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

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

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

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

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.

Proposed findings of fact

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

JohnWBarber edit-warring accusation

I didn't edit war. I showed conclusively, days ago, that I didn't edit war. (Here's the archived discussion. I shouldn't have to repeat it. [1]) Why is that accusation still in the Fof? I have asked ArbCom members to look over the evidence and look over my arguments that conclusively demolish that evidence. I have asked them to respond. No response. Get the thing off the Fof, please.

Not only do those three diffs not show edit warring, but they aren't even just bad examples of a problem. Last night, just to be sure my memory was correct, I went through the 500-count pages of my contributions history (I think it amounts to something like 12-16 pages going back to late November 2009 when I first started editing in climate change topic.) I did a word search for "undid". In those 11 months I came up with roughly eight reverts in the topic area and maybe 12 outside of it. Of the eight or so reverts, two or three were self reverts. The rest was essentially WP:BRD behavior. I can't put my 11-month contributions history into evidence, but anyone can do what I did in about 10 minutes.

So there's nothing there: no believable evidence, no problem on my part.

Why are you doing this to me? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I just did it again. There are a total of FIVE reverts in my entire edit history related to climate change articles. Five. FIVE! Of the dozen or so other reverts I found, at least a third were self reverts and a few were vandalism reverts. Well, that's another 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. There are similar inadequacies in other parts of the evidence. I am going to walk away from the keyboard right now. Look over my response and fix it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

JWB: Look... You're asking for fairness here. You and ATren are correct on the facts. There has been ample evidence presented about other editors and admins who engaged in far worse behavior than you guys. To overlook it is unfair. But ArbCom isn't fair, that's not the function. ArbCom is here to ensure the smooth running of the project. Sanctioning that many members of that particular faction and their sympathizers would be terribly inconvenient, and would disrupt things. Hope you understand. We're all getting thrown under the bus for the good of the project. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is important to remember that the arbitration committee is dedicated to doing what is best for Wikipedia. This is as we should all be doing. They've been given the task of trying to clean up an area where editing is unpleasant. The tools that they have to perform this task are imperfect. The time that can be spent investigating individual editors is limited. The committee is trying to listen to the community which is exemplified by the addition of many more findings after the outcry that it was not enough. There are over 3 million articles in English that can be edited. Some need editing way worse than any of the climate change articles. Bill Huffman (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairness and accuracy are what we demand from editors across all 3 million-plus. I'm not disparaging them: I'm saying this should be fixed. They have time to be fair. It's 3 diffs. Of course, I'm still scratching my head over some other diffs, as identified in my comments days ago, few of which were answered and which are now archived. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed remedies

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

Proposed enforcement

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed enforcement

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

New proposals

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

Evidence sub-pages in userspace

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

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

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

• Anyone without access to Rev/Delete or deletion flags may request me to remove edits or sub pages per the above - I will only accept requests from the page "owners", and will delete on a sight unseen basis. Requests to my talkpage or by email, please. Just for the avoidance of doubt, these will be the final admin actions I intend taking in relation to this subject area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A friendly, gentle reminder

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

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)

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).

Appeals process for discretionary sanctions

Thread moved to a more generic venue since this applies generally rather than to this case specifically. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Could we still update the appeals part of remedy 1.2 before the case closes? This would involve —

• pointing out that imposing admin, noticeboard and committee are not alternatives, but that editors should approach them in sequence, and move to the next only after proceedings at the "lower court" have concluded
• naming the page for appeals to the committee --JN466 11:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3

I guess I missed why Lar and Steven Schultz did't get the Remedy 3 solution? Could it be their admin efforts, or something? Maybe a lesson for me is to act like an admin in the future to avoid battle ground behavior. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit in the area. So Remedy 3 doesn't apply to me unless I started. Can't speak for StS since he does. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, folks say I've never made a valuable contribution to the area too, there must be subtle difference. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) I suppose in principle we could go on writing FoFs and proposing sanctions for as long as editors are prepared to do the leg work to research and propose coherent drafts. The behaviour here on many levels has after all been abysmal enough. There comes a point though where it's best to close the case and leave any further enforcement to uninvolved admins. On this later point, we have specified what constitutes an uninvolved admin for enforcement in this case and that should go some way towards minimising future accusations of admin partiality.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few missing findings, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely sure that such a specification will work considering the past claims of uninvolvement by clearly involved admins. Who is going to monitor some of these admins after the case? Atren? Cla? On the other hand, if you specify some admins as involved, but miss a few will those few take that as a license to continue their behavior? The way I see it the AGW group became as bad as they were because they were repeatedly taught that they didn't have to compromise. Time and time again they were shown that if they were obstinate, rude and unforgiving then certain admins would always back them up and sanction their "opponents." It is highly probable that unless some of these admins are explicitly told that they are involved they will continue to behave as before and another group like this will be cultivated. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not realted to this case but I have seen situations were I have wonderd just how vague are the concepts of 'uninvilved' on wikipedia. But tjhat is a discusino that might best be had elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I started one about uninvolved admins yesterday here.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this case started with an issue between Lar and Steven Schultz, somehow that dispute evaded Remedy 3. I suspect the ongoing disruption and distractions must have helped. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The original issue relating to Lar & Stephan Schultz was about administrator involvement. There are some findings of fact relating to this, but more directly - remedy 2 will abolish the climate change sanctions noticeboard while remedy 1.2 will prevent either of them from acting as an administrator in the climate change area (regardless of the FoFs about prior involvement). For the evidence presented, this is a more direct approach for them, about on par with remedy 3 for most others. Although, being named in this case, you can also be certain any editing they do in the topic area will be some of the most scrutinized. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There must be some evidence missing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view, a major contribution to the mess was the bizarrely restrictive definition of "uninvolved" used for the general sanctions noticeboard: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).". Something more akin to the usual definition would have taken several admins out of the enforcement equation altogether and substantially rduced the drama.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The user who proposed this particular scheme was an ArbCom clerk (in other words, he wasn't unfamiliar with this sort of thing). If he'd put more thought into what it was he was proposing, he would have realised that what works for some disputes will not work for others, particularly when the circumstances are different: merely lifting the wordings of other schemes (designed for different disputes at different points in time) will not produce the same results. It will lead to confusion, more disputes, and a general mess, because most people (evidently including the proposer) don't actually know how it's meant to operate in order to work, and wikilawyers come out. (The Obama topic area is not the same as the CC topic area, and Obama probation did not require superseding because of its effectiveness in that specific topic area; the need to use it this year has been rare.) As time goes on without actually useful guidance for the CC topic area, disputes arise over involvement (example already stated above), it's used to make misguided actions that need to be overturned completely by the Community (eg; the blocks by The Wordsmith, Sandstein, and SirFozzie) and last of all, a need arises for ArbCom to supersede the general broken process with something else (eg; specifically designed discretionary sanctions). This case was inevitable since 2 years ago. However, if a bit more time and thought was put into it at the beginning of this year, then today's case would not have been as lengthy and complex (so much time and effort could have been saved). But alas, that did not happen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but none of us are perfect and we all have off days when focus falters (I know I do). However, the community - which enacted the proposal - is big enough, old enough and ugly enough, to give these things proper scrutiny before enacting them and just a few minutes' reflection would probably have picked up the, um, loophole. It wouldn't have taken much effort either to identify the problem and go back to the community and fix it. I get the distinct impression incidentally that the thrust of your message is that this is all somehow ArbCom's fault but I may be misunderstanding you.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding right? This isn't a mere matter of wavering focus or about being perfect. Enacting the "community consensus" after < 23 hours of making a general sanction proposal - and that too on the 1st of January - had condemned an entire topic area and its participants to what was frequently a nightmare. I certainly wasn't aware of the sanction for some time; a lot of the Community were probably not aware of this development until well after the trainwreck had already begun. The Community can and does change things, but didn't want to unless it was a different set of participants, a different topic area, and a different proposer; the area was troublesome so there was no room for clumsiness. Making a proposal to amend it after it was enacted would be a proposal to be dragged into the already messy situation - which is exactly why more thought should have been put into it before-hand. The Community ended up waiting for the dispute to go back to ArbCom and in the meantime, only corrected any obviously problematic or misguided actions which should not have been made (eg; the blocks noted above), or serious actions that should be made (such as a site ban).

