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

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed principles

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

Proposed findings of fact

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of FoFs1 and /Discussion of FoFs2

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.

22 KimDabelsteinPetersen

I'm not making a comment on the BLP sourcing part of the finding, but I think there are issues with this finding's counts of "edit-warring" - particularly, diffs

• 264 reverting a puppet -ban-evading user
• 266 reverting anon (compare to what contributions the anon made to Wikipedia: [1] - I suspect it was the same ban-evading user)
• 269 dealing with tendentious problem editor GoRight who was community banned
• 270 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 271 (compare to what contributions the account made on the article [2])
• 274 (not a reversion; putting source into citation template)
• 277 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 279 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user

Community policy makes it clear that reverting edits by banned users is not considered edit-warring (it's not a violation of anything) and note: the community has not imposed any requirement of "you must intend to revert a banned user" because that's stupid. I also think the efforts KimD has taken in being civil despite dealing with the mentioned editors (who have been tendentious problems for the wider community - burning out many useful contributors) ought to be taken into consideration. 2/0 also raises several useful points that have not been taken into account in this proposed decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I largely endorse the above summary, thank you for saving me the trouble of writing it up.

• I would quibble that the third diff shows KimDabelsteinPetersen reverting to GoRight's most recent revision, though GR was arguing on the talk page for removal of that material. Skimming the talk page from January 2009, the issue appears to have been whether the article should use qualifiers such as purportedly or unsubstantiated to describe a source from ABC news that cites climate scientists rather than named individuals.
• The first set of diffs in the FoF all relate to whether the word allegedly should be added to stolen in describing the documents from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. These diffs are from a few weeks after the event (10th, 20th, and 21st of December, shortly before WP:GS/CC/RE was established), socks were rife, and KDP added a source to solve the issue immediately after the last diff presented. With the exception of two more apparent sock puppets, this appears to have had the effect of ending the edit war. Neither robust participation at the talkpage nor active attempts to seek compromise nor lack of a technical 3RR violation excuse edit warring, of course, but removing unsourced content on a BLP and adding quality sources I think are behaviors that we would like to encourage.
• In the first three of the third set of diffs, KDP bases his removal on WP:UNDUE and OR as well as BLP. A cleaner example would probably make this case easier to interpret as precedent if this FoF passes. This particular issue also involves a user now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight.
• The fourth and fifth diffs in that set are the removal of a clause that was either unsourced or unduly promotional, and a related question of the extent to which we should rely on a living person's autobiography. I do not see how this relates to the question of whether the enhanced sourcing standards of WP:BLP should be applied to non-biographical material and material that might be considered for a spinout article. Please enlighten me if I have misinterpreted the purpose of this series of diffs. Other editors continued edit warring over this material until I protected the article a week later (my last admin action in this topic area except one protection where I found edit warring when performing a due diligence check of a recently expired semi-protection).
• The assertion that KDP exercises different sourcing standards in support of a POV has been around for at least the better part of a year, but I do not think that the currently presented set of diffs demonstrate this. Perhaps the point could be made by presenting two parallel sets of diffs where he argues for more and less stringent requirements. If the division of this list also correlates well to whether or not the person in question is known for being a climate contrarian, then I think the FoF would be justified. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#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)

3.3.19 - KimDabelsteinPetersen (remedies)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2/0, you state: Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach [to BLP issues] is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms. No, that does not adequately describe his approach. As I said on Roger Davies' talk page, it's Kim's application -- where the rubber hits the road -- that's the problem. Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to protect climate-change skeptics? Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to show where information critical to someone with Kim's general views should be included? I'd like to see diffs of that. What I've seen, over and over, is interpretation of BLP in ways that further Kim's preferences on the issue of Climate Change, with resulting rough treatment for one side and adamant protection for the other. He has worn away all assumptions of good faith in this regard. Combine this behavior with any edit warring, any BLP violations or any other violation of a policy, especially when ArbCom has declared this a Draconian Enforcement Zone [3] in an area where WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has been a problem.

It is an unacceptable BLP violation to cite a blog [4] to call Fred Singer's lead-authored report "dishonest" and it doesn't matter how many times Kim cites "the exceptions to SPS" or has thought out his approach to BLP issues in the abstract. In fact, it's more disturbing to find BLP violations coming from someone who has thought so much about the policy. This edit [5] is unacceptable when you contrast the description of the source at the bottom of this page [6] (Professor Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability) with Kim's description of that source as some kind of "qualified expert" (in the edit summary from the last diff) -- the statement being sourced had nothing to do with climate change or climate science, but with Lindzen's views on passive cigarette smoking: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated".

