Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:33, 6 October 2010

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)

Archives

Numbered Archives

Topical Archives

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 purging the cache.

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.

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.[reply]

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.[reply]

5 Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area (Scibaby)

I'm broadly satisfied with the way the arbitration seems to be going and I'm very grateful that the arbitrators have devoted a very large amount of time and effort to trying to resolve this complex and entangled dispute.

One area that bothers me, though, is the treatment of Scibaby, which I think is represented in the current proposed finding, to wit:

Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

The bolded text doesn't seem correct to me, though historically it may have had some factual basis.

Here's a summary for the month of January:

On January 1, 2010, 5 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed, and all were tagged and blocked by Checkuser J.delanoy.

On January 5, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. 7 were confirmed by Checkuser Alison, and all 7 of those were tagged, and they were blocked by admin NuclearWarfare. Alison reviewed one of them and decided she had erred in one case. He was unblocked.

On January 7, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed by Alison and blocked by NuclearWarfare.

On January 8, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added 1 more. 2 admins blocked them.

On January 9, 2010, 4 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed and blocked 2 of them.

On January 16, 2010, 3 users and one IP were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed 2 and they were blocked by NuclearWarfare. Another was found to have a sock which had not been listed, but was not apparently related to Scibaby. Neither of the latter was blocked.

On January 22, 2010, 1 IP and 1 user were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed the user as a sock of Scibaby, and listed 4 other socks she had found. She said "no comment" on the IP. Stephan Schulz blocked all 4 Scibaby socks.

On January 25, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and suggested that a rangeblock might be appropriate. The user was blocked by Amory, and later Alison applied a rangeblock to 24.205.128.0/19, "as there's very little else other than Scibaby on there."

On Januay 28, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added a third. They were blocked by 2 admins.

On January 29, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. It was confirmed by Alison and blocked by Amory Meltzer.

On January 30, 2010, 1 editor was listed as a suspected scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and Amory Meltzer blocked it.

On January 31, 2010, 3 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. The admin Prolog blocked 1 as an obvious sock to prevent further disruption, "It's definitely Scibaby." The admin Mastcell blocked another as "an obvious match" with one of the reported suspected socks. Checkuser Luna Santin confirmed all of them and added another. They were all blocked.

This seems to show a pattern of highly reliable sock spotting, confirmed by separate Checkusers. Only one instance of mistaken identification has been detected for the whole month. Assuming this was not some fluke "lucky" month, the data does not corroborate the characterization in the proposed finding.

Could I ask the arbitrators to please take a closer look at this and consult the Checkusers to see if they agree with it? --TS 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also appreciate it if the Arbs could address Tony's question. The 20-40% false-positive rate doesn't agree with my general impression, nor does it agree with Tony's compiled data. I understand that the 20-40% figure includes rangeblocks, and while I agree that overzealous rangeblocks were highly problematic, I think more clarity in this regard would be helpful, because the 20-40% figure can be (and indeed has already been) used as ammunition against the small and shrinking handful of editors who actually handle this prolific sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked over the first few months of 2010 a while back, and found the data very much more consistent with Tony's description than with a 20-40% error rate. ArbCom should also be careful to distinguish between wrongly suspected users, and users caught in range blocks, as these are caused by separate processes and people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people here reading Risker's clarification (from early September) in that remedy? It seems to explain how the numbers was derived, in particular the 40% was from last year, the 20% this year which suggests things have improved but we still have a way to go. Perhaps what's being proposed here (or should be proposed here) is that some of that is summarised in the finding? Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The finding should, in particular, highlight that the rate at which editors identify Scibaby socks does not have 20-40% false positives, nor did it ever have them. How many legitimate contributors are caught in range blocks is a different question. Moreover, there seems to be an implicit assumption that any sock not confirmed by CU is a false positive. That is, of course fallacious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to a discussion on Carcharoth's talk page[1], the figure comes from a report that discussed Raul654's checkuser-based rangeblocking, which ended in July, 2009 according to his admin log. If so then the Committee really does need to update its finding to describe what has happened in the intervening year, which appears to me to be sock puppet handling performed to commendable standards. --TS 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you could keep such discussion here in future, and not take it to my talk page, that would be good, Tony. The section you raised this in on my talk page was nothing to do with Scibaby and I've separated out what you said there (and the responses, none of which were by me) to its own section, but really it would be best if you hatted that discussion on my talk page and directed people here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

This finding of fact includes the following clause: "a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated." Please confirm that this sentence is accurate. I will, as usual, only respond to AC (or active checkusers). Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this question is addressed in more detail in another section above. --TS 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as stated above, that's a ballpark figure. Which is why it says "estimates". What is your point? — Coren ^(talk) 02:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January stats posted by Tony above implies that the real number is about an order magnitude lower for those actually blocked. I think that's significant enough... NW (Talk) 03:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis (by Tony) may be taking the wrong approach, and seems to be too small a sample in any case (a better approach would be to identify the numbers unblocked and extrapolate from that to estimate how many people didn't bother to ask to be unblocked). I'm not that comfortable with the 20-40% figure either (though see Risker's explanation of it on the PD), mainly because any percentage needs to give the numbers involved as percentages can be misleading, but I am satisfied that there has been an over-reaction to Scibaby, and that, rather than specific percentages, is the key point here. It is difficult to deal with Scibaby-like issues, but the point that we are trying to make here is that more care when looking at such issues, and less collateral damage is needed, not more damage or quibbling over numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I believe that the 20% and 40% figures are about range blocks, not about "accounts blocked as Scibaby," which the PD states they are about. Could you confirm that is correct? If it is correct, shouldn't it be made accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 Cla68 battlefield conduct

I suggest adding to the findings of fact Cla68's battlefield conduct on the climate change request for enforcement page:

Tendentious complaint against William M. Connelley, closed as "no case to answer." [2]

"Notice of formal request to William M. Connelley." Cla68 abused the RfE page, and added unnecessary drama, by first "formally" requesting that WMC cease editing an article[3], and then repeating that "formal request" at the RfE page.[4] Clerk notation: "Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so."

--ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

JohnWBarber (remedies)

JWB appears to be the only individual with a battelfield finding of fact without a cooresponding topic ban currently being considered. Is this intentional? As usual, I will respond only to members of AC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

New proposals

Archived proposals can be found at /New proposals, /New proposals2 and /New proposals3

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.[reply]

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber

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

JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [5], [6], [7], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed [13], [14], [15], [16].

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)[reply]

I am adding these to add to the above,

[17], [18], [19], [20] [21] Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly not impressed by these diffs. --JN466 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway [22]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)[reply]

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there is an FoF on this editor, can we take off the hat so that it can be seen? Editors may have more to add too since I know I wasn't finished with adding one more to what I added. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) As per the discussion below I would like finish adding the difs I wanted to add prior to the hatting. [23], [24], [25], and [26]. Thank you for the advice below about adding this here. This is all I am going to say about this matter. I hope the arbitrators will look at the difs provided in this section and make there own decisions as to whether any of them are useful to add to the FoF on the PD page. (Notation: I tried adding the difs and and error message came up and I lost everything, so I tried to give them again.) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response:

Shell, you didn't do a good job at looking at the context at all in this diff, [27] (Diff #3) which was followed about half an hour later with discussion on the editor's talk page and an apology from me [28] (for context, I think this is the full talk-page discussion on the editor's talk page [29]; these two short sections [30] [31] on my talk page integrate into that discussion) a bit over an hour later with this diff on that page [32] (see edit summary, I think other changes had been reverted back). I immediately saw I was in the wrong and apologized to Nsaa, although I did want that lead unchanged until the ongoing discussion on the article talk-page was over. You know, Shell, this points to a broader problem: When dealing with KDP and Hipocrite and some other extremely difficult editors such as Active Banana on that page (do you want a dozen diffs on that? two dozen? I can provide them, but perhaps links to the discussions will give the best context), at some point a normal person without superhuman patience will blow off some steam. It matters very much whether (1) the person was goaded, intentionally or unintentionally, by the behavior of others; (2) how rare the occurence is; (3) whether or not the person calms down and either gets back to efforts to come to a consensus or walks away; (4) if the person has been uncivil, whether the person apologizes. These are important considerations that I don't see arbitrators explicitly considering, and so I'm left to wonder whether or not you do consider them. The bottom line here is whether or not the effect of my participation on various pages was to help reach consensus or prevent it,and whether, if I was tending to prevent it or otherwise hurt the process, my actions rose to the level worth ArbCom's consideration). Since you're not looking for punishment but to prevent future bad conduct, you should be clear about whether or not you think some kind of ArbCom sanction is needed to prevent the same or similar conduct from me in the future. I don't have time right now to look through more diffs, but I will. My memory is that I didn't promote a battleground atmosphere, but if any edits show that I did, I'll acknowledge that, apologize and we'll see how much of that promoting there is. In the past, whenever editors I regard as sincere and not looking for a fight have criticized any edit of mine, I've looked into the matter and rectified it if I found any conduct I couldn't defend. That's happened with Jehochman, Franamax and 2/0. (I'll get the diffs and put them here.) You even acknowledge that this may not gain a great deal of support being rather difficult to quantify with diffs. It gets more difficult the more you look into the diffs. If it's difficult to see in the diffs, explanation on this page or on the PD page really is in order.added material starting with the italicized quote and ending here. Forgot to add this before. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Corrected diff at beginning of this post and gave it a number -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other ArbCom members: I expect that out of fairness you will either refrain from voting until I've made my case or consider your vote tentative until the discussion is over. I expect a bunch of angry editors to post a bunch of diffs (inaccurate and worse than inaccurate), and (as briefly as possible) I will respond to every single one of them, no matter how many there are, no matter how long it takes. If ArbCom members tell me particular diffs are not worth my response, in order to cut down the discussion size, I'm happy to ignore them and focus on what you're interested in.
It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history.
This is a busy weekend for me. I'll be in and out today and tomorrow and have more time for this starting Sunday night. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the editing of the articles but I feel that an FoF on you is just as important as they are on others who as you way and I quote, "It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history." I think this also applies to others who have FoF's where you have put difs against them. I'm sorry but you can't have it one way for others and a different way for you. Please, would a arbitrator unhat the above FoF so that difs may be added? John I feel that your behavior on this page has been in battle mode against some editors. This is of course my personal opinion but I think I have the right to present what I've seen and you have the right to dispute it. I'm sorry about this, I have no feelings about you from any previous interactions, though I don't remember any between the two of us. I could be wrong, and if I am, show me a dif of it please, thanks in advance. I think that if some of the difs above are added to the PD page, more support may be of available. Thank you for your time to read this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, you can add diffs even if it's not unhatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Though I think it being unhatted would be better now that there is an FoF on the PD page and Barber is disputing it, I will do that if it becomes necessary. I have like three or four I would like to bring to the arbitrators attention. Thanks for letting me know ScottyBerg, really appreciate knowing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you I've added them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I agree with you about the hatting. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently JWB formerly edited under the account "User:Noroton." That account has a lengthy block record for incivility, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts that should be included in the FoF. [33] Given this past record, my feeling is that an extensive or indefinite block may be warranted as a remedy. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His other accounts that he used, I believe there are four not counting this one, should be listed as history of his account like was done with other editors. His account User:CountryDoctor was blocked for multiple accounts, User:Reconsiderationis his account that he uses when on an unsecured computer, and User:Picabu. He also has another account for the WikiCommons called User:Amg37. That leaves the User:Noroton account which was blocked multiple times for WP:Civil, WP:TE, WP:Disruptive editing, multiple accounts, WP:3RR. Yes, I think this all needs to be addressed. Even though these accounts apparently go back to 2008, what we've seen here now is uncivil behavior, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing. I haven't looked at the block log of his account he now uses, Barber, but I will. I have RL calling me again so I have to go. I agree with ScottyBerg right now but I'll see if I change my mind after some more checking. I hope the arbitrators are also checking. The more eyes the better in my opinion. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (Made correction per comment from 2/0) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick quibble: Reconsideration2 (talk · contribs) is JWB's account for use on public computers, according to his user page. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are correct about this, I named the wrong account. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone really interested in my last block: It went to ArbCom because I took it there[34] (the best, quickest summary is in my comment marked "@Coren"). It's worth noting that the blocking admin, VersaGeek, told ArbCom that if she had to do it over again, she wouldn't have blocked me (see second bullet [35]). ArbCom's response was that I should go to an ArbCom subcommittee, WP:AUSC which hemmed and hawed and made me wait months because certain information was private. By the time I got through that, I was too exhausted with the process to take it back to ArbCom and demand that ArbCom, after all they put me through, have the decency to state that the stated reason for the block -- "disruption" -- had no basis in fact. In my exhaustion with the whole thing, I decided that after all, it wouldn't matter -- that no one would bring up such a silly matter against me ever again. Foolish me. ArbCom, you blew it when you had the chance to fix it, and as a result I have Jehochman bringing it up again [36] and again [37] and again, [38] and now ScottyBerg and CrohnieGal. It's a neat way that admins can attack editors: mention the crappy blocks that previous admins foolishly made, but don't look too close. I'd love to see an ArbCom member stick a link to it on the P.D. page. Then ArbCom members could explain why my request for an explanation for the allegation that I was "disruptive" was not worth the admin's or ArbCom's time and then becomes background for a new charge of "disruption" that (at least as yet) hasn't been adequately explained. If you want to go back as far as 2008, in which I was in a dispute with Wikidemon and got blocked for three weeks, you might want to see Wikidemon's latest comment about me. [39] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's "attacking" you by suggesting that your past block record for disruption, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts be mentioned in the FoF and that it be taken into consideration in imposing a sanction, if one is implemented. ~~Also, you don't strike me as "exhausted."~~ ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence seems unnecessarily catty, as he was pretty clearly describing his emotional state at a past time, not the present. It's nothing personal, ScottyBerg, but I think this is one more example of the widespread tendency all around in this dispute for people to take jabs at their opponents instead of really trying to read and understand what they're saying. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll admit that last sentence was unnecessary, and I'll strike it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground language by JohnWBarber here on Lar's talkpage (18 September), putting down editors as being part of a faction. Immediately supported by Lar [40] as he comes straight in and criticises the editor who JohnWBarber has an issue with. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a discussion about the existence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is itself a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially when no names are named, it's a Catch 22. The point was about whether or not it was useful or possible to bring up the idea of factions with regard to the behavior of others. The discussion was about the CC articles, but it was abstract. I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND both on the evidence page and the workshop page early in this case, and I would have welcomed a further discussion of the policy there. You seem to be saying that it's a violation of policy to discuss the problem of factions in a polite way, even when we're not discussing the actions of individual editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse of the ~~climate change enforcement~~ proposed decision case page: his meritless "baiting" complaint against Tony Sidaway [41]. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your link isn't working. Scotty, you brought up the point that it was "meritless" at the time, and I answered you. [42] I showed with specific diffs how Tony's behavior violated specific parts of a specific policy, WP:NPA, and I think there was enough of that going on for it to amount to baiting as well. I can understand how someone else might disagree with that, but I can't understand how someone else would think it's totally "meritless" and some kind of abuse of process for me to complain about it. I'm not going to repeat the answers I gave you in that thread -- it's up to you to read them and reply. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link is working. I meant the "proposed decision" page, not the RfE page. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

Shell: I looked over your accusation in detail last night, but I'm having trouble understanding part of it. You admit that your finding is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", and since you brought up things that weren't previously discussed on this page, it's difficult for me to get a handle on just what you're objecting to and how the diffs even relate to your accusation and your additional comment. If you don't provide further explanation, it's hard for me to defend myself: I may be flailing about in discussing specific diffs in ways that don't address your points. The "edit warring" diffs I understand and I can respond to that part, and I can figure out what you're saying in the next four diffs (in article and article talk space) but the four diffs from ArbCom pages puzzle me. You say my comments are far to focused on individual editors. I thought focusing on individual editors was one of the primary reasons for an ArbCom case and so editors naturally focus on them in presenting evidence and arguments for or against sanctioning them. I don't understand how someone can be "far too focused" on that. You say my comments serve to inflame tensions, but even constructive comments on this page will do that as a matter of course, and if politeness isn't the problem, what is? Are you saying that I was making meritless comments not helpful in resolving this case because it was obvious they didn't deal with conduct ArbCom would consider? Or is there something more to it? Please explain. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general my concern about your participation in this topic area was that you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. The first diff from the Gore Effect talk page is an excellent example: you were asked to provided references for the point you were making, instead of providing them or addressing the request at all, you simply say That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive.. I can't think of a less productive response, not to mention the rudeness involved in blowing off another editor in this manner. In the second diff, editors start to realize that meta-discussion about who does/does not have which consensus isn't helping move things forward and attempt to get the discussion back on track. You continue down the path that several others have already noted is unhelpful with Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? with the edit summary Show me the money. Later in the discussion after editors are concerned that your comments are stonewalling rather than moving towards a consensus, you again repeat your request to be shown a consensus and accuse others of stonewalling instead(third diff). On to another article in the fourth diff, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?. The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area. Other gems include This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future, Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments?, There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. .

One final point, it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That helps me better understand you, Shell. It doesn't help me understand what you think is wrong with this edit. [43] (#10, below) Could you explain your objection to it? Also, I don't think you've looked at some other editors for much worse behavior. Viriditas, for example. Please compare these quotes with what you've quoted from me and tell me how I'm worth a finding of fact and Viriditas isn't. [44] Roger shelved that discussion on September 27. Another thing: I don't understand why you ignore baiting and personal attacks from Tony Sidaway and consider my reaction (which does not include personal attacks) more important. WP:NPA is, after all, policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. No, that's simply not true. I tend to engage in productive discussion, and the vast majority of my edits are just that, either on the CC case pages, over at WP:GSCCRE, in the CC article pages and article talk pages and elsewhere. Even the #10 diff is about productive discussion. And by the way, Shell, you say gems -- that's a bit of needling on your own there, isn't it? Easy to fall into, isn't it, particularly when you're irritated. And unlike me in the discussions your diffs point to, you're under much less pressure in this discussion. I think that under the circumstances of those diffs, my responses are much more understandable than you make them appear. I'll be demonstrating this soon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, this is a copy of the Fof with numbers. I'll refer to the numbers later:

25) JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring (1) [45], (2) [46], (3) [47] and comments that served to inflame tensions and reinforced a battleground mentality (4) [48], (5) [49], (6) [50], (7) [51], (8) [52], (9) [53], (10) [54], (11) [55], (12) [56], (13) [57]. JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton (talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't begrudge John W Barber's right to bring evidence, but I just want to make it plain that I vehemently deny attempting to provoke (bait) him. John, I apologise if my sincere actions ever gave you that impression. --TS 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged my answers in numerical order below. Easier to keep track. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #2: [58] This is not edit warring. This is classic WP:BRD: Bold: [59] Revert: [60] Discuss: [61] (links to entire discussion) I don't understand why this was included in the finding. Shell, am I missing something? If you look at the timestamps, I even started the discussion a minute before making the revert. I can't see any way that this comes close to edit warring. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (new timestamp)[reply]

Diff #8: [62] Why is this diff in the Fof? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #10: [63] Where is the "nasty" language here? Why is this diff in the Fof? The harshest thing I say in it is at the end: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. I don't think Kim's behavior has been reasonable; it's been disruptive, and some of the diffs, seen in context, are my reactions to that disruption. 2/0 had a perfectly acceptable argument asking ArbCom to reject the remedy against Kim. I disagreed and posted a perfectly acceptable argument to the contrary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #11: [64] This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future Shell, how is this diff "not productive"? I thought I made an extremely important, productive point: Arbitration enforcement will be gamed, and I'm entitled to my opinion on that. How is it "nasty"? It certainly isn't needling anybody at all. I wanted to say it in a way that would get your attention ~~(sure got it) You don't like it, I get that. Please tell me what's wrong with it, because I don't get that.~~ -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has given me something to think about regarding this one, and I'll have more to say about this one later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #12: [65] Shell objects to this sentence Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? This, according to Shell, is an example of nasty remarks [...] causing more tension in an already tense area. The context shows otherwise. Here's a larger excerpt of that comment:

I'm collapsing this because it's long. I think I need to say it, but I don't think everybody should have to scroll so much to get past it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking others about what behavior they might know of is not proof of a "vendetta". As a matter of fact, neither Scjessey nor Viriditas has any proof that there's been a vendetta against Scjessey. Last night, I suggested Scjessey actualy find some proof, but he's content to simply repeat the smear and Viriditas at 01:12 above simultaneously posts that it is only "alleged" and implies it exists. Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? If I have a concern about an editor, Scjessey, and if I've already complained about that editor in the past in the proper forums, how is it improper if I complain again about the same editor after I run across him again and am attacked by him?