One should not forget that the sanction scheme proposal only came into the picture during a CC arbitration request; it was a last minute thing which ArbCom used as the reason to decline the case. Incidentally, the thrust of my message is: I guess it's a pity that when you declined the request with "kudos" to the proposer for his "initiative", you did not specify any reservations, such as a "bizarrely restrictive definition" - had you done so, the sanction discussion for that particular topic could have been promptly reopened and those bits reviewed, even by the proposer. On the other hand, if you or your colleagues are happy with the outcome (a 19 week case after 6 months), then this "major contribution to the mess" was partially responsible for that outcome and I fail to see the usefulness of the comment you made here at 06:25. Hopefully :) you don't misunderstand this as well, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As you're personalising this, I will always favour a community initiative over an ArbCom case and for that I make no apologies whatsoever. I will also stay away from the community option to avoid involvement in it for obvious reasons. I don't think, incidentally, that the time span for this case is excessive as the case is exceptional on so many levels, not least of which is the sheer volume of words generated. Finally, ArbCom is a part of the community and the "us and them" attitudes sometime displayed are profoundly disheartening.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you misunderstood again. It has nothing to do with whose initiative it is; it has everything to do with how much thought was put into that 23-hour old initiative. You've just stated that you are part of the community, so this is relating to what you did to help (or not help) that same community. You decided that the constructive thing to do was make your 06:25 comment on this page (at a time when it's of no use to the "community initiative" on CC) instead of 6 months and 19 weeks earlier when you only said 'kudos'. My concern was that this was not helpful and you should have said the 06:25 comment 6 months and 19 weeks earlier where it could have been used to actually tweak CC probation. If you disagree with this concern, I was hoping you'd explain your position as to why you think so (rather than dishearteningly explaining anything but that). Do I need to be any more blunt or do you understand now? On the other point, I did not comment on whether a case was excessive or not, but I did say that this case was lengthy and complex, and if probation worked a bit better (with constructive input when it was needed), it would be less complex (and without so many words) which theoretically, should have reduced the length. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ncm has a point about the initial sanction setup. It was hasty. But worse is what happened afterwards. I had hoped that it would get refined as we went, and to a large extent, the operations on the ground did, and when the uninvolved admins worked together, the consensus process worked. But the definitions, such as of involvement, were never changed, and that caused dramah (involved admins being provocative by flouting the processes developed, for one thing). ArbCom was asked for clarity, multiple times, but passed on providing it. Diffs could be presented if that's at all in dispute. Wringing hands now at what a mess "the community" made is rather petty of ArbCom members, since they were invited to provide input earlier, when things could have been nipped in the bud, multiple times, and declined. Often, smaller inputs earlier avoid the need for larger inputs later. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's rather petty but so much of this case revolves about admin involvement, which in turn flows from the special rules of engagement, that it deserves comment. I do not think either that it is particularly appropriate, and I not aiming this at anyone in particular, that because ArbCom's performance has not been optimal that any of its members should be disenfranchised from commenting on other aspects of it.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom as a whole was put between a rock and a hard place on this one, to be sure. Full marks for your efforts to bring things round even if we don't always agree on every detail. While Ncm may have a point, he's also missed the mark a bit in other areas. As to how we got here, mistakes were made in many quarters, but that's water over the dam now. What matters is how things unfold going forward. I was one who thought the community sanctions regime could have worked, and in fact did work for many cases. But there was no overseeing body to appeal to when the thorny questions arose. The ArbCom sanctions that will replace it will not have that fault, there will be a clear channel to ask questions and seek clarifications. Please do answer them as and when they arise, expeditiously, as that will really help avoid things festering. As for disenfranchising you from commenting on other aspects, that wasn't my intent. Comment away. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ncm, I personally was a little disturbed at the haste with which the RFE noticeboard was carried through. I mounted a rearguard action to ensure notifications (which was later somehwat subverted by a semi-bot which was unable to implement the "...should ne counseled on specific steps..." part of the requirement). Just before I changed to supporting I was planning a "what's the next step" question. The enacted definition of "uninvolved" did indeed prove a bone of contention. However I will join with Lar (which I signally do not in other aspects) in saying that I believe the CS regime could have worked. It's to my shame that I found other things to do last spring - there were insufficient independent voices present at the community board through most of its history. It didn't help that anyone trying to comment was met with a storm, but that's life at any noticeboard. I personally felt that almost any alternative was preferable to this end-result of an ArbCase, which we might all agree has been a bit, umm, "messy"? I will still always prefer the community alternative, but point taken that the exact wording of a community sanction needs to be carefully reviewed. Franamax (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Franamax (and I don't consider it a ramble at all - it's rather helpful). :) Even if you got preoccupied with other stuff in Spring, I think it was a good thing that you were available to participate at the beginning and that these thoughts at least (in some form) crossed your mind. Your last line is in complete agreement with my view and I'm relieved that I'm not being misunderstood by you (or that my comments are not being read/taken in the wrong way); hopefully the same applies for most other users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some closing comments

For personal reasons, I've chosen to withdraw from being an active editor in Wikipedia for awhile. I noticed today that this case appears to be drawing to a close and wanted to leave a few observations before it does.