As far back as June 2009, editors were flabbergasted that Kim would defend that edit after reading Kim earlier rail against use of Op-Eds as BLP sources. [7] [8] [9] It is simply not possible to conclude that this editor is giving adequate effort either to presenting readers information without bias or keeping BLP articles from becoming attacks on the subjects. These and other edits make it look like Kim is using Wikipedia as a tool to gain political advantage in a political fight. Kim needs to be separated from this subject area and show he can edit against his side, particularly regarding controversial BLPs, and he should not be let back in until he's shown ArbCom he can do it. As the flabbergasted reaction I linked to shows, this kind of behavior on Kim's part naturally gets under the skin of editors trying to work with him to make improvements to articles. It obviously contributes to a battleground atmosphere. To turn 2/0's statement on its head: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Yep, that one is interesting.. especially since i was asking specifically about the issues that ArbCom is now considering to be "ideosyncratic""idiosyncratically"[10], and which they seem to think merit topic-ban, but haven't addressed :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [strike: sprong welling --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)]

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

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

I think Kim (whose spelling is much better than most English speakers, although I think his native language is Danish) is pointing out that he asked months ago for guidance regarding the line between sourcing that criticizes a BLP's work (which might conceivably include criticism from bloggers in some circumstances -- say, if it is considered simply an alternative POV) and sourcing criticism that goes beyond criticizing what a person has done. It's a bit complex to explain the details, and frankly it would be a lot of effort to explain to Kim, who is very well versed in the intricacies. I explained to Kim on your talk page, Roger, [11] how I think ArbCom would be justified in calling Kim's edits "idiosyncratic" in that regard and worthy of a sanction (because to me this doesn't look like a well-meaning misunderstanding). But I obviously don't speak for ArbCom and Kim wants guidance from ArbCom. Years ago, when I first got blocked, I had a similar misunderstanding about policy. It actually only took a few words from CoolHandLuke to get me to think through what was wrong about what I was doing. I concluded that while I was certainly confused about policy, I wouldn't have erred if I'd tried harder to follow the spirit of the policy and that I'd fallen into wikilawyering over policy in order to try to get what I wanted (I think the policy was WP:CONSENSUS, but possibly WP:DISRUPT, too). I think it would take some effort to explain to Kim what he did wrong in that regard, but it would help him to figure it out. I think if ArbCom approves the six-month-minimum topic ban, he'll figure it out eventually anyway, but an explanation would be smoother. Personally, I think if Kim stopped the partisan kinds of behaviors mentioned in the Fof, he'd be one of Wikipedia's very best editors, so I think the effort of understanding this and explaining it to him is worth it. I hope the finding and remedy for Kim is approved, but I worry that ArbCom members might think his "idiosyncracy" is just a misunderstanding, when it's really more serious than that. It really is worthwhile for ArbCom members to understand these details, and it would help the project to explain it to Kim. Sorry to go on at length, but I don't know a briefer way of saying this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Link added. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed enforcement

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#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

Archived proposals can be found at /New proposals and /New proposals2

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.

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber

Collapsing. To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [12], [13], [14], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed [20], [21], [22], [23]. Proposed per arbitrator request. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in (and highlighted here) on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I am adding these to add to the above, [24], [25], [26], [27] [28] Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Frankly not impressed by these diffs. --JN466 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Actually I found the second listed by CrohnieGal, here, quite shocking. It was one of the most egregious breaches of good faith I have ever seen on Wikipedia. If I read it correctly, he's predicting that a "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator" will game the proposed discretionary sanctions. --TS 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ...and what if I do? I have no FoF's against me on this ArbCom, and I will simply make a lot of tedious discussion points in an attempt to gain "consensus" among the disinterested admins while carefully promoting my PoV (someone remind me what it is, again?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Admins have reverted climate change sanctions back and forth. We don't agree on which admins were wrong, but we should agree that some admins had to be wrong, and I don't think it's bad faith to expect that could happen again. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It's not apparent that he's simply saying that some admin or admins may make bad calls. The use of language, and specifically the term "game", seems to preclude that interpretation. This is not the only time he has gone out of his way to assume the worst. --TS 08:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) ScienceApologist, a few paragraphs below, speaks of the need to empower admins without making them into "involved monsters" ... and that's not a breach of AGF either. We are all aware that much depends on admins' performance here. The FoF provide sufficient evidence that people who have passed an RfA are not thereby guaranteed to be model citizens. --JN466 05:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I'm reading it the same way. I'm also trying to access archive 4 but I am getting an error that says it has to do with the software when I hit the history. Can anyone else? I am trying to find the section where he says he is "a victim of the abuse" or did research and also the comments at the Scjessey FoF Barber set up. Thanks for any help. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway [29]was without merit and should be made a part of this FoF. Resp. to Crohnie: no, I'm not having a problem accessing Archive 4. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC) There are more but I have to go for now, maybe I'll pick up tomorrow. Thanks for the help, I learned somethings new with this case. --CrohnieGalTalk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new finding of fact - ZuluPapa5

Collapsing. A FoF has been posted.  Roger Davies talk 09:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [30] [31], [32], [33], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [34], [35], [36] [37], and has engaged in systematic wiki-lawyering [38]. Proposed . I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC) alternative ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively and engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including edit warring ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]), systematic wikilawyering and tendentious debates ([45] [46] [47] [48]), personal attacks, bad faith accusations, soapboxing, and comments that reinforced a battleground mentality ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53], [54]). Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new finding of fact - FellGleaming

Collapsing. Ongoing problems can be handled by the community and/or by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies talk 09:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming has engaged in disruptive behavior, including systematic misrepresentations of sources [55], [56], edit warring [57], [58], [59], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [60], [61]. Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory cool-downs

Any administrator can, on determination of the existence of an acrimonious editing environment, personally instruct any of the involved parties to cease editing an article and its associated talkpage for a specified period of time. Editors who do not follow these instructions can be subject to blocks.

