minimize their own unnecessary interactions on this page. The next best thing is to encourage those who are willing to refactor discussions and to terminate unproductive repetition. I think A Quest For Knowledge has the right idea, formulating proposed findings off-page and coming back to post pointers. But by-and-large I think those who are likely to attract further sanctions in this case are demonstrating the reason why by the way they interact on this page. Food for thought. --TS 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure that's something the arbcomm wants. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Lengthy_evidence_and_sub-pages and the discussion on that case's PD. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He has been careful to ensure that we're informed of what he's doing, and he has in fact invited collaborators. I think his work has been the better for being performed away from the heat of this page. --TS 14:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the arbiters have invited new proposals for findings, the implication is that anyone interested in the outcome should spend time preparing such proposals. My own habit is to prepare work up to a point in a text document, though I've not started on this yet, would it be preferable for me to similarly start subpages and invite collaboration? This sounds rather like a fragmented workshop page, developing in various editors' own subpages. Presumably those concerned should be advised of the proposals and invited to contribute their responses, which could lead to a very lengthy process. Is a deadline proposed? . . . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the request for proposals was by way of a hint that the endless squabbling on this page is unproductive and that actual proposals are preferred. --TS 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There's still going to be a need for any proposed findings to be analysed or contested by those accused, and subjected to wider community scrutiny. Interestingly, I find that AQFK's rather selective proposals include a section for me, though he's not bothered with raising it on my talk page. Presumably the open invitation above means he wants me to participate in editing that proposal and perhaps adding others. Somewhat tedious, guess I'd better do that. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm not a fan of this whole "the community does the arbitration" idea. Arbitrators are perfectly capable of performing the requisite analysis in private and posting their decision. Arbitration is pursued only when community processes have irretrievably broken down, so getting the community to make a meaningful contribution in arbitration is always an uphill struggle. At best, workshops and the like have a therapeutic effect; at worst they provide a playpen for the parties to hurl rocks at one another while the arbitrators observe and, if appalled enough, issue strong sanctions. --TS 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. Asking us to provide for new FoF on the rather narow issue of "who started what edit war", is not what we need. That's why I tried to change the focus by providing the list of previously involved editors, so that one could get a better idea of some of the inherent problems in this area. Some problems are clearly quite universal and cannot be resolved by issuing topic bans. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that this arbitration is veering towards the rock hurling type, more than it is cleaving to the therapeutic ideal. --TS 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that when you wrote this, Tony,

In mid-2009 some people were sanctioned for disruptive editing in the Barack Obama topic area, and it seems that some of them migrated from that area where they couldn't continue their hostilities to climate change where they took up the cudgels again. It might be useful to include a finding on this, because it shows how the behavior of the people in question might apply across several topics and perhaps need broader sanctions.

and then listed me first, making it look like I was sanctioned in mid-2009, and then labeled everyone you listed as engaging in some vague "vendettas", and then neglected to make a detailed case with diffs, much less a proposal (which would have fallen apart regarding me because my behavior here violated nothing), you were in the unproductive mode you colorfully describe. Am I not correct? This page is set up to talk about ArbCom proposals and we've been invited to propose some. If you have a case to make against me or anyone else, make an actual case pointing with diffs to actual behavior in CC articles. Other than doing that, here's a recommendation for you and everyone else on this page:

Don't comment on behavior or even provide evidence unconnected to a concrete proposal that can then be examined -- productively -- in detail.