So Shell, you took that quote from this immediate context in which I was responding to people telling me I was following a "vendetta", and you're using this as an example where it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate.

Here's how "vendetta" first appeared in that thread (just follow the link and scroll up to find it):

←This is a personal vendetta that JWB is dressing up as some sort of bullshit public service. I request ArbCom tells JWB to put a sock in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now here was my first reply (an excerpt):

Please provide proof that I'm engaging in a vendetta rather than just complaining about your behavior and explaining my complaint at the appropriate page. I think your comment in the December diff, above, shows you were carrying a grudge at a time when I was trying to work with you (look through that discussion thread). I have been angry with you, but I try not to act on that and I don't think I have. I certainly am not looking for a fight with you. I've had sharp disagreements with others and I've been able to work them out. And the evidence above doesn't primarily concern me. This thread is becoming distracting, not informative. Since my mere comments seem to cause you to make intemperate statements, I'm going to withdraw from this thread for at least the rest of the day. Your 19:32 edit, as it now stands, is a personal attack. Please fix that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So my first reaction was fine, even by your lights. But Scjessey didn't stop, and I thought Viriditas was joining in (I'm not so sure now that Viriditas meant to imply a vendetta [see 01:12, 12 Sept], although he was trying to denigrate AQFK's evidence by linking it with mine). Here is Scjessey's immediate reply (02:35, 12 September):

I will not be "fixing" anything. I am defending myself against your campaign to get me sanctioned for basically nothing. And if you're "not looking for a fight" with me, why the hell have you dressed-up those diffs to make them look worse than they are? [...]

Shell, after literally dozens of personal attacks on this page and others -- attacks which you and other arbs as well as the clerks have largely ignored, and personal attacks against me right in the thread that this diff is a part of, "an objective manner" is, frankly, near impossible. I'm not "personalizing" a discussion in which I'm being attacked because it's already been "personalized", hasn't it? In this edit, in fact, I moved from responding to Scjessey's and Viriditas' "vendetta" comments toward productive presentation of evidence, showing Scjessey's comments more recently were inflammatory in just the same ways that they were when ArbCom sanctioned him a little over a year ago. By the way, Scjessey brought up "vendetta" two hours after Tony had brought it up on the same page. I had replied to Tony (17:25, 11 Sept) that the only vendetta I knew of was Scjessey's against me. I was (and am) able to point to diffs showing Scjessey holding a grudge against me. Despite my irritation with Scjessey, the only thing he can point to is me following policy regarding him. Now you point to this and other comments during a string of personal attacks against me as evidence showing how I'm "personalizing" discussions on a page about editors' conduct. Some of Scjessey's attacks on me are on the P.D. page right now, in the Fof you voted to support. I don't think my relatively mild comment in the midst of all of the above was contributing to a battleground atmosphere on this page. Sure, I don't think it was the best comment I might've made, but in context it isn't worth bothering about. (My responses to other evidence will be much briefer.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #13: [66] There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. I had just been attacked by Tony. Smeared. WP:NPA. The insinuation was that I had a "vendetta" going on. And your concern: That italics around "some" and C'mon, fork it over. is an example of "nasty" language "making [my] discussion much less effective and causing more tension". Shell, I think a more efficient way to reduce tension in discussions is not to have a personal attack in the first place and for others not to ignore them when they happen repeatedly. I agree that my response could have been better. I'll try harder to avoid sarcasm and snark the next time I'm attacked. But I don't think this diff, even in combination with others, is really important enough for an Fof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"abuse of multiple accounts" There is no legitimate reason to include this in the finding. Shell, why did you include it and why don't you remove it? After I was blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts", the checkuser/blocking admin said the reason had to do with being "disruptive". [67] I asked the checkuser/admin why I was blocked rather than approached, because I hadn't done anything "abusive" -- at least anything that was beyond a technical violation and therefore not worth a block. The blocking admin, Versageek, replied I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy. [68]. I then asked where this disruption could be found and received no actual reply. [69] I then brought the matter to ArbCom, protesting (among other things) that I hadn't been disruptive. Here is the AfD. [70] Here is the DRV [71]. I also made some comments on Jake Wartenberg's talk page. Shell, your inclusion of "JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton (talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts" seems to endorse the view that the multiple-accounts block was justified (by my "disruptive" behavior, something for which there is no proof and never has been any proof). This strengthens your case that I'm showing a pattern of "disruptive behavior" since the block was a year ago. I can understand why you'd want to try to strengthen a case which even you say is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", but I think you're going to have to rely on the block from two years ago rather than a year ago. Versageek couldn't produce a diff in which I was "disruptive". Simply using multiple accounts is not, by itself "disruptive". Please find the "disruption" in the AfD or DRV or drop the allegation. Because it isn't at all over the top to say that you, Versageek, WP:AUSC and ArbCom itself are committing (or have committed) a personal attack by making

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

I realize this is complicated and I don't blame you for deliberately trying to continue this personal attack, but ArbCom helped to create this mess. The very least ArbCom owes me is not to perpetuate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (added information -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If only it were that simple. ArbCom has decided otherwise in the past though: [72], [73]. NW (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new finding of fact: Limits of ArbCom

Collapsing. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the traditional restraint on considering questions of content, the Arbitration committee recognises its inability to deal with civil POV pushing. It encourages the community to develop new dispute resolution processes to overcome this limitation.

Discussion (civil POV-pushing)

Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. There needs to be a method by which editors who are uninterested in contributing by consensus and other application of policy, but whose actions are otherwise civil, may be reviewed and if necessary restricted or removed from the project in a prompt and nondisruptive manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with this. I don't really think, however, that the Committee needs to be asked to state their own inabilities. But yes, this is something that is a chronic problem on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, I don't think I agree with an underlying premise of your proposal. Saying that ArbCom is unable to deal with what are essentially content disputes is like saying a shovel is unable to tighten a screw. ArbCom doesn't deal with such things not because it can't, but because that's not its function. There are other mechanisms, like RfC and Mediation intended to solicit outside views, and help editors work through disputes to reach consensus. Part of being civil is using these mechanisms, and doing so in good faith, since being polite while refusing to persuade or compromise is itself uncivil. In cases where editors refuse to use the available tools in good faith, that becomes an issue of conduct where other mechanisms, including ultimately ArbCom, come into play. DGaw (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I think WP:DR is presented. It's an escalating ladder, with ArbCom at the top. Mediation rarely works, and the experience with RfCs in this area is not very positive - there is little outside input (not surprising, as it is a complex topic and needs serious research to become somewhat informed in). RfCs are also heavyweight, given the large number of disputes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil POV pushing is editing only ever from one point of view. This has happened to an extreme point in climate change where articles are being badly skewed. This suggests arbcom is able to deal with pillar 4 and not pillar 2. In fact this is exactly what happens. In general there is little scope for dealing with it, this is not because the rules are not there but because wikipedia culture has developed to address civility above all else. Problem goes something like this: Editor has a source - yes, has editor poorly represented that source - not too badly, is source okay - technically, has editor ignored other points of view - yes, has editor done this frequently - yes, across multiple articles - yes, is editor civil and willing to talk if not listen - yes. Not a lot we can do about that then carry on. Olap the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't clearly distinguish cause and effect here. There are several reasons for the primacy of "civility" (scarce quotes used on purpose) over content.

Civility can be evaluated without taking the time to understand the subject matter, so uninvolved admins are more likely to act on civility issues.
Enforcing civility let's admins stay "uninvolved", while supporting a content position would make them involved (this is a serious and systemic problem).
ArbCom does not rule on content issues. However, if they see any conflict, wether ultimately caused by content disputes or personality conflicts, they will try to resolve it by relying on behavioural aspects. This forces them to elevate even minor civility issues to a level that justifies serious ArbCom sanctions.

Since nearly every editor has some ill-considered opinions in his or her edit history (and the chance is, from simple statistics, higher for long-term productive editors), the over-reliance on behaviour makes it more profitable to hunt for diffs on your opponents than to a actually research the topic. This is not a good state. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree that there is difficulty dealing with civil Pov pushers but there is also a problem with civil advocates who are only here to push their pov and not really here to better the encyclopedia. I think something like the above, without the blaming, would be a good idea. We need to be able identify these types of editors and remove them from the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that civil POV pushing is a problem in the CC articles, but I'm not sure that arbcom is powerless in such situations. There is a difference between "reluctance to do something about a problem" and "inability to do something about a problem." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point about civil POV pushers is often over-stated in that it seems to forget that civility is only one of our conduct policies. Our other conduct policies include WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring, WP:Editing policy, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Ownership of articles. Are there editors who comport themselves perfectly with all of these policies, and yet still succeed in disrupting the editing environment? If so a better term would be something like "model POV pushers." I suspect the real problem in that situation has much less to do with the civility policy, however, than it does with our policies on edit warring, consensus, and ownership. While POV pushing can be pursued with incivility, that isn't usually the place to look. Mackan79 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

F 9: Polargeo's battlefield conduct

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 09:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations! This was the diff after the ATren diff that you mention. [74] Perhaps it was the diff the arbitrator meant to include. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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?--SPhilbrick T 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the explication. I now have a better understanding of your views.--SPhilbrick T 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

*: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*:::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)[reply]

Also the idea that my comments are "repeated personal attacks" makes no sense. I started an RfC/U on Lar's conduct and have many edits to the talkpage of that RfC/U. It appears that the arbs are characterizing any mention of an individual editor and a suggestion of a problem with that editor's editing as a personal attack. I obviously had an issue with Lar's conduct as an admin or else I would not have started an RfC/U would I? It now appears that I cannot mention that editor or else it is a personal attack. I thought the guideline said something like "when in doubt don't mention the editor". It does not say don't mention any issues with an editor during an RfC/U on their conduct. In fact the whole case put together against me appears to result from my trying to stop Lar from acting as an uninvolved admin in situations where he had clearly had previous fairly negative non-admin contact with the user and was acting with what I percieved to be bias. If this is characterized as promoting a battleground in Climate Change then I will have to be more careful not to annoy certain people in the future. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really am trying to stay away from commenting on these pages, but I feel I should point out what may be perceived as the "battleground mentality" per your post above; the uninvolved administrators were very quickly aware of your concerns regarding Lar. However, the consensus between said sysops was that Lar should continue to post in the uninvolved admin section - you had no remit to stop that, and no means other than by persuasion. The RfC/U was properly conducted and no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved". I recognise that there were a majority of !votes on a couple of comments orientated toward the opinion that Lar is involved, but that does not of itself form a consensus (and you will note that subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved per the meaning of uninvolved admin for these matters). What is possibly regarded as examples of battlefield mentality was your habit of interjecting yourself in discussions - and especially discussions where Lar was acting in an uninvolved admin capacity - to proclaim your opinion regarding Lar's status. You were surely aware that all concerned were aware of your understanding of the situation, and you should also have recognised that the situation was not going to be amended to accommodate your concerns; so there is the matter on why you felt it necessary to continue to state your case? I know I once found it necessary to chide you (you commented upon it as "bullying", but that was not the intent) regarding your habit of interrupting discussion on Lars talkpage to put forward your contention, and I believe that Lar also commented that you might tone down the rhetoric. It was your seeming "campaign" to declare Lar an involved admin, despite no consensus forming in suuport, that might be regarded as exampling battlefield mentality - and it may be pointed out that you are apparently still of that frame of mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order. I have never ever declared that I thought Lar was an involved admin in Climate Change as a topic area (although I agree with the arbs advice that he is best steering clear of admining this area) but I feel strongly that he is involved with regard to certain users such as WMC. Lar clearly had several negative interactions with WMC (e.g. here and here) in a non-admin capacity before starting to act as an admin calling for sanctions against WMC. What constitues involvement has not been finalised and is still very much being debated by arbs. As to interjecting myself I started the RfC/U and most of the diffs come from either the RfC/U, this case or my own talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you did not raise any issues as regards Lar and whether he had edited within the the Climate Change topic area and that your concerns were only in respect of his past dealings with WMC. As noted in the RfC, while there may have been a history between the two users it was irrelevant since Lar was not taking any actions with regard to WMC but only contributing to discussions - he did not initiate any discussion (on anyone, not just WMC) at the enforcement page but only commented. He brought up past issues relating to WMC, and others, just as other parties past histories were brought up by other parties. Lastly, you need to review your editing history of User talk:Lar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would maintain that in a highly polarized environment it is hard to find consensus for anything. Your no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved" criteria means that no-one would ever be found uninvolved. Consider why we require lack of involvement: It is so that actions appear to be fair and thus can find wide support in the community. Hence a majority opinion finding that Lar is involved or his behavior is problematic should be plenty to cause him to recuse himself from the case - or, in a working system, be recused. "[...] subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved" - does your crystal ball work on the stock market, too? So far, the vote is open. And the finding reads "nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator [...] it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator", which to me clearly is a signal that the "nominal" determination is quite irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why majorities and !votes are deprecated on WP is because it is not (should not) be a matter of how many making most noise, but those making most sense - a majority of criminals have a low regard for civil law... It should be noted that the arbs are clarifying their comments on the uninvolvement of admins to ensure that campaigning against an individual is not of itself grounds for that sysop to withdraw. No crystal ball, but an appreciation of intent is all that is needed. I do agree that there is no benefit for Lar to continue acting as a uninvolved administrator, he has exposed himself too long to that corrosive environment and deserves a well earned rest from the poison directed at him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of supposed incivil remarks are just fairly hard observations I have made during this case. They are not incivilities. When I think an editor has overstepped the mark such as I think JohnWBarber did (as I outlined above) I would appreciate being allowed to say this without expecting the diff to be thrown back at me as an incivility. A wikipedia where everyone is sickeningly pleasant and does not speak plainly is not the positive constructive wikipedia many people seem to think it is. At its limit it simply turns wikipedia into an extremely unpleasant place inhabited by civil POV pushers and two-faced back stabbers. Polargeo (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats one user who may have been driven of Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean may? And congratulations for helping William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of posting I thought that maybe he was either doing some tidying up or changing user names. I was hoping that he would not raise to the bait.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now another editor/administer has slapped a retirement template on their page. I think this makes 5 so far that I'm aware of. Something is wrong when we are losing editors with this frequency from one case. I for one am sorry to see so many feel the need to leave the project and some of the have been here without any sanctions ever against them until this case I think. Everyone here should think about how people, real people, are leaving for being hurt. I, for one, am sad to see these retirements occurring and I am expecting even more as the case winds down. Just for the record, someone told me that the ones who would leave would be advocates or pov pushers or something along this line. Well as you can see, this isn't coming true. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo (more)

Was Polargeo clearly on one side or the other of a battlegound with respect to CC articles? This is important in whether Polargeo has been promoting a battlegound. The PD has found evidence of minor incivility in the wikipedia talk namespace but has it really found battleground evidence? how can an editor be battleground when they support editors on either side of the supposed battleground? Evidence that Polargeo supports editors on what is percieved to not be "his side" follows e.g. my nearly solo defense of MarkNutley's edits [75], my defense of TheGoodLocust [76] and [77], my request that an enforcement against FellGleaming be thrown out becasue it was not within the remit [78] more to come Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh who cares anyway. Arbcom don't seem to deal with reality just the evidence a couple of trolls put in their faces. Olap the Ogre (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ArbCom doesn't mean choosing sides with regard to sceptic versus alarmist viewpoints on AGW, when it says battleground. They literally mean battleground regardless of whether on one issue you supported one group of editors and another issue you supported the other group of editors. Although not relevant, I do think that you were neutral on global warming disputes, as in you were not partisan, per your examples above and your comment on your userpage. The battleground ArbCom are probably referring to is your emotional responses and personalisation of disputes with individual editors eg with Lar and other wikipedians during this ArbCom case. Additionally as you fail to recognise how you contributed to a battleground atmosphere, ArbCom probably will be concerned that your lack of awareness of problems raised leads to concerns that the problems will continue to be repeated. When you were battling with Lar you were attacking yourself moreso than you were Lar, it backfired; accept it, come to terms with it oh and don't go leaving wikipedia, :) you are not the only one who has made mistakes and gotten into fights and disputes. I say this not to criticise you but as someone who has got involved in disputes including one ArbCom case but to make you aware of how I think ArbCom are thinking. If you let go of personalised issues and say yes I did do wrong, I won't do it again, the less likely you are to be sanctioned or the quicker the topic ban will be overturned at a later date. Good luck.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Literaturegeek. Take a break, come back refreshed and ready to ignore anything that seems to be about you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Skeptic versus alarmist"? Excuse me, but that is unacceptable language. --TS 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Overton Window in Wikipedia is nowhere near the clash between true Scientific skepticism and Earth First!, it may strike us as "unacceptable language". But such phrasing is actually fairly "leftist" in such alternative contexts. Ironically. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Tony, probably any descriptive word will offend at least someone on this page. I am not involved in climate change on or off-line, and I am not familar with what people find acceptable or not acceptable. I thought though that many on this dispute feel that we should be alarmed about climate change, where as sceptical editors were of the viewpoint that there is nothing to be alarmed about and it formed part of the dispute. I did not realise offense would be caused and it was not attended. I know there are people who take a more moderate viewpoint. Are you saying you believe there is no need to be alarmed about climate change or your views are moderate? If so how would you prefer to be referred to? Climate change moderate? Maybe if I say, sceptics, moderates and alarmists?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alarmist" is to "Skeptic" as "Denalist" is to "Realist" Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there aren't alarmists involved in this case. Most of the people here lie fairly square in the middle of the IPCC viewpoint, most consider newspaper articles "problematic" exactly because they are either "alarmist" or "sceptical" leaning, instead of presenting a moderate view. I'll be bold and claim that most editors are rather closer to the viewpoint of Hans von Storch than they are to the viewpoint of James Hansen. (just to cite two fairly known scientists within the field). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, thanks for your views and explaination. Maybe I should refer to editors as those who hold to the IPCC position and those who are sceptical of it? Or maybe I should avoid labeling as best possible. :O) I do agree that newspapers are not good sources for sourcing scientific articles and views etc. I really do think that that promoting this WP:SCIRS to a guideline would be of big benefit to not just climate change articles but other science related articles. It wouldn't resolve BLP and political disputes though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so in summary I am being topic banned from climate change and closely related areas not because of any issues with article or article talkpage editing, not because of being on one side or another or promoting a particular POV but just a heated situation involving Lar where I tried to demonstrate that he should not have been acting as uninvolved with respect to WMC and my reaction towards an editor who oddly popped up and called for me to be banned, desysopped and blocked seemingly because I had dared to criticise Lar. I am not trying to say I have always acted impecably. I recognise I have inflamed situations at times but such a major topic ban seems more than extreme and does not in any way address any issues. I would understand an interaction ban but a topic ban makes no sense as I am not a problematic or POV editor on this topic. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bellicose and confrontational pattern in your participation and that is adding fuel to the fire in an already over-heated topic. Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in a very limited way and in wikipedia namespace therefore a full topic ban still makes no sense. I don't see any similar sanctions regarding Lar who has gone around calling editors a cabal and trying to "level the playing field" etc., attacking other admins for being biased and generally stiring things up and consistantly supporting one "side" against another. If you think my presence is worse then it demonstrates that keeping ones head down on arbcase talkpages pays off. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and eye don't see eye to eye on matters here so I'm not sure if this will help but I hope it does. Anyway first, I take it as self-evident that arbcom's primary concern is not punishment, but both trying to help editors who are having problems and also trying to prevent and resolve editor related problems that are preventing people writing an encyclopaedia. Sometimes these mean removing editors they find are problematic from areas where they are causing problems. If you don't agree with my view of their concern then I think it's probably pointless to go on.

But if you do, my impression here, and forgive me if I am mistaken, is you have been involved in editing climate change related articles (used in a very broad sense to include strongly related BLPs) including in the early stages of the case. For Lar, although some have questioned his fairness, actions, civility, comments etc, it's generally true he (at least I seem to recall Lar is a he) doesn't edit climate change related articles.

Now it seems likely that arbcom is going to find your behaviour was problematic. It also seems likely that arbcom is going to find Lar's conduct was in some instances problematic although not as problematic as yours.

If arbcom's intent here was punishment, it may seem fair that both you and Lar should be punished. But as I've said, that isn't their intent. Given their intentions, it seems they do think it necessary to ban you from the wider climate change related area. Now they could topic ban Lar as well, but given that Lar isn't a participant in that area, there's no point and no reason. He has undertaken admin actions in the area, but it seems likely that even if they are not going to directly say he should not participate, they are going to implement remedies which will have the same effect. They could of course restrict him in other ways, de-admining for example or stopping him participating in discretionary sanctions or whatever, but it seems they don't consider his behaviour serious enough to warrant that.

Perhaps arbcom could hope that you will get better once things have calmed down, some of the problem users have been removed or are no longer part of the process (Lar in particular for you), but unfortunately in this case it's clear they think things have gotten so bad, that they do need drastic action so that doesn't cut it I guess.

In terms of the 'keeping your head down' perhaps I misunderstand your point but if not is that really surprising? I for one don't think it's surprising that showing some of the very behaviour that is causing concerns, on the place they are watching most careful is going to get their attention and not in a good way. Particularly since if that behaviour is shown when the case is active, it suggests to them the person hasn't learnt and isn't going to learn. It's a bit like the person on vandalism related offences who gets caught vandalising the court before their case (I actually heard of a case like this in the real world). Or if you want the friend who goes to court to support someone accused of vandalism but is then caught vandalising the court. Things can of course get a bit heated in arbcom cases or when there is a dispute and I suspect there's some allowance for that but ultimately as I've said before there is going to be a limit.

BTW in terms of your earlier point about you being on both sides, well my impression is that AQFK is also arguably on both 'sides' although probably on the other 'side' a lot more then you. I don't personally find it surprising that people can be problematic, including showing battlefield conduct even if they don't always agree with the same editors. I'm not suggesting your case is similar to his, I believe many of the problems relating to him are from mainspace.

Also as you may have gathered, I haven't analysed the evidence much, hence why I've emphasised most of my comments above are just my impression. In particular, I'm not making judgement on whether arbcoms views of how bad your behaviour and Lar's behaviour have been is accurate. However despite that, I admit from what I seen including in the comments on this page, I can somewhat see why arbcom is concerned. Now I understand you feel hard-done by from arbcoms proposed decisions, but it's the kind of thing which probably isn't helping your case.

I'm not BTW saying arbcom is perfect and I acknowledge that some of their actions may have contributed to the current situation.

Also as a disclaimer I should say I'm an occasional editor of climate change related articles, and although I'm not that familiar with the science I definitely am on the mainstream or in fact probably closer to the alarmist. More importantly, I am therefore somewhat aware of some of the participants in this case but already was of the belief long before this case that there were problems on both 'sides'. (But I you're not one of the ones.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's ok that I am being bold and I've unhatted your comments Nil Einne. I think what you say here is kind of important and should be seen by others, esp. those who are not familiar with a lot of this. Plus I wanted to comment after yours which would make my comment seem out of context. If you have a problem with my doing this then by all mean rehat but please move my comment above it, thank you. I said it before and I'll say it again, Lar's talk page needed to be read to understand totally where all this involved/uninvolved was coming from. I have had Lar's talk page and the sanction page on my watchlist for a very long time so I've seen the 'battles' and the comments that have gone on over there and imho it's important to look at for complete context of involved/uninvolved. I don't want anyone to be upset with me over this comment so please understand I'm not taking sides here. All I am trying to do is bring to the attentions of everyone concerned about this that his page be looked at, even Lar stated earlier on to read his talk page so it's not like I'm saying something all by myself here. Now, as for what to do with the situation with Polargeo, I have learned from his alternate account Olap the Ogre that s/he had given his tools back and scrambled his Polargeo account so that he (I'm going to say he but I don't know so if I'm wrong would someone please ping on my talk page so I can correct) can no longer access that account. He has now also done that with the alternate account he was using to try to make his points here. I have to say that Polargeo hurt himself by the constant stating of Lar being an involved administrator at every chance he got. He shot himself in the foot on this matter. I would like to ask though, why did the administrators on that board and on the RFC/u say that Lar was an uninvolved administrator when it showed clearly on his talk page that he had already decided certain things that would make him, in my opinion, unacceptable to be an uninvolved administrator when it came to the sanction board? He stated many times about WMC cabal, faction and other terms. He stated that the need to 'level the playing field' was needed which required getting WMC and others who agreed with him removed from the CC articles. This was all stated at the RFC/u. The closing done was by an administrator Wordsmith who said that Lar asked him to close the RFC/u. I'm sorry but isn't that against policy to pick an administrator to close something that is about you? I'm not saying anymore since I've said too much already. Lar, I am not trying to pick a fight with you and if we need to discuss things please, oh please either take it to my talk page or email me about this. In closing, I think that Polargeo has been through enough, he gave up his tools, he gave up his account, and his feelings are very emotional. I hope that he returns when he gets his emotions under control but I also think he wasn't totally wrong, he just did it the wrong way. Thank you again for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree with the sentiment that a remedy (especially Remedy 3, the thermonuclear option) is not required for Polargeo, I actually think that an FoF is appropriate. I do hope that PG returns to editing at some future date, but I'm still not sure that he realizes how some of his actions aggravated an already parlous situation. I can use myself as an example in this case; if he had not dropped a bunch of sarcasm on my page during the Lar RFC, I would not have participated in this arbitration at all. A FoF without a remedy (or with a remedy which is more congruent to the situation) is proper; I think a simple warning would be sufficient. Unlike most of the other editors here, none of Polargeo's transgressions involved inappropriate edits to climate change articles; in fact, only two disputed edits involved article space at all. Polargeo's problems were primarily about poor interactions with other editors, which was (at most) a secondary consideration for this RFAr. Horologium (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Horologium I think I agree with what you are saying. Polargeo shot himself in the foot many times due to emotional outbursts. I think a warning would be appropriate like you say instead of what you call the nuclear option. Thank you for saying it a lot better than I did and with less words. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [79] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[80] --JN466 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Note on BLP

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 09:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee may want to follow our BLP test case here. The issue at hand is whether someone can be notable solely because of publicity surrounding their contrarian views on climate change. Several of the Committee have said that BLPs should give a balanced overall picture of the subject without undue weight on their climate change views. But if the subject's notability rests solely on such views, with near-zero impact otherwise, how do we do this? The Committee should allow for this in their Principles and Remedies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an imortant point. Many CC BLPs of marginally notable people are used as venues for the views of those individuals. Once a BLP has passed basic notability so it is not deleted (as in this case with a couple of newspaper mentions) the strict BLP guidelines then allow only self published material from the individual and these BLPs inevitably become outlets for the views of the individual and their own publications. Criticism usually exists but often only in similarly self published venues therefore imbalance is automatically created. This is a major problem and extremely difficult for editors to deal with when treading around BLP restrictions. I would suggest that self published material and opinions should not find their way onto wikipedia unless there can be a balanced treatment of this material. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more basic problem is the criteria at WP:PROF. I plan to make a WP:BOLD revision of those criteria, but perhaps this should wait until the final decision of the arbitration case lest still more drama be stirred up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic section (revised) Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can one of the three of you that voted within the span of 2 hours to delete the Tim Ball explain to me how this isn't a clear example of WP:MEAT meant to prove a WP:POINT? I'm especially curious for Guettarda's answer since he has never edited the Tim Ball article before and yet he not only managed to be the first delete vote (sans the OP), but he also has a pattern of showing up to quickly vote for adminship for your group. This is especially troubling since WMC is going around linking to blogs and implying that Tim Ball's resume is either inaccurate or dishonest [81] - reminds me of his implication that Fred Singer was committing tax fraud. Too bad all the admins willing to confront him on the issue have been harped into inactivity. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are tempted to respond to the above comment should keep in mind the arbitrators' oft-expressed concerns about discussions on this page veering off topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think its quite relevant. It shows WMC's pattern of using talk pages to slander BLP subjects - something you guys don't call him out on. In my opinion the AfD demonstrates more clear-cut meatpuppetry, your abstention/pleading the 5th with the excuse that it is off-topic confirms it in my mind. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TGL: Why did I join that discussion when I did? Well, there's this. I realise this page can be a long, unreadable mess, but I don't think it's my fault if people don't follow the discussions here. (I try to read more than I write.) Incidentally, AFD is not a vote (which is why we renamed VFD), and I did not vote - I carefully considered the notability guidelines, read all the links in the article, and then expressed my opinion. If you read my comment, you'll see that I actually took all of the criteria on WP:PROF into account. I should also point you to Proposed Principle #6, which, with 7 supports and no opposes, should probably be treated as if it had passed. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, incidentally, I've had the article watchlisted for many months, maybe years, after watching some debate at the Great Global Warming Swindle article. I've got 8600 pages on my watchlist. Many of them I've never edited. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You people always say that you have articles on your watchlist you show up together - even when you've never participated in the articles. I wonder if the Arbs can look at your watchlist and see if it shows WHEN such an entry was added. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you've never participated in that article, at all, but when SBHB and WMC declare their intention to make a WP:POINT you rush on over and give them your unconditional support for an AFD? Is this similar to all the times where you rushed over to vote adminship for so many of the participants in this case? Thanks for proving my point about this bloc behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boris that this is a problem. We have dozens, if not hundreds, of biographies of people notable only for their promotion of a minoritarian viewpoint. Such biographies take only 2 possible forms: they can end up a platform for the individual's minoritarian view, or a platform to debunk the individual's minoritarian view. In practice, I haven't seen any successful and encyclopedic middle-ground biographies in this setting. I guess I'm hopeful that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball will mark a sea change, where we recognize and address this dilemma, but it's hard to be anything but cynical about the AfD process in general.
I realize that ArbCom can't solve this problem any more than I can, but ideally its complexity will at least be appreciated. Simple answers like "just AfD the article; I'd vote to delete it" are impractical. Sanctioning the people who take the "debunking" approach to these bios, rather than the "uncritical echo chamber" approach, is perhaps necessary - after all, we all need to take BLP seriously - but it's not a systemic solution, and it's doomed to failure in the long term unless the underlying issues are addressed. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So have you guys ever voted to delete biographies of people on your side who are noted AGW supporters (no coy responses please)? Or do you mostly vote to delete the articles of skeptics and skeptical topics (I think we all know the answer to this)? Also, I note that WMC's biography lists him in the "climatologist" category even though he has no education in the field (any citation for that? I know you guys fill the skeptic's bios with CN tags), while Tim Ball's bio does not put him in that category despite him being refereed to as a climatologist and having an education in geography (GN search of WMC and Ball). Perhaps if these articles were written by people not antagonistic to them then they wouldn't have such glaring inconsistencies in the writing? TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with MastCell's viewpoint. From what I know the personal viewpoints of biographical subjects does not factor in to whether a biography is notable, although I don't have any experience editing biographies. I don't think this is based in policy or guidelines. I don't mind being proven wrong. I also disagree that they serve a significant platform for airing their views. The main climate change articles are where people go to for information on climate change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment at the deletion discussion because I don't know enough about this person. Here I will comment that I think the Committee could if it wishes affect the focus of the BLP deletion debate by making appropriate findings of fact in this or another case.

It is generally accepted that we have many articles about people who probably don't merit such an article, and these articles tend to proliferate unchecked where they are sometimes used to promote or attack partisan views.

The Committee could certainly make a difference by stating that this is intolerable and drawing up appropriate remedies to be applied on battleground BLPs. It should not be impossible to reverse the normal presumption, which requires consensus to delete, to require consensus to keep where the article relates substantially to a living person known solely for his opinion or actions in a battleground topic.

Climate change could be declared such a topic without risk of the declaration facing credible dissent. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They won't do that though, as BLPs are determined by policies and guidelines and community voting. ArbCom don't make content decisions and definitely won't overrule content policies. What they will do is topic ban or otherwise restrict people who engage in battleground or other disruptive conduct on BLP articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Default-to-delete for BLPs would be ideal, but will never happen on its own without a strong push to get things moving. Perhaps the arbitrators could make an appeal to a Higher Power to give such a push. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see default to delete for BLP's.However, as the pending changes trials shows, it is nigh-impossible to get "consensus" (meaning enough support to prevent people vehemently opposed to whatever idea it is from making enough of a hubub to prevent it) on any major changes these days. Got any ideas on how to get past that? SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this is really off-topic, aside from perhaps the comments by Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs), but whatever. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the area hatted. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that previous Committees have sometimes expressed reluctance on content matters, but nevertheless they have seldom shirked their responsibilities for interpreting and clarifying the policy applying to biographies of living persons. The modest steps I suggest above are in line with the spirit of the landmark Badlydrawnjeff case. They would, I suggest, bring substantial calm to the topic by making it easy to remove poor quality articles that serve no purpose except to provide a venue for warfare. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest TS, to remove the venue for warfare would require deleting every or almost every article connected to climate change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Many articles within the topic area are untouched by the fuss. Even the main article, global warming, is seldom a problem area. --TS 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a steady stream of talk page drama though on the main global warming article. A further problem is if articles which generate battleground problems are default deleted, that would encourage more battleground behaviour among rival factions to get articles they do not like deleted, thus more drama not less drama will be the result. I still believe that ArbCom will not enact your ideas. The way to deal with the problem is to topic ban the people causing disruption, not to delete articles where people causing drama congregate to do battle.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "analysis" here is simplistic and indeed incorrect to the point of silliness. Indeed, global warming and its recent history disproves your point all by itself. Please, take the time to actually check what you're saying before you say it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "steady stream" comment I made was referring to the newbie and ip editors who use the talk page as a soap box, hence why I said "talk page drama"; the article content is quite stable. The article talk page now has over 60 archives. I was not saying that it was a battleground by established wikipedians.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I perform routine page management on the global warming talk page. If it were prone to "talk page drama" I would have noticed, believe me. It's often a focus for people who have read something on a blog and wonder why it isn't in the article. That really isn't a matter for concern. --TS 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment, I clarified what I meant. Yes that was what I was referring to, newbies using the talk page as a soap box. I think we have drifted off-topic but I had to clarify what I meant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I realised what you were classing as "drama". With the current archiver period of 21 days we've got two or three on the go on the talk page at any one time. It's an absolute non-issue. The article is one of the most popular on Wikipedia according to the statistics I've seen, and actually a few of them are regulars who keep coming back every few months. This isn't the kind of thing that needs arbitration. It's kinda fun trying to work out which blog site they got the latest idea from. --TS 03:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's proposal

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 09:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is far more modest than default to delete for BLPs. I am essentially providing a new form of remedy to situations where, in the view of the Committee, there is substantial evidence that articles of little or no intrinsic value are being used as a means of spreading a content dispute. That's an illegitimate means of editing and merits extraordinary action. The proposal has two parts:

(1) a remedy that sets a presumption that any BLP in the topic area is being used for such warfare, and requiring consensus to be reached that it is not being used for warfare or that it has substantial merits that would make it a potentially valuable article (because the subject is highly visible, for instance).
a. If there is no consensus that the article has merit, it is deleted.

b. If there is consensus that the article is a battleground but has merit, it is stubbed down, protected and rebuilt by admins, and then unprotected within a reasonable period.

c. if there is consensus that the article has merit and there are no battleground issues, the article is kept and no further action is needed.

d. Due consideration should be given by the closing admin to the merits of merging or redirecting to an article on a topic with which the subject is closely associated.

e. Legitimate work in stubbing down and rebuilding ordered in step b counts as administrative action and does not amount to topic involvement for the purposes of subsequent administrative action.

f. Admin action taken to thwart this remedy may lead to sanctions and, in egregious cases, the loss of adminship.
(2) a finding by the Committee that a topic is a battleground topic where BLPs have been used as a means of warfare. This would trigger the remedy described in (1).

I hope that provides enough clarity. This is just a draft and could undoubtedly do with some polishing. --TS 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok. Michael Mann article gets deleted because no concensus can be achieved among the opposing camps. Fred Singer article gets deleted due to lack of consensus of merit.~~ William M Connelly article gets deleted (that would be funny to watch) due to lack of consensus of merit. ~~Eventually all climate BLPs are deleted due to opposing camps failing to reach consensus. Lots of topic bans for failing to reach consensus,, ugh more drama.~~ I understand that you have made this [complicated] proposal in good faith but feel that you are unduely focusing on the benefits and not considering the risks of [significantly] increased drama. Your proposal is ~~also~~ very prone to gaming and POV pushing etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My solution, while not novel, is that ArbCom, topic ban or otherwise restrict those involved in significant disruption to the topic area. This appears to be the direction ArbCom are going in and it is a direction based on years of experience dealing with drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Michael Mann nor the Fred Singer article is in danger of deletion under the remedy I suggest. The William Connolley article might be deleted, and I don't think anybody would miss it. --TS 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am an idiot, I apologise, I skipped over your introduction paragraph and missed this bit "there is substantial evidence that articles of little or no intrinsic value".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I see this almost orthogonal to this case. I grant that creation of marginal BLPs is a problem. I can imagine someone creating a marginal BLP in the CC area to make a point, or using one to carry water, so to speak, inappropriately. However, this same problem can occur with Israel/Palestine, race/intelligence, ID, Holocaust issues, or any number of contentious areas. What is special about CC that we should have unique rules governing the creation of BLPs? And why on earth would ArbCom be uniquely qualified to establish such rules? If we do have a problem, it is WP wide, and ought to be addressed by the community at large as part of the BLP policy committees, not as a specific ruling from Arbcom, simply because it came up as a tangential issue in a CC case.--SPhilbrick T 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is somewhat orthogonal to the case. This is why I say this proposal could be applied in either this or another case. The relevant community processes broke down long ago (See SirFozzie's summary) so it's within the Committee's remit. It can be applied as a remedy in cases where the Committee finds that substantial damage is unavoidable unless special measures are taken. --TS 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in putting it into black and white, and a few of us 'trying it on for size' here, though. I have two thoughts: (1) I'm worried that the opening para puts too much executive power over to the Committee, who are not necessarily familiar with the topic, and the relevant details. (2) While the outcome sounds good, I don't see anything much here that could not be done under existing rules - anyone can raise an AFD (even members of the committee once this case is over, admins, the rest of us) and most of the rest [of the steps a-f] can follow. If these BLPs are causing significant hassle (I stay away from them personally), then sure, let's start thinning them out, as soon as this case is over. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is predicated on my observation that such BLPs are incredibly difficult to delete. The AfD process just isn't set up to handle abusive editing. Arbcom is, that's its job, and this proposal of mine is a first draft showing how Arbcom might address it. Arbcom really, really is devised to handle problems like this, those that the community badly drops the ball on but nevertheless are damaging the encyclopedia. --TS 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proposal as it stands would be susceptible to gaming in normal circumstances. I see it being applied in topics that already have substantial remedies to prevent battleground activity, so that the deletion discussion would fall under something akin to the discretionary sanctions already proposed in this case. In such circumstances the problems could be controlled. --TS 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this proposal has considerable merit. Though radical, it is an example of creative thinking and I hope the arbs give it serious consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's an example of good thinking. I think it is a blueprint for one of the things we can get on with after this case is closed, sanctions and enforcement are in place and (hopefully) we have a good supply of new neutral admins looking over everyone's shoulders to prevent gaming and 'abusive editing' (as Tony mentions above). Then, AfDs should work nicely and the ground can be cleared of quite a few useless articles (BLPs and others), with any useful content merged into a much more thought-out coverage of the grand topic. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal should be tendered to the BLP discussion pages, since it covers many a battlefield area where BLP's are used as attack pieces or coatracks depending on the stance associated with the subject. I stay clear of that area, but would note my support of such a general proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody should feel free to tender it to the BLP policy discussion page, but frankly I don't think it could ever be accepted as policy. I think it's more realistic to propose it as a remedy within the context of arbitration. Maybe a few years down the line, if it works as a remedy, it might be seen as a viable solution to battleground BLPs within existing policy, but for that to happen we'd need a change in culture at AFD and DRV. --TS 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This won't fly as a remedy: it's purely about content and ArbCom don't do those. Roger Davies ^talk 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just ain't so. While some members of the community operate under this misconception (and others will pay it lip service for the sake of not rocking the boat), the fact is that the ArbCom is quite willing to make content decisions whenever it's possible to shelter those decisions behind some sort of user-conduct figleaf. The ArbCom regularly makes decisions about whether or not users have correctly applied Wikipedia content policies — which is tantamount to enforcing content decisions. Even decisions which are genuinely primarily focused on conduct will indirectly affect article content by excluding editors who have a particular point of view.