Discussion

I've been trying to think of ways to empower administrators without making them into what I like to term, "involved monsters". This is one way to do it, I think. Mandatory breaks for users who are involved in heated disputes might clear the air enough for less upset editors to try to collaborate. These breaks would be required to expire allowing the problem editors to return to, perhaps, a page that is in better shape. Arguments over whether an administrator is involved, biased, or favoring a particular faction or POV are made moot since the breaks are required to expire. If an "involved administrator" sends one "faction" away to give "ownership" to the other faction, this will only last until expiration of the break.

Oftentimes editors (myself included) cannot help themselves when a dispute erupts. Administrators rarely instruct people to not edit on a page due to acrimony.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I like it, with the understanding that a standard cool-down period should be on the order of about a week, so that it is clearly preventative and not punitive. This is like a non-bureocratic version of a mini-topic-ban, and harmless enough that admins can actually apply it without lengthy discussions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But they are not. Instead, they have week-long discussions about short blocks or warnings. Listing this option explicitly as a light-weight alternative would be useful, I think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, that's complete rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means if you have the bit you just say "fuck it, everybody be nice" and they just do it. That's what they're about. If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. The ridiculous idea that admins need to discuss endlessly before acting on their own cognizance is exactly why we're going through the pain of this case. The probation allowed for discretion but it was not enforced, and so it ended up as a talking shop and things actually got worse. I would expect the arbitrators to say, loudly and clearly, "when we say discretionary, we mean at the admin's individual, sole, only and solitary discretion." And if you look at the wording that's pretty much what they do say. --TS 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, most admins who hear "sanction" think "block", and the threshold for a block is, for good reasons, fairly high. What admins can do is irrelevant - the people in the near east simply can decide to be all nice to each other. Explicitly encouraging lower-impact approaches can help getting innovative solutions into circulation - and innovation is something sorely missing from the PD so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on something covering just that as guidance in the discretionary sanctions section.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been involved in discretionary sanctions in the past (c.f. fringe science). The way they work in practice is that people complain to enforcement boards and admins try to decide whether to block or enact "page bans" on bad users. The whole process was needlessly inflammatory and ended up with the nastiness of WP:PUNITIVE authority being applied unevenly against users who didn't spend enough time or do a good enough job defending themselves. Opposing sides would clamor for blocks, topic-bans, page-bans, and other slings and arrows to be hurled at their opponents by posting on administrators' talk pages, enforcement boards, etc. There was this weird process of warning users with a pseudo-template, logging actions on the arbitration page, and generally causing everyone to feel that any action taken against a particular user was done because that user was a bad user on his or her way toward harsh punishment. Arguments would erupt over whether page-banned users should be subject to other enforcement measures effectively moving the Overton Window to police state. If instead administrators had just quietly and politely told a wide range of users (without judgment) to simply steer clear of a particular page for a day, a week, or a month less chaos would have ensued without the petty logging, black-eye-applications, and holier-than-thou attitudes, there might not have been such a famous ruckus. Stephen Shulz is right. Administrators acting under discretionary sanctions don't often enough engage in the quiet suggestions that can lead to true transformation of arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. that's absolute rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means discretionary sanctions, not some bloody silly commtttee. We went through that pain for six months, and it was bad exactly because of the endless discussion where admins went through the pantomime of listening to involved parties. --TS 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are replying to me (and referring to my suggestion, not the state as it was), I don't think you understand what I tried to say. Please read it again or summarise what you think I said, so I can clarify. I'm not saying it needs a committee to apply one of the discretionary sanctions. I observe that that is what has happened. And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with edits too numerous to count)If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions are about to pass. This is ideally how they work: an admin on his or her own discretion, makes a decision. We know that admins have been intimidated in the past, and that admins in the field who want to get involved are rare. Admins up to the task will be found. They will act fairly and use their discretion. If they fail to do so then they know what will happen.

Now you unfairly point to some hypothetical "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator." Well if the only admin willing to work in the area is that bad, you may have a point, but the hope is that all admins will feel free to act, without fear or favor, to enforce Wikipedia's policies. But if the admin is that bad, won't he end up in front of arbcom? The intention is to quieten down the field, not to infuse "crazed" admins, who to be honest are notable by their absence.. --TS 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion.

Yes, I think that's likely. I may have misread your reasoning. I think the example I gave was something like "fuck it, everybody be nice", and I don't think there are many less punitive sanctions. It's intentionally framed as a mild parental reproof. --TS 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is merit to this proposal, but I would not rate it as an issue that should hold up the final decision. It should probably be rephrased, as I think the term cool-down is a bit loaded at Wikipedia. I have used a similar technique with some success at AN3; I think that EdJohnston is very good at applying it at that board, though I do not know if he is interested in discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Discretion

I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:

Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. --TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the opposite of giving discretion to admins - you force them to "engage in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", not giving them discretion to act as they think best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Read the remedy. There is nothing there about extensive engagement prior to warning or sanctions. It's those who want to reverse the sanction who have to jump the hoops. And quite right too. Of course you don't get to sanction and walk away, you do have to respond to constructive engagement, but if you've got a bit you signed up for it. --TS 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not really understand how Roger's comment fits this thread...