I think that's a fair enough principle that anyone on this page can follow to keep this page productive, less noisy and less hot, right? If you wanted to bring up two-year-old sanctions, avoiding vague, disparaging comments on behavior in the CC topic area would have been the way to do it, not producing a list of editors and attaching vague aspersions to them. I think when we get down to specific diffs and evidence, discussion tends toward rational discourse and tends to be less incendiary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

John, the reason I listed the first three usernames in the order Noroton (your other username), Thegoodlocust and ScJessey is because on the sanctions log I was transcribing from those names appear at positions 11, 13 and 31 respectively in the list of sanctions for disruption. Later in preparing the comment for posting I recalled the banned editors, ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 and added them to the end of my list. All of you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and all of you subsequently migrated to the climate change topic area, and it is painfully noticeable that a degree of animus has been imported to this topic area thereby. I have proposed that the committee might want to make that a finding. One username had to appear first and that happened to be Noroton, your old username, simply because it was earlier on the list than the others. --TS 04:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In substance, you were hurling rocks with largely moderate-toned language. If an editor has repeated on the climate-change pages some specific behavior from past blocks or ArbCom sanctions or other sanctions, it's constructive to point that out to show a long-term, ongoing problem. Vaguely stating that a bunch of editors had a problem a year or two ago is not going to help ArbCom with anything, and the high-heat to low-light ratio should be obvious. But that fact is obscured by your declining to offer a proposal or even a diff. You said "animus has been imported to this topic area" but you give no proof of it at all. I know of only one case of it, and even there it's a very minor sidelight, and it was already brought up (with diffs). I'll just point out that disparaging other editors while refusing to provide proof is one of the behaviors at the heart of WP:NPA, and that it's being done on an ArbCom page doesn't excuse it. Your response is evasive and repeats the behavior I complained about. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I made an observation based on a sanctions log, which I cited. The personal animosity resulting is, and was at that time, already the subject of proposed finding 19. Please moderate your tone. --TS 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your observation included a listing of several editors, not just the editor mentioned in Finding 19. "Vendettas" was plural. Except for one editor, you cited nothing to back up the idea that any other editors had "animus [that] has been imported to this topic area". Please withdraw the allegation, refactor your comments and we can drop this. (Alternately, provide evidence against other editors.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we try to compose some FoFs to highlight more general principles, causes, or sources of conflict, but more incisive than the current Locus of dispute and Nature and extent of dispute? --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could we all agree that the current situation is unpleasant, and think about ways to make it better for everyone involved, regardless of their POV? Basic principles:
  • Don't make any content edits that you know would upset somebody else (rightly or wrongly). Instead, use the article talk page to seek consensus. If the talk page reaches deadlock, as frequently happens, use WP:3O or WP:RFC at an early stage to get input from the uninvolved.
  • Respect the result of any such outside input, whether or not you agree with it.
  • Maintain high standards of civility. Do not cast aspersions at other editors. Do not pretend to know other editors' motives.
  • Do not request sanctions against any other editors. Instead, if you are concerned about their editing, find an uninvolved party, state your concerns, and let the uninvolved investigate the matter. If there is truly a problem, they will see it and file a request for enforcement. Tit for tat enforcement requests are extremely counter-productive.
  • Keep all remarks brief and to the point.
  • Let bygones by bygones. </endSermon> Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Simpler version; Wait a bit - you or your idealogical opponent may be blocked, restricted or otherwise sanctioned, so there is no point in wasting effort edit warring now. If neither you nor your idealogical opponent is ultimately blocked, restricted or otherwise sanctioned there is a good chance it will never happen... so you really ought to practice that collegiate editing environment thing that crops up every so often, as something of a "Good Idea". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see something that distinguishes between the addition of badly-sourced, fringe or undue-weight material and it's removal. Of course the person adding will want to argue that it's well-sourced, everybody in his rifle-club agrees with it, etc, but responsibility should fall heavily on anyone who re-adds something to an article after it's been so challenged. Does that hit a nail squarely, and is there a way to word something like that in proposed Arb-decision language? --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that proposal would just tilt the game into being one of altering the articles by careful removal of text rather than addition. What I'm proposing would be a sort of beefed-up WP:BRD maybe. --Nigelj (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sock investigation

Hi, I have found two IP's that appear to be the same person participating at Anthony Watts (blogger). Since they may be socks of one of the parties to this case, I am reporting them here, as suggested by the SPI submission system. If this is the wrong place, please move this request.

