Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:00, 29 March 2010

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning	27 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
COI edits in respect of living individuals	27 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys	26 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions	17 March 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning

Initiated by Granite07 (talk) at 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Granite07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Mostlyharmless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Mostlyharmless#Arbitration notice
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-19_Dirty,_Dangerous_and_Demeaning

Statement by {Party 1}

please reference the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning revision history and refer to the summary provided for the 11/18/2009 edit, "revert out all the motherfucking original research that Granite07 has inserted."

Even if the edits are correct, the summary implies they likely are not, this is not appropriate for the Wikipedia community.

Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning#Google Scholar Search a publication analysis provided as evidence that the editor's arguments are not supported by facts. The editor appears to be relying on limited information to make edits that while made in good faith are factually incorrect.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Decline. Case does not rise anywhere near the level of requiring arbitration, not least because the only attempt at prior dispute resolution on what seems to be a behavioural issue is a two year old MedCab case. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Steve Smith. I am not seeing any current issue requiring resolution, much less arbitration. Any current issues should be raised on the article talkpage or, if necessary, though the other steps of dispute resolution. Needless to say, my vote does not reflect approval of uncivil or inappropriate behavior that may previously have occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Steve Smith and NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - KnightLago (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline This is not an issue for the Committee to resolve. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Nothing for us to do here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI edits in respect of living individuals

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 15:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
TimLambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Quiggin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/99.144.249.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by JzG

An anonymous party posted an aggressive series of messages on Jimbo's talk page claiming that two people, Tim Lambert and John Quiggin, editing Wikipedia under their own names, were editing biographies in furtherance of off-wiki disputes as alluded to here [2].

I analysed the edits and summarised them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations#Editors and contended articles. Although IP99 continued fishing for problem edits and found a few at a new venue one of the individuals he'd named had made no edits at all to the originally stated to be the locus of dispute. It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [3] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs. while calling for action against activists, the IP appears to me to be an activist himself, and in calling for a rain of hellfire on the heads of people who have in some cases not edited the articles in question for years, he raises very much the prospect of an equal reaction to his own campaign against named and identifiable individuals via Wikipedia.

Example: user John Quiggin (who is John Quiggin) is cited as a source for a particular publication; Quiggin states that Lambert is a co-author but IP99 persistently removes Lambert's name because third-party sources do not identify him as co-author. That seems to me to be petty. There is no dispute that our user John Quiggin is the main credited author and we have no reason at all to dispute his own statement that Lambert is a co-author. Why go to such lengths to exclude the mere mention of a name?

I reviewed the edits about which the IP complained, most of which were long stale (dating back in one case to 2005) and the response to feedback, which in the case of Quiggin is reasonable, in the case of Lambert is robust but not beyond reason, and in the case of the IP is an outright denial that any issues exist other than with Lambert and Quiggin. Another article, John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was thrown in late in the day, user Serenity is a SPA editing that article with a sympathetic POV; the subject is on record as using sockpuppets to boost his reputation in other areas, inviting the inevitable suspicion here.

Based on response to feedback and my judgment of the likely future problems from the three based on their willingness to accept feedback I made the proposals at [4]. I believe that the hierarchy of problems puts Quiggin lowest, as an academic who has made common and elementary errors over the difference between Wikipedia and academic publishing, and who seems to have had no difficulty in accepting that; Lambert somewhere in the middle, as a blogger and activist with some issues accepting that his edits may be conflicted or inappropriate; and the IP at the top as a disruptive pursuer of an obvious vendetta per WP:BATTLE.

Some think that since the IP raised a problem, albeit in inflated terms and often years after the event and without any real effort to help the individuals concerned to self-correct, he should basically get a free pass on his own behaviour. I disagree and I'm not alone in that. Unfortunately at both venues of discussion the matter is stalled due to division along familiar factional lines and the usual argument back to the objective rightness or wrongness of what's being said, rather than focusing on the real issue of editorial behaviour as documented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations. I think it's fair that any further attempts to resolve this dispute will only result in further entrenchment, not breaking of the deadlock. @Steve Smith: Yes. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I'm not sure a case is necessary. Leaving aside the depressingly predictable input from climate-change warriors on both sides, there seems to be a fairly sound uninvolved-editor consensus in favor of Guy's proposed resolution here. I don't think we should create a precedent where every administrative action that touches on AGW has to go through ArbCom. Any administrative action against a partisan is bound to be met with vocal outrage from other partisans on the same side. It has ever been thus, and admins are supposed to be able to see past that and gauge actual, non-partisan community feedback on their actions. I think Guy has done that here; let's encourage reasonable administrative initiatives, because that's what the area needs. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Quiggin