For example, the last case ArbCom closed was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. Finding of fact 6, David.Kane: "...this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view.". In other words, the ArbCom has determined that David.Kane's edits violated the WP:WEIGHT provisions of WP:NPOV: a content decision. (Roger Davies should be aware of this finding of fact, as it appears that he drafted it.)

Similar findings are sprinkled throughout Arbitration history. I don't think that this is a bad thing by any means — it just demonstrates that the 'ArbCom doesn't do content' trope has always been rather thin and tattered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. I carefully framed it to be about abusive editing and left all content-related decisions up to community processes, but if you don't agree it's back to the drawing board. But before you write it off, check the Badlydrawnjeff decision. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhpas

We should leave the idea about how to deal with any future abuse (and indead any pages that in some edds eyes are 'naughty') andtick to just the qeustion of users santions. It seems to me that we have now a very large discusionwith nothing that looks like agrement, and does look like aontinuation of the conflicts. We come back to the issue of pages and content when, and if, it turns out sanctions have not workd. We will be able to judge the real scpe and nature of any porbloms and thus will be in a better position to judge hat actions are needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course, the Climate Change issue have disrupted every dispute forum Wikipedia has to offer. There must be a better way to address the disputes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new? suggestion

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coould we use a process similar to pedning revision to create a peer review process (by by the wiki concept) on CC realted artciels. The Peer review privalige only going to edds who can demonstrate expert knowledge in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Terrible idea. This is not Citizendium--SPhilbrick T 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having commented, and thus arguably part of the problem, I don't see this is as a commentary on the PD, so I hope a clerk will hat it.--SPhilbrick T 15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see the problem with a suggestion like this, as it appears to be a suggestion for an addition to the PD. However, I don't think it is workable for a number of reasons. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variation on the suggestion a few sections above about fully protecting the articles and only allowing certain edits through after they have been reviewed. While its heart is in the right place it clashes with a few policies, shuffles some issues to different venues without solving them and opens up new cans of worms which would have to be dealt with.

Specifically,

How do you reconcile this process with WP:OWN?

Who chooses who gets 'Peer Review Privalige' and what constitues 'demonstrat[ing] expert knowledge in the field'?

What happens if people believe this process could be used elsewhere? (slippery slope, basically)

What processess should be in place to prevent abuse of the new system?

I believe these concerns (and more) would need to be addressed before such a system could be implemented. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you will ote I say that this effectivly removes the idea that wikipedia is a wiki. I agree wiht all of the concearns. I just don't see any other way of resolving this short of genocide.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is possible is for Jimbo to appoint anonymous Referees who will volunteer to write Referee reports when articles are nominated as GA or FA candidates. Articles will get the GA or FA standard if, in the judgement of the editors involved in the FA or GA process, the issues raised in the Referee report are dealt with adequately. So, the end decision remains with the editors as it is now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this will not deal with the edit warring and general lack of tolerance and civility that seems to have infested these pages. This I would argue is the esential problom, whatever the PD thyat is acepted it will have to address the geberaly poor behavure of many of the parties (from both sides). The PD should not be a victory by other means.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem on the climate change pages was caused precisely because the sceptics couldn't get their way with the experts editing here. What is needed is to insert the feedback from experts in a different way. POV motivated edit warring exists in the first place because Wikipedia articles are quite prominent on the internet. GA and FA status are important.

Suppose that for the FA status of the main global warming article to be prolonged, it would have to be refereed first. Then the Referee report may well say that the section on solar variation is too large, giving far too much weight on fringe ideas. So, that section would then be shortened, and sceptics who don't like this would have to swallow this. No complaints like "WMC dictating his version against Wiki-policies" can arise in such a process.

If this is done for all the CC articles then editors will anticipate that POV motivated edits will have to be removed later anyway, so they won't bother edit warring to get such edits in articles. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of this, but not with your statement that "GA and FA status are important." I haven't seen any evidence at all that the average reader knows or cares whether an article is GA or FA. The only meaningful distinction is that FA is eligible for being featured on the main page. The topic will continue to be fought over because of the strong views that people hold about it in the real world, regardless of whether Global warming is FA . Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the pending revisions return, maybe putting all of the articles that are now a battle to edit, would be useful at least to stop or curb the socking that is obviously causing some of the problems. The thing is though, editors have to make sure that new editors who saying something is in the references, then they have to make sure before accepting that the editor isn't a sock of somebody the proper way. Another way which was done by a bunch of us with a couple of administrators to help out was to check new editors locations and ISP if possible. The administrators, some were involved in the articles and some were uninvolved which helped slow down the sock puppet we were having problems with. The sock puppet was community banned and has a lot of IP's they have used along with a few named accounts. That editor is easy for those who know her to stop her in her tracks at least breifly which is why the administrators are helpful here. She has now moved on to other articles but always seems to come back to some of her older articles. I guess it's habit. When an editor was proven to be her by either behavior, duck test, and/or SPI, the editor was blocked and someone would go through and revert all the edits per WP:DENY. Maybe something like this could work also within the CC articles? Just throwing out some ideas that have worked in other areas. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that GA and FA are not always the focus of the contrarians. I remember that in 2007 the sceptics even argued against renewing the FA status of the global warming article. But there has been a GA drive recently for some articles on books that are sceptical on climate science. Perhaps one has to think about doing a deal with Google. Articles that on peer review are found to be lacking and are not improved after a reasonable time, will be awarded a BA status. The Google-bot will pick up that signal, leading to a significant drop in the page ranking. Count Iblis (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusiveness

Per the final point, it looks like this one has run its course. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing editors lamenting about other editors leaving Wikipedia, and in the spirit of how to improve. I suggest working for content and an editing environment that afford reasonable inclusiveness. Pushing issues to the nebulous realm of the elusive expert with high standards has a place and time; however, when things go to far, I suspect and exclusive environment leads to editors being excluded by their own will or administration action. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, but what are you saying? --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it above, what was tempting you to be dishonest? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting at you in particular, Zulu Papa 5, but I think we've all been a bit too snarky in this case and the above might sound rather more abrasive than both of you had hoped. --TS 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPapa is well used to editors asking what he means. His comments are often a little off the wall. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me where CrohnieGal is having difficulty. So, I tried to ask (had something to do with honesty, I guess) Apologies for the terseness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to respond to this so I have asked for some advice. Please be patient so that I understand what I am supposed to have done wrong here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that ZuluPapa5 comment made little sense because the context for the statement was unclear. The theory is that ZuluPapa5 understands the context of his ~~question~~statement, so it would seem that it is clear to him. I don't see anything wrong or even snarky in Crohnie's question. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Zulu Papa 5 * I want to apologize to you if I caused you any distress or hurt your feelings in anyway. If I did, I promise it was unintentional. Again, I'm sorry. Would a clerk or an arbitrator please hat this discussion as it now serves for no useful purpose? Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something for everyone to read

No longer on topic, so closing this down.

I'd like to point out this editorial from PLoS Computational Biology Journal, published yesterday, entitled "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia". While the journal is specifically targeting academic writers, those ten rules apply equally to every other editor in the site. Risker (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... does that mean anyone not editing per those 10 rules is not really a scientist? Or everyone editing to those rules is? Will you please stop hitting me? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the most horrible, wicked thing has been done by Wikipedia to Polargeo, and we all just stood by and watched. This is not acceptable. Experts must not be traduced. --TS 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "Editors must not be traduced", Tony; it's just as unacceptable for traduction to happen to anyone else. I'm mystified, however, how one could think that *anything* that happens on Wikipedia is "the most horrible, wicked thing", although a defamatory edit into a person's BLP with the intention of causing harm would be pretty horrible. Otherwise, I can come up with at least fifty more horrible, wicked things, and it's only been nine minutes since your edit. Risker (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree. Polargeo seemed to take every statement very personally, and therefore was upset by the continual challenges this topic area has had especially recently. It is to bad Polargeo felt unable to continue, but it is not the death of article progress. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert. Now try not to let it happen again. --TS 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. Risker (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that as an academic on Wikipedia you get to deal with a neverending stream of Randys from Boise. This is a systematic problem that needs tackling. The fact that this case has been brought and that this page alone is god-knows-how-long shows just how urgent it is. In a university we have student assistants, secretaries &c to screen out the nutjobs, just because our time is too precious to take every last man serious who walks in, claiming to prove that P!=NP. Ignore this advice at your peril. 74.65.111.74 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've spent a few decades as a tenured professor who had my share of Randys as students. Wikipedia doesn't write for the National Academy; we write for the public. Anyone who is unwilling to try to reach consensus with all comers, well, Citizendium is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good principle that can be devilish to practice. How do we reach consensus with someone who insists that the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons or that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources, and absolutely insists on standing their ground? Some editors continually preach "compromise," presumably leading to articles stating that only one side in the war used skeleton mercenaries, or that half of the CO2 rise is from natural sources. The issue is not as simple as some would like for it to appear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me (and I edit pages where that happens quite a bit), that hasn't been as difficult as you make it sound. When someone comes along, or a lot of someones come along, who believe nonsense, patiently being civil and sticking to source policies works in the long run—it's less a matter of reaching consensus with only the nut-jobs, than reaching consensus with a broader population of involved editors. But what is very problematic in my experience is when long-established editors, ones with lots of FAs and maybe even administrators, are hostile to science or scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that, SBHB. However, something that keeps being glossed over is the fact that probably 3/4 of the articles in this topic area are not really about the science itself. They're about the people, about economics, about what Committee A's report said, or what Country C's policy is. Those aren't really science articles, and so scientific accuracy shouldn't normally be a major factor in them, other than to ensure that the sources used are appropriate to the subject of the article and do indeed say what is attributed to them. If, for example, the statement "Environmentalist Joe Blow said xxx is the real cause of yyy", <reference source "Real Newspaper"> then the issue to be discussed is whether or not "Real Newspaper" really says that in the article, whether or not it's a reliable source for quoting Joe Blow, and possibly whether or not Joe Blow is notable enough to (a) have an article or (b) have his quotes included. Arguing over whether or not Joe Blow's statements are scientifically correct is where a lot of people get themselves in to trouble, because that's not particularly relevant except in what the reliable sources have to say about it. Risker (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I concede the point. After all WP:COATRACK is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

I don't think Risker means what you seem to think she means here. This is not an excuse to create coatracks, but it means that we don't get to exclude quotes from newspapers because they are not scientific journals. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add my two cents, to say that the above comment is probably the most important comment in this entire proceeding. 100% right. you don't get to exclude newspaper articles just because they're not scientific journal articles. in fact, you don't get to exclude anything, just because it is not a particular thing. the people who keep deleting others' contributions with zero discussion, have consistently done just that, claiming that they alone have the right to decide what is acceptable. quite simply, they do not, and they are totally wrong. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Horologium, I think you've got me right. Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles. Arguing about whether or not any opinions on science in those articles is "scientifically sound", and including those arguments in the article by using sources that do not directly discuss the subject of the article, is what makes a coatrack. Now, maybe it's just me, but I suspect if those with scientific expertise were to focus their "is it good science" arguments to the pages that really are focused on the science, they'd probably find this entire topic area to be much less stressful. It has to be exhausting to continue the same arguments page after page after page, especially when it's unrelated to the actual content of the page. Risker (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that you simply don't recognize the tone of your last two sentences and that it isn't deliberate. Presuming to tell others how they must feel is deeply patronizing. I'll take that as my cue to exit stage right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It almost seems like people don't realise that scholarly sources exist for topics that aren't science. Arguments keep popping up along the lines of "use peer reviewed sources for science, but not for the stuff that's not science". My social norms are those of science, and yet even I can see that scholarly study and peer review are not solely the purview of the sciences. High quality sources are more useful that crappy sources. That's not discipline specific. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, are you really saying that factual accuracy isn't important, that it's OK to mislead readers if we're reporting on a source that misleads readers? Your argument here seems to be in direct conflict with your votes on proposed principles 9-11 (and the policies underlying those principles). Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles is simply a red herring. If a newspaper article gets it wrong, we don't use it as a source (at least not without explaining how it got the facts wrong). That's true in science articles. It's true in economics articles. It's especially true in biographies. We hold biographies to an especially high standard because of the potential damage that inaccurate reporting can have on a person's reputation. And yet, you're arguing that factual accuracy matters less in a biography than in a science article? I'm sorry Risker, but you couldn't be more wrong. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Perhaps this is the real heart of the problem: a failure to understand each other. Guettarda, if Reference A quotes Person B as saying "I believe the evidence shows C", then the only thing to argue about is whether or not Reference A got the quote right. There's no place for arguing about what the evidence really shows, because it is irrelevant to Person B's quote. If you can find Reference D that specifically says "Person B got it wrong" (and yes, it needs to say "Person B") then Reference D has a place in the article as long as Reference A (the actual quote) is in the article. At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current <topic area> expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current <topic area> expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article. I'd give one of the examples I'm aware of where a person has made a public, quoted statement about climate change that is completely non-notable, but given the behaviour I've seen in this topic area, I'm too concerned that the next edit war would be to try and put it in to that BLP. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial decisions are not made in a vacuum. The scientific accuracy of quotes made can weigh on the whether quotes are deemed worthy of inclusion or are just serving as a coatrack. In terms of the reliability of the source, Risker, you're right that the only standard for the reliability is whether the quote is accurate. But relevance is measured not against reliability but rather editorial purpose and "encyclopedicity". Yesterday, I removed a paragraph-long quote from an article about a skeptic that I'm sure was an accurate quote made by the skeptic. It didn't belong in the article because it was cherry-picked from literally thousands of verifiable quotes to state something that was dramatically opposed to scientific reality AND it was not noticed by third-party sources. It was the classic coatrack and the editor who added it I'm sure would have hid behind the argument you're making if he hadn't left the topic area. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, with respect, SA, you were wrong to remove that paragraph. WP is not censored, and that means that it will include views you consider wrong, or indeed offensive. This was her biography, and if she is notable enough to have one, our readers have a right to read what she says in RS publications (even if uncontradicted in other reliable sources). Of course, our readers also have the right to have accurate information in the article on the e-mail controversy she was commenting on. The findings we report there, arrived at by far more qualified people than her, differ quite sharply from her assessment. We leave it to our readers to make up their minds.

Speaking more generally, I note that even now, more than three months into this arbitration, the relevant editors aiming to present the mainstream view in Wikipedia still don't seem to realise how much goodwill they have lost within the community by their BLP editing and sourcing practices. I am for privileging scientific sources where they are available. I generally take a dim view of press sources. I think the Global warming article is a fine FA. But I am dismayed that no one so far here has put their hand up and said "Sorry!" about their BLP editing. Until and unless that happens, I would recommend casting a wider net for BLP topic bans, to encompass any editors who are clearly unrepentant about their BLP editing style. And I would add that this editing style, which seems to be motivated by fear, is self-defeating. No one who wants to get the scientific consensus across clearly to our readers should support it, because it puts the on-Wikipedia proponents of the mainstream consensus in a very poor light indeed.

People who feel threatened by dissent make the strength of their own position appear weaker than it is. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. 97% of the people who have any expertise in the matter agree on it. All we need to do is to get that across, and we do. As the saying goes, "Dogs will bark, but the caravan moves on." There is no need to waste time telling the dogs to be quiet. (I am not likening anyone to dogs here, just using the language of the simile.) It is far more profitable to spend that time working together to make the coverage of the scientific consensus even better, clearer, easier to read, easier to understand, better sourced. --JN466 12:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Ludicrous. Unless a third-party has noticed this quote and commented, or it's uniquely suited to illustrate a point that is central to her biography, it's not at all relevant to our encyclopedia any more than the literally thousands of other quotes we could have chosen. Should we also include her directions for making a bottle rocket in her biography [82]? Of course not. We are entrusted to make editorial decisions for the encyclopedia. WP:BLP is not a green-light to produce an indiscriminate collection of quotes. WP:V is a standard for inclusion: not exclusion. We will continue to exclude irrelevant points or cherry-picked coatracks because that's our role as encyclopedia editors. People who don't understand that shouldn't really be editing, IMHO.ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this back to the proposed decision, Due Weight applies to biographical articles too. It is not by itself a BLP violation to restore due weight to a biography, nor to remove unreferenced or badly referenced peacock terms. Cardamon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well I'm not a scientist at all and reading this brings me to one question that I find confusing since an arbitrator brought this to our attentions. If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarked, thanks Risker. Rule 1 - mehh. I've seen sooo many good IP contributions to science/biomed articles, I just read the changes without pre-judgement. Now if you want to build your name then of course register an account. Rule 2 - correct as far as learning the pillars but lacking in the exhortation to not spew them out ad nauseam as TLA's and instead to support your proposed changes with bottom-up reasoning. It all looks like pretty sound advice and I hope to deploy the link in future. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite good. I assume most regulars here have experience with someone in another venue "explaining" Wikipedia. Some are atrocious, some are decent, but even in the better ones, it is easy to find fault. Knowing this community, I'm sure some can find some fault with some of the points, but only at the margins. While it was specifically targeted at academics, I plan to save it as a useful link. Good advice for most new editors.--SPhilbrick T 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good article. Back to basics, something many of us seem to forget from time to time. I see Hipocrite is back -- welcome back Hipocrite. Minor4th 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a bad introduction (and not surprising, assuming that Magnus Manske is our Magnus Manske) I'm not sure what this has to offer existing editors. It's sort of like saying "there's an edit button on each page' - surely, for anyone editing here for a while, it's as obvious as sunrise. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious, maybe. Easy to forget, definitely; that some only pay lip service to some of the ideas in that article -- absolutely. Reminds me of "The Gods of the Copybook Headings". [83] The second paragraphs of Rules 8 & 9 seem especially worth reviewing: Expertise gives you no privileges; mainsream science is only a part of the beliefs that we cover. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. The issue is how we cover MSS when non-MSS beliefs come into conflict with it, which is, as far as I can tell, a 24/7 problem, which is why we need to rely on the best sources we can find. Guettarda happens to be right on this particular issue, but what she may or may not understand, is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not place any value on accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we demand that experts play by our rules, which is fair. The problem is that it's a one-way street - even when experts play by our rules, their expertise is accorded basically zero value by the community. I can name a number of editors with real-world expertise who never trumpet it, who keep a low profile, and who plug away civilly, citing sources and improving content. In some cases, the only indication of their real-world expertise is the quality of their contributions. These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. I agree that experts should not demand any special privileges, but it pains me to see how little respect the community returns to those experts who contribute constructively here.

Most experts are skilled in communicating their subject matter to laypeople, but that's not the skill set you need here. You need to be able to calmly explain your subject matter to a seemingly endless stream of editors who are deeply and personally vested in an opposing viewpoint. That's why I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas ("controversial" in this case being defined as areas in which a committed Internet-using contingent opposes the current understanding of a topic, not areas which are genuinely scientifically controversial - those are generally surprisingly calm). MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. And that's true for us all, as I've been saying, ad nauseum for years. I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas. Again, this applies to anybody. Its a systemic problem at Wikipedia, and it doesn't look like it can be fixed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree MastCell, I am not saying this to annoy you and I hope you don't take it that way. :) Experts do get help, but they have to ask for it to receive it. If an expert posts for help on noticeboards such as WP:FRINGE or WP:MED etc they usually get several people who will come to their aid if they are dealing with a problematic editor or editors. A large chunk of the climate change disputes were to do with BLPs and political scandal or lack of scandal, rather than on disputes over what the peer reviewed literature says. One of the main reasons that drew me to recommend that ArbCom take this case was the BLP violations, which had little to do with expertise or science but rather looked like agenda driven editing. I couldn't help but wonder if some of the editors involved were trying to disparage BLPs with the hope that journalists would be influenced by what is written in wikipedia articles, i.e. political campaigning, righting a great wrong etc. I must say on BLP articles overall, it was the "sceptical" editors who were the least problematic, although I did see a couple of BLP articles where the sceptical editors were causing the most problems. Anyway regardless of motives, subjects in BLP articles are real life people, with feelings and families and friends and the community consensus is that BLP policy need to be respected. I am not alone in my concerns; from following comments by uninvolved editors on noticeboards and during the case itself the BLP issue is what has the community most concerned as well as the constant uncivil environment. The community will turn against people regardless of their academic credentials if they do not respect WP:BLP and other policies. I really see people trying to right great wrongs on both sides (sceptical and alarmist) of the various climate change disputes. What is needed, and I hope ArbCom case will achieve this, is an editing environment where people are going to fairly represent what the peer reviewed literature is currently saying, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and where editors will respect WP:BLP.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, things like WP:MED and the fringe theories noticeboard are some of the few things that give me hope that this project is not inevitably doomed to collapse under the weight of its own prominence, which is like a porch light to every mosquito with an axe to grind. I'm very proud of the work that WP:MED does, even though I have a fairly small role in it, and I think that project sets an excellent example of how to be supportive and respectful of experts who make an effort to understand how this place works. But I'm also not under any illusions about how WP:MED, or any such endeavor, would fare if it were subjected to relentless blogosphere-fomented agenda-driven editing, backed by partisan op-eds in major newspapers, heavy funding for contrarian viewpoints, and extensive sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we are not in as much disagreement as I thought. My comment on experts getting help from other noticeboards and projects was a generalised comment, not just limited to climate change. The climate change, topic area is a different kettle of fish, it is long gone beyond the usual solutions unfortunately and sadly fairly or unfairly quite draconian measures are required. Anyway for better or for worse we will soon see what impact this ArbCom case has on the topic area. I have hope that despite the necessary, tears and upset the case will cause to some people affected by the case, ArbCom can contribute to an improvement to the topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and barely notable views

This brings up a crucial area of dispute, and one where principles should be clarified in the decision. As the PLoS article item 9 states, "When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held."
We've seen BLPs and articles on books being used to present fringe views in isolation from the scientific consensus, when the fringe view of the book or person hasn't attracted mainstream rebuttal in a reliable source.
Risker's comment above at 06:22, 2 October 2010, proposes "At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current <topic area> expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current <topic area> expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article."
The problem arises when proponents of political views provide reliably sourced notability to the fringe scientific views, but there's a lack of well sourced scientific opinion on the topic. As seen with the Tim Ball article, mere promotion of fringe views can be seen as sufficient notability. The idea of keeping disputes out of biographies has merit, so that properly sourced balance can be shown without giving undue weight or "equal validity" to fringe views. A similar problem arises with books like The Hockey Stick Illusion. Clarification of how to deal with this tension between syn and weight will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We present fringe views in articles on their proponents. If there are mainstream comments on these fringe views, we present these, too, and every effort should be made to find some. But if there aren't any suitable mainstream RS rebutting the fringe view, then that is just how the cookie crumbles. Where fringe views comment on science topics, these will be wikilinked, and we'll then have to rely on our article on the science topic to communicate to the reader just how far removed from the mainstream the fringe view is. --JN466 13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, your approach is to ignore WP:WEIGHT and, where applicable, WP:FRINGE in articles on proponents of tiny minority or fringe views, in cases where these minority views have not attracted mainstream attention with particular reference to that proponent. Misleading readers who don't follow links to other articles is not NPOV, and makes such articles particularly prone to coatracking promotion of the fringe views. A similar problem arises with fringe complaints about proponents of mainstream views, these should not be given undue weight in BLPs. If that's how the cookie crumbles, then disputes are likely to continue. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If readers can't be botherd to read linked artciels thats not our fault. We are not misleading them, far from it we are offering them the information they are just not accepting the offer. I would also say that is an applaing and condesending attitude to people who use Wiki. Moreover I find the blatnat interlectual black mail (gives us what we want or we will take our expertise with us) frustating and quite frankly offensive. It sws a battle ground mentality wholey out of keepiing with the priciples that wiki is supposed to be about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Nothing there about "a link to an article covering the majority view will suffice", which seems to be your proposal. Probably better to remove fringe promotion coatracked onto BLPs, keeping it in linked articles about the fringe topic. Each article should be clear in itself without having to follow links to other articles for explanation, that's basic good writing.
Slatersteven, it's not the topic of this subsection but I'll note that Wikipedia has always valued expert contributions which comply with policies, making life difficult for expert editors damages article content and damages the primary aim of Wikipedia. Everyone should comply with the five pillars. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Dave, the example I had in mind was what ScienceApologist deleted here. She said it, she said it in a reliable source -- Australian Broadcasting Corporation -- and if those are the views she holds, our readers have a right to know. If a notable politician/book states, in print, the belief that early humans cohabited with dinosaurs, then we don't delete it from the biography/the article on the book because it is a fringe view. We may delete it for other reasons, but not for that one. --JN466 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, as that's Nova presenting an inaccurate attack on living persons: if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the article on the linked controversy in the context of other views. However, as SA notes, this was being used as a coatrack. Her views on this don't appear to be particularly notable or significant – she's not a topic expert. She does clearly have fringe views on the science of climate change, and the article shows these views without being clear that they're minority views, so improvement needed. . dave souza, talk 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, we have thousands of BLPs mentioning the personal views of the BLP subjects. I might agree that in this BLP her views on climate change formed perhaps an excessively large part of the article overall. However, I reject the view that we must not cover a BLP subject's fringe views in their biography, or that we have to flit from BLP to BLP to "correct" BLP subjects' erroneous views with the mainstream scientific viewpoint. These are biographies: they are about people, including their views, some of which may be smart, and some of which may be misguided. We don't start arguing with them in their biographies. --JN466 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, you should really work to build consensus to change our sourcing policy. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have more work to do there than me. If Chap X says, I believe God made the Earth on Friday the 22nd of July 4352 BC, you don't go and cite Darwin to refute him, or even worse, cite the blog of a geologist who can't stand Chap X. --JN466 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Chap X is a creationist who has verifiably written or said tens of thousands of words and in a one thousand word biography you cite a one hundred work paragraph about his comments about a bunch of emails written by the NCSE, you better believe "coatrack" is going to be called and unless there is verifiably notice of that particular paragraph or sentiment, the editorially-sound decision is probably going to be to excise it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It's also coatracking. We can't dedicate 1/4 of an article to something someone said that's pretty peripheral to their career. Read the article as it was before SA deleted that para and you'd think that the most notable thing Nova did was open on the email issue. When, in fact, that only reason anyone cares about her opinion is because she is known (to some extent) as a science writer. But you see this with every "climate skeptic" - their articles are basically used to promote a fringe view. Some people (Tim Ball, PZ Myers) are primarily known for their views (though you could also argue that Myers is notable in the way he has used blogging to present those views), and much less for their professional achievements. For others, like Nova or Judith Curry, their primary notability is for their professional achievements, and their opining is less notable, but subject to much more buz in the blogosphere. So dedicating such a large chunk of their bio to a topic like that is unbalancing, and creates a distorted view of them. And creates problems both of WP:WEIGHT and, in the case of living people, WP:BLP. (Note that this is not the same as people like Singer and Seitz, where substantial scholarly coverage has been dedicated to their "contrarian" positions. This is something that's supported by "a [as in one] reliable source".) Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. I have already conceded that perhaps too large a part of her bio was about her climate change views. When I looked at the diff, it was less apparent. --JN466 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)However, sometimes a very minor part of an individuals career may be that on which their notability hangs - my non science example is A. E. Housman, a contemporary authority on writers of antiquity and in a couple of cases still the major source - and who published in his lifetime two fairly slim volumes of poetry. Regardless of the mans academic achievements and standing, the person is best recognised as the author of A Shropshire Lad, and Last Poems. It is not always undue to concentrate on one or two minor aspects of a persons entire output, because it is what is notable (via reliable third party sources) that determines the presentation of the article on a subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, LHvU. Reliable third party sources, and indeed Vaughan Williams, testify to the notability of Housman's poetry. No third party source seems to have commented on Nova's fringe views about mainstream scientists whose emails she misinterprets, so her comments cannot be said to be significant to her bio – at most, they might be cited in the article on the topic as an example of fringe views. Having them in her bio is purely a coatrack to show these views divorced from mainstream views on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a science reporter then surley her views on a scientific matter are notable? Its whats shes paid to talk about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her views could potentially be significant to the scientific matter topic, in which case they might appear in the article on the scientific topic, where they would be given due weight in the context of other views on the subject. However, we'd need a secondary source to show that the views are significant to herself. Cherrypicking her views on another topic is both coatracking to present that topic without mainstream context, and original research in choosing which parts of her output are significant to her bio. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a secondary source that refers to her article in The Drum, which the deleted quote was taken from: [84]. Other secondary sources referring to her climate change activism: [85] (which also puts her Internet activism in context, in relation to the scientific consensus), [86]. The majority of news references to her refer to her views on climate change. --JN466 14:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific there about the subject of the section that was removed, the first gives her a passing mention in an article about journalistic standards at ABC, the others seem to be opinion pieces in The Australian and other promoters of fringe views, including blogs, putting the viewpoint that she expresses views on climate change. That's more than covered in the current bio, independent third party sources would be better. For weight, we should have a source noting the mainstream view of any content in her bio, or it becomes a coatrack and a POV fork. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source discussing the mainstream view in the context of her views then fine. However it would generally be inappropriate to note the mainstream view based on unrelated reliable sources which don't concern her or her views Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nil Einne here. --JN466 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why showing her fringe views of a topic automatically becomes a coatrack POV fork in the absence of a mainstream source that specifically mentions her views, unless there's a generic a statement making it clear that hers are minority views in terms of science, as suggested above by Risker. Which means that the best way to deal with it may be a brief statement that she disagrees with mainstream views shown at [link]. Unless the arbiters set a principle for such cases, these arguments will continue. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these arguments will continue. I don't think we really disagree that much at heart though -- it is just a question of weighting. To me, in a BLP, it matters more that we describe the person, including their views. I see that as a description of the person, not the things they are talking about. So if we mention in a BLP that someone believes in UFOs, or ancient astronaut theories, or that homosexuals are of the devil, I don't see the need to add that the mainstream consensus is that there aren't any UFOs, or ancient astronauts, etc., unless reliable sources have bothered to comment. With more notable commentators (I mean the BLP subjects), such sources will always be available; even with Nova one of the articles I found would provide enough material to locate her in relation to the scientific mainstream. But where BLP subjects' views haven't elicited third-party comment, I am happy to leave them unanswered, as otherwise we as Wikipedians are inserting ourselves, starting a debate in a BLP that has not taken place in reliable sources.

None of what I have said here should be read to apply to BLP subjects' self-published sources. In other words, if the BLP subject writes something uncomplimentary about another living person in a self-published source, then we should not normally reproduce it, per WP:SPS. In Nova's case though, her article was reliably published, which makes it fair game for inclusion. And yes, you can then still have a talk page discussion about whether it is due weight or not to include it. --JN466 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused here by what's were discussing. But I think I largely agree with Jayen466. Note in particular if someone's views are primarily coming self published sources then this isn't a good thing either even if these aren't concerning living people. These should be kept to a minimum if used at all. It's very easy to cherry pick things someone once said somewhere to make them look stupid and this is a constant problem on BLPs.

Now if their views have received significant coverage in other reliable sources it's not generally our place to exclude them simply because some may feel the reliable source failed to make it clear their views are in a minority. It can actually be a problem with particularly notable people too even when we do restrict ourselves to things covered in other sources that it's easy to cherry pick things to make them look bad so I'm not suggesting every single thing they've ever said that has been covered belongs in the article. However the primary considerations should be things like how much coverage did these receive, particularly long after they were said if that's possible, are these relevant to their notability etc, not whether there has been sufficient comparison to the mainstream.

As Jayen466 has said, it's also usually unnecessary to give undue emphasis to how their views are not in the mainstream, ultimately we have to give the reader a bit of credit an expect them to understand that in an article on a person, it isn't going to go in to depth about how their views compare to the mainstream. It may of course be appropriate to mention in some cases although I think the general coverage of the article would often be sufficient, it's not necessary to explain how every single one of their views aren't mainstream if it's clear their views are generally not in the mainstream.

In any case, I find it hard to believe this is really going to be much of a problem in the climate change area. Most coverage tends to be along the lines of how a climate change sceptic says the mainstream is wrong or whatever.

There is IMHO a bigger problem with people with fringe or pseudoscientific views in areas unrelated to climate change where no one has really paid much attention to whatever this person is saying but it happened to get picked up by some reliable source without much commentary and where it's obscure enough that it will be difficult for the reader to understand how their views fit in to the mainstream even if we had articles (which we probably don't).

P.S. I perhaps should emphasise since I'm not sure if my earlier point was clear enough that if another source hasn't said someone's view is not mainstream for us to say their view isn't mainstream as shown in article wikilink would almost definitely be a case of WP:Syn and is extremely bad practice in a WP:BLP.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific example being cited was being used to replicate a person's fringe views without any third party source or analysis.[87] The article thus became a platform for repetition of fringe views without the context required by weight. As stated at the top, Risker suggested a reasonable approach to such issues. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is something on which the Committee has demonstrated its competence and wisdom in the past. In view of the amount of confusion here, would the arbitrators think it worthwhile to adopt Risker's suggestion and refine it into a principle in this case? The issue of minor biographies being used to propagate disputed material is one on which many editors have expressed concern. --TS 11:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is possible to describe a person's views in encyclopedic detail without resorting to coatracks and quote mines. Not every opinion a person offers is necessarily relevant to their biography. These are pretty standard editorial discussion points. No one is arguing that we should somehow prevent readers from knowing the notable positions of notable persons. It is reasonable, however, to sometimes drastically edit or even cull commentary that lack prominence with respect to the biographical subject. I've been sensing a lot in these discussions about BLPs a sort of knee-jerk response on the part of some editors who argue that removing verified prose or quotes is somehow automatically a violation of Wikipedia standards. This attitude is extremely unhelpful. The meat and potatoes of this collaboration is working out how best to summarize, paraphrase, strategically quote, and encyclopedicly cover topics. If the attitude shifts to one of, "you can't remove anything that is verifiable" we cease becoming a collaborative encyclopedia and instead become an arbitrary open source data dump. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and with Nil Einne's point above about cherry-picking. I am just concerned that it seems we are basing our selection of which quotes to expunge on whether a BLP subject's view is fringe or mainstream. That should really not feature in our deliberations. --JN466 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, the demarcation of a biographical subject's views has to be a consideration sometimes. WP:FRINGE shares interstitial space with WP:UNDUE and WP:GNG. To that end, it is entirely appropriate to consider the content of the comment when deciding how to handle it. I'm not saying we censor fringe views preferentially or punitively. All I'm saying is that when a fringe advocate takes it upon themselves to make full-throated advocacy of a certain idea and is used in the media as a strawman stand-in for an opinion that is absent among experts, Wikipedia shouldn't be including significant amounts of their unilluminated commentary. Paraphrasing, judicious quoting, and sourced analysis is far more useful and encyclopedic than a long quote with dozens of factual claims of dubious significance. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms [88] I do agree what was removed was problematic. Firstly it's not so much a science issue here. But it is a BLP one to some extent as although she didn't refer to anyone by name the people she is referring to is clear to anyone familiar with the case and is a small number of people. Second it's rather long and out of proportion to the article as a whole. Finally and the biggest problem here is there's little evidence of the notability of her views. Her views are taken direct from her opinion piece. While [89] does mention the story, it doesn't really mention her views at all and not what we were quoting. (It also wasn't used as a source at the time.) In other words, there's no real reason why we should quote what we did instead of "The House of Commons committee was surely supposed to be protecting the citizens......." or anything else she said in that piece.

In other words this specific issue actually had BLP issues both ways.

In case there is any confusion here I should clarify here that when I said we need coverage of someones views in reliable secondary sources, I meant just that. I didn't mean their views were in opinion piece or whatever, even if that piece happens to be published in a reliable secondary source. From my POV, when several sources are covering someones views it's often appropriate for us to as well. Even more so if these sources are primarily covering these views as opposed to just quoting a bunch of different views from different people (or from that person), which would usually imply these specific views on have achieved a high amount of prominence for whatever reason. Most of the time, this coverage will include some criticism of these views as well, in fact that's often the reason someones views receive so much prominence and it will usually be appropriate to include this criticism (although how much is usually a tricky issue). Of course this doesn't mean we quote everything someone has said that's been covered, that clearly doesn't work for say Barack Obama or Ann Coulter. Or even Bowe Bergdahl (these was plenty of coverage of the tape released after he was captured, as I argued in the talk page we could probably include the whole tape).

Anyway I'm starting to repeat myself and think I've explained myself well enough and this is somewhat getting off topic anyway so I'll leave it at that.

I'll just make one final comment on the general issue and perhaps my most important point and message to arbcom. If arbcom is seriously considering proposing that we analyse a persons views and even if no source says their views aren't mainstream, if we feel they aren't, we note it and refer them to the article on the mainstream view this would cause grave concern to me as I've already expressed and I think other BLP editors. I would suggest instead great guidance on when to include views. It would IMO be far better to exclude someone's views then an ORry mention they aren't mainstream without sources.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made valid points here. I like your idea of not quoting RS-published opinion pieces in the author's BLPs, unless the views expressed have actually been discussed by third-party RS; it fits with the particular scenario we are dealing with here. You're quite right about the OR-ish, cherry-picking aspect of it, which is not unlike a Wikipedian picking primary source quotes from a writer's output according to their own preferences/pet hates. On the other hand, I am not sure this idea would fly if we brought it up, say, on the WP:IRS talk page. What do you think? We could give it a try. --JN466 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse / Cla

I think that's enough of that. The points made here have been noted by the Arbs and clerks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting: [90] William M. Connolley (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Rlevse has withdrawn all of his votes on this case, and has not participated in any discussions about it since having done so, it's not, really. Risker (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he hadn't withdrawn, giving out a barnstar is hardly evidence of bias.[91] Jehochman ^Talk 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to talk about actions that give the perception of bias, I think ArbCom as a whole appointing Lar's wingman as an Oversighter during the case while there were proposals for sanctions and the PD had not begun to be published was far worse than handing out a barnstar. It certainly suggested that ArbCom had little intention to do anything about Lar's approach to "uninvolved" status. As an outsider, it is demoralising to see that an admin can comment on content issues, admin with a stated agenda, taunt editors and comment uncivily, and nothing substantial is done and his wingman gets a promotion in the fact of very substantial opposition at the disregarded election. ArbCom, this is a prime example of acting in a way that invites criticism and which damages your reputation. EdChem (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-issue I think even considering Risker's comment, as Rlevse has given out those barnstars to Guettarda, Collect, MONGO, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, myself, The Wordsmith, Jehochman, LessHeardvanU, Dragons flight, Lar and MastCell, all of whom have had varying levels of involvement with this case. All that Rlevse's daily barnstar is him recognizing someone's good work; that does not mean that he is incapable of voting for their sanction. Though a single prior positive experience might of course lead someone to vote against a sanction, by that logic we would likely have to disqualify a good portion of arbitrators in every case involving administrators or experienced users.

EdChem, I believe that your concerns about LHvU's appointment as an overisghter is unfounded and that you should have contacted ArbCom far prior (when indeed they were inviting public comment on these matters) if you wished to complain about his appointment. Indeed, as ArbCom is not considering even a finding of fact in this case, I think it is fair to say that they have not seen any behavior that would necessitate not appointing LHvU as an oversighter. NW (Talk) 15:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I should point out that Lar remains on the functionary mailing lists, even though he is not currently exercising CU privileges given his ombudsman duties, during this case also. I am so aware, of course, because I am on the same mailing lists. And his "wingman". Naturally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NW, I did express a view in the discussion at WT:ACN that the LHvU evidence should be considered before ArbCom put him forward. That view was ignored. As were the election results. Indeed, if LHvU respected community perspectives he would not have stood in the appointment phase that replaced the election. You fail to notice that at the time the appointment was made, all we had was the workshop and no PD, so ArbCom formally was considering whether to make a finding. Anyone who watches ArbCom has seen actions taken without apparently considering what appears appropriate, which I believe is unwise on their part.

The handling of the "uninvolved" issue by ArbCom has, to date, been terrible and I think WMC is alluding here to part of the reason why - a lack of genuine objectivity. I am genuinely amazed that ArbCom doesn't apparently recognise Lar's gaming of WP:UNINVOLVED and how it made the climate change area worse, and LHvU playing wingman didn't help. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I agree with you that Arbcom has failed to adequately address the "involved arbitrator" issue and/or Lar's behavior. However, I don't understand your "wingman" description of LHVU. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, do you mean "inolved arbitrator" or "involved administrator"? On the "wingman", see the post below. EdChem (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant "involved adminstrator." Not my first switched-word goof. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... I just thought it should be clarified. :) EdChem (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to note here that WikiProject Military History is quite large and has been successful in producing quality content. Quite a few of the editors under discussion here and quite a few Arbitrators are (senior) members. There is nothing wrong with this association. This can lead to perceptions of bias, because most of the editors under discussion here who are members, are on the side of the sceptics (ChrisO being the exception that proves the rule). Nothing surprising here, because sceptics tend to have more of an interest in non-scientific topics and Military History being so large, will attract editors with that background. Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I can be as paranoid as anyone when it comes to arbcomm kremlinology, this is no big deal. See User_talk:Guettarda#Happy_Guettarda.27s_Day.21, which, if memory serves me, was a day or two after he withdrew from the case. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take particular exception to the characterization of LessHeard VanU as anybody's wing man. To the best of my knowledge the sole reason for his engagement in the probation and his comments on subsequent controversies is because I invited him to handle a problem in the probation. He and Lar seldom express an opinion with which I generally agree, but that is no reason to doubt their commitment to Wikipedia. If he sometimes agrees with Lar, that may be evidence that Lar can be very persuasive and often addresses valid or at least arguable points (although of course I think he's wrong most of the time). Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also puzzled by that "wing man" description. Both may agree on substance, but their style and method of communication is totally different. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "wingman", it is my impression that LHvU has often appeared to support Lar in GS/CC/RE requests. Looking at Archive 10 shows several examples. However, I recognise that the term may be taken as offensive and may imply collusion, which I did not intend. Consequently, I will discontinue using it and state publicly to LHvU that it was not my intention to imply he was doing anything underhand, rather that his actions were having the effect of facilitating the problem of Lar "owning" the area. EdChem (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the issue pertaining to Lar had been somewhat narrowed to battlefield conduct, labeling, and other behavior that inflamed rather than calmed tensions in the area, and which showed bias. I don't think it's useful to open up a hornet's nest that diverts attention from that primary issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No issues on my part - I disagree with the facts, but don't begrudge someone else's impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well WMC, I find it really interesting that you brought this up here since it was already discussed on your talk page - it was brought up by Petri Krohn and refuted by Atren less than a month ago. Presumably you are well aware of this since you are very meticulous about deleting content on your talk page that you disagree with. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~That was even less sane than your usual: how could something that occurred today have been discussed a month ago?~~ William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For these and for other flagrantly unhelpful comments, both Thegoodlocust and William M. Connolley are banned from this and the other case pages for 3 days. AGK 00:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can see that there is any evidence that Rlevse gives out the the award he does for anything other than to show his appreciation for an editor's article work.--MONGO 23:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but when one has created over 40 articles, made nearly 10,000 contributions including a GA, deleted nearly 1000 pages and blocked several spam/abusive accounts with little criticism of ones article contributions or admin actions and one has never been given a barnstar one wonders whether one has been ~~sucking the right members~~ doing the right things. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on who you work with, a lot of people consider a "thank you" or a "good call" to be an appropriate reward, or consider barnstars to be too ostenatious, for example. I tend to appreciate them, as tangible (well, about as tangible as Wiki-work gets) "rewards". I tend to agree that being a (editor/administrator/checkuser/oversight/arbitrator, pick one or more) is a largely thankless job, "Contributing to the sum of human knowledge" is a lofty goal, but it's.. let's just say it's something that waxes and wanes at times. :) SirFozzie (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I didn't give a monkey's arse to barnstars until I was put in remedy 3 of this arbcase and then I began wondering if anything I had done mattered or if everything boiled down to a couple of invcivil comments in wikipedia namespace. Olap the Ogre (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but there seem to be ~~like 15~~27 refs in the part about you. These only cover 2 comments? Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context. I belive that my comments about Lar and JohnWBarber can be easily backed up by diffs. Please feel free to quiz me on any of my comments and I will reply. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not an arbitrator nor do I have any wish to be one, I have to decline. I do admit I trust the arbitrators more then I trust someone's judgement of their own contributions (and yes as difficult as it would be that should include mine if it ever comes to it), particularly since from glancing at the comments, I can see why they are likely to be problematic in a charged situation, regardless of whether your view of Lar and JohnWBarber is accurate (and I did see more then two).

Also I think it's been established in this discussion that quite a few people who have received barnstars, including Cla68 who's barnstar started this, are part of the proposed decision. This suggests to me that whether or not one's good work has received a barnstar doesn't change whether arbitrators choose to sanction based on the evidence they see of the not so good work, which I would say is a good thing. In other words while people appreciate good work, and it may go some way in reducing the willingness to sanction editors for poor behaviour, ultimately a line will be drawn somewhere.

I haven't BTW seen any disagreement that you've done plenty of good work, which is why it is unfortunate to see you are leaving. Now you may disagree that your behaviour in the other instances that arbcom has specifically addressed was poor, that's obviously your right, but I don't think it helps this case (or for that matter you) at all to suggest it was only two comments.

Anyway I won't comment on this further here since I do understand it's necessary to keep commentary in this page down. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your summary. If a topic ban for a few comments over an immense case is the way we are going then I do not wish to be a part of wikipedia anymore, as you know I have already given up the mop. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on what is a rather surreal section, even for this case.

(1) Look at the wording and listing at User:Rlevse/Today/Archive. Rlevse has been continuing a system started by User:Phaedriel, so trying to read anything more into these barnstars is frankly bizarre (for the record, I was given one on 26 December 2008).
(2) I'm more concerned that people really are not taking on board the "casting aspersions" principle in this case. The brief and cryptic comment by WMC that started this section is a classic example of casting aspersions, as is the "wingman" comment by EdChem. While these may be isolated incidents, if either of these users routinely make speculative comments like this, they should consider why they do that and whether making such comments does more harm than good.
(3) To explain further, in EdChem's case, I am (as an arbitrator) more aware than maybe some of the current case participants are of a history of him (EdChem) being critical (sometimes long after the case in question) of ArbCom decisions and actions (e.g. the Hoffman case and the Randy in Boise suppression incident - in both those cases I disagree strongly with his views on the matters). I'm also aware of a history of him (EdChem) arriving at discussions and changing the topic of that discussion to some criticism of a past ArbCom action (in this case, coming into a thread about Rlevse and Cla68 and changing the subject to Lar and LessHeard vanU). If EdChem wants to raise such concerns, he should either do so separately, or at the time, and should not attempt to change the topic of existing discussions, or use existing ArbCom cases as a means to criticise past decisions and actions.
(4) Regarding the CU/OS appointments, as far as I can see, EdChem failed to submit any specific objections - the most I can find is his general comment at WT:AC/N on 12:20, 19 July 2010, which he should have re-submitted to ArbCom when the list of candidates was published in August, but as far as I can tell he did not. This particularly galls me because I spent a lot of time gathering all the comments that were received from the community, and would have included EdChem's comments if he had submitted them at the time we were calling for comments.

To be clear, those who follow more than one arbitration case (as EdChem has done) often provide cogent and valid criticisms of the overall arbitration system (as well as, IMO, getting it wrong sometimes as well), but there is a time and place for such criticism, and jumping into a thread like this is neither the right time nor the right place. And while I am aware that WMC has been banned from the case pages, I think he should be allowed the opportunity to retract his comment that started this (in a similar fashion to how EdChem has clarified his initial comments with his 16:56, 2 October 2010 comment). From where I'm sitting, WMC's initial post in this section looks like an attempt to distract from the real issues in this case, and given the length of my reply here, he has been at least partially successful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying and not good

Collapsing ... This one has run its course and is only of tangential relevance. Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball was proposed as a test deletion to see if other climate change BLPs could be deleted. While I am not a particularly strong inclusionist, kind of in the middle, the closure of this article for deletion has left me concerned. There were 5 votes (if you include the nominator WMC) for deleting and 12 votes to keep. An ArbCom clerk, over-ruled the community and closed it as a vote to delete. While deletion policy does say that the decision is not simply down to a head count the policy clearly states,Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, that

"These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so."

"The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept."

I won't lose any sleep over the deletion of the BLP, that is not the issue; I will leave it to someone else to appeal if they would like the article undeleted. I am not advocating for this admin to be sanctioned at all either, but I would like ArbCom to resolve devisive policy violations with regard to climate change by its clerks (which I assume were done in good faith) as it is potentially going to lead to a deterioration in the community's trust in ArbCom who are voting on remedies as I am sure this clerk would have some personal email interaction with some ArbCom members. I think ArbCom need to be as disassociated (sp?) from this dispute as possible both in commentary and actions including its clerks. BLP issues are at the core of this case and the issue which I feel most concerns the community.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny - I knew it had to be NW who closed as delete even before looking at the thread. The close was against consensus but it looks like it might have also been against policy and guidelines -- although Ball may have been marginal on WP:PROF, he clearly met WP:GNG. Like the OP mentions the close was even more contrary to consensus when you give additional weigh to the uninvolved editors participating in the discussion.Minor 4th 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NW was also the admin who blocked Mark Nutley for upholding BLP policy. I'm really sorry, but I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. --JN466 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get NW to see reason and get an explaination from him on his talk page. I was not aware of past accusations of misuse of admin tools. One thing is for sure, there is never a dull moment in the climate change battleground. Maybe the BBC should make a soap opera out of it and replace EastEnders. If you are not involved in the battleground it is at times entertaining to follow (which is partly why I started following it in the first place, better than reading the newspaper). :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision/New_proposals2#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator. Cla68 and Lar, among others, have previously expressed concerns about NW's status as an uninvolved admin. --JN466 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (speaking only for myself, and I'm recused)... I have no problem with NW's actions here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are recused, should you not then refrain from offering your opinion? I myself, while not complaining or accusing, am baffled by the decision. --Yopienso (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from the decision that is being rendered by ArbCom, but I can still comment in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you are still able to view off-wiki discussions in relation to this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your view SirFozzie. Your comment was indented, so I assume you were talking to JN's linked allegation? Or were you addressing my original comment?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View, yes. Participate, no. It would be, extremely hard, if not impossible to come up with sub lists for every separate case or discussion that arises on the ArbCom-L. (for example, I'm recused on CC, Shell is recused on EEML-issues, so on and so forth). We'd have about 10-12 sublists depending on what case or cases being discussed. Talk about your email nightmare! Since I'd pretty much not be able to sit by and not comment, I pretty much archive/delete the discussions on this case sight unseen. If I had any ability to influence the decision here, I think most of the parties here know what my reaction and decision would be.

As for your question, Literaturegeek, I found his close to be within Wikipedia's policies and the discretion we grant administrators in closing AfD's (in that it is NOT a nose-counting exercise, but the closing administrator is to take the weight of the arguments and the requisite policies into their consideration on closing it.) Also, while I have the bully pulpit, may I state that I find it.. frustrating, let's say.. that's a good word, that the default action for BOTH sides in this case is to go after administrators, trying to get them declared "involved" to run them off of working in the area. If you question NW's close, the proper way to deal with things is to take the decision to Deletion Review, not attempt to have him thrown out of the area. This is something that happens on BOTH sides of the table (No matter what the label you put on them). I'm beginning to get the feeling that the sides are hoping for an administrator-free utopia, where every administrator who has the intestinal fortitude to make a decision the entrenched forces do not like, gets disqualified for being "Involved". SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, I quoted policy above and it is clear that there needs to be a consensus to delete, therefore the headcount is referring to if there is a majority viewpoint to delete but the viewpoints are weak then the article is kept. How can this part of policy "Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept." mean that the page should be deleted? I appreciate your criticism of myself, and since I have given criticism I am happy to receive criticism. Although you probably won't be surprised that I do not accept your criticisms. Firsly because I do not think you are accurately interpreting policy on deletions and secondly because I clearly said that I do not want ArbCom to sanction NW. What I was hoping for is some ArbCom members quietly saying, please be more careful in admin decisions especially while the case is ongoing. How can "I do not want NW sanctioned", be interpreted as I want a remedy saying he is involved? Infact I have never advocated for anyone to be sanctioned. Perhaps going to deletion review would have been more appropriate and I can accept that criticism but I did not go to deletion review because I have never used it before and two because the issue was not that the article was deleted but rather I felt that NW had misused his position as admin with regard to the climate change dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately some of the worst culprits at getting admins pushed away from the topic area are those admins who managed to establish themselves at CCRFE. It appears a certain defence of territory has been going on. e.g. NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided - Lar 21 Aug 2010, A dig at a conversation between NW and WMC - Lar 5 September, Lar backs up Minor4ths criticism of NW's partisanship with I think that last bit is a fair question, NW - Lar 27 August, By the way, are you recallable as an admin? - Lar to NW 23 August 2010 and Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? - a fairly poor remark about VSmith by Lar 28 May 2010. I'm not nearly finished I have evidence of Lar attempting to drive away or being highly critical of several admins. I personally have only criticised Lar's actions with regard to WMC. I have not tried to drive him out of the topic area. Here is a real gem of an editor protecting the admin who will serve him best ATren telling me to move on and shouting that Lar is UNINVOLVED - ATren 27 May 2010, "you've" been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. - ATren jumping in to defend Lar and trying to push me away by saying I was a disruptive and biased admin even though I was not acting as an admin in that situation 29 April 2010, LessHeard vanU warning me away from Lar's talkpage (a warning retracted by Lar himself who hosts open discussion) - LessHeard 10 August 2010 Olap the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this is an activity BOTH sides in this dispute have tried to play, early and often. SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, SirFozzie, but it could be argued have you chosen sides, or the side of a fellow ArbCom, you cut a sentence of policy in half (presumably this half of the sentence of policy, "These processes are not decided through a head count") and then claimed I was wrong in interpreting policy. I have not ever and will not edit climate change articles. I do have an opinion on climate change which I can discuss on my talk page if people like but I have tried to be as neutral as possible, I have never asked for anyone to be sanctioned but have defended Mark Nutley and ScienceApologist (one editor from each side if you will) during this ArbCom case when I felt they were being misrepresented or being too harshly judged, so I think on balance I have succeeded in not "taking sides" despite my views on the subject matter. I commented on NW's deletion of a BLP in part because the one thing that really bothered me about the whole climate change battleground was the BLP violations by numerous editors. I initially did have more sympathy for the sceptical side early in the Arb case mainly because the BLP violations was mostly coming from the other side but then became more neutral as evidence mounted against the sceptical editors. I also had sympathy for the scientific editors in as far as them having to battle people who wanted to use newspapers instead of peer reviewed literature and tried to get this promoted to a guideline to help with these issues, but ended up just thinking all individuals from both sides need to be dealt with according to the evidence against them (and I have not interfered with that process) to fix the topic area and hopefully they can be given a second chance and return at a later date with a calmer perspective.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting is go!) Literaturegeek.. what do you think the following things (IN THIS Section) ? I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. Or Jayen's post, referring to a past proposal that attempted to cast NW as an involved administrator. Again, this is not the proper forum for the discussion of the close. That is DRV. My personal opinion would be to endorse the closure. You disagree. SirFozzie (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that is trying to get NW to leave the topic area at least as an admin, but I did not make those posts and your post was directed towards me or it looked that way.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously been critical of XfD closures that go against a majority (either way), because it implicitly suggests that the one closing admin can interpret policy better than the other commentators. That said, this has become more or less standard. Wikipedia policy is prescriptive, not descriptive, so while I would not have closed the XfD this way, I think NW acted fully within the envelope of current policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has evaluated deletion discussions before and had my decisions taken to deletion review I would vote to overturn in this case if it came up at deletion review. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A clear candudate for deletion review for sure. Expect other sceptic BLPs to be listed at AfD shortly. Collect (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scorched Earth and aftermath

This has gone off topic; please discuss content issues elsewhere. Shell ^babelfish 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and nature of remedy

Looking at the Proposed Decision page, it seems that after four months of deliberation, arbcomm is simply going to topic-ban everyone involved. This concerns me for several reasons. While I believe that the arbiters are doing what they honestly think is right, I don't think that any of them have enough experience in the non-dysfunctional parts of this topic area to understand the fallout from such a decision. In my opinion, those being banned comprise (not always mutually exculsively) subject-matter experts, disruptive, and/or undisruptive individuals who have simply edited here. Potential fallout from this will be:

Loss of disruptive indivudals (good)
Loss of page-building subject-matter experts (bad)
Loss of users with no real track record of misconduct (what?) This especially will lead to the unwillingness of others (e.g., at least me) to make sure that the pages conform to the middle-of-the-road scientific consensus, for fear that some new user will complain about us, resulting in an instant topic ban (this is the precedent that this case is on the road to set)

The problem is that a blanket topic ban with no obvious criteria for who gets banned causes everyone who cares about staying around this place to flee the area. I therefore am willing to de-watchlist every single climate change page because I don't have the time or energy to deal with an arbitration case that now seems to be destined for anyone who is involved. And I am 100% sure that I will end up trying to edit-war out some totally bogus news article that flies in the face of all scientific consensus if all of these users do get banned and I am left watching these pages.

To sum up: yes, everyone needs to behave properly, and there should be sanctions for those who don't, because this is about putting together human knowledge, which should be a good experience. However, blanket topic-bans with no reason given will cause me at least to stop caring about whether this area is accurate because it will have become a third rail. So to arbcomm: please, provide criteria for the topic-bans that you are issuing, or no one will feel safe enough to edit this area (except for the SPA trolls that pop up like the furry critters in whack-a-mole and don't care if they're smacked... but they might end up running the show). Awickert (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposal to just topic-ban all the problematic editors is very well-advised in this case. The criteria, obviously, is the disruption generated by the editors at issue as evident from the findings. This is not about well-meaning editors losing their tempers once getting an "instant ban", this is about longterm contribution to a disruptive environment by people who, after zillions of enforcement discussions, really should know better.

At some point it is just not worth the while to make fine distinctions between degrees of individual misconduct. As one arbitrator has said, this case essentially arises from the collective inability of several editors to work together productively. As a consequence, it is better to direct them to contribute somewhere else where their content (and ideological?) disagreements won't disrupt the editing environment. The ideal Wikipedia editor should observe WP:NPOV in such a manner that it should not be possible to determine from looking at their edits what opinion, if any, they hold about the subjects they write about. If editors feel that they can't meet this exacting standard, they are better advised to write about stuff that they actually do not have any opinion about, but still find interesting. A topic ban may help the affected editors to do this in this instance.