Users:

• 96.45.189.230
• 72.20.28.54

talk page diffs:

• [302]
• [303]

Nearly identical contrib history. Post nearly identical unsigned comment to talk page then perform the same edit to article. The edit itself is not necessarily problematic, but the socking certainly is, as it evaded the 1RR rule on the page. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, geolocate to very differnt areas (different countries - Fullerton, CA vs Ontario, Canada), different ISP's. Proxies maybe? Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian one is for blackberries I believe. Anonymous IP vandals aren't a huge problem though - obvious socks screwing around on ArbCom pages are. Of course, Ratel was an obvious sock, but if any of us had reported him then we'd likely have been blocked for "disruption" or something. Oh well, at least we have the high road. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratel was an obvious sock - how so? I certainly had no idea (or even a suspicion, and from what i've seen of the case, not even a chance to notice/suspect). But to preempt: If people sock (against rules) - then good riddance - and Goodbye! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He is an extremely shrill and ideological wikilawyer who thinks he is saving the world. Rules don't apply to people like that. WP:BEANS for the rest (not that it matters).TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

TGL, remind me again, which Wikipedia articles are you currently working on or have been working on, in let's say, the last six months? Any at all? Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So is this the 8th or 10th time you've asked me that Viriditas? I've already asked you to quit harassing me so I won't bother to repeat myself. I'd ask an admin to ban you but you share and tirelessly promote the House POV so that'd be a pointless gesture too. So I guess I'll wait for the next exciting installment of baiting "civil" POV pushers and cowardly admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratel was fairly open about being an agenda-driven editor [304] [305] [306], yet was blocked not for that, but for operating a sock puppet. I think some editors feel that if his POV was the same as Scibaby's rather than WMC's bloc, he would have been blocked much sooner. Is this an incorrect assumption? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question as far as other editors go, and I don't know who Ratel is, but I think your faction names are pretty catchy: "Scibaby bloc" and "WMC bloc". Until this case, I did not realize there was a favored House POV. Now I know I'm on the losing side. Minor4th 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no house POV and there is no losing side. The fact is, one POV cannot exist without the other. You can't know white without black, love without hate, peace without war. The point is not to separate or highlight one over the other, but to honestly investigate their relationship and interconnection. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The "house POV" of any serious, respectable reference work is going to be that human activity contributes to climate change. (That's the "house POV" of Britannica, for example). Just as the "house POV" is that HIV causes AIDS, that tobacco smoke causes cancer, that vaccines do not cause autism, and that the attacks of 9/11 were staged by Al-Qaeda rather than the U.S. or Israeli governments. I use scare quotes around "house POV", because this isn't really an editorial POV. Any honest effort to represent the current state of human knowledge will end up "favoring" these perspectives, because they are heavily favored in reputable sources.