In reply to Tony: You miss the point (or I did not formulate it well enough). Either you trust the admins, or you don't. Why would you trust them to enact sanctions responsibly, but not to revert them responsibly? In my experience, the more consequential an act is, the less likely it is to be done. The key is not to make sure sanctions stick, the key is to make them lightweight enough that admins actually enact them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence sub-pages in userspace

Just a reminder that per longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the evidence has been submitted and/or the case closes, the sub-pages should be deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Thank you for your understanding,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have posted this...this should be part of the normative arbitration process...anyway to set this in stone?--MONGO 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on the proposed principle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

harsh but unfair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've addressed some of the points raised in this section, in a new section below[62]. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., [63][64][65][66] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @SPhilbrick and anyone else. I have no history of poor editing of CC articles. No edit warring. I have defended myself on the arbcom case talkpage and obviously taken the bait once or twice when offered. For this I am being accused of promoting a battleground and am in the list for a topic ban. I have not primarily been an editor of Climate Change articles and that is certainly not my reason for being on wikipedia. However, I would regard a topic ban as a very silly slap in the face from arbcom and should this pass I will retire from wikipedia with immediate effect. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Question of my own....

Why not place all the embattled articles under Full Protection?--*Kat* (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because not all editors are the problem, and just about everybody wants to fix the broken bone rather than saw off the limb and stick it in formaldehyde. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a wiki. --TS 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

too many of the articles already have some kind of protection. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who decides which of the wrong versions gets full protection, who decides when it gets changed and who decides when protection is no longer needed? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the question, isn't it? My idea is that all the embattled articles be given full protection. Then, y'all would have to hash it out on the talk page and come to an honest to God consensus before having any revisions inserted. This would require you to make compromises about what goes in and what stays out. The end result, I think, would be an article that really is neutral. One where minority views are neither suppressed or given undue weight.--*Kat* (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is very good reasoning. I would support this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, I think you've cracked the whole problem of how to enforce the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Let's fully protect evolution and not allow any edits unless "due weight" is given to creationism. What can possibly go wrong? --TS 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice display of sarcasm, Thanks for making it clear that the problom is ot a one sided attitude or some evil, off wiki conspriacy but is in an attmpet by both sides to ensure that only their version of the truth is the on ewe allow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As a non-sarcasm response, the concern is that the version would be 'locked' in an unacceptably wrong version which could be filibustered to maintain, regardless of its merits. As long as the current versions supporters maintain an appearance of no consensus to change then the ones who want to change it are rendered powerless. The argument then would shift to bickering over wether the admin who invoked consensus and made the change was actually acting neutrally or partisanly leading to the same arguments that we have already concerning admins 'involvedness'. Essentially the argument would adapt to the new editing enviroment without being solved. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely there are some dedicated admins who don't give a darn about climate change [who could moderate the discussion] out there. What about TWOFR?. Furthermore the revisions don't have to take place on the day concenses is achieved. It could work on a schedule. Once a week or once every other day if the article is hot and there is new stuff coming on regularly. As to your first point: If a truly non-biased editor agrees that an article unacceptably POV, then the admin in charge could revert it back to a more acceptable version before putting the full protection on.--*Kat* (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kat, that's an interesting idea. It would be gamed by having minorities of editors dig in their heels to prevent consensus, but that can happen now. It would stop the edit warring, but also make it much more difficult to make uncontroversial changes that would benefit the articles (they're not always well-written and uncontroversial changes are almost always most of the edits in article space, I think). I don't think there are enough uninvolved admins with enough interest and time to do the editing once consensus is achieved on the page. In the grand scheme of things, in terms of workload, it's easier to sanction some editors and encourage future sanctions for future violations. I think I was too dismissive of your original post on this -- sorry about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. However, I respectfully disagree. What happened to AGF? Furthermore just like one person can't make a concensus, so too can one person not block concensus. If you are simply unable to achieve concensus over a non-controversial edit, the question should be, "Is this really important enough to go into an encyclopedia article." As to your final point, that's a lazy excuse. It may be easier but that doesn't make it better. Besides, just because you don't have the time doesn't mean others don't.--*Kat* (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that full protection with changes only added after an admin agrees on consensus is actually the opposite of AGF. It also flies in the face of WP:OWN since you would be essentially setting in stone that specific admins OWN specific articles and no one can change it without their say-so. We'd also have to change the tagline for wikipedia to 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit after an admin says its ok', Though WP is already headed in that direction anyway with BLP's and flagged revisions. I'm also interested in your statement above of 'truly non-biased editor'. Did you have specific criteria for 'truly non-biased' that people will agree on? Will the admins that have the right to edit through protection be vetted for impartiality before or after they make their changes? And who will be doing that vetting? What if a bunch of people think an admin, like oh say, Lar is involved and a bunch of others think he isn't? Who decides then? How many edits through protection can an admin make to an article before he is concidered involved? Seeings as he's editing the article and all. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "truly non-biased editor': I'm thinking maybe select someone at random from those editors who are 1) currently active, 2) have more than 1500 non-minor edits 3) in good standing (no blocks) and 4) have never even touched a climate change article. A database query could give you a list. You can select four or five or more and ask them what they think. Yes, I can think of all sorts of "but what if" problems with this, but chances are they won't happen. Tell someone that you will trust them and they will--more often than not--live up to that trust.--*Kat* (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we use the same algorithm for "truly non-biased editor" to decide on important issues in the editing of, say, hippocampus? A specialist spends part of his weekend typing up a sourced addendum to the section on schizophrenia, Randy in Boise thinks it conflicts with his beliefs and reverts saying the specialist is a plant from AMA. Captain Spaulding, your chosen non-biased editor, pops in and says "sure, looks like a conflict." So the article is fully protected for weeks because some random guy disagreed with a neurologist and a bloke who had no connection with the subject said there was obviously a disagreement. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to stop editing an article just because some person disagrees with some other person about an issue. Most of the time the objection by Randy is brushed aside because it has no credibility. And that is a good thing. --TS 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