• Decision: I think the remedies are fairly good. Several of the worst abusers of Wikipedia's BLP articles that I've ever seen are being topic banned. My whole purpose for getting reinvolved in the CC articles around a year ago was to see the behavior of these editors, one in particular, corrected. This PD appears to do so, at least for six months. Kudos to the Committee for the time and effort they spent on coming to those decisions.
• Lar: Lar was heavily criticized in April for proposing a topic ban for WMC. This PD, as currently written, clearly vindicates Lar as WMC is heading for a topic ban supported by most of the arbitrators in this case. I think the other admins who were involved with trying to administer the CC topic area over this time, including LessHeardVanU, Nuclear Warfare, 2/0, Jehochman, BozMo, and a few others, should be reflecting on why they didn't support Lar when he made that proposal. By not supporting him, you allowed WMC and others, like Kim, to continue to abuse BLPs of idealogical adversaries for several more months and you forced ArbCom to do your job for you.
• Comments critical of admins: Me and ATren are being found wanting by the Committee for criticizing several of the admins, me for telling NW that I thought he had become involved. The thing is, Stephen Schulz and ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris did the same to Lar many times over, including personal attacks. Yet, there is no finding for them? Shell, how about you explain your reasoning behind that? Do you need some diffs? Good grief.
• MastCell: When I was collecting evidence for this case, I noticed that MastCell was at times involved in talk page discussions over the years in the Global Warming article. I also noticed that MastCell was involved in several talk page discussions in the past in which Stephen Schulz or WMC insulted or belittled other editors who wanted to edit the article in ways that those two did not agree with. As far as I could see, MastCell never told WMC or Stephen Schulz to clean up their acts. Then, MastCell chose to act as an uninvolved administer at the enforcement board [2] [3] [4]. Then, during this case, MastCell made several comments defending WMC and his team. MastCell, you're an admin which means you are entrusted by the community with upholding its policies and guidelines. Shame on you for not doing so in this topic, as it sure could have used your help, especially with the BLPs over the years.
• KimPeterson: What's with that new remedy for Kim? As far as I can see, it's the same as the topic ban that everyone else is getting, only that Kim doesn't have to write a Featured Article to get it "off his record" if he follows some kind of permanent editing restriction. What's up with that?
• Risker. You just indef blocked GregJackP for a "legal threat" which he did not make. Risker, you appear to be trying to silence him because you don't want him to name names related to his perception of what took place with the off-wiki harrassment incident. If so, you definitely don't represent the editor you were that I voted for ArbCom a couple of years ago. To be fair, maybe I'm not either.
• Young Admins: Based on some of the actions I've observed related to this case, my opinion that Wikipeda should not have any admins below the age of 18 is reinforced. The admin(s) in question know who I'm referring to, as do the arbitrators. You guys need to do something about it, and you know why.
• ScienceApologist. <redacted in advance>.

Best wishes. Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, unfortunately there are off-wiki activities of which Arbcom has been made aware and (quite correctly) are not permitted to be shared onwiki. GregJackP has every right to pursue issues external to this project, but there are some things that absolutely are not permitted on this project, and he crossed the line there. Sorry to have disappointed you, but I will always put the project ahead of what any individual's opinion may be. Risker (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think your block summary was an honest summary? If he did make a legal threat that I didn't see because it was oversighted, then I owe you an apology. If not, then why don't you go change the summary to the true reason, "Indef blocked as a preventative measure to keep this editor from making accusations against other editors on-wiki." Cla68 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that my summary was appropriate. Risker (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions differ. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree Stephen Schulz and ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris should be on the Battleground Remedy 3 solution like many others. Seems like the evidence didn't make it in on time. So maybe they get a separate chance. If they don't improve, well maybe someone else will raise a dispute and then get the backlash of a topic ban too. I am little miffed that my case was submitted by Hypocrite who is receiving a battleground behavior recognition too. Really, I would not have submitted any evidence or participated here given what I know now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, no arbcom case is perfect...banning WMC from the entire scope of CC instead of just BLP's related to CC is the worst thing this project can do. It is absurd that experts are banned simply because they weren't sweet enough to those peddling half truths, innuendo and misinformation.--MONGO 03:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Luckily that's not what WMC did. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC) He lead everyone into the battleground. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He was only defending the preponderance of evidence...--MONGO 03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if that was actually true, the ends do not justify the means. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Defending with offensive battleground tactics, you mean. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting here just to make what i consider an important point, based on my experience with Israeli-Palestinian articles. When you notice that something is causing a lot of contention here at Wikipedia, the thing to do is to stop, take a breath, and find ways to work together. experienced editors here are expected to decrease the tension precisely because they see others getting excited. that's how we keep things working.

people who are experienced with editing and with Wikipedia dispute resolution processes know that working patiently can produce a resolution. those who claim to ignore this fact because "someone else started it" are fully guilty for any conflict which ensues. WMC has been hugely responsible for continually ignoring and flouting any concept of behaving responsibly, or directing these disputes towards more positive resolution. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread should now be closed, because it is only tangentially related to the proposed decision, And seems to be mostly an attempt to revive the very warfare that this arbitration is intended to stamp out. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just some venting...some dissent is expected and should not be silenced.--MONGO 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe; but, I can honestly and truthfully say I am responsible for my behavior and I followed WMC into the BATTLEGROUND. That is my confession. Can anyone else confess. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan and Boris are certainly responsible for a campaign of casting aspersions on Lar, whether or not it rises to a level that is sanctionable. Stephan's comment that I raised here is certainly actionable, particularly as it happened during this case. Considering that no admin on that page was even willing to comment, perhaps ArbCom should admonish Stephan even at this late date. Boris, not much better, commented that while Stephan was correct, his comments of this nature should be avoided since they can be used against him.[5] (As if the attacks themselves, and Boris', serve no purpose at all, something with which Stephan clearly disagrees[6]) Personally I don't believe any level of expertise can allow editors to effectively spit on each other if Wikipedia seeks a professional working environment (I realize colorful analogies are to be avoided, but regrettably I find it necessary since I would not raise simple incivility). Of course, it should simply have been an admin on the enforcement board to respond, but perhaps ArbCom will consider why that didn't happen. It will be too bad if this continues. I would like to clarify in any case that I have not sought or received Cla68's views on these comments at all. Mackan79 (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment on Stephan,because I haven't had the experience of engaging in significant debates with him. However, I generally find SBHB to be a very reasonable editor who listens to rational arguments. None of us are perfect, but I do not feel that SBHB's conduct deserves a topic ban. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree actually, I would not sanction Boris, and I probably would not stop the case (I didn't realize it now had three votes to close). I do hope comments of this nature will not be tacitly permitted on future enforcement boards. Mackan79 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see how "reasonable" Boris is:

• "I suggest you not reply to Lar as nothing good can possibly come of it. His shrill accusations are so obviously meritless that the best thing you can do for your own case is simply let his comments stand."[7]
• "You'll never, ever satisfy Lar -- I've noticed that he tends to construct his worldview from broad impressions without necessarily having a basis in fact, and when factual inconsistencies are pointed out he bobs and weaves instead of simply saying, "oh, I hadn't realized that." [8]
• "Do you believe e.g., that the misspellings were attributable to learning disabilities on the part of Lar and LHvU so that it was inappropriate for WMC to comment on them?" [9]
• "Even before this, Lar was stretching the limits of "uninvolved" to the breaking point; no need to make things worse." [10]
• "...editorial standards over the past year have been gradually moving away from WP:WEIGHT in favor of an all-views-are-equal (sometimes more pithily stated as "some say the earth is flat while others say it is round") view of neutrality as preferred by Cla68, Lar and others." [11]
• "Look, by flying off the handle you're just giving the contrarians an excuse to point to you and other science-oriented editors and say..." [12]
• ... there are some people (cough Lar cough) who you'll never reach; they simply have made up their minds that we're the bad guys and won't allow themselves to be confused by objective evidence." [13], (same comment as above)
• "Lar is an Admin, Checkuser, and Steward, but he thinks an essay is policy? Wow." [14]
• "I propose adoption of millilar as the appropriate unit of measure." Mockingly referring to Lar as a unit of "bias" measure which is typically measured in "millis" because the base unit is so large (see Stephan's comment below) [15]