In each case, there are significant dissenting points of view which deserve mention, but serious, respectable reference works are generally expected to prioritize mainstream thought and knowledge, rather than to provide an uncritical echo chamber for minoritarian talking points. To people who are personally invested in a particular minoritarian viewpoint, that can look like a "house POV", I suppose. But it's actually part and parcel of creating a serious reference work, as opposed to a search engine. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the House POV I was referring to - just as aspect of it. Some of the people in this thread have mimicked the phrase that "reality has a liberal bias" - that is the real House POV and it is a very subversive prejudice since those who have it are incapable of recognizing it in themselves. As for the rest of your post, you continue trying to equate global warming skepticism with various silly points of view - that isn't an argument; that's sophistry. There has been no honest effort to write these articles; there has simply been long-term agenda-driven editing and soapboxing designed to promote a very specific point of view of it - and repetitive one-sided rhetoric over a long period of time is indeed effective (just look at North Korea).TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put, MastCell. I have tried to make a similar point here before, and you have expressed it very well. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember MastCell, that very few of the editors here complaining about WMC's bloc's behavior are trying to promote a minority POV. It sometimes might seem that way because many of our edits (but not all) seem to be only for one side, but the reason is that WMC's bloc only edits for one agenda and refuses to allow other views, no matter how reliably sourced. Also, you cannot say that all criticisms of AGW science are minority, there is a wide variety of acceptance, including within the science community, of different aspects of the AGW debate. WMC's bloc, however, accepts no alternate viewpoints of any of it. Remember also, that most of the editors who are here complaining about WMC's bloc's behavior, including me, were drawn to the topic because we noticed repeated violations of WP's policies, such as BLP, NPA, and NPOV that were going unaddressed. In fact, when I was looking at talk page histories, MastCell, I noticed some personal attacks being made in content discussions in which you were involved, but you failed to take any action to tell the perpetrator not to do that. That's at the heart of this. It seems that editors who promote WMC's POV (like Ratel) get a free ride with WP's policies (other than socking), while others do not. WMC's POV is not the "mainstream" view of AGW science. WMC promotes RealClimate's agenda, whose opinion on climate science is at one extreme of the AGW debate, as the content of and the reaction to the Climategate emails shows. In sum, the matter here is behavior, not science. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Long time observer of the climate change articles. Gota disagree with you on WMC's POV....from my perspective and training(POV?) WMC's view on climate science is within the mainstream, and he likely deserves several barnstars....What for? for his consistant and determined willingness to keep sticking his neck out in defense of the scientific mainstream. Course only WMC knows what motivates him but I its something as simplistic as a realcimate agenda, whatever that is. --Snowman frosty (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You would not believe how tired I am of hearing about William and RealClimate, so please excuse me for not continuing a conversation which once again threatens to be consumed by those two topics. Nor do I really feel like defending myself for all of the times I could have lectured someone, but failed to do so. I disagree with you about the "extreme" nature of RealClimate's viewpoint (for that matter, so does Nature), but it's not really worth discussing, particularly not here. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: Do you think that not speaking out when you see problems (from those on your side, and you definitely do have a side here) "models desirable admin behavior"? ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go with the "sides" again. --TS 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I think that limiting off-topic discussion and ignoring provocation are desirable behaviors worthy of modeling. So let's leave it there. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous editorial from 6 years ago Mastcell? Written the same month that Real climate was launched? I'd hardly recall it a resounding endorsement - more of a "good luck." In fact, that editorial was rather prophetic in some ways; here are some choice quotes:

"Few would argue with the need to tackle attempts to distort science, but is a blog the best way to do it? The approach certainly has its dangers. For example, many issues in climate science, such as the course of temperatures over previous millennia, are hotly debated by researchers. Some would argue that a rapid-rebuttal service, run with minimal peer review, can never hope to combat industry propaganda and properly represent this diversity of views."

"The researchers involved will, for example, have to work to ensure that they do not oversell their own opinions when commenting on research issues that divide scientists. "

"The site needs to balance speed with objectivity, readability and accuracy. That's no mean feat. Fail, and the blog will be dismissed as no more trustworthy than the myriad lobbying groups already writing on climate."