TS, quit repeating things that clearly aren't true. It is inflammatory (to me anyway) to characterize someone as something they are not and misleading to everyone else. If this was really the case then you guys would've presented evidence of it. That has not been the case. The best thing you guys can say is that WMC said the paper he co-authored shouldn't have been used as a source to demonstrate global cooling alarmism - in other words, hot sauce added to weak tea to disguise the argument's lack of substance. To your general argument, "specialists" or "experts" can be activists just as easily as anyone else (more so in my opinion). A case in point, the guy in charge of the NASA surface temperature record (which shows higher temperatures than the satellite record) has just been arrested for a second time due to his environmental protesting activities. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm doing. There are no real people in the Captain Spaulding scenario, only the algorithm proposed above is real. The stuff about WMC (Dr. Connolley?) is not germane to the subject as far as I can tell. I agree that specialists are activists within their field. What of it? --TS 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If I've misunderstood your argument then it is only because it sounds identical to the arguments we've heard so many times before throughout the arbitration. Are you now telling me that it isn't a zebra I see but a white horse with black stripes painted on it? As for your final point, no, "specialists" are not necessarily activists, but academia often produces such behavior from insecure middle-aged teachers trying to bed idealistically naive young students. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

TS you are taking my suggestion and "algorithm" and applying it a totally different scenario. I would never suggest that we use Full Protection and outside intervention to settle a two bit edit war like the one you described above. In fact I wouldn't have suggested that it be used on a major edit war like the one that brought the editors of ADHD to ArbCom. Or even to the Eastern European wars. I mean for this solution to be applied to the realm of climate change. Nothing more, nothing less, nowhere else.--*Kat* (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we're agreed that such a regimen would not benefit hippocampus, ADHD, or topics in Eastern Europe. Could you explain why you think it would benefit climate change? What is the problem with permitting normal editing of articles in the topic, many of which do not have any history of serious edit warring? If an edit war starts, editors can be sanctioned and an article can be protected until consensus is achieved. Why is this not applicable in this topic, in your view? --TS 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what TS is getting at is the matter of precedence. With arbcom being viewed as a sort-of Supreme Court of WP then it is only natural that the admins will take their direction to heart. Specific to this case is the idea that Discretionary Sanctions became standard operating procedure for Arbcom, so some admins got together and applied Discretionary Sanctions to this area without arbcom. Regardless of the result, they were not wrong to do so. So if this full protection idea gets arbcom seal of approval, it is neither unthinkable nor unreasonable to believe that admins will concider it one of the tools in their belt to stop edit wars. How such things are implemented is a genuine concern.

You (Kat) note above that anyone can think of *what if* problems until the cows come home for any issue. I respond by saying that I have been trying to keep my 'what ifs' as being applicable to THIS case. The idea of a large argument about admins being involved was specifically germane to this case (hence my namedropping of Lar) and would have to be answered immediately and not as part of some possible outcome. I'm just saying that I'm not saying these things for the sake of opposing. I just believe that if you are going to follow through with this idea these questions need to be answered or it will fall apart before it does good. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with precedence, or arbitration. It's simply against policy to put permanent full protection on an article and no argument seems to have been made on the benefits of doing so even if we all agreed to do it. The harm that would be caused is substantial, so any argument for doing so would have to be pretty good. --TS 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If everyone agreed to do it, then it wouldn't be against policy. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The grisly facts and a prediction

Nothing to see here. Lets stop slinging blame and concentrate on bringing this case to a close, shall we? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just finished yet more archiving. This page, in the last two months, has generated a staggering 350,000 words and counting. This volume wouldn't be so bad if it the effort had gone into four new novels or nearly seven hundred new DYKs, but much of it has been partisan, ill-tempered, and of dubious relevance. And that's without mentioning the systemic wiki-lawyering ... The time has come to wind down the interminable discussions, with genuine effort now going into pertinance, brevity and collegiality. If not, it is probable that the clerks will be obliged to start intervening.  Roger Davies talk 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) The clerks intervening would not be a bad thing at all; in fact it would have been helpful had they had done so much earlier. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think I'm the first person to say this, but if the arbitrators themselves had posted a bit more (especially early in the case) about the kinds of evidence that would be convincing or unconvincing, or simply told editors, "No, that argument/evidence/reading of policy doesn't hold water with me because ...", this page would be a tenth of the size it is. (Some of this has happened, but rarely.) And of course this page seems to be used now as a Workshop and evidence page. And, of course, this whole case has taken -- how many months now? I appreciate the work you and some other arbitrators have obviously put into this, and you, Roger, and Rlevse, have done more communicating to the rest of us than anyone on Arbcom, but ArbCom has put people through a lot more discomfort and bother than was necessary. And as we who are on this Website to write get edgier during the interminable wait for a decision made almost entirely behind closed doors, we chat a bit. So save the sarcasm. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) What sarcasm?  Roger Davies talk 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC) This volume wouldn't be so bad if it the effort had gone into four new novels or nearly seven hundred new DYKs -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) That's the equivalent word length of 350,000 words.  Roger Davies talk 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Not my point. [67] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the link. Perhaps not the clearest example of sarcasm I've ever seen, but I apologise if my remark offended you.  Roger Davies talk 04:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Its a bit late for you to start comlaining about this. Right at the start I noted that some evidence - I think it was from JWB - was clearly partisan and not at all neutral. the arbs reaction was we-don't-care. If you've finally realised that is bad, then hurrah, but you should not be trying to cast blame on the case participants for errors that you have substantially contributed to. Ditto on talk length: the arbs habit of gnomic silence is largely responsible for this. And *yes*, the talk pages should indeed be more strongly clerked. Oh, and having a rubbish PD scrawled on a fag-packet by Rlevse didn't exactly help, either William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off. Seriously. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this was hatted so quickly since it was a thread started by an arbitrator. Shouldn't we see what Roger has to say out in the open and not under a hat like it's not important? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC) The original post was only partially on-topic and the thread swiftly veered right off-topic. The important thing is that people keep post volume and post length to a minimum.  Roger Davies talk 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) The important thing, Roger Davies, is that the Arbitrators have collectively failed to manage the Arbitration process. For months they have failed to participate meaningfully in the process, and they have failed to give effective guidance to their clerks. They have failed to inform parties of the scope of the case. They have failed to discuss their interpretation or evaluation of evidence. They have failed to provide feedback at nearly every stage of the process. If it's taken two months for an Arbitrator to notice that this page has a tremendous amount of irrelevant bickering, off-topic discussion, and interminable wikilawyering, then something is seriously broken. Perhaps your request would be met more warmly if it were accompanied by an acknowledgement of the errors the Committee has made so far, and an honest and open discussion of how they intend to remedy the mess that they have helped to construct. The Arbitration Committee failed in a very similar way last year around this time when they ignored the WMC-Abd case for extended periods; made no effort to curtail excessive, repetitive, unconstructive comment by some of the parties; and presented an appallingly unbalanced and ill-thought-out initial proposed decision. It is disappointing to see how little has been learned and how little has changed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think I've ever suggested that this case has been ArbCom's finest hour and I do agree with some of the points you make. However, in ArbCom's defence, mega-cases like this are exceedingly difficult to manage and they don't crop up often enough for us to get really good at them. The main problem is that they're basically a string of mini-cases with lots of over-lap. It is almost impossible to define a detailed scope in advance because you don't know how it will unfold. What is said in the statements rarely closely matches the final case. We have already said that we'd hold a workshop/post-mortem after the case closes to see what can be learned from it and that remains an excellent idea. Evidence is a systemic problem and not just in this case. In reality, we are reluctant to curtail evidence because this seriously disadvantages the inexperienced and/or the inarticulate. We cannot weigh evidence on its own; and have to wait to see what comes in by way of rebuttal and supplementary material before making anything approaching a determination. That said, this case is exceptional for its verbosity (the whole thing is about half a million words incidentally, the vast bulk of which was contributed by fewer than twenty editors).  Roger Davies talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I don't follow your comparison with the Abd-WMC case: that was over in two months, start to finish. Most parents and teachers learn pretty quickly that it's a bad idea to make rules that you don't intend to enforce. Doing so only undermines your credibility and leads to your charges misbehaving even worse. Leaders of effective organizations learn similar lessons. Unfortunately the arbitrators do not seem to have taken this principle on board. The case had word limits that went unenforced even when brought to the attention of the committee; there were deadlines that slipped by weeks; and on and on. That's not to excuse the misbehavior of editors, but the committee itself has a considerable share of the responsibility for what this case has turned into. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I disgree with you about ArbCom having to shoulder a considerable share of the responsibility, though obviously some lies with us. Ultimately, the responsibility for misbehaviour lies with those engaging in it. In fact, one of the core problems here is that, with a couple of exceptions, editors are not accepting that anything is their responsibility and doing their utmost to lay the blame somewhere else or on someone else. I agree entirely with what you say about rules and deadlines, and the expectations that are created.  Roger Davies talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't say Arbcom was responsible for people's misbehavior. I can see that "what this case has turned into" was vague enough that such a reading is possible, and apologize for the imprecise wording. It certainly wasn't what I meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Fair enough :)  Roger Davies talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Roger, your original post was quite sweeping and didn't seem to refer just to misbehavior. I didn't think you were just addressing misconduct on the arb pages, but rather more general verbosity etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with TenofAllTrades and some of the hatted comments, esp. the ones by JWB and WMC. While I agree that brevity is important, it's not right to even implicitly blame the participants in the process for the length of the pages, the wikilawyering, etc. The participants of all points of view were staggering around in the blind. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I must be missing something here. Are you really suggesting that the bad behaviour in this case, the same sort of bad behaviour that has been going on in the topic for years, is ArbCom's fault?  Roger Davies talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Gawd no. Maybe I misunderstood what you were referring to in your post. I was referring to the length of the posts and people sort of staggering around, not misbehavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC) That's clearer. I've no idea why the same (relatively few) people are posting so often and as such length. It's a new one to me too,  Roger Davies talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Not to pile it on, but one example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Sub-issues to be addressed. This ran for two weeks, collected a long list of suggested issues, and, as far as I can tell, there has been no feedback at all - so of course evidence and proposals were written for all proposed issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC) That's simply wrong. A great many of the workshop proposals found their way into the /Proposed decision in one form or another, though obviously the content-related ones and the over-specific ones didn't make it. The 'side issues' was a good and ambitious idea but probably collapsed under its own weight, 140-plus side-issue proposals of extremely variable quality and relevance. Roger Davies talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) It may well be that they went into the PD, but that was invisible from the outside for several weeks while the evidence was piled on and discussed. If you propose a multi-stage process with specific questions, it would be much more productive to provide feedback and focus during or directly after each phase. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Sure, and I try to engage but with the torrent of discussion it ain't that easy. However, not everyone has the available time or the temperament to do so. I can also understand my colleagues' possible reluctance to fuel further drama by extending old and inviting new discussions. The key thing here is that this case turned out to be exceptional in so many different ways = the highly invested/entrenched nature of many participants; the seemingly infinite capacity for discussion of minutiae; and, it has to be said, the unpleasantness of many of the interactions - and I don't think that was fully anticipated.  Roger Davies talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Well, at least User:Ncmvocalist will have enough to write about. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Huh? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I believe he's referring to your job reporting on this over at the signpost.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC) That was my take on the remark, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting; I wonder if he read the part about pertinence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Earlier today I made a sarcastic response to what I regard as an unactionable if well meaning suggestion to have all articles within the topic area fully protected. I asked "what could possibly in wrong" in such a scenario, and it was only on reflection a short time later that I realised that many editors with little experience simply do not know what is wrong with the "discuss first" editing model and why we don't use it unless the alternative it an edit was. I tried to revert but by that time I was on the move and on longer had access to a computer powerful enough to handle the task, so I took the discussion to the user talk page of the person to respond. I apologise for needlessly stepping into a pointless discussion and inflaming it, only hours after reading a disengagement suggestion on the very same page and nodding sagely. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that you might support the idea? Its *not* unactionable. Somebody just needs to Be Bold, IAR (since this would benefit the wiki) and do it.--*Kat* (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The telephone has its idiosyncrasies. "in" means "go" and if you have a telephone keypad you can work out the rest. I've considerably expanded my thoughts, which I believe reflect Wikipedia's principles and current policy, at the user talk page of the first editor who responded to my sarcastic comment. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response Kat, I would oppose the proposal even if I thought it was within written policy. As a strong supporter of "Ignore all rules", however, I would accept if I found that it was widely supported and effective. I've been there a few times myself and proudly wear the grimy t-shirt. Fuck process and policy is what works. But you have to get everybody to agree that it works. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So where do we go to get this voted on? Its a good idea and, in my opinion, far preferable to seeing multiple editors get banned. If we ban the editors we lose their knowledge, energy, and talents.--*Kat* (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kat, without sarcasm I applaud your impulse to find an innovative solution. Ignore all rules is our first policy, and it's also a powerful kind of magic which, if followed assiduously, is far less effective than you might hope but far more effective than any other kind of engagement on Wikipedia. When it works, nobody will notice. When it fails, everybody will point the finger so make sure it isn't pointing at you. Go to the policy page, read all the essays, and then forget them. Edit for a couple more years. Then come back and say what you want to do. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TonySidaway, I have been an editor off and on for five years. More on than off. I have over 4,000 edits under my belt. I have re-written over a dozen articles and contributed in a positive manner to many wiki projects. Even when I wasn't actively editing I was actively reading. I have been reading the essays and archives since I first discovered them some four years ago. Is that not enough experience for you?--*Kat* (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As to what you said about finger pointing, the fact that you haven't heard of me should be an indicator of my ego. I'm just here to help. I'm not here to gain rank or prestige. If this fails then point all the fingers at me you want. Point your toes at me if that is what you want. But give this a try. All of you. I think that if you give this a good faith effort you will get good faith results.--*Kat* (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop anybody going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and asking for certain articles where there is no ongoing edit war to be fully protected. Getting the administrators to agree to do it is another matter. --TS 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's battlefield conduct

I started to go through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo’s battlefield conduct diff by diff. When I came to the third diff that wasn't even a comment by myself but by ATren I was in utter despair. How Arbcom can justify such a shoddy list of weak diffs in the wikipedia namespace (given that I have made hundreds of wikipedia namespace contributions during the RfC/U which I started and also during this case in my own defence) as my supposed battlefield conduct is totally beyond me. If I had not had a baby daughter 2 weeks ago I would be defending myself more rigorously but I am finding it difficult to keep up with the venom pouring out of this case. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! This was the diff after the ATren diff that you mention. [68] Perhaps it was the diff the arbitrator meant to include. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who knows. I will not take the bait :). Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what conclusions you feel readers should take away from this section? If your point is that one of the diffs provided mistakenly picked up the wrong diff, I agree with the observation and it can be corrected. However, a single mistaken diff doesn't explain "utter depair". Is it your view that you have not engaged in editing that could reasonably be construed as battleground mentality?--SPhilbrickT 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also some problem with what is currently the last "diff" in wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Polargeo.27s_battlefield_conduct; it doesn't seem to be a diff or to have anything to do with Polargeo. Cardamon (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• My utter despair is at how mindnumbingly mild most of the diffs are. To accuse me of promoting a battleground in CC I would expect some major mudslinging. Maybe a couple of diffs show I have been slightly incivil but I wouldn't expect fairly passive comments on my own talkpage to be used as evidence of promoting a battleground in CC. Also this whole idea of any criticism of JohnWBarber as me personalizing the debate in a CC battleground way is nonsense. I had no recolection of any conflict with him, neither of us are primarily CC editors and he suddenly popped up in this case and with the weakest of diffs called for me to be desysopped and banned, this sort of over the top baying for blood is pure disruption in my opinion. I have since found that he has done this previously to other users. He has baited me many times during this case (the latest of which is in this very thread). For example every time I mentioned his name or criticised his motives he tagged the diff onto his evidence as a personal attack. I truly think he is gaming the system and my highlighting this is not battleground or a personal attack but just my observation which I can back up with diffs very easily, however I don't seem to have the sort of time at my disposal to deal with this that certain other editors have. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Secondly to include me in "remedy 3" banning me from CC articles when I have no history of problematic edits on CC articles or their talkpages strikes me as a clearly punitive action rather than dealing with any particular issue. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  As I indicated on your talk page, I think the Arbitration Committee is struggling with the size of this case and have an adopted a battlefield medicine approach. You're going to see amputations instead of medications. By topic banning everything that moves, ArbCom will put an immediate halt on most of the problems in the topic; however, the cost of doing it this way is that some will inevitably be treated more harshly than they deserve. The project is bigger than any single editor, so the heavy-handed approach is understandable (if undesirable). I'd recommend approaching the Committee and seeking a voluntary restriction. It is a clear signal that you wish to show good faith and put the project first, and it is presumably much easier to emerge from a self-imposed exile than one imposed upon you. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Any situation has to draw the line somewhere but why has Lar not been mentioned in remedy 3 and I have been? He also does not have any problematic editing on CC articles or their talkpages but has clearly spent some considerable time grouping editors together as Cabal etc. and trying to "level the playing field" (this is far more promoting of a battleground than any of my comments) Or for that matter StephanSchulz who seems according to Lar to have insulted Lar far more than I have. The popping of myself into the R3 seems to be entirely random and based on weak diffs mostly provided by JohnWBarber. R3 is not a good solution anyway, editors simply need to be shown that wikilawyering in the wikipedia namespace is not acceptable nor is piling on in edit wars and content disputes, this can be enforced by an effective AE. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that wikilawyering and edit warring have been significant issues in this topic. ArbCom appears to be responding well to the latter, but wikilawyering does not seem to be attracting the remedies I would've expected it to. I would argue that attacking editors with wikilawyering is as equally egregious as attacking articles with edit warring. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of order