I think it's correct to say that this dispute is really about AGW, and, to a lesser extent, other science issues (notably tobacco and DDT/malaria). In editing these and other areas, including economic issues where my own views are somewhat distinct from the mainstream position, I've sought to apply WP:WEIGHT, which, in my interpretation, means giving most weight to the mainstream scientific view. To the extent that apparently authoritative sources have been presented as contrary to the mainstream view, I've investigated them, and, frequently found that they have substantial conflicts of interests (for example, undeclared financial links to the tobacco industry). I've tried to present this information about these sources in a neutral fashion in Wikipedia, and have also raised it in other venues (less neutrally, since I admit to having a very negative view of tobacco lobbyists).

I've been advised by Guy and others that this is not the right interpretation of Wikipedia policy. So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly.

Meanwhile, though, the issue has been used as a basis for personal attacks, including off-wiki attacks by users who are self-identified partisans [5], and on-Wiki attacks by users who have obvious conflicts of interest themselves (people recruited on 'AGW sceptic' sites, who have engaged in Wiki canvassing on those same sites). [6] [7].

I'm happy to accept that my interpretation of policy has been wrong, but I'm dismayed that I'm still being attacked for conflicts of interest based primarily on the fact that I have a substantial public profile and can therefore be identified with particular positions, while SPA partisans are being cheered on for attacking me.

Anyway, apologies if all this is tangential to the topic at hand - perhaps it will provide some background on my involvement here.

JQ (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP_User:99.X

There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.

I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page.[8][9]

Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [5] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here[10], it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived[11] - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing.[12] I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.

As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Wikipedia. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.[13]. To the argument that Wikipedia had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. [14]

My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition[15][16] of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science.[17] Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.

I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.[18] My criticism of Lambert[19] & Quiggin[20] has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber".[21] [22][23] There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Wikipedia. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.

Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Wikipedia he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from "Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" [[24]] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An undergraduate student said, "Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo" in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Wikipedia as, "...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Wikipedia sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.

Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Wikipedia, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Wikipedia.[25] Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that specific BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.

I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending The Times as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to underscore how egregious Quiggin's latest action is, contrast his statement here in this very section at ArbCom in which he back-peddles on his earlier 'promise' not to edit his enemies BLP's - "So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly." - with his very next edit[26] on a BLP subject specifically named by Jzg in the complaint against Quiggin being discussed here. The contempt and disrespect found in such insincere promises and blatant violations is at the heart of the COI abuse.99.135.173.194 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/3)

Awaiting statements (and considering whether to recuse), but am I right in thinking that this would be a pretty simples matter not requiring arbitration but for the AGW connection and the attendant polarization? Steve Smith (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I must regretfully recuse. This is close enough to being a global warming proxy case that my recusal policy probably kicks in. As a general statement, I endorse MastCell's call for reasonable administrative initiatives, with the emphasis in this case being perhaps on "initiative". Steve Smith (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting statements, with the request that the statements focus on recent problems (i.e., since the editors in question first were advised of the concerns that have been expressed), if any, rather than primarily historical ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in this area, I'm not sure that anything short of draconian measures taken by the Arbitration Committee (or, possibly, the Arbitration Committee allowing administrators to take draconian measures in this area), such as restricting all the "usual suspects" from the topic area to eliminate the disruption, will work here. I think everyone should just back away and stop trying to push Doomsday here. (this is what I think in the general area of GW, not specifically this case, but the fact we're seeing more and more cases get brought here in this area concerns me) Leaning towards accepting, with the caveats above, but waiting for more statements/follow ups. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also looking for a bit more information, but as SirFozzie says, this seems to be a reoccurring issue and we may need to look at it again. Shell ^babelfish 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys

Initiated by Sandstein at 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party (referring this case to the Committee as a procedural matter, see below)
Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
allegedly HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a banned user (not notified)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biophys

Statement by Sandstein

On March 15, Russavia made a voluminous request for arbitration enforcement against Biophys (permalink of the current state of the thread), alleging that Biophys has engaged in extensive edit warring and proxy editing for banned user HanzoHattori. Biophys denies this and claims that he is being harrassed. The AE request has received no uninvolved admin input for eleven days. While it may have at least some merit prima facie, its scope makes it appear to be ill-suited to be processed under AE procedures. As proposed in the AE thread, and with the concurrence of another uninvolved admin, I am closing the AE thread and am procedurally referring the request to this Committee so that it may be properly disposed of instead of disappearing into the AE archives without comment. Please evaluate whether it should be made the subject of a case, dismissed or otherwise dealt with. (For clarity's sake, I am making this request solely as a procedural matter in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator processing an AE request.) Sandstein 07:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The evidence is notable in that it shows:

Biophys has been editing tendentiously for a long time. They have been involved in many edit wars and show no sign of stopping.
Biophys admits making edits on behalf of somebody who emailed them. This is not the first time something like that happened, and Biophys is fully on notice not to do that.
Grey Fox-9589 asserts that HanzoHattori was a great editor, and there's nothing wrong with editing for them. (Biophys, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.)