As I said - the editorial was rather prophetic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't know if RealClimate's advocacy regarding certain aspects of the AGW debate is right or wrong. What I do know is that we shouldn't have editors here trying to support that blog's agenda in Wikipedia. We know who they are, because the evidence page and this PD talk page contains evidence of these editors trying to use RealClimate as a source, including trying to use it to add pejorative information in BLPs. That's why this case is not about science. It's about advocacy and the behavior that accompanies it, behavior that violates numerous WP policies and prevents the CC articles from being a place where all interested editors can cooperate, collaborate, and compromise in building some articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, by that same account, most people here are Nature, Science and GRL advocates! Exhibiting/editing within the same view as some blog or journal that just happens to be reasonably within the mainstream, is not advocacy. [do i agree with everything presented on RC? Hmmm - possibly... but that doesn't come from reading RC (which i actually do significantly less than WuWT or CA] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Cla, if you do not understand that RealClimate is squat in the middle of the scientific mainstream, you either have not read RC, or you really have no basis for editing this topic for content. We do not rely on RealClimate for information, although it usually is a reliable source. Our content agrees with RealClimate because both happen to follow the mainstream opinion on climate change. Have you ever read RC? Have you checked the credentials and publication record of the contributors, guest or otherwise? If you think RC "is at one extreme of the AGW debate", where would you put voices predicting runaway greenhouse effect turning Earth into a second Venus, Hurricanes razing the Southern US, a complete collapse of oceanic ecosystems followed by a PT style mass extinction, or (human-scale) rapid collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephan and Kim, is paleoclimatology, which RealClimate's staff disproportionally represent, a major part of climate science? From what I've read, the attention given to it by the IPCC and the media is way out of proportion to its actual influence on the main body of climate research. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RC does not have "Staff", it has (voluntary) contributors. Paleoclimate is one of 11 chapters (10 technical ones) of the IPCC AR4 - I think that is a fair representation. Of course, paleoclimate also informs many other parts of climatology - climate involves long-term changes, so you necessarily need to look into the past. But I don't understand how your question is relevant - do you suggest that paeloclimatologists are in conflict with other climatologists? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think everyone in this particular discussion has made the points they want to make. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should answer your question, even though it risks taking this thread off topic. From what I've read, although a few climate scientists have criticized the temperature proxy research in which the RealClimate and CRU scientists are often engaged, the main criticism has been from statisticians [307]. Again, however, I think all of us here have made it clear how we feel on this particular issue. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is your contention that the articles mimic the Real Climate narrative not because that content has been pushed in to the exclusion of other content by a Real Climate co-founder, but because the Real Climate narrative is so mainstream? Interesting. I don't know about Cla, but I've read quite a bit of Real Climate and a fair amount about its various members, even watched a few in debates. I wouldn't say they are as extreme as some organizations who promote the things you've mentioned, but perhaps it is only because that sort of rhetoric is so outrageously wrong that they'd lose credibility in their target audience. Outside of their narrow group of friends though, but still within their field, I'd say their reputation is quite strained. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that trying to sideline mainstream scientists such as those who contribute to RealClimate is not a productive use of time and effort in this arbitration. It is likely to fuel a finding that those individuals doing so, at the same time that they misrepresent Andrew Montfort and the like as significant representatives of mainstream scientific views, are harming the editing environment either through their ignorance or their advocacy of fringe scientific positions. --TS 09:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you're right. It's not a good practice and folk are not likely to get away with it. I further suggest that "trying to sideline" anyone, regardless of viewpoint, (by, for example, stuffing their BLP full of negative tidbits) is not a good practice. However the same caution about not doing it apparently does not apply if the BLP doesn't hold the house POV. The problem here is not the POV, which happens to be correct. It's the actions taken to defend it by a large and powerful bloc. ArbCom apparently casts a mostly blind eye, rejecting evidence or characterizing it as inconsequential (while throwing the book at the other side of the same edit wars, for example) so it's becoming clear that nothing much will change after this case concludes, except that perhaps the playing field will be even less level than it is now. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: on BLPs, this is really a matter of WP:BLP policy, since it's hardly specific to climate change. I did propose (Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Carcharoth_on_editing_BLPs_as_a_whole) an initial thought on how to change policy to force discussion more quickly on contentious BLP issues, and I invite anyone who really cares (BLP concerns have a tendency to be transient and occur only when it affects subjects editors support) to pitch in with thinking out loud on what can be done. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There we go with the "level playing field" comments again. At least I do agree with the kernel of your argument on BLP, Lar. What I don't agree with is your characterization of the activities of the scientifically literate editors whom I have sometimes called "Team Science" and of the drafting arbitrators.