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly. I expect the basic science of climate change to be pretty much covered by now. The only thing that may need constant work are the political developments around climate change, and that demands no particular expertise from editors. To avoid recentism, a certain time lag may even help. And discretionary sanctions should help admins deal aggressively with any problematic SPAs that emerge. Sandstein 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong the remedy 3 does involve more than one well meaning editor. That is not to say there are any editors in there who have behaved impeccably but there are definitely well meaning constructive editors included in the blanket ban. I never thought wikipedia would turn into this sort of tough punitive justice place, in fact I thought this was against the ethos of wikipedia. Three strikes and you are out (even if those strikes never amounted to more than stealing a candy bar) that is what arbcom have turned this into. It is not a construtive approach, it may seem big and clever and tough to some but it is destructive, negative, assumes bad faith and makes wikipedia the sort of unpleasant punitive place where people don't wish to be. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a bit rich. This topic didn't get into the mess it's in all by itself. The atmosphere drives away all but the most determined (or obstinate) editors. This is wholly unWikipedian. On top of which, with a few honourable exceptions, nobody seems prepared to acknowledge that they've contributed to the catastrophe. "It wasn't me. Or my friends and allies." From my point of view, it's all actually rather depressing. Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make your solution any better. I acknowledge I have been a bit rude on this page at times. Your solution is topic ban by remedy 3 get rid of them all, that is completely unconstructive. It is along the lines of chop off a few heads and display them on the city walls and let that be a lesson to all sort of solution, damn them if we get it wrong once in a while we will end up with a better wikipedia and they should have thought about the consequences beforehand. Have we come nowhere in the last few centuries? Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Raleigh dealt with this. [92] "Tis a sharp remedy, but a sure one for all ills." Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other realistic options. Community sanction discussions have been hijacked and gamed incessantly; consensus discussions have been talked to death with varying degrees of bickering and unpleasantness; cooperative editing is largely a thing of the past. What's not to like about topic-bans and re-claiming the topic for the community? Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what definition of "realistic"? Much of this could be solved if ArbCom would look beyond petty behavior, either at long-term commitment and contributions, or at content. If you refuse to do that and stick to surface behavior, the best you can create is a desert, and the expected outcome is articles becoming completely useless collections of pseudo-skeptical nonsense under the flood of unsanctionable socks and trolls ("Particle physicist X said it in a letter to the editor of the Upper Bondocks Towncrier - it must be at least as notable as a formal statement self-published by the National Academies"). So far, I have not seen a single remedy that deals with the structural problems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom operates on the principle that once normal editing procedures are in place and policy once again is supreme, the content problems take care of themselves. Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all statements about elements of the empty set trivially evaluate to true. Or, in other words, once all participants in the Middle East conflict decide to behave responsibly and rationally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will solve itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your solution is not what you portray it as. People you are getting rid of are part of the community and I and many in remedy 3 are cooperative editors. You should not deal with cooperative editors by blanket ban, it is simply not clever or justified. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they're very welcome indeed to be a constructive part of the cooperative editing community elsewhere. Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I have been banned from editing articles I have displayed no problems editing. I didn't think arbcom could be unilaterally punitive. You do still serve the community don't you? Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thats its unfair to ban users who have not brocken any rules. But everyone involved seems to be saying that they have not broeken them, or if they have they have not done so in a was that was un-constructive. Indead a lot of people seem to be saing that thier actions whilst against the rules were constructivly against the rules. Now it mifght be best if Arbcom looked at each case in total isolation from anything else and then topic banned if any actios wer carried out that bearched policy or otherwise is deemed to have contributed to the breakdown of working relasionships. Possilby also considering a project wide ban on any users who do not 'seem to get what they did wrong' or who claim that breaking the rulkes is OK for them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing process and atmosphere

Far be it from me to defend the (dys?)function of Wikipedia institutions, but I'm sure that taking cheap shots at Roger Davies is not going to result in any positive outcome. Take it from me: as odious as one may or may not feel this arbitration is turning out to be, fighting with an arbitrator is really self-defeating and only really enjoyable for the jailors. There is still room above for people to offer suggestions on how to fix problems. Make some daring proposals and see if consensus can be gotten. If not, then it'll have to be medical experiments for the lot of you. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to spend a couple of hours putting together the diffs that will get you added to remedy 3? Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like it, no.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So marginally breaking any one of the many wikipedia golden "rules" should result in an editor being added to remedy 3? This is what is being said. It is not a cheap shot. This is not about unconstructive editors at all. If anyone had bothered to spend the time collecting the diffs they could easily get ScienceApologist added to remedy 3. That is part of the unfair nature of the remedy in that all anyone needs to do is collect enough problematic diffs and the editor of their choice gets added to the same topic ban as the worst unconstructive editor out there, except if that editor is Lar of course. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So its not about someone who does not break the rules, its just about some one who does not break them that much (in their opinion). My point above its not about those breraking the rules its about being allowed to break them. Sorry that does not wash. If you break the rules you break them, just being a member of some self apointed (or even real) artisticarcy should not give you special privaledges. If the Dule of Alone steals and apple he is not less (and no more gulity) then Bert the cobbsers son and deserves the same punishemnt. If you have a resord of problomoatic activity then you have that record, nothing justifies it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to warnings, advice, guidence, opportunities to engague in harmonious editing etc. etc. All bypassed by remedy 3. If this is the way wikipedia is going then it is an unsavory place which is being created by arbcom here. Some may percieve that my comment about a fellow editor was a PA just because I had said that I thought there was a problem with that editor but not provided a list of diffs (this seems to be the default reaction of policy wonks), others may not. But a topic ban for an editor who has no track record of problematic edits in the topic area is punitive and does not address anything, solve anything or lead wikipedia in a positive direction. I am a qualified school teacher and I know well that "don't do that you are barred" does not solve anything but just provokes a reaction against the teacher who in the end is shown to be incapable of managing the classroom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like Remedy 3, then make a proposal that is an alternative to Remedy 3 you think would get at the same issues. That will be much more productive. Your list of alternatives is admirable, but, IMHO, it needs to be made clearer if we're going to use it as a way out of the morass. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3 is inconsistent and therefore unfair. My advice to arbcom is, 1) specify rule, 2)when person breaks this rule then sanction according to the level of sanction you specified when you set the rule. Remedy 3 does not do this but harshly sanctions all equally when this was not measured against any set criteria, it is therefore unfair and creates a crappy environment. Arbcom has lost the classroom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a way to deal with future porbloms, at this tikme there is no fixed penalty system. So hwo do you propse to deal with the curretn nasughtyness. Are you susgesting that we just say to all invloved users. 'your being very naughty stop or i will get angry' and see where it goes from there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That is exactly how it is meant to read. When you have constructive editors if you just go ahead and sanction them all because you feel you ought to put a few heads on the city walls then that is not a solution. Really serious offenders who have been previously sanctioned and not learned from their sanctions are a different matter but remedy 3 is not doing this Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of being unfairly punitive just for the sake of being punitive. I completely agree with remedy 3. this whole group of editors has completely and wilfully ignored the principle of seeking consensus and welcoming contributions from other editors, even if they disagree with them. worse, they have misused wikipedia, and excluded people who wanted to make positive contributions. their reasons for such exclusions were very weak ones, like saying that the citations from major well-respected newspapers were not ever acceptable because they are not scientific journals. that's my view of these interactions, and my view on how wikipedia should work. just the fact that I've expressed these views here is enough for that group to identify me as someone whose views need to be excluded. this is exactly why remedy 3 is totally warranted here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rules and Arbcom processes

(edit conflict)Olap: That system seems to me to be a good idea, but what rules do you suggest arbcom specify? If we're going to avoid endless machinations and revisiting of the issue, the rule needs to be crystal clear and have the same effect (which is, as far as I can tell, an attempt to defuse an ongoing battlefield). As far as I can tell, none of the rules currently in the proposed decision is clear enough to allow for swift and severe enforcement. In fact, rules are being intentionally left vague for administrators as per normal arbitration committee decisions (c.f. discretionary sanctions). In my opinion, specificity would help a lot. What are the problematic behaviors/activities that need to be sanctioned and how should they be sanctioned? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely this point is, in fact, covered in the new version of Discretionary Sanctions I posted a day or two ago. Roger Davies ^talk 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. But as Coren points out, there may be unintended consequences associated with that approach. I'm certainly not sure what the solution is, and I'm pleased that we're all trying to figure it out to try to get it right. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We give warnings to editors based on the rules. Then if the editor does not take notice of the warnings we sanction. That is the way the rest of wikipedia is told to do it, but that does not seem to be the way arbcom are working with remedy 3. Also I reiterate I don't understand why you are not included in remedy 3 yourself. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the system, but specifically which rules are going to be subject to warnings and sanction and how do we determine when they are broken? WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR are all well-and-good, but it's very rare to see someone get as much as a warning for failing to adhere to them. WP:CIV and WP:NPA are classically enforceable, but also easily gamed. WP:3RR and its variants along with WP:NLT and WP:SPI are mostly cosmetic as they only affect a marginal population of editors and harsher enforcement of these kinds of rules is not, in my mind, likely to resolve issues. WP:BLP has been a popular draconian rule, but has been run through the ringer on this page. What's left? What remedy can be written that will empower an administrator to apply sanctions to end the current problems in this topic's editing environment?

If you'd like to know more about my opinions as to why I'm not mentioned in the proposed decision, please ask me on my user talkpage. I don't think it's directly relevant to this page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhpas something like a three strike rule. If a user is issued three warnings he is topic baned automaticly on the fourth offence. Taking into account all based misdemenours in the current case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions are a ONE strike rule. However, the problem is, what determines a strike? This is not an easy thing to answer and the arbitrators leave it largely up to the administrators to determine what the rules are and if/how they are breached. This leads to conflicts when an administrator makes one determination which is challenged by a chorus of others. That's the definition of WP:DRAMA and it's something we'd all like to avoid. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. A user is allowed three comunnity warnings (that is warnings as a reesult of say PA or 3RR violations) issued by an admin. A fourth offence (no matter how minor) would result in an automatic topic ban. A strike is breach of policey or any action sanctioned by an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that applies equally to an editor with, say 1000 constructive edits in between the warnings and a troll who does not provide anything useful over the same period? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a rule is to be unbending and applicable to all that is what it must be. Otherwise we are back to what we have now Arbcom discretion. . So we are back to square one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have imperfectly enforced good rules than perfectly enforced bad rules. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice man is not some one who treats his equals with repects, but beats the servants. He is a man who treats the servants with respect. Any one can be a good editor on non contentious pages or when not in conflcit. You jugde them based upon what they do when it does break down.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Good to know what the arbs think. I am with Stephan in that I think that they think (dangerous!) that once the behavioral issues are taken care of, everything will get better. (I am still somewhat concerned about a trigger-happy topic ban being applied to me, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise per Sandstein.) However, I think that the loss of so many long-term contributors will allow the new-account-SPA-trolls to run ironshod across the carefully-constructed science pages. So how about this: if (after some period of time, say ~4-6 months) the editing environment really has improved, I will admit that I was wrong and post something (like a picture of me eating my hat - yes, really, you can pick: MN Twins, MIT, or fedora) on the talk page of every arbcomm member. But if it seems that things have gone to pot, arbcomm will take that into consideration when the 6-month appeal limit is reached. Deal? Awickert (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that things might "go to pot," what are you basing that on? would you like us to abolish the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Remedy 3 needs to be set up for the worst of the worst, like editors who misused sources and breaches that bad or equalivent. I think for the others that have been named, looking at the difs to see how severe it is, then maybe a three month, 5 month or something like this depending on the severity. I really don't see all of the editors fitting under one remedy like this when the problesm are so different in how badly they behaved. The ones who actually caused damage to the articles like using sources wrong, esp. multiple times after being told not to, should be the ones receiving the stronger sanctions. Just a thought I figured I throw out here, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rthink the problom (from arbcoms pOV) is this. User A accuses user B of mis-reprsenting a source, and does so repeatedly. User B has not mis-represetnted the source, but user A is. But user A has not been accused of doing so. So who should be blocked? Now I am not saying that has been done, but I am using it to demonstrate what appears to be the complexity of this situation. Both sides have behaved very poorly its its hard to see who is really to blame (ignoring the wikitocracy argument), or perhpas it might be fairer to say more to blame.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sliding this in here, I hope it's ok but it clarifies my comment above and is a response to Slatersteven) If you look at the difs on the PD page you will see at least two editors that the arbitrators show as misusing sources so you don't have to use hypotheticals, use the real ones. Like I said, look at the difs that the arbitrators are already showing and then make a decision on how serious the behavior is. Using sources as the PD shows is one of the worse things for writing an article so I would say that would fit under the remedy 3 actions. Also according to the difs and then some comments on this very page, it shows that some editors accused of edit warring were actually reverting sock puppets which is allowed. This also needs to be addressed. Doing it this way and showing on this page why the difs are fair to do under our policies and guideline or the opposite why doing what the difs say are against our policies and guidelines need to be done now. Do you see what I mean, am I clearer on what I am suggesting, I hope so? I also suggest if you take this on you be precise and not wordy. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the alleged mis-use of sources, but sadly one link is broke so cannot judge. One other I do not see misrepresenting the source (and seems to have noting to do with CC anyway). So I do see that not all representations of misrepresenting sources are strictly true and may themselves be misrepresentations. Of course this is all subjective, that’s the problem. As to reversion of vandalism there are a lot of edit wearing links and it will take to to wade thru them, perhaps you would care to provide some yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue here is that ArbCom does not look into content. Obviously, in the current set-up that would be difficult to do, even if they decided they should look into content issues, because that would make the Arbitrators seem to be no longer uninvolved. However, SlimVirgin and I have commented some time ago that you could let ArbCom cases be andled by a jury of editors and Admins. ArbCom's role would be just to supervise te proceedings, to accept or reject cases. But a jury of editors can also take into account content issues to see if some party is editing in an unreasonable way. obviously the jury would have to consist of experienced editors who are capapble of putting aside any prefrencesabout content they personally have. But I think long term experienced editors are capable of doing that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I was using the (hypothetical) content dispute to illustrate that this is not a black and white case of User a being a very bad person and user B being a paragon of virtue. As to long term edss being capable of putting aside preferences, is that not one of the issues that fact that experienced edss have been dredged into conflict by not letting go. Not only feeding but actually gorging the trolls to the point of a food related hernia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there are things that are "true" and "false" at stake here, which makes it a content issue. I'm with Count, and like his idea. Any takers on the bet? Awickert (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources policy discussion

Sources general concepts

No there are things that are currently believed to be true or false at stake, as I say below science is the history of being proved wrong. There are no dogmas in science (and the danger here is that this does read like a debate about dogma). Moreover wikipedia is not about right or wrong, its about verfifiabitly. Its about the sum of all human knowledge not just the authorised (dare I say catholic) version.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP guidelines place the scientific mainstream as the view that should be presented on scientific topics. There are many notable examples of revisions to scientific theories, but mostly it gets things right (you just don't hear about that), and in any case, the other options ("it's a conspiracy" or "the world is going to end") are unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I am not talking about dogma; there are plenty of things in climate change that we don't know. But we must represent the knowns properly, and if you are suggesting that the newspapers have as much authority to be encyclopedic about climate change as scientific papers, you'll find we disagree, and rather strongly at that. Awickert (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) what Awickert said. (2) this isn't the place to try to renegotiate the neutral point of view. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. (3) if you want an encyclopedia where newspaper articles on science are regarded as reliable sources, choose another encyclopedia or construct your own. --TS 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not everyone here agrees with you on that. do you feel that gives you the right to unilaterally decide to exclude everyone who sees this question differently than you do? If so, maybe you haven't learned much from this whole Arbcom proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the scientific mainstream is aloowed on science articles to have pride of place. Tne issue here is not allowing views to be put into pages about the persons holding those views (for example). This is about an attmept to exert a kind od scientifc group ownership over both wikipedia and specific pages realted to CC.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me, I don't edit the articles. The use of newspapers as authoritative sources on science is not allowed on Wikipedia because of our Verifiability policy. Science is an activity pursued by scientists, not newspaper reporters. Even if we're writing about a person with contrarian views it's enough to state that their ideas are not mainstream. It definitely isn't necessary to explicate their ideas or the mainstream refutation in their biography. A "See also" link to the relevant science article would normally be enough. --TS 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasize again: this isn't a matter to be decided here. Go to the appropriate policies and guidelines if you think Wikipedia has got it wrong. --TS 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

telling me that my opinion merely equals saying that "wikipedia has got it wrong" is simply your opinion. Please see WP:NEWSORG. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, fair enough, but here's what it says. seems to support my viewpoint on this as well.

Quote: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

end quote. Also, see WP:NEWSORG. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that a quote showing that newspapers are not RS on this subject is produced. If it is shown that users have misrepresented policy in order to 'win' debates then they should be blocked I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a quote. Where newspapers get it wrong (and when people show up here with a newspaper quote and nothing else, that's an odds-on bet) we go with the scientific literature, with which a lot of Wikipedians are quite familiar. You cannot seriously be asking that we go with some newspaper reporter's paraphrase where we have several scientific review articles in the journals saying the opposite. I only wish that was a hypothetical question. --TS 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wish that wording in WP:V were a bit stronger, and made the difference in reliability between scholarly and journalistic sources clearer. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available" is a good beginning, but then it gets watered down a bit. I tried the other day on the WP:V talk page, but in the end the proposal went nowhere. Newspapers are good for politics and current affairs, but not for science proper. WP:NEWSORG has it about right: "For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Or at least, it would have if it didn't then add "and high-quality non-scholarly sources". :) --JN466 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says something is against policy we need a quote, not someone opinion of what policy says. Either its against policy to use newspapers in this context or its not. Is a newspaper says the moon is made of cheese your point has some vitality, if however it says that X as said the moon is made of cheese (and that is what we have in the article, that X has said the moon of made of cheese) your point ahs no validity. Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven is absolutely, 110% right. the comment above is the best summation one could find of the real gist of this whole policy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get a quote. For heaven's sake just read the verifiability policy and consider the fact that the scientific literature is more reliable and real than some newspaper reporter's fumbling attempt to paraphrase it. There are more scientists on the planet than at any time in history before now, and very few of those have time to pursue an alternative career in professional journalism. Do the math.

No argument with reporting that "X has said the moon is made of cheese", but obviously that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the facts, not the comments of people on the facts. --TS 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X = John Heywood, see here

It likely originated in 1546, when The Proverbs of John Heywood claimed "the moon is made of a greene cheese." (Greene may refer here not to the color, as many now think, but to being new or unaged.)[3]

:::Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tony, the problem is that WP:V as currently written gives a certain amount of succour to people who wish to cite press sources. Read the WP:V passage or WP:NEWSORG carefully. It practically puts respected mainstream publications and scholarly sources at the same level. And if you read the discussions at the WP:V talk page, it becomes clear why people are resistant to changing that. --JN466

If we could get this guideline off of the ground, WP:SCIRS it would help the topic area I feel. Replacing peer reviewed scientific sources with newspaper sources is very bad editing form and I think that guideline could help resolve this issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[93] --JN466 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources policy resolution and clarification

In practice this isn't a problem. If somebody shows you some newspaper article saying "global warming has stopped" or some other nonsense just dig out some reliable scientific literature that (1) defines a realistic timescale over which a trend in global surface temperature is measured, (2) analyses all or most of the global sources including surface measurements and satellite measurements, (3) shows the close agreement between all of them and (4) shows the strong upward trend measured by all of them. That kind of evidence is enough for science, I expect it will be enough for Wikipedia.

For brownie points, hunt down the story and look at the responses on various websites run by actual scientists working in the field. There are quite a few now and they eat this kind of stuff up like doggy chocs. They aren't reliable sources in themselves (they're just blogs) but all of them I know of cite sources so reliable they will blow Wikipedia's socks off. --TS 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For something that isn't a problem in practice, editors here are sure typing a lot of words arguing about it. And I fear as long as the policy is so elastic that anyone can interpret anything they want into it -- "scholarly sources are best, but press sources are excellent too" -- these arguments will continue. It needs to be solved. --JN466 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That surely is easily fixed by removing or ignoring the false statement. --TS 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. You will ignore the false statement, and your opposite number will tell you that you are ignoring policy. And to remove the false statement you have to address the concerns of those who don't want it removed. --JN466 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be playing a game. If somebody cites an unreliable source, the solution is to produce a reliable source saying the opposite. If some journalist comes out with some nonsense (I've given an example above), remove the reference to the nonsense and replace it with the reliable reference. --TS 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this for an example of how this kind of thing tends to play out. Guy comes up with newspaper article, other guys expound on the theme from more reliable sources, death of half-baked idea. --TS 00:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we were talking at cross purposes. (I thought by "false statement" you were referring to the statement in WP:V policy that seemingly puts press sources at the same level as scholarly sources.) --JN466 00:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean that false policy statement. Obviously it can be ignored because a review article in any field of science wipes out a piece written by a bloke who works for a newspaper. Science does matter. --TS 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those who say that the policy needs to be revised. JN466, Literaturegeek, please ping me if I can help on this and seem unresponsive (rather busy at the moment). In the meantime, regardless of policy, I refuse to place newspaper sources about science on equal footing with the original papers on articles about science (biographies, histories, etc. are a different matter), because it isn't the right thing to do. Awickert (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a law is wrong or you don't like it is not an excuse to ignore or break it. Nor does it allow you to claim its not a law. Policy is clear that newspapers (and electronic medai) are RS on this topic. If you think this is wrong take it to the appoprriate notice board.This seems to me to sum up what is going on here, and its not what I initlay thought. This seems to increasingly be about wikilayering about non exsistant policy in order to maintain keep POV out of artciels (most of whicappear to be BLP's and not science articels). An (rather dishonest if I am honest) attmept to portray the main gulity party as in some way the victims.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding because I feel that this issue is absolutely vital. No, mainstream newspapers are not great or the best sources on scientific facts and findings. However, they are ~~great, 100% reliable~~ absolutely valid, 100% acceptable sources when it comes to reporting debates and discussions within the scientific community itself. That is why you will often find some editors adding citations from newspapers when seeking to present the full scope of this or any other debate.

Editors who categorically remove well-sourced material from a particular type of source, just because they have personally decided those sources are not ever acceptable, are completely violating the guidelines for editing. also, they are completely sidestepping any effort to reach consensus, and then blaming others for the resulting decline in the editing atmosphere and process. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

[Newspapers] are absolutely great, 100% reliable sources when it comes to reporting debates and discussions within the scientific community itself.

”

I know of no scientist that agrees with that statement. This is also nowhere stated in Wikipedia policy. Mainstream newspapers routinely invent controversy where there is none. A recent, unrelated example is where 60 minutes pretended a few months back that there was scientific controversy over cold fusion by almost exclusively interviewing fringe advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it say that are not, end of argument. We can use newpapers as much as we like for sourceing scientific debate. Noe take it to the RS noticebaord.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, ok, have revised my comments above. your point is valid; they may have their flaws in regards to specific stories. however, my main point is that newspapers articles are absolutely acceptable when seeking to reflect the scope and nature of a debate within the scientific community, or any other professional community. there is no basis for deleting a whole group of sources without any discussion, merely because of one's own opinion on editing, in contradiction to policy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(to Slatersteven) We can't use newspapers "as much as we like". Sometimes it is okay to use newspaper articles, but it's usually a bad idea when it comes to describing a "controversy" real or imagined. Especially a supposed controversy in the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(to ScienceApologist) errr, sorry but it's not usually a bad idea. if there is major disagreement at a scientific conference, that would make headlines around the world. using some of those articles to report an event or discussion which is plain to everyone would be quite fair and valid. it's not usually a bad idea; if we adopt your formulation of usually, that would mean that more than 50% of all newspapers articles on this are bad for use here. Ironically, this would mean that the more something is reported, the less ability we would have to use it. i will agree that there is a discrete set of newspaper articles, within the minority of all such coverage, which should maybe not be used for basic or fundamental citations here at wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(to Sm8900)I would never advocate outright dismissal of an article just because it is in a newspaper, but we ought to be extremely wary given the fact that newspapers are bought and sold on the basis of some level of sensationalism. I can point to articles in the best newspapers in the world that are problematic. I can also point to articles in scientific journals that are problematic. One must consider all relevant sources and balance against the editorial opinion of other reliable sources before making judgment, of course. But we should not be in the game of accepting or rejecting classes of sources solely on the basis of their type. However, it is entirely likely that newspaper articles may end up being excluded more often from articles about scientific controversy than other sources due to the problems I outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(to ScienceApologist) I'm starting to agree with you and your formulation of this. as you say, care needs to be exercised, and discretion needs to be used based on the specific facts of each case. we can't exclude anything or any type of sources outright or all the time based on category, but we definitely can pay attention to factors of credibility and content. this is helpful, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that some would like to claim this topic is mostly about science, and therefore that scientific sources should reign supreme across all of it. They are falsely framing it. The topic, especially the problematic areas of it, is mostly not about science. Climategate isn't about the science, for example. Nor is Fred Singer's BLP. Don't let this be reframed so as to make the debate come out incorrectly. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You start out fine, Lar, but then you descend into histrionics. You claim "Climategate isn't about the science". Really? In our own article on the subject we detail the claims of climate denialists who believe that the e-mails somehow "prove" that global warming "isn't happening". That's a scientific claim. The "Hide the Decline" meme itself is almost completely about science: how scientists go about emulating and displaying data, what the difference is between excluding unreliable data from reliable data, etc. This is mentioned in a wide range of sources so to say, unequivocally, that climategate isn't about science is either to say that all the claims regarding the science surrounding climategate should be excluded from our articles on the subject or it is to say that you don't think that science has any relevance to the advocacy of the denialists who argued on-line and in the British media that this "gate" somehow showed scientific impropriety.

To be clear, I'm not the one who brought up "scientific controversy". But you better believe that when I see those words in Wikipedia I'm going to demand accountability to scientific sources.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jury system

Take new dispute resolution proposals to an appropriate venue. Shell ^babelfish 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly any such Jury could only include users who (much like a real world jury) have never been pesecuted, which in wiki terms means never been had a sanction imposed (also it would have to be an offence to not declare a previously sanctioned account). The Jury would have to have no involvemnt with any of the parties or the page. Any of the parties would have to have to ability to block any jurer.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic for this case. If you want to propose new dispute resolution systems, please do so elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up novel dispute resolution systems (that are case specific) is within the remit of ArbCom and within the scope of the page, so this is certainly on topic. I'm not sure such a novel system is needed, nor that this proposal is workable as written, but try not to be so dismissive. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about failings of the current system and the need for adaptions or additions have been deemed off-topic before. See User_talk:Roger_Davies#Collapse.... I don't necessarily agree, but it seems as if ArbCom is reluctant to apply or discuss anything but standard remedies to a very non-standard situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this situation is all that non-standard, unfortunately. We have other examples of multiple factions going at it (one of which defends the House POV) while many look on in dismay and those trying to do something about it get subject to "shoot the messenger" syndrome. This just happens to be one of the worst, currently, with one of the most skewed balances of power among the warring factions. But it's far from unique, regrettably. ArbCom tends to fail to come to grips with these in one go, it often takes multiple cases. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion remains as prejudiced and wrong as it was 6 months ago. Feel free to strike this reply if you strike your coatrack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an inbalnce of power its been casued by throwing whole bakeries over bridges. If there is a porblom edd reprot him, if community does not think he is maybe you are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ StS: Calling a realistic assessment of how things are a "coatrack" is where we veer into "prejudiced and wrong" territory. As you well know, but then you are as much or more a part of the problem as I am. I at least can admit I am not without fault. No, let it all stand. Including your unhelpful response. If it wasn't one of the worst, we wouldn't be here. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar

Collapsing ... This is revisiting old ground. Roger Davies ^talk 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am begining to get the impression that Lar has not been included in remedy 3 because he is getting special treatment due to his position. I hope to see Lar included in remedy 3 for all of the stiring up of the battleground situation he has done having Lar remain involved in any way in the topic at an admin level or even commenting as an observer is not conducive to a new start for this area which remedy 3 now appears to be attempting to do. Personally I would advise the dropping of remedy 3, but if you insist on sticking with it then this is a major oversight. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below I bring together some appropriate diffs regarding Lar's pushing away of admins from this area. It was requested on my talkpage that I put these diffs in the right section on this page.

Admins such as Lar who have managed to establish themselves at CCRFE are generally the worst culprits in pushing away other admins. e.g. NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided - Lar 21 Aug 2010, A dig at a conversation between NW and WMC - Lar 5 September, Lar backs up Minor4ths criticism of NW's partisanship with I think that last bit is a fair question, NW - Lar 27 August, By the way, are you recallable as an admin? - Lar to NW 23 August 2010 and Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? - a fairly poor remark about VSmith by Lar 28 May 2010. I'm not nearly finished I have evidence of Lar attempting to drive away or being highly critical of several admins. I personally have only criticised Lar's actions with regard to WMC. I have not tried to drive him out of the topic area. Here is a real gem of an editor protecting the admin who will serve him best ATren telling me to move on and shouting that Lar is UNINVOLVED - ATren 27 May 2010, "you've" been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. - ATren jumping in to defend Lar and trying to push me away by saying I was a disruptive and biased admin even though I was not acting as an admin in that situation 29 April 2010, LessHeard vanU warning me away from Lar's talkpage (a warning retracted by Lar himself who hosts open discussion) - LessHeard 10 August 2010 Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've held back from commenting further in this case of late (my message was delivered and what the Arbs choose to do with it is their remit), even under some rather strong provocation (such as the commentary from EdChem) but you go too far, Polargeo. There is a finding that I've engaged in behavior that is not optimal, and a remedy advising me to stay out of enforcement action, and that's what I intend to do. Isn't that enough? You seem to have stormed off in a huff (followed by a not unexpected list of folk expressing dismay at your departure) and when that apparently didn't get the desired result, you're back with the same stuff again. Really, you should stop. It makes the case for sanctions against you nicely if you continue, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice a dig at editors who support me. How battleground. Are they the cabal Lar? And does "the same stuff" which you are trying to dismiss mean the diffs showing your poor behaviour in this topic area? I'd like arbs to note that Lar hasn't come in trying to defend himself but instead just puts me and other editors down. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not covering old ground at all. I have presented a load of new diffs stating the case for Lar to be included in remedy 3. Please allow time for other arbs to view these. This is not tangential and applies directly to the PD. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but my colleagues are all able to click on a [show] button. Now EOT, please. Roger Davies ^talk 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you well know that your colleagues will read your dismissive summary and not bother. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the kind. Now EOT. Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assume I know what EOT means. I don't but it seems very dissmisive and you provide a dissmissive and incorrect summary as just covering old ground when collapsing a thread that has new evidence in it. This only goes to confirm my impression of you protecting Lar. Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this section?

I was reading this section titled Polargeo and was going to comment when the software told me there was no thread? The thread is gone, where to? Was this removed on purpose or was it due to say an edit conflict? I really think this should be discussed and that if possible Lar should comment if he is interested in to doing so which might clear some things up. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean this one, Polargeo. It was right after the Rleves/Cla one but disappeared. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged here --FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --FloNight, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that Lankiveil had actually pointed you to the correct diff. You just need to scroll down to see the text that was moved in the diff he gave. If you ever have this problem again, copy and paste a phrase in what you are looking for, and search for it on the current page or in the archives (looking in the edit history at recent edit summaries can help as well). If you are doing text-search on a page that you have opened, you may need to uncollapse section to find the text in question. I think doing a text search using the Wikipedia search function will work regardless of whether a section has been collapsed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the entire page should also enable you to search collapsed text, although bear in mind things like wikilinks, formatting etc may mean you need to search for something else (i.e. the raw wiki text will be different from what you see. Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Searching is not something I am good at yet but I'm working on it. Thanks again for the help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structural thinking

Not relevent; please take meta discussions elsewhere. Shell ^babelfish 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Wikipedia's structure and policies are based on the self-correcting nature of various crowd feedbacks. These work at many levels from, If somebody adds some rubbish to an article, someone else will come along and remove it to larger effects like, If something important happens anywhere in the world, someone will start an article on it and people will be drawn towards improving it. The discussions here seem to be emphasising, If a set of articles become an incomprehensible battleground of accusations and counter-accusations, and all the main parties involved are topic banned, others will move in to take their place, and the articles will be maintained adequately. I now have a worry at the next level out: If a sufficiently large number of determined new editors descend onto any Wikipedia topic area, then given about six months of determined effort, they can get themselves and all the people who created and tried to maintain that topic area indefinitely topic banned from it. Is that a reasonable summary, and is that a useful mechanism to build into Wikipedia's evolving structure? --Nigelj (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but ther is also don't feed the trolls. If a series of edds are porblomatic then it should be possible to ban them wihtouot getting yourslef banned. The excuse of 'he called my climate change articel a poof' is not an excuse for glassing some one. Do as you say not as you do should be the motto.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that discretionary sanctions are highly likely to pass in this case. Used fairly by admins, those are likely to be a very strong deterrent to anybody tempted to mix it up on our very high quality, highly praised, scientifically accurate articles about climate change. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a risk that all that italic has made my point difficult to read or to see. I'll try expanding the same structural feedback examples here - it's the last one that worries me:

If somebody adds some rubbish to an article, someone else will come along and remove it
If something important happens anywhere in the world, someone will start an article on it and people will be drawn towards improving it
...
If a set of articles become an incomprehensible battleground of accusations and counter-accusations, and all the main parties involved are topic banned, others will move in to take their place, and the articles will be maintained adequately
If a sufficiently large number of determined new editors descend onto any Wikipedia topic area, then given about six months of determined effort, they can get themselves and all the people who created and tried to maintain that topic area indefinitely topic banned from it

--Nigelj (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nobody's picked this up, so let me have a go myself. The following is pure fiction, any similarity with anything is entirely in the mind's eye of the reader. Suppose that at some time in the future, a perfectly 'normal' area of human activity starts hitting the blogs, getting opinion pieces thrown at it, and eventually becomes a new fringe/conspiracy cause. I don't know, but let's pick dentistry. A dozen new editors arrive in the area demanding that 'reliably published' opinion pieces get plenty of coverage - dentists are crooks, most treatments were never needed, charges are ten times what they need to be, whatever. The existing WP dentists revert frantically, then drag the newcomers off to the various boards, and call in a few administrators to try to restore order. The admins and the denizens of the boards collectively say, "I don't know the first thing about dentistry. This looks like it could be an ArbCom case one day. I'm not going to self-tutor myself up to bachelor-degree level in dentistry just so I can mediate intelligently on these complex squabbles. I'll ignore them." So, the existing WP dentists, with their doctorates and their years of experience in the field, have to try to sort it out for themselves. A few of them are admins, so it seems to go all right. Add a sentence or two to acknowledge the fringe views, then protect a few articles, hand out a few short blocks and these new 'attackers' seem to be on the back foot. But more arrive, and more (there are blogs out there teaching them how to open an account and running online courses in wikilawyering, maybe). Tempers get thin. An ArbCom case starts, arbs don't know anything about dentistry, and don't have to decide on content anyway, so topic ban most of the dentists and a handful of the newcomers for incivility and battleground language. Other admins, et al, breathe a sigh of relief that they were not involved, thankfully they spotted the toxicity early and so they did nothing to help the dentists at the start. So, soon we have all the dentistry articles freely getting altered to talk about 'alleged cavities', 'dental criminality' etc. (It's not about science, it's about commerce, and so price comparison websites are reliable sources...) One day some more experienced dentists may show up to fix them all, after the media bandwagon has moved on. What were the dentists supposed to do? Where did they do wrong? Is WP open to this kind of attack at any time, by any group with enough blogs and a few activists who can get onto Fox News or into print somewhere? I honestly don't know the answers, but if this is the way these things go, I'm clearly tempted to join the 'don't knows' every time. I hope no one takes any offence at my simplified story, none is intended. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N rays. The lay man does not have a monoply in making scientific errors, if fact it could be argues that science is the history of proving the last fact wrong. Besides your story (like N rays) is slightly mis-laeading. Perhpas you should have wrote

Say a one day a denistry commentator is asked by the newpaper they write for to write about the idea that dentists are part of shape changing alien plot. They do so and write they belive it (having previously writen a book about the dark secrets behind authordontology). All the dentits say this is a lie and undentristic. Whats more any denistry source will deny this is true so can't be in the BLP about the author and thier views on denistry.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is somewhat far-fetched. the parable violates the principle of WP:Assume good faith, especially among those who may disagree with you. Calling it something else here will not change that. the crowd of "dentists" in question, according to Arbcom, has continually violated WP:AGF, and circumvented many principles of editing here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you didn't know, here at Wikipedia, anyone can edit articles. So your point that the dentists have "their doctorates and their years of experience in the field," as usual is a self-serving argument. on matters of editing methods, everyone has a right to be involved and to contribute. sorry if being here at wikipedia has made you feel that wikipedia is great, except for the fact that it is not something which is completely different than what wikipedia currently is. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an expert (or being an admin, or being a newbie, or being baited, or being a multi FA writer, or being a ____ (insert any term you like there) ) is not carte blanche for any misbehavior no matter how egregious. Making allowance for circumstances is appropriate. But there needs to be a limit. Nigelj's fictional account doesn't fit the facts in this case very well at all. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigelj's example is interesting, but I think an appropriate analogy with climate change should be made slightly differently. What often happens in these sorts of disputes is that there are plenty of lay editors who know very well that some views held by some significant minority published on blogs, FOX NEWS etc. are bogus views. So, we don't need experts to keep those views out of Wikipedia, or at least make sure they are not given too much weight. What does happen with less experts around is the way this happens. There will be far less room for detailed discussions of the topic, because the lay editors won't have the depth of knowledge to argue about the small details that prove the advocates of bogus views wrong. Even if such arguments are presented, they will come from other blogs or other news sources and those sources will be attacked. Such discussions become toxic very fast, precisely because the content isn't discussed on its merits.

We have to note that despite the problems in the CC area, there have been many fruitful discussions between experts, sceptics and other lay people (e.g. environmental activists). We would have had far more trouble here on Wikipedia had there been no input from experts here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (Nigelj) concern is obviously whether the WP structure and policies (including the dispute resolution processes which can result in curtailing or eliminating the rights of some to contribute) could ever reach the situation in your last bullet point. You did not complete the thought, I trust it is implicitly obvious "... and then this group of determined new editors can write the article in their preferred POV, to the detriment of the overall encyclopedia".

My first response is, never say never, so I don't summarily dismiss the possibility that such a scenario could ever occur, but I doubt it will occur, in the abstract, and I strongly dismiss the notion (not expressed , but possibly implied) that we are close to such a situation now.

In the abstract, it is conceivable that a major edit war (more than we've witnessed), might catch up a material portion of the editors with relevant subject knowledge, and the improvement of the articles might slow, and perhaps even degrade a bit. However, there are many thousands of active editors with a goal of a better encyclopedia, and many hundreds of sysops with a similar goal, who would not stand by and watch a collection of articles degrade into a fringe view screed. They might not be quite as nice as they could be without perfect harmony, but it won't be a material regression.

In the particular, I think there is a bit too much hand-wringing over the likely loss of some expertise. A fraction of all editors in the subject area are potentially going to be unable to edit for a relatively short period of time. Remaining editors will be on a short leash. Aggregate editing may be decimated, but in the literal sense of the word, perhaps down by 10%, for a limited mount of time. I daresay that a future historian, looking at the article evolution only, would be barely able to detect a change in emphasis of the articles in aggregate in the six months following the end of this decision. I don't mean to suggest this decision is unimportant, it may rescue what otherwise might have become a material deterioration, and, of course, it will be quite significant to individual ~~edits~~ editors, but from the point of view of the CC articles in aggregate it will not result in a material deterioration. --SPhilbrick T 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively short period of time? Could you please point me to where arbs suggest this will be a relatively short period of time? All remedy three measures have the potential to be indefinite and I cannot see arbs conceding editing rights after a relatively short period of time (ie 1-2 months). Can you? 194.66.0.122 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon: There is no deadline. Depending on the timescale the entire project timespan so far is a "relatively short period of time" and 6 months in my view will go by in a blink of an eye. It's been 10 months since the enforcement regime was put in place (10 months of my hobby time I'm not going to be getting back... sigh. ) after all... Sphilbrick is right, those handwringing are suffering from a lack of sense of proportion. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think arbcom are the ones suffering from a lack of sense of proportion here. Six months is a very long time in the life of a wikipedia editor and sanctions proposed to last for 6 months or a year are usually reserved for the worst offenders. Those completely unconstructive trolls. Or at least editors who have had reasonably clear specific warnings that this would be the sanction they would face if they did not comply with x or y. Therefore remedy 3 applied to users who do not meet these community criteria goes against all normal wikipedia community principles and should be challenged as arbcom stepping outside of their terms of reference. Maybe they think they are employing Jimbo Wales's prefered solution but this is a different case to that previous case where a general ban was employed. Also Jimbo Wales's opinion should not be involved in these extremely complex decisions as he has less on the ground experience than those he trusts to make these decisions. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example I have not ever recieved a block, a previous sanction or even a reasonable warning that this might happen and yet I find myself faced with an indefinite topic ban from climate change across all namespaces with the option of begging arbcom to be allowed to edit in this area again like some repentant troll. Why? How is this even slightly fair? 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE concerning any new edits to this page

Posts here are getting increasingly tangential and circular. I've been asked to request that any new discussions (or posts to old ones) be clearly directly relevant and also concern issues that haven't been recently raised. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in to note that any discussions that don't follow the above guidelines, as interpreted by the clerks or arbs, will be summarily closed or removed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 920: / Line 920: @@
 ::::For example I have not ever recieved a block, a previous sanction or even a reasonable warning that this might happen and yet I find myself faced with an indefinite topic ban from climate change across all namespaces with the option of begging arbcom to be allowed to edit in this area again like some repentant troll. Why? How is this even slightly fair? [[Special:Contributions/194.66.0.122|194.66.0.122]] ([[User talk:194.66.0.122|talk]]) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 {{collapse bottom}}
-This thread was talking about remedy 3 in the PD. I understand you may not wish this to be discussed but hatting the conversation with the specific summary you used appears to be yet another case of pulling rank. [[User:Jbtscott|Jbtscott]] ([[User talk:Jbtscott|talk]]) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 == NOTICE concerning any new edits to this page ==