Why edit for somebody else? If somebody emailed me proposed edits, I would tell them to make the edits themselves. Looking at the whole picture of disruptive editing, proxying for a banned user, past arbitration cases, past enforcement sanctions against Biophys, I think that an indefinite block is appropriate for violations of long term edit warring, disruptive editing and proxying for a banned editor. I am willing to apply the block myself as a policy enforcement action. For the moment I am going to wait for outcome of this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

This is my AE statement: [27]. The case was brought by Russavia, immediately after coming from his editing restriction. As you probably know, I had nothing to do with his restriction and voted to lift it.

I believe this AE request was only posted by Russavia but prepared by blocked Offliner (talk · contribs). The requst was created as a long list of short and clear statements with bullets: [28], exactly as EEML evidence by Offliner: [29]. All statements by Russavia are made in a very different style, with large pieces of continuous and contentious text [30]. Note that text of his AE request was prepared in advance and copy-pasted as a whole by Russavia to his user talk sub-page (User_talk:Russavia/AE) and then deleted by Ezhiki immediately after moving the text to the noticeboard.

Russavia (or possibly Offliner) brings two unrelated issues:

I made reverts in several articles, although not as many as Russavia claims. All of them were fully explained and debated at the article talk pages, and I made only one (sometimes two) reverts per day.
I made a number of improvements in a different set of articles. These improvements are noncontroversial and did not cause anyone's objections or disruption. I made some of the changes because someone else suggested to make them by email. I checked the sources and made all necessary corrections (the mailer did not tell me his name or any other personal information, but he probably knows Russian and apparently looked at the versions of articles on ruwiki; I am now having second thoughts who he really was). But that was fully consistent with our policies, in particular WP:IAR. I am sure that none of you would tell that the improvement of content goes against our policies, and there was no disruption involved. Some of these articles were later corrected by users who watch my edits, but I fully agree with their changes.

Re to Jehochman about the same. "Why edit for somebody else?" Right. I did not. I edited on behalf of this project and not "on behalf of somebody who emailed me". But you should keep in mind that "editing for someone else" is allowed in this project because we have paid editors who work "for somebody else" simply by definition.

I would like to know if the current block of Offliner has anything to do with me.

Yes, I am a target of active harassment campaign by a group of like-minded users, most of whom participated in EEML case. Here are some very recent episodes with diffs:

Recent personal attack by User:LokiiT: "Who are serving?" [31] (see also my talk page [32]).
Personal attacks by YMB29 [33],[34], [35]. He even tells to Altenmann: "I am trying to get the admins to finally do something about him... don't tell me that I should be cooperative with him and that we should work together" [36].
Recent threat by User:Saiga12 ("may be we can meet you in Moscow...") [37]. Saiga12 copycats the previous threat by Ellol [38].This is bad because they know who I am in real life, and there are bad posts about me off-wiki.
User:Ravenssx also came to personally attack me (see edit summary): [39]
Two more people came through proxy servers to talk page of User:LokiiT to blame me of being a "terrorist supporter" and out Future Perfect - see this supervised record [40]. According to this SPI request [41], all of them are different persons.
Vandalism accusations by User:Igny in response to my quotes from a book by philologist Sarnov [42].
Wikistalking by User:Ellol and User:YMB29 who reverted whatever I did (see diffs in this link [43])
I received a threatening email to my work rather than to wikipedia address during the EEML case signed by "Filatov". This is real life name declared by Ellol at his user page. I deleted this message as garbage. Eloll said it was his impostor [44] and I do not have any evidence here [45].

There are now at least four accounts, Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs), Saiga12 (talk · contribs), YMB29 (talk · contribs), and Ellol (talk · contribs) who do little beyond wikistalking my edits, reverts and other disruption. Please examine their edit history.