I've encountered, for instance, undue reliance on the Monbiot/Plimer food fight on Plimer's article and had little problem voicing my disagreement with the prominence given to Monbiot's self-serving account of the affair. And I'm sure that had an effect in bringing the article to its present fairer state. While there is sometimes imbalance, I simply don't encounter the kind of entrenched, determined anti-skeptic BLP-stuffing that you seem to see everywhere. On the other hand the disgraceful nonsense that was stuffed into, for instance, the Pachauri article and kept there for a long period, is worrying. The terrible calumnies about prominent climate scientists such as Jones, Mann, Trenberth and so on were very worrying and I eventually just gave up watching those articles, such was the feeding frenzy. Likewise the determined efforts to remove from Wikipedia articles all mention of death threats against climate scientists, which were well sourced and investigated by several police forces worldwide and the FBI.

To get back to the subject matter, the issue here is the attempts to abuse Wikipedia to promote fringe views, and I'm pleased that we're in agreement on that. --TS 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any editors participating in this discussion favor promotion of fringe views, because their views are never fringe, their actions are always nonpartisan, while others are partisan, the playing field is tilted, etc. As you point out, TS, one editor's BLP-stuffing would not be apparent to another editor. If this was a clear-cut situation, it would not be taking arbcom so long to wrap this up. The problem here is more subtle, and requires a substantial amount of time in the weeds, preferably by seeing the various battles fought out in realtime, for any outsider to get a clear sense of the dynamics. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's that subtle: There is a mainstream view, and there are people who want to emphasise controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right, but it's not always immediately evident. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody have any answers? Shame, it would be better to know now rather than later. OK, then, does removing a Cl Ch cat count as a Cl Ch edit [308]? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about 3.2) Appeal of topic bans

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

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

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

Wrap it up

Could we be finished now, please? Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree...and propose that the best thing to do is eliminate the individualized sanctions and simply pass a discretionary sanctions case. ANY violations by any parties mentioned here and then of any parties not mentioned after receiving one explicit warning should lead to a topic ban for 90 days...next violation 1 year and a third, an indefinite topic ban. Any violation noticed would need to be posted so all administrators can see it at either AN/I or the Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard. Set something like that in concrete and trim the fat out of these proposed decisions and we'd all be better off.--MONGO 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms. However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment. After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By "volatile", I mean "subject to flare-ups" rather than continuously problematic. You've talked about imported political disputes before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. The only imported disputes I am aware of are personal or ideological, not political. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to what the Committee in its draft finding 2 calls the "Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area [which] have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Wikipedia, give to this topic area." It's rather similar to evolution in the respect that the science is well established (overwhelmingly so in the case of evolution, but the basics of global warming are also very well supported) but there are all kinds of weak challenges to the science that can only be explained by the political implications various people apply to the science. The same kind of conspiracy theories recur as in critiques of evolution, the same allegations of fakery, and the same kind of agendas are alleged, despite the exceptional scientific support for both. --TS 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes. Agreed. Hard to know how to avoid that. Ill-informed politicians wield considerable power and generate considerable media coverage, and Wikipedia relies on media coverage for sourcing. Scientists have to work hard to get coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines. People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And the problem was magnified a lack of true reporting coupled with an abundance of opinion in the months immediately following the data theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Important point I think, wikipedia is not a "Reader's Digest" of mainstream newspaper articles when it comes to scientific topics. There are some that still do not yet fully appreciate the importance of this statement. If the reader falls into this category then I suggest that you read this principle which will be approved in this case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science Bill Huffman (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest pointing such editors to WP:WEIGHT, and in some case WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly understandable that everyone would love to see this finally draw to an end. But wrapping it up should not be a euphemism for punting. I think that some (not all) of the editors who responded after Jehochman's opening post have been engaging in an echo chamber of "let's not sanction anyone now". Just give everyone a pat on the head, and say next time we're going to get serious. I'm not trying to convince the editors who commented, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that it would be a failure of nerve to do so, a failure to really prevent further disruption, and a big let-down to the larger editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that sentiment. Let my comments above not be understood to be supportive of the notion that there should not be strong sanctions directed at individuals in this case. --TS 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Certainly egregious violations that harm the project should attract sanction, but many of the proposed statements (such as the one noted by Bill Huffman) should go a long way toward informing editors of how the topic is best tackled. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)