Note, I am being topic banned for a dozen diffs, none of which is any worse than any of these (and many of which are downright ridiculous, including: telling an admin to "back off" when he belittled and threatened a user for composing a userpage draft). So ask yourself why Boris was ignored -- Shell knew about this at least a week ago, she ignored it. Roger knew earlier this week, and his response was to call me "tendentious" because he refused to address the obvious inequities. ATren (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And of course, then we have Stephan:

• "I'm "Lar-uninvolved"" -- commenting in the uninvolved section because he believed he was no more involved than Lar [16]
• "I find Lar's posturing to be ridiculous and counterproductive." [17]
• "As I understand it, "Neutral Lar" intends this to only apply to WMC, not to all editors. Not only is this another triumph of form over content, it's still ok for "sceptics" (without a k!) to call others "liars" or "frauds" or "alarmists" or "stooges"." [18]
• Comparing LHvU to Lar: "Trigger-happy, stubborn, misguided, and uninterested in the difference between form and content, yes. Biased, not very. I'd say about 1e-17 microLar. Of course a Lar is a unit where an object with a full Lar of bias has to rotate at near light-speed to avoid collapsing into a black hole from the sheer weight of it...". Stephan is creating a unit of bias called a "Lar", which indicates bias so large it is on par with the gravity of a black hole.
• Referring to one of Lar's suggestion: "...stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time. I can hardly imagine a better way of reducing Wikipedia's quality than to "level the playing field" between uninformed and already sanction POV pushers and scientifically literate editors in good standing."

For context, one of my diffs is for telling TOAT that I found his actions "inappropriate", after TOAT responded to a complaint against WMC by telling WMC to ignore the trolls. Stephan openly mocked Lar, but he is not subject to a battleground finding and is still editing content in this topic area, while editors like Cla, JWB and I are banned. Shell was aware of this evidence last week, and Roger earlier this week; they did nothing. ATren (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The incident with Lar was not his finest moment, i'm not defending it. However, I find that SBHB generally argues his points with logic and integrity, something that seems to be lacking in this topic area. The Wordsmith^Communicate 10:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "the incident", it's a long standing pattern of snarking, derisiveness, baiting, verbal abuse and generally incivil behavior by SBHB and StS. As an admin, I'm supposed to let it roll off my back and except when they actually managed to bait me, I did. But it was there. The findings proposed, by omitting these two and others like them, show the skew here extends all the way up. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The lack of any sanctions against you for your long-term disruption of Cl Ch is definitely a flaw in this very flawed judgement William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you are being allowed to remain editing the project generally, and possibly the Climate Change articles sometime in 2011, when you have edit warred on BLP's, attacked Arbiters for their comments, and uninvolved admins who have attempted to enforce sanctions against your violations of policy, used derogatory and belittling language in most of your (mercifully) few postings to these ArbCom pages, and generally conducted yourself like a spoilt child, and all this just during the course of these proceedings - disregarding the evidence compiled that this is your preferred modus operandi in trying to promote your vision of what is appropriate (and what is not) to be included in the subject area - is the reason why I believe this case to be inadequate in dealing with a concerted campaign to deny a wide ranging examination of the subject of Climate Change, including and especially the skeptic or denialist viewpoint. Only in that I cannot see you possibly being able to adhere to the provisions put in place to attempt to allow all aspects of the subject matter to be presented neutrally and with due weight do I think that this issue will be finalised when your purported expertise (I never saw it, but I AGF'ed the word of other editors that you did apply it when not engaged in idealogical warfare with contributors who did not share your viewpoint) is recognised as being an insufficient excuse for your contemptible and antagonistic conduct to allow you to continue to contribute. My view, formed when attempting to find a way to include your valid contributions to article space while deterring your gaming of the community restrictions and its enforcement process and re-inforced by your conduct presently (and exampled by the comment above this), is that whatever good you had previously brought to the project has long been deprecated by the efforts to contain your offensive attitude toward any but a few editors you share an opinion with. I regret that my opinion, that the encyclopedia is better off without your presence, is not one that is shared by enough people. I am, however, patient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeard vanU's comment, or at least with 90% of this comment. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that you are very wrong in much of your comment above. But here is another thought: If I had written this about another editor a few days ago, I strongly believe it would be in JWB's table below as an example of a personal attack. I, on the other hand, strongly believe such a statement as yours should be allowed to stand, wrong, or not - with the exception of the last sentence, which is both superfluous, threatening, and a personal attack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@LHVU: thank you for clarifying how badly biased you really are; it is a shame you couldn't admit to this when pretending to be an uninvolved admin. You and Lar were the primary reasons for the failure of the probation regime. But it is regretable that after all this time, you still haven't made the effort of working out whether I have expertise or not; this is lazy of you. But if you're in doubt, you can either (a) ask any of the competent editors or (b) read my papers or (c) read my evidence, section "Expertise is required". Until you've done this basic due diligence, it would be better not to speak of matters that you clearly don't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