I did not start this case, and I do not want it. I only want to be left alone. And I am ready to work together with any of the users involved, as should be clear from the "Proposed conflict resolution" in my AE statement. But I ask to protect me from the arbitrary block by User:Jehochman. It has been already for the second time that he reopened an AE request about me after the closing by another administrator (first request reopened by Jehochman was filed by Offliner (talk · contribs)). I am so concerned because Jehochman has a history of active collaboration with Offliner [46] [47] [48]. Which "past enforcement sanctions against Biophys" Jehochman is talking about? I had none. Jehochman said previously: "Sandstein, I ask you to modify your close and topic ban Biophys" [49]. He is doing the same right now.

Statement by Grey Fox-9589

I'll reply to User:Jehochman since he's quoted me. I've said that User:HanzoHattori was a good editor (great is over the top) and I didn't see anything wrong with watching the articles he has created. This does not mean I believe HanzoHattori isn't supposed to be banned. I was not aware User:Biophys was still in contact with HanzoHattori and that he's made editing suggestions. This was probably a wrong action by Biophys. Personally I think that Biophys wasn't aware of wrongdoing, because otherwise he would not have openly admitted making several edits on behalf of HanzoHattori's suggestions (has he? now I'm not sure). I understand that Biophys can be sanctioned over this, but I believe an indefinite ban is far too strict.

What I am concerned about is the battlefield mentality of the users requesting for arbitration. As his block log shows Russavia was blocked before for herassment of Biophys. Russavia has been closely watching edits by Biophys and waited for a misstep by Biophys just to get him sanctioned. I'm certain of this because Russavia has never been much involved with the articles HanzoHattori created. Right after Russavia's sanctions were lifted he filed this arbitration request. I don't believe we should reward this type of behaviour. Grey Fox (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YMB29

I have encountered other users on wiki who I don't agree with, but the difference with Biophys is that he ignores discussion and tries to sneak in his edits anyway he can.

I am not going to repost everything I wrote in AE and AN3 before, but the main thing is that Biophys has continued to use off-wiki coordination to help him edit war, after the EEML case. User:Defender of torch never edited the Human rights in the Soviet Union article before coming twice to revert to Biophys' version.[50] [51]
Later Biophys more or less admitted to asking him: Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing". [52]
-YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/3)

Awaiting statements, and maybe a flash of brilliant insight. Steve Smith (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting Russavia's statement; I would specifically like to see the AE request summed up within the words limits on this page, with differences of alleged inappropriate conduct. KnightLago (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible. Thinking of possible ways to resolve this.. another Arbitration case seems likely, but I don't know if it will actually resolve the issue, short of taking very draconian measures. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I reviewed the behavior of several editors involved back in June of 09 and it doesn't seem like improvement has been made. If the admins at AE think this is too complex, then I think we need to open a case, examine the behavior of everyone involved and decide what specific sanctions will move us toward deescalating the dispute in EE areas. Shell ^babelfish 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Per Shell. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I don't see where Stephan has been notified of the Climate Change probation, but he has notified many others of it. Here are just a few: [53] [54] [55] [56]. Request for him to recuse as an involved admin: (thread)

Statement by Cla68

User:Stephan Schulz is an editor heavily involved in AGW articles. He is also an admin. As far as I know, he has not used his admin tools related to those articles, except perhaps to block Scibaby accounts after sockpuppet investigations. I believe he crossed the line today during a climate change probation enforcement request. The enforcement request concerned Ratel in an AGW article that Stephan is also involved in [57] [58]. During the enforcement request, and after Ratel notified him (among a few others) of the request, Stephan commented in the admin-only, "results" section of the request, where admin actions, including possible sanctions, are discussed concerning the parties to the enforcement request. Note that only admins are allowed to comment in that section. This means that Stephan was acting as an enforcing admin in an action in which he was definitely involved. I request ArbCom review.

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

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

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

In this regard the conduct of User:Lar while taking part in enforcing the sanctions also raises concern. He has referred to a group of editors involved in the sanctions area as a "science cabal" and "socially inept,"[59] which may not violate the narrow legalistic definition of "uninvolved" but but does not inspire confidence that sanctions will be administered impartially. Of perhaps greater concern, User:dave souza opposed Lar's recent steward reconfirmation on Meta.[60] Lar then threw these words back in his face on the probation enforcement page.[61] Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue.