Off-topic. Seriously, if you want to discuss anything other than the proposed decisions, please do it elsewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This case is an utter mess. New arbs keep coming in and proposing new dramatic sanctions which ignore the fact that other arbs such as the drafting arbs have spent considerable time on this already. the case is becoming a comedy of errors. Lists of out of context diffs rule the day along with sheep voting. This solves nothing, just topic ban the 2 or 3 worst culprits, set up AE instead of CCRFE and make it work on a day to day basis in practice, enough of this posturing. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC) How many months has this case been going on for? Seems like arbs are now just reacting to the case talkpages and not any real problems with CC articles. Oh well speaking ones mind on case talkpages should obviously result in a topic ban. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Ha, you should complain. If you look at the BLP-busting diffs against me, most of them are form more than two years ago, and one [69] removes the word scientist from Tim Ball even though the current stable state of the article is happy with that. Because, he isn't a scientist. So, making A BLP more accurate is now an offense against BLP. Many of the diffs in this case are junk - Rlvese threw them together to tar people with very little care and attention. R is gone, but the poison lingers on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC) After being topic banned from the Fred Singer article you went to your talk page, implied he was committing tax fraud, posted a link to a document containing his telephone number and address and then linked to your blog where you said he was insane. You then resisted attempts by multiple people on your side to delete that nonsense. If anyone else had thrown a temper tantrum like that then they would've and should've been blocked - doubly so as you managed to mangle your facts so much since you were so eager to accuse Singer of something. You should be thanking your lucky stars that the Arbs didn't post that recent crap on the PD page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC) You're wrong, but your continuing attempts to spread poison are presumably noted by the arbs, so keep it up William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Lucky for me I'd already submitted this as evidence so I didn't have to look far. Here is the first part of the conversation, someone can walk the diffs if they want to see the rest of the conversation. You do bring up an interesting point though - can truth be poison? I think for some people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) [70] --JN466 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A friendly, gentle reminder

I know this case has been going for awhile, and we clerks have been somewhat lax in enforcing the rules here, so some contributors may have forgotten the statement at the top of this talk page: "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions." Many of the discussions here are most certainly contentious or off-topic. If you want to discuss anything other than the proposed decisions being made on the project page, please do it elsewhere. Attacking other parties in the case, complaining about the arbitrators, or squabbling over article content is off-topic for this page, and any discussions to that effect will be collapsed by the clerks. Discussions that started on-topic but veer off-topic will also not be spared. Repeat offenders will be asked not to post on this talk page at all. Given the length of this case and the quality of the discourse here, we intend to enforce these rules rather strictly from now on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

I want to thank Hypocrite for bring attention to my indiscretions. I must apologies to the Wikipedia community for my ignorance and egregious behavior. War is simply against my principles. Accepting the fate of a martyr, seem to be in them. As well, it's surprising to see so many Battlefield conduct findings proposed for Topic Ban remedies, the effect seems to have chilled down the topic. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)