LHVU said: "My view, formed when attempting to find a way to include your valid contributions to article space while deterring your gaming of the community restrictions and its enforcement process and re-inforced by your conduct presently (and exampled by the comment above this), is that whatever good you had previously brought to the project has long been deprecated by the efforts to contain your offensive attitude toward any but a few editors you share an opinion with." Nothing there indicates he is not an uninvolved admin. He did not express any opinion on the topic or content; merely on the conduct of all involved editors. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You remain unenlightened - my above admitted dislike of your behaviour is the result of exposure to your corrosive attitude; It is illogical to point to the symptom and declare it the cause of the issue, but it is common of your methodology in dealing with people who do not ascribe to your viewpoint. My definition of competent editor is also not determined by their viewpoint, but only if they use all available resources and present them neutrally and take criticism as a tool by which they can improve their contributions - and I have listened and interacted with them, when found. Your self serving belligerence does you and (and far far more importantly) the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming no good at all - and that is the greatest disservice that you do to this encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Sm: you seem to have degenerated into parrotting LHVU, which is undignified. As for "uninvolved", see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Defining_.22involved.22_more_explicitly where some dissatisfaction with the current situation is expressed. @LHVU: yes, you have not enlightened me. I sought, as I said, to understand how you could still be unclear about expertise, "purported" (isn't that nice neutral language?) or otherwise, after all this time - a subject that you brought up. But you ducked the issue. How about having another go? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I never saw any expertise in the subject area demonstrated by you, since I did not involve myself in content editing, but I was assured by other editors whose judgement I trust that you were apt to display it - hence purported. I saw only the battleground mentality and poor conduct, with two exceptions, while adminning the enforcement request page. I also read your "Expertise is required" argument, and found it narrow and self serving - I concede you were correct in how reliable sources supporting the scientific consensus are the primary tools with which to build encyclopedic content, but I note you ignored the function of the expert to explain and rationalise those references rather than to simply refer to the authority of "proper scientists". Denying the denialists and expressing skepticism for the skeptic viewpoint is not how content disputes are resolved, but rather how behaviour disputes are created. Subject expertise of itself is insufficient in building an encyclopedia, since there are skills to be applied in fostering an good editing environment in which you are (and possibly by choice) deficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like we're condemned to keep re-fighting the entire case - you won't give up even when an arb hats the section. display it - hence purported is just a long winded way for you to attempt to hide that fact that you still won't recognise expertise, let alone value it. And you've failed to understand the "Competence is required" argument (indeed, you are so careless you can't even quote the section header accurately). It is not that we need RS (though we do). It is that you cannot build valuable articles on any scientifc topic (such as the science-y bits of climate change) without having a clue what is going on. However, you aren't alone in that failure - all of arbcomm have failed too. The rest of what you say is yet more failure to read evidence: as I, and others, have pointed out: good faith questions are met with good faith answers and attempts to explain. Persistence is pointless skepticism is not. As I said in the evidence: Examples of the "skeptic side" making *any* positive contribution to the science are so rare that I can't think of any, even small ones; making substantive contributions is unknow. No-one stepped up to that challenge: care to have a go, at this late stage? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Then if you are so concerned about the topic area, then you should follow the various policies so that you don't ever get topic banned again. I don't see how it is ArbCom's fault that you broke various policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP etc. It is denialistic to blame others for your breaking of policy. You probably won't like me pointing out your denialism on this issue but it bears mentioning. :P I am taking the piss a bit of course but there is truth in what I say. Accept your failings, overcome them and then come back and get stuck into content editing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"You and Lar were the primary reasons for the failure of the probation regime"... No, WMC, you and your many defenders were the primary reasons for the partial failure of the probation regime. It worked fine in handling other issues, but failed miserably in dealing with the manifold issues you and your supporters caused and continue to cause. Any time an action involving you was brought, you all did everything you could to hamstring things, and for the most part, you succeeded. LHVU has it exactly right in his characterization. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TWS, in this case "mostly reasonable" doesn't cut it. They lowered the bar when they went after people like Cla, JWB and me (look at my diffs and show me one that's worse than the "milliLar" garbage), but now they refuse to include other editors who clearly exceeded this bar. Why not? ATren (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your battlefield behaviour is still obvious; just now [19] for example: deliberate misrepresentation (equating a Guardian link with a professor's home page), general snarking. As you said yourself: thank you for making the point William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see a down-tools, elsewhere. @Cla: one of the core reasons I chose Jack Merridew from Lord of the Flies as my user name is because I see a core problem with the project being the immature and battleground behaviour of some (not specifically those under 18). I made this reference before James Gleick did (nb: his context was anons)

“ The result is often what you'd expect from reading “Lord of the Flies.” ” — James Gleick, The Wall Street Journal^cite

Thanks for your other comments and your service. Jack Merridew 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• People's behaviour as truly been abysmal. May I suggest banning everyone who has participated in this particular thread for three months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that's funny. LOL!!! :-) thanks for making me chuckle. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Another hat by Roger, which always seems to happen when there is relevant evidence which he is ignoring. Ah well, at least we have permalinks. :-) ATren (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Premature hat closing was common in the General Sanctions, not surprised to see the same forces at work here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free you unhat it if you wish ... I was merely responding to this comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which is worse: the fact that you responded so obediently to the demand of a heavily involved editor requesting unflattering evidence to be collapsed, or the fact that you apparently think there's nothing wrong with that. ATren (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the situation is that I'm not really very bothered either way but if hatting stops further bickering and further bad feeling, it's probably all to the good. Evidence is academic now anyway as my collegues have voted to close the case, which will happen in less than an hour.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this section should be left open to allow for feedback (not the climate change variety), on the case before it closes. I dunno if ArbCom are still intending to have a community feedback on the case after it closes? I do recall an Arb mentioning this was intended but maybe given the drama, you all may just want to move on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah more early hatting, I agree with LessHeard vanU interpretation unfortunately. :-( William M Connolley I have noticed has a bad habit of doing that, he is good at giving out criticisms but he wants criticisms of his conduct hidden; throughout the case WMC denied (pardon the pun) the evidence against him, expressed scepticism of the alarmism of the community, and rejected the consensus of the peer reviewed (ArbCom) conclusions. I experienced something similar regarding hatting of me pointing out that I thought he was wrong; I tried interacting with him calmly a week or two ago. I saw him call sandstein insane on his talk page, and repeatedly redact sandstein's posts, which I found rather untasteful and uncalled for, which prompted me to point out that WMC and his friends were mocking sandstein unfairly and that sandstein had answered WMC's question indirectly. His response was to, redact my attempts to subtly point out that he may be in error to get him and his friends to stop mocking sandstein. He then followed up by hatting the entire conversation, I suppose my attempt worked in a sense of stopping them mocking sandstein. Thus he can give it but can't take even the most gentle of criticism or disagreement. I don't know what WMC is like in real life, the internet can bring out the worst in us at times, but many people's feelings have been hurt by him; I would hope before he returns to the topic area that the little criticism he has received, given the volume he has given out, he is able to take on board and acknowledge what he has done wrong, and he will demonstrate that he is capable of changing his ways. To be fair though, WMC has contributed a significant amount to wikipedia, but the harm he has done with regard to content neutrality and behaviourally, I feel greatly outweighs the benefit.

This ArbCom case was never about science but about major behavioural problems in several editors. As the community voted according to POV over climate change, rather than on policy violations, ArbCom intervention was necessary. Thankfully ArbCom for the most part did their job well in that they voted on behavioural evidence, although there was I believe in some Arbitrator's voting, evidence that they voted according to POV bias, but nevertheless, I believe calm will be restored to the community. These are my views. Well done to ArbCom, well done to uninvolved admins who tried their best to vote in the community sanctions according to policy rather than POV, and finally well done to those on both sides, who defended BLP's against abuse, and other abuses in this article topic area, even if you ended up getting sanctioned as a result [I support the intentions but I don't support any misconduct in defending BLP and other articles against violations and abuse]. Long live WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and reliable sourcing. Over and out. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm? WMC isn't calling sandstein "insane" as you claim. Without knowing exactly what WMC means, i'd presume that his comment referred to irrationality. This kind of "overreaction" to comments, and lack of assumption of good faith, is a large part of what this case has been about. Hopefully things will be better now - but i rather doubt it, seeing the parting comments from people. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, maybe you are the one overreacting to my post? I started it out with some good faithed humour, relax and lighten up. :) Jokes help break the ice, even fracturing glaciers (yes humour can cause sea levels to rise, lets not deny it). Anyhows, ArbCom has topic banned the core problem editors, and I believe this will significantly cool the editing climate, and lead to an improved atmosphere, although of course some people will be sceptical. The proof of course will be in the pudding, in the meantime, lets not get too alarmed over humour. In addition to saying sandstein was not sane (if you are not sane then you are insane), WMC also said sandstein was mad (mad is the same thing as insane) in that diff I gave, of course he didn't mean he was literally mad, I am sure, I said "called him insane", I didn't say "believed he was insane", but anyways,,, no harm done, I don't think English is your first language, so I AGF. If everyone's departing comments contained humour towards each other, it would be an improvement to hostilities.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problems are people do not come from the same places and with that in mind some things written may get distorted by not understanding. Some editors here are not from the USA and their language words mean different things than ours do. The first time I heard the word fag was when a person I was talking to one time from Wales said they would be right back that they had to go burn a fag. I was immediately surprised and reacted with a questioning one word 'what' for which the word was explained to me. My point is that sometimes misunderstandings can be gotten by these little differences in words I think. I commented on this once in the past and got a bad looking named treat that looks delicious for the discussion (you can find it on my user page). I think this needs to also be considered in some fashion. Just a thought, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, we should not be sceptical of people's comments as this can lead to undue alarm; rather we should all strive to assume good faith. :) Ah yes, I know people in the USA give strange looks if someone from the UK says "I need a fag" or "I am desperate for a fag". :P Ah cultural differences LOL!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NB. I unhatted the conversation because replies are being made within the hatted portion and also because Roger said that it was ok to unhat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice for the future

Forget Dispute Resolution (DR) and focus on collaboration in Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. I said it a few times in the past, (that evidence didn't make it in) and I say it now. DR leads to war. If Wikipedia is a microcosm, then we just experienced a potential "nuclear option" solution to climate change issues. They whole Climate Change project could benefit from a request for comment in the task force page. DR was a disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparing editor conduct

This table is meant to be suggestive, not conclusive, but it's mighty suggestive. I'm relying on ATren's post elsewhere on this page for my Stephan Schulz and Short Brigade Harvester Boris quotes, and I've included a comment or two from ATren as well. Context and other considerations are important, of course, but this comparison strongly suggests that ArbCom's approach has been inconsistent when it comes to applying standards to all editors. I've tried to include what I consider my most egregious edits, in order from worst to least bad (others are in random order, and I'm not trying to make a point about comparing individual edits, I'm just comparing editor-to-editor). I think the evidence showed my conduct could have been better, and I think these quotes show other editors have at least as much room for improvement. Should any of these other editors be sanctioned? All I'm going to say is that we should all be treated with the same standards, and I think all five editors here should be treated about the same way because our conduct seems to be roughly similar. It would be interesting to compare the five most egregious edits of ATren and AQuestForKnowledge with these. Proposals for sanctions were made for each of these editors except Boris. Only I was named in the Proposed Decision page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber	Tony Sidaway	Viriditas	Stephan Schulz	SBHBoris
THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future. [20]	Commenting on ATren at Roger Davies' talk page recently: There's a progression here. Brow-beating editors gives way to brow-beating administrators, and finally brow-beating arbitrators. See my talk page for further comments on this pattern. [21]	"When AQFK and others like him repeatedly claim that "FOA violations were found to be valid", over and over again, for six months, even after such claims have been refuted, we have a serious problem. And he's not alone, John. We see throughout this case, willful, deliberate misrepresentation of sources to push a POV. " [...] "Describing your edits and your time here as furthering and supporting "anti-science propaganda" appears to be an accurate reading of the problem." [22]	"I'm "Lar-uninvolved"" -- commenting in the uninvolved section because he believed he was no more involved than Lar [23]	"I suggest you not reply to Lar as nothing good can possibly come of it. His shrill accusations are so obviously meritless that the best thing you can do for your own case is simply let his comments stand."[24]
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? [25]	All of you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and all of you subsequently migrated to the climate change topic area, and it is painfully noticeable that a degree of animus has been imported to this topic area thereby. [26]	"Yes, I believe I've informed you of that fact several times. It's good to know you finally learned something." [27]	"I find Lar's posturing to be ridiculous and counterproductive." [28]	"You'll never, ever satisfy Lar -- I've noticed that he tends to construct his worldview from broad impressions without necessarily having a basis in fact, and when factual inconsistencies are pointed out he bobs and weaves instead of simply saying, "oh, I hadn't realized that." [29]
Now, Kim, I'm perplexed by your reason to want to exclude Tierney's unremarkable quote of Singer with this source. Have your views evolved? Is that it? [30]	Smearing with a broad brush to make unsubstantiated claims of "vendetta"-like behavior on the part of a group of editors, none of which was ever proven [31] & [32]	After an editor with a mother-in-law who survived the Holocaust has indicated he or she is upset about use of the word "deniers" in this ArbCom case, Viriditas tells that editor "A little less emotional invective based on ignorance, and a little more research based on facts would be appreciated." and then ... [33]	"As I understand it, "Neutral Lar" intends this to only apply to WMC, not to all editors. Not only is this another triumph of form over content, it's still ok for "sceptics" (without a k!) to call others "liars" or "frauds" or "alarmists" or "stooges"." [34]	... there are some people (cough Lar cough) who you'll never reach; they simply have made up their minds that we're the bad guys and won't allow themselves to be confused by objective evidence." [35]
Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? Where are your compromise suggestions for the addition of the snowclone passage? Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? [36]	BY the way, Cla68, I hope you're not referring above, when you refer to "books", to books by cranks and whatnot. We've had enough of that nonsense on other articles. [37]	... tells that editor "No, you are espousing stubborn ignorance with every comment you make. [...] I am sorry that you don't understand that this is a real phenomenon, but we cannot make good decisions based on ignorance, only on facts." and then ... [38]	Referring to one of Lar's suggestion: "...stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time. I can hardly imagine a better way of reducing Wikipedia's quality than to "level the playing field" between uninformed and already sanction POV pushers and scientifically literate editors in good standing." [diff?]	"Lar is an Admin, Checkuser, and Steward, but he thinks an essay is policy? Wow." [39]
In reply to Verbal's comment ("The consensus is at WP:LEAD and in all those opposing your changes. I'm very disappointed by the partisan stonewalling here."): Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You need consensus on this page and you know that. The lead reflects the article. You haven't responded to my request and that's leading me to think you can't do so. Discuss. Get consensus. If you have consensus, change the article to that consensus. Otherwise you're "stonewalling". [40]	Cla68, I meant it when I said we won't be using books written by cranks as reliable sources on factual matters on Wikipedia. [41]	"you're trying to make is that you feel that your job, your mission on Wikipedia, is to prosecute the scientists (whom you refer to as "criminals") for their non-existent crimes, using the worst sources you can possibly find." [42]	Comparing LHvU to Lar: "Trigger-happy, stubborn, misguided, and uninterested in the difference between form and content, yes. Biased, not very. I'd say about 1e-17 microLar. Of course a Lar is a unit where an object with a full Lar of bias has to rotate at near light-speed to avoid collapsing into a black hole from the sheer weight of it...". According to ATren, Stephan here is creating a unit of bias called a "Lar". [43]	"I propose adoption of millilar as the appropriate unit of measure." Mockingly referring to Lar as a unit of "bias" measure which is typically measured in "millis" because the base unit is so large" [44]

I'd add that I think every single one of the edits in the table helped contribute to a battleground atmosphere on the climate change pages to some degree, significant or slight. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. I would like to see examples of the editors who stepped in to de-escualte and get all sides to grow up to producing featured articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcomm decisions tend to be influenced by signal-to-noise ratio. And appropriately, since the behavioural policies only exist to support content building. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why some editors weren't simply admonished. Nothing says all editors need to be given the same topic ban and, in fact, not all editors were given the same sanction in this case. The table is best for showing how ArbCom did not treat continued, egregious, repeated personal attacks as seriously as less important conduct, although, as I said above, a table can't really be conclusive. If you think mine was low, look at "The Gore Effect" AfD and the evidence I provided in this case that went on to the P.D. page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this table is helpful because all of these comments need to be placed in context, not just the context of the conversation in which they took place, but in the overall context of the editor's behavior. Isolating remarks like this, as above and in other recent comments on this page, isn't helpful especially at this late stage. I think it may be more helpful to go over the PD and see if there are problems in the way it was drafted, before it's too late. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's missing findings on a significant number of editors. But it's too late. Let them think they got off scot free. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can tone down the acerbity of your comments? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any acerbity, but opinions may differ... However, are you sure you didn't mean to leave your comment as a reply to "The lack of any sanctions against you for your long-term disruption of Cl Ch is definitely a flaw in this very flawed judgement William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)" ? or as a reply to some of the comments JWB highlighted as problematic? Your partisanship is showing, again, by your focus on me. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is "no"? Please clarify. I just wanted to be sure. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My answer is "mu". ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple question, less than simple answer. I'll translate. Your answer to "Can you be less acerbic?" is no. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, your translation is faulty. My answer is "you've asked the wrong question". This is a usage StS is fond of, so I was thinking you'd already be familiar with it. The issue is that your question assumes I was being acerbic, and poses a false dichotomy. I think rather, I'm just calling things as I see them. It's late in the case. There are not going to be a lot more findings introduced I don't expect. Those editors who were named are either going to take the input on board, or they aren't. Some will and some won't. Those who were not named... they can THINK they got off scot free if they like. The new sanctions regime will be the test. If the new admins (and I hope there are a lot of them) come in and treat everyone the same, and refuse to tolerate bad behavior regardless of the source, there will be an improvement. And if they don't, if things remain skewed, we'll be back here again soon enough. (we as a community... I'm intending to be done with this topic area once this case is closed) Time will tell. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the right question. There is an FoF indicating that you engaged in battleground conduct. Acerbic remarks, or "calling them as you see them" as you put it, are part of what brought this case about in the first place. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Scotty, context doesn't tend to make much difference with personal attacks, and some discussion of context already took place with some of the proposed Fofs. I provided conclusive context about edit warring in my Fof and ArbCom ignored it -- and ignored my questions about diffs that didn't seem to show anything at all. It's frankly a mystery to me just how ArbCom does look at context. It wouldn't be right to draw the conclusion just from this table alone that these other editors need a sanction or that I don't -- but it would be very right to wonder. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We can try to determine an editors degree of bad behavior, but until they recognize and admit to it, there is little chance they will reform. This is standard addiction psychology for the path the recovery. Some of these folks are addicted to verbal abuse, plain and simple. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@JWB: I'm simply suggesting that this seems to duplicate evidence previously given. I don't think it was ignored, just not considered sufficient for sanctions. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't considered sufficient for sanctions in a number of cases. And yet, it's sure looking sufficient when it's up there beside mine. I'm thinking it would look even more sufficient if it were up there with the five worst ATren findings and the five worse AQFK findings. If I have time, I think I could squeeze in two more columns. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an intrinsic difference between those editors who are part of the general population who wish to suggest or offer new changes or material, and those editors who are part of the small group who seek to block or to impede all such changes or new material in the articles. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom's integrity

I moved Literaturegeek's comment from the bottom of the thread just above, where it was off-topic, to answer it here. If there's something wrong with that, please just revert. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, John, the reason that you are being sanctioned is probably more to do with your actions during the case, such as arguing at length with people during the case. One notable example is when Roger closed a proposal to place sanctions on you as evidence not being sufficient, you responded by making a dramah post on Roger's talk page over a trivial wording issue, even though he had just said he didn't think you should be sanctioned, thus you turned insufficient evidence of problematic behaviour into "sufficient evidence". Your devoting hours and hours to trying to overturn the evidence also is counterproductive as it looks tenditious. You probably could have gotten out of your sanctions if you had realised why ArbCom changed their mind and apologised for behaviour during the case, but it is too late now. You are not alone, lots of people attacked themselves thinking they were defending themselves during the case. ArbCom analysed people's behaviour during this case as much as the diffs to get a feel for people's behaviour and personality and so forth and then came to their own conclusions. You are too late, the penny didn't drop, you attacked yourself and this is the consequences. I do agree that the evidence against you for disruption on climate change articles is borderline to weak. You are not going to get out of it, just accept you screwed up, not on climate change topic area so much but moreso during the case itself and made yourself look like a problem editor. You are in a hole, rightly or wrongly but you are not digging yourself out of it if not digging it deeper. If you quit digging you could be one of the first to have restrictions lifted at a later date.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was absolutely right to tell Roger he shouldn't deliver a put down in a hatting-explanation line. If he had a problem with my behavior, I have a talk page and an email address where he could properly contact me. When he pointed out my own mistake in reading his comment, I immediately corrected the problem. But yes, it's certainly possible that ArbCom didn't like the way I commented on case pages. If that was the case, the way to deal with that is to confront me directly about that. Shell, with the support of other ArbCom members wrote an Fof that exaggerated some facts, got others completely wrong and made mountains out of molehills. I punched enough holes in the Fof that it only floats, like Wile E. Coyote, if you avert your eyes from the holes. ArbCom, it appears, will do just that, and some admins will do just that, as they have done before. The only ArbCom members who didn't do that here were Carcharoth and Risker, when they had the "abused alternate accounts" crap taken out of the finding. Too bad the mystery diffs haven't been removed -- you know, the ones where it's impossible to tell just what on earth ArbCom is saying and which no ArbCom member will explain even after I asked -- as well as the "edit warring" diffs which don't show edit warring (and, again, which ArbCom members won't defend). I found I made mistakes after a comment from Alanyst, an editor with integrity, pointed out one of them and got me thinking. When I make a mistake I admit it, even when it's embarassing. One thing I try never to do is make a statement about someone else's bad behavior that I can't back up with reasonable evidence. Too bad ArbCom can't follow my good example. It's pretty tawdry for anyone in authority to be sanctioning someone while refusing to make clear just why the sanction is being given, even after simple questions have been asked. My questions were archived instead of being answered. ArbCom members who can't or won't answer even basic questions (like Why was this diff put in the Fof? or I can't see edit warring in any of these diffs. Why do you see it?) are simply not acting with integrity. They have a basic responsibility to explain themselves in a way clear enough for regular editors to understand. You would think I wouldn't have to point this out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I second JWB's statement. In particular, my finding disproves LG theory: I hardly argued during the case, withdrew from the topic area, and basically quit Wikipedia during the last month -- and I got the same sanction as the worst abusers, and other battlefield editors were exonerated completely. This decision is pathetic. As JWB alludes to, every single one of these arbitrators now know of the context and circumstances of our diffs, and furthermore, they have direct evidence of obvious battlefield editors they've missed. They've choosen to let the inequity stand. I have lost respect for every one of them who have ignored evidence: Carcharoth, Risker, Mailerdiablo, Coren, and especially Roger and Shell -- I am shocked at the lack of integrity they have shown in the handling of this. Newyorkbrad is only one of this bunch I can honestly say cares about getting it right. ATren (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to disagree with much of what you said, except this bit John.

"I have a talk page and an email address where he could properly contact me.,,,,,,,,If that was the case, the way to deal with that is to confront me directly about that."

ArbCom is not about mediation, it is about analysing evidence, and that evidence includes interactions during the case, so they are not going to contact you to try and work problems out, they are assessing you and everyone else, to find remedies to fix the topic area. This is the penny that I am referring to that hasn't dropped yet. Now you may feel ArbCom have overreacted and I can see why you feel that way, but they are doing scorched earth process to fix a major battlefield, and by their own admission one that is imperfect. I probably would, oppose remedies and findings on you but alas I am not an ArbCom member, but on the other hand I believe I can see why ArbCom have went against you.

Atren I am not familar with your diffs, or whatever, but really, there are perhaps some people who are getting overly harsh treatment and others are getting away scot free. It is an imperfect decision by ArbCom's own admission. I think they have just had enough and want the case to end, as they are only volunteers. Their goal was to end the battlefield and that has been achieved, albeit with one or two people perhaps getting caught in the crossfire. Not everything in life is fair.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, LG, this decision has festered for months. The evidence on this page is clear, and provides ample evidence for findings. They choose not to do it. That's telling, especially for Roger and Shell, who exaggerated evidence against me and Cla, taking things wildly out of context. By the way, if you would like to see the evidence in my defense, see this section which once again was quickly archived by arbs who seem all too willing to hide evidence against their lack of thoroughness. ATren (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel upset with ArbCom's decision but it tis the way it tis. Who knows maybe you will get lucky with some last minute voting. Regardless it is not the end of the world. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording of 2.1 'Involved Administrators'

I've been away so maybe this has been addressed. If not: the wording of this seems unduly restrictive. It says, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered involved if...."

Why is this definition restricted just to "sanctions under the provisions of this case"? Shouldn't that be more broadly worded as something like "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, and with regard to administrative actions in general concerning climate change articles, broadly construed, an administrator will be considered involved if...." ? I think that the added wording would be helpful in avoiding conflict and wikilawyering in the future. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

But that would expand it via the back door into a general remedy because the applicable section (strictly E2.1) is concerned only with enforcement of discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm seeing 2.1 given as a reason for not supporting "Lar is uninvolved but ask to disengage." [45]See, e.g., Newyorkbrad's comment that the remedy is "moot." But it doesn't seem to be moot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there more basis for administrative action than enforcement of discretionary sanctions? Blocks of users not named in the decision, for instance? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are missing something. Enforcement provision 2.1 states:

"For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic, or (iv) they are identified by name within the decision of the case." emphasis mine

Unless something unexpected happens in the coming few hours, both Lar (Findings of Fact 12.2, 12.3) and Stephan Schulz (Finding of Fact 13.1, Remedy 10.1) will be identified by name within the decision of the case. I'm having a difficult time thinking of what other administrator you might be thinking of. I would be very hesitant to expand things further than this. Risker (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand that. My concern, and please let me know if this is mistaken, is that administrators can take actions on the CC page, and the users thereof, other than enforcing discretionary sanctions. That's why I thought that, to avoid conflict in the future, you might want to broaden your wording. But my premise is what I've just indicated. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would we not want an administrator to take administrative actions on climate change pages that aren't directly related to the case? For example, why should a random administrator not be able to protect a page from move vandalism? Or remove BLP violations? Or do a history merge? These are all administrative actions that are routine and commonplace and have little to do with what topic area the article happens to come from. Not every administrative action will require that it be done in accordance with these discretionary sanctions. The threshold for overturning non-AE sanctions, however, is considerably lower. Risker (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Devil's advocate answer is that some of these "routine" actions such as movement, or protecting against movement, among others, have been used as tactics to control under the aegis of them being routine. But rather than tinkering further with the wording, the thing to do is to support those who try to stop that sort of thing if it happens in future. We have hundreds of active admins, the few that are involved won't be missed that much if the issue truly is routine. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any abuse of tools has been pointed out in the evidence or even claimed. The certainly is no FoF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but engaging in administrative actions such as closing AfDs, or page moves as Lar points out, can have significant impact on these articles. The admins named in this case, if not otherwise topic banned, should not do that sort of thing. Doing so would just cause drama. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, the usual involvement criteria will still hold. — Coren ^(talk) 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And we'd be back to square one. If 2.1 defined involved administrators for all administrative actions, not just discretionary sanctions, you'd head off that problem. ScottyBerg (talk)15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would probably be better if the Arbitration Committee didn't independently redefine administrator involvement for the entire project based on activities in this narrow topic area; there is a lot of truth in the saying "hard cases make bad law". I do note, however, that there is an ongoing discussion at WT:ADMIN about how to more clearly define "involved", and I'd encourage everyone, but especially you Scotty Berg, to participate. Risker (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be redefining admin involvement for the whole project, just this case ... but the case is closing, so this is fast becoming moot. Thanks for nothing the Admin discussion, I'll take a look. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some process questions

1. The case is closed "24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast". I note some potential ambiguity. If four votes to close are added, and 24 elapses, and then an oppose vote, are we at net three? Or is is closed? I see a fourth net close at 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) and it is now 24 hours past that so is it closed?
2. Is there a formal announcement, or we we just assume that it is now closed?
3. Do the editors affected by the decision get a specific note on their talk page, or are they expected to know that the decision is now final?--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An unofficial answer, but there's a bit of flexability, as you might note in some of the closing votes requesting time before the formal close is performed, but generally speaking, it's 24 hours after the closing vote stabilizes at four net. To the other points, a clerk will perform the official close, by copying over the carried motions to the official page, posting announcements to any appropriate forums, and notifying affected editors on their talk pages. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And if my poor UTC math is right, either from NYB's 72 hour point, or 24 past Risker's 4th vote, I believe we're at the point where the case can be closed. Given the complexity of the case, the clerks might be waiting for a formal prompt from an arbitrator, just to be safe. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)