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

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

Statement by User:Stephan Schulz

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

Statement by User:Ratel

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

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

Statement by User:ATren

Here are Stephan Schulz's top ten articles edited:

505 - Global warming
138 - Global warming_controversy
98 - Global cooling
91 - Scientific opinion on climate_change
81 - The Great Global Warming Swindle
78 - Effects of global warming
71 - Kyoto Protocol
63 - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scienti...
51 - Waterboarding
49 - An Inconvenient Truth

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

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

Statement by User:Awickert

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

Statement by ZP5*

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

Statement by MastCell

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

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

Statement by Mackan79

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

Stephan's comments are also offensive. In response to my report regarding repeated reverting and an unwillingness to engage in discussion by User:Ratel, Ratel posted a series of utterly false and baseless accusations, including that I "despise" a writer whom I have never criticized in any way and do not in the least, and that I am on a long term anti-science campaign.[62] No diffs were provided. Administrator LessHeard vanU commented that he found the response "startling."[63] Stephan responds to LessHeard that "AGF is not a suicide pact."[64] This, from a thoroughly involved administrator who does not mention his involvement in the very content dispute giving rise to the request. This is not what these pages need. Mackan79 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clarification about involvement

Stephan was involved in the very dispute that gave rise to the request. He made the initial edit to the article here. He then left three comments challenging specific points,[65][66][67] each of which were specifically answered,[68][69][70] but did not clarify his position further. This is precisely the ongoing dispute that gave rise to the enforcement request.[71] Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vsmith

Why is this here? First from [72]:

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

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

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

Comment by Lar

Stephan Schulz is heavily involved in this area, as the list above shows. Diffs of more on request. The butterfly comment? More of the same. This is not the first time Stephan Schulz had to have remarks moved out of the uninvolved admin section. Don't need a whole case though, just a reminder.

On the other hand, SBHB's thesis is frankly, off the mark. I have a viewpoint about these articles, I'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". I just don't support all the tactics used by those who regularly edit in this area. On either side. I'm not an involved admin as I never edit in the space. I just happen to disagree with SBHB, WMC, et al about whether their editing in this space is uniformly positive and proper or not.

I'd urge ArbCom to clarify this matter, in a way that doesn't hamper continued enforcement. I think my enforcement actions have been pretty even handed. Finally, Ncmvocalist appears to be a bit confused. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Once again I changed my words after Collect agreed. Sorry! Prev version: [73] ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BozMo

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

Comment by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

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

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

Not entirely sarcastic comment by Hans Adler

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

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

Statement by (uninvolved) Literaturegeek

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

Statement by involved Hipocrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU

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

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

Fruity comments by Jehochman

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

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

Comments by Tony Sidaway

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Collect

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

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

Lar, I understand the impetus for shortening your comments, but the gist certainly remains correct <g>. I really do not blame you for hitting the 500 word barrier, which is usually genially ignored when additions are made in response to others. Collect (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by presumably involved WMC

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

Poem by Wehwalt

Roses are red,
Violets are blue
Tempest in a teapot,
Reject it please, too.
--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

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

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

Decline I worked on AE for quite some time and routinely saw involved admins (and sometimes even participants) leave comments in that section, similar to the way people sometimes edit someone else's section here. Since there are no clerks on AE, one of the uninvolved admins could simply move the comment if they felt it was a problem (and I've seen this done before when participants comment) but there is no reason for a case over something this trivial. Stephan should also take this as an indication that he should post above the decision area in his own section from now on if he needs to make comments on cases where he has been involved with the topic. Shell ^babelfish 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I also worked in AE for a long time. Concur with Shell. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per preceding comments. Per Jehochman, I would suggest the community involved here aim to review what progress is being made following the probation that was put in place for this topic area (are things improving or getting worse?). But to avoid reviewing at a possible low point in the cycle, give some warning and then (in a few weeks?) review the entirety of the probationary period so far, not just recent events. If things are getting worse, then ask for arbitration, but please don't ask for arbitration without at least attempting to agree on a summary of how the community probation is progressing, and how it has worked so far. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Shell. KnightLago (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 209: / Line 209: @@
 :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/3) ===
+=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/3) ===
 *Awaiting statements, and maybe a flash of brilliant insight. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 *Awaiting Russavia's statement; I would specifically like to see the AE request summed up within the words limits on this page, ''with'' differences of alleged inappropriate conduct. [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 *Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible. Thinking of possible ways to resolve this.. another Arbitration case seems likely, but I don't know if it will actually resolve the issue, short of taking very draconian measures. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Accept''' I [[User:Shell_Kinney/EEreportsreview|reviewed the behavior]] of several editors involved back in June of 09 and it doesn't seem like improvement has been made.  If the admins at AE think this is too complex, then I think we need to open a case, examine the behavior of everyone involved and decide what specific sanctions will move us toward deescalating the dispute in EE areas. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Accept''' Per Shell.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 == Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions ==