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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's easy (and correct) to say that more care is needed in dealing with Scibaby, and less collateral damage. But those statements are vague to the point of uselessness. Do we need to show more care in applying rangeblocks? Because that's already happened, I think. Do the people who currently report and/or block Scibaby sockpuppets need to show more care? That's not clear to me from the finding, because it seems to be based on outdated figures, which are confusingly billed as "current" checkuser estimates.

It might be helpful to have more specifics about how you (the Committee) would like to see this sockpuppetry handled, because right now the whole thing is a gigantic Catch-22 and a trap for the people who care enough to deal with the problem. People standing on the sidelines are all too happy to use the false-positives as a handy bludgeon - and the 20-40% number will feed into this tendency, unfairly. That's my concern, and I don't think it's a quibble about numbers. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Nope, the placeholder just hadn't been filled in yet (my fault). Thanks for the reminder. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 6 October 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

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

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber

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

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

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • The link is working. I meant the "proposed decision" page, not the RfE page. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

It is important, I think, to be mindful of the circumstance under which all of these "Gore Effect" JWB diffs occurred (which seem to comport a rather sizable portion of the diffs), the resultant atmosphere that pervaded the article talk page during that period as multiple considerations were concurrently being injected and heatedly discussed, and exactly what edit precipitated each of JWB's edits.

The fact that the article "Gore Effect" survived an AfD on 12 June to which more than 80 editors contributed was simply deemed unacceptable to those in opposition and, from the inception of the AfD determination, a concerted effort has ensued to somehow mitigate the perceived offense of its very existence. In that veritable sea of rhetorical fisticuffs (still ongoing), JWB's diffs were rather par for the course and, in particular, the sequence of events surrounding diff #3 was particularly innocuous and the result of a JWB misunderstanding which he rectified to the satisfaction of all concerned. I'm rather surprised, given the tenor of the debate that frames JWB's "Gore Effect" diffs with (at least) his concurrent talk page comments and the active, undiscussed drive-by editing that was occurring, that any of the "Gore Effect" cites might be deemed to be particularly egregious. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #1: [58] This was not edit warring. The consensus had been reached, although discussion had restarted. I don't recall if at this time there was a consensus to keep the lead essentially focused more on one definition of the term "The Gore Effect" or whether there was simply no consensus to change, but my edit was made to insist that discussion and consensus forming be respected. If you look at the edit history of the page, you'll find Jake doing the same thing at 15:57 June 22. [59] It isn't easy to follow the talk page discussions because they took place at length and were continued confusingly in a number of different talk sections, but the editors involved all knew that there was not a consensus to change the lead. I can demonstrate that with names of editors and diffs if necessary. KimDPetersen's edit, which I was reverting, was done as an end-run around the previous consensus and the ongoing discussion and was therefore disruptive; reverting it -- once -- was not. My revert was limited to Kim's changes in the lead, although Kim had reverted other changes I'd made in the article as well. (I thought he had every right to revert those changes, and if I wanted to change it back I should get consensus on the talk page. IIRC, I decided not to bother. The intent at all times was to avoid edit warring and make discussion the deciding factor. I suppose it would have been better to point out in the discussion that the change had been made without consensus as the matter was still under discussion, and that we needed to change it back if there was no new consensus to support Kim's change. That's what I would do in the future. Shell has criticized my behavior in the discussion on that page, and she makes some good points about that, which I'll address under the headings of those diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #2: [60] This is not edit warring. This is classic WP:BRD: Bold: [61] Revert: [62] Discuss: [63] (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)

Diff #3: Addressed above at 17:34, 2 Oct. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #4: [64]

Diff #5: [65]

Diff #6: [66]

Diff #7: [67] Shell says above, 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. It's evident from looking at the thread at Talk:Fred Singer that the tension was caused by two editors, KimDPetersen and Guettarda, who were not just disagreeing with five other editors (SlimVirgin, ATren, Cla68, ScottyBerg and me), but who were using the flimsiest of arguments to keep a solidly sourced (and innocuous) quote out of the article while Kim had previously reverted in an edit war to keep in the article an attack on Singer coming from a source that BLP forbids. This discussion, on points made by KimdPetersen and Guettarda that were, frankly, silly in very obvious ways, went on for 35K by the time of my edit. It was argued that we needed confirmation that a WP:NEWSBLOG on the New York Times website was under the editorial control of the newspaper or it was unreliable, and that a blog by scientists that called a report whose lead author was Fred Singer "dishonest" was merely criticizing the report, not Fred Singer. Editor after editor expressed amazement: This is very disturbing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:48, 24 May ... It is this kind of inconsistency in applying policy that causes NPOV problems on these pages. ATren (talk) 15:10, 24 May ... Kim, are you advocating using RealClimate, a self-published advocacy site, as a source in this article, but not a NYTimes blog? Do I have that right? Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 24 May Now, none of these other editors did what I did, and you're right, it did not help the tone of the discussion. I went through the bother of going to the Times website to see what they had to say about editorial oversight in an effort to show Kim something that might prove to even him that the source was reliable. I think I made more progress in that regard than the other editors. But, like the other editors, I also became utterly frustrated with Kim's obstinancy in the face of normal readings of policy and, frankly, common sense (there is no good reason for the Times not to have full editorial control over the reporters' blogs on its website). I say mention all this to demonstrate just how difficult it was to deal with Kim here. It's also true that none of the other editors made a snarky comment like mine. You're right, I shouldn't have said it. In this case, I don't think it mattered much and I do think a little sneering is a relatively mild response compared with other common reactions in tense situations, like harsh incivility and personal attacks. If I had to do it over, I would not do it again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's something else about this that I need to mention: What made this thread particularly frustrating was that the huge discrepancy between Kim's two positions on sourcing was not accompanied by a believable explanation (even after repeated questioning), so Kim's behavior looked (and to me still looks) extremely suspicious. Very few article discussions revolve around editors' explanations that are this starkly unbelievable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #8: [68] Why is this diff in the Fof? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #9: [[69]] I regret the tone of my language here when I was reacting to what I consider Tony's repeated persaonal attack. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #10: [70] 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)

Diff #11: [71] 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)

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)

Diff #12: [72] 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)

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)

Diff #13: [73] 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)

"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". [74] 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. [75]. I then asked where this disruption could be found and received no actual reply. [76] I then brought the matter to ArbCom, protesting (among other things) that I hadn't been disruptive. Here is the AfD. [77] Here is the DRV [78]. 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 think you are 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)) (tweaked language in second to last sentence -- to what I meant to say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I expect to go through the edits related to The Gore Effect and wrap up my comments here. If I'd had more time, I'd be done already.

Carcharoth, on the P.D. page, says his sole problem with the current proposal is mentioning the last block, which I appreciate. He says he has no problem with the rest, which I find odd, since I've pointed out very clearly on this page that some of the diffs appear to have no substance. It does me absolutely no good to confuse me and others about the relevance of these diffs (and I'm evidently not the only one confused by them), so it would do a lot of good for ArbCom members respond to my questions here. As for my other comments in defending myself, arbitrators either find them cogent or they don't, and I'd welcome feedback or questions about them.

Newyorkbrad says, there [...] is a sharp edge to many of JohnWBarber's comments in various venues that he ought to strive to significantly tone down. I agree, and I will. Five people on the P.D. page and other people who are not grinding axes have now been giving me the same message. That's led me to look into it and come to the same conclusion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

views of others

I don't quite know where to put this but I think this finding of fact generally misses the mark. Is JWB perfect? No. But who among us is? Some may recall that I was involved in the investigation of JWB in October 2009, referenced above, during which I stated concern about what I saw as the JWB account being used inappropriately. Might have been wrong then, might not have been, it's difficult to say at this remove, but it's my view that JWB has amply demonstrated that he is here for the good of the project, and the issues he raises are important ones. His analysis and evidence are sound and worthy of review. This finding, and the associated remedy that would be based on it, if any, are shooting the messenger. None of these diffs rise to the level that merit more than a caution. There seems to be a fair bit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when evaluating behaviors in this case. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this year, you told JohnWBarber: I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. Or to interact civilly." You followed that up by calling JohnWBarber "the very model of an incollegial, tendentious, timewasting editor." That's a very harsh (and, I would argue, unfair) evaluation of JohnWBarber's editing. What has happened in the intervening months to alter your impression? MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't see any good reason for you to bring up the matter. Obviously, Lar was angry at the time, and his comments then aren't of any use now in helping ArbCom decide on this Fof. Lar and I exchanged emails some time ago, and I believe we're both satisfied that the dispute is over. He was not the admin who blocked me and then announced that I was "disruptive" without providing proof -- my sole concern in relation to this Fof. I was concerned at the time that something nefarious had happened in private communications about me between Lar and the blocking editor. The communications were referred to WP:AUSC which ruled that nothing wrong had happened. I'm very satisfied with that, and it allayed my suspicions. I don't see a legitimate benefit in bringing up an irrelevant matter or discussing it further. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Per JWB. People change. JWB significantly changed his approach. I changed my view. We met somewhere in the middle. MastCell: Your bringing this up, in this way, is unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you two have buried the hatchet, but that's between you guys, and not really why I brought it up. Lar, it's pretty rare (I would assume) for you to describe your fellow editors in such unsparingly harsh terms, and even rarer to come around to describe the same editor as a plus for the project. I wanted to know what you'd seen in the interim to change your opinion, because it might shed some light on the proposed ArbCom findings, and whether they fail to consider substantial changes in JohnWBarber's approach. But if neither of you want to discuss it, then never mind. Question withdrawn. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Per Lar -- My impression was that JohnWBarber made many well-reasoned contributions in the course of this arbitration. The statement about the Noroton account in the proposed FoF may sound more damning than the actual background (which I thought did not include abusive sockpuppeting) justifies. If that is so, it should really be removed, lest we give a dog a bad name to hang him, and the decision be made on the presented evidence, which everyone appears to agree is at best borderline. --JN466 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Shell says above, your tendency to personalize your comments [is] inappropriate. I've been looking over the diffs that I haven't yet posted specific comments on and thinking about a comment alanyst recently made on my talk page, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Shell's made a good point in that comment. Sometimes I have been too snarky. I think there are circumstances surrounding most of those diffs that show the problem to be much less severe than Shell has implied, and I'll post on that, but even with those caveats, I was wrong to make some of those comments. I don't think my comments are worth an ArbCom sanction, and my comments on those final diffs and on some other aspects of this will show why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it's very interesting for the participants in this dispute to make tendentious comments supporting or opposing findings that we already know they will support or oppose. Your bickering repels any uninvolved editors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting us all know what you think is interesting, although not everyone shares your view, I expect. But I think characterizing using terms like "tendentious comments" and "bickering" misses the mark. There's been a lot of that going around though. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Gore Effect" article was an unfortunate bit of trivia that quite a lot of editors got sucked into, or rather permitted themselves to be sucked.

Examining the diffs in this proposed finding I'm not surprised to find that 6 of 13 come from that article or its talk page. and that the article also features in the proposed findings of Mark Nutley, Hipocrite, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, as well as the original formulation of finding 6 on edit warring. For a very minor bit of American culture this subject seems to have had a disproportionately divisive effect on Wikipedians. It has been both a touchstone and a catalyst of the very acrimonious atmosphere surrounding articles on the fringe of the subject.

In part, the joke version originally created in December explains how it attracted notoriety while still in Mark Nutley's user space, but the deletion discussion did turn up some constructive suggestions and I wasn't surprised to see it survive the discussion. At that point the thing to do was walk away for a few months and see what community editing did with it. That exactly the opposite happened, with embattled factions warring over a plot "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain," is a snapshot of the worst of Wikipedia. The suspicion, ridiculous to explain in the light of day, appears to have been that the article might somehow be used to push a point of view on Wikipedia. Whatever, the reaction caused much harm. To scientifically literate editors the article's parallel with the Pauli effect should not need to be explained, and the current version of the article is one that we can all be proud of in a small way. --TS 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discretion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If only it were that simple. ArbCom has decided otherwise in the past though: [79], [80]. NW (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: I think Roger is saying that as most discretionary sanctions are a straight-forward affair and so few are appealed, the issue of wheel-warring over discretionary sanctions is not as important as it is being made out to be. AGK 22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this case will likely prove to be an exception and several individuals will make appeals down the line. This is why I think some of the sanctions should stack rather than being either/or. For instance, those with major BLP issues seem to be the most likely ones to appeal their bans (and the most likely to succeed considering how tight knit the group is) and so I think expansive bans on BLPs in the topic area should be enacted (in addition to the general topic ban) now to save a lot of heartache later on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence sub-pages in userspace

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

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

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

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).

Hatting of threads with dismissive summaries

The hatting of threads that are adressing aspects of the PD along with the addition of dismissive summaries seems to be occuring recently. Particularly from the arbs Roger Davies and Shell, these are the two prime advocates of remedy three. It may not be their intention but it appears to me as though they are using their rank to defend their position and whether this is their intention or not they should probably be advised to steer clear of this sort of action. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Even though I support remedy 3, this dismissal of editors' discussions here is not helpful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep the discussion on topic, productive and stop taking swipes at each other and it won't get closed. Shell ^babelfish 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that closing entire discussions along with dismissive summaries penalizes all contributors no matter how on topic they were and how many good points they made. In a situation where editors are being topic banned indefinitely it is not fair for those arbs who are doing this to be making those decisions. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to think that anyone (arb or clerk) is going to wade through a discussion and pick out the bits that aren't constructive. It's certainly disappointing that those involved in the case don't have more restraint; it's not like it hasn't been mentioned, repeatedly (there are two sections on the page currently). Finally, your drama isn't helping the situation either - I fail to see how "close" and "archive to..." and "please..." are in any way dismissive. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh so when you cannot win you argument you put your foot down. Most of us are not allowed to do that, only arbs. I was just about to comment on remedy 3 and you went and archived the discussion. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Why is discussion over the last three days or so (the time it takes for this page to get unmanageable) more important than similar discussions on the same subject started on 18 Sep, 24 Sep or 28 Sep? Are arbitrators expected to base their decisions entirely on the discussion de jour and ignore the old stuff?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, arbitrators would arbitrate, i.e. engage with the participants, explain their current understanding of the situation, and actively guide the discussion by pointing out where they need more information. As long as most of the arbitration discussion happens behind closed doors (or mail accounts), and as long as the "let's throw more mud, some will stick" approach seems to work, you will get mountains of mud, with some very few nuggets in them. To answer Shell, yes, I do expect Arbs to wade through the discussion and pick out the bits that are(n't) constructive - as far as my understanding goes, that's exactly what you volunteered for when you stood for the job.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've seen, arbitrator input in discussions here doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see few significant examples. Coren up at the Scibaby thread is a laudable exception, although I'm somewhat disappointed by what he says. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well. We'll just have to agree to differ on that.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) ArbCom have no choice but to do it this way (please try to think logically everyone, i.e. sheer volume of text, chaos etc). Remedy 3 is the best approach I feel given the size and severity of the battle field. The only alternative is voluntary binding topic bans in my view. People seem to think topic bans are about a punishment, they are not they are remedies to fix the topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with aggressive archiving particularly at this stage when most discussion is just a noisier and more acrimonious rehash of earlier themes. There is also evidence of a misunderstanding of what arbitration is about and how it's conducted. By their nature arbitration decisions over-rule the community and the community doesn't over-rule arbitration decisions.

The unruly conduct on this page mirrors the dispute area quite well and I wouldn't be surprised if activities here turned out to have been a decisive factor in convincing the arbitration committee that quite stern measures are needed.

One recent comment stands out. From memory, it was a remark that the topic on Wikipedia has attracted argumentative people. That rings true; earlier I referred to an apparent migration from another dispute area, and on the list of those being considered for a topic ban more than a few of those seem to have a record of inserting themselves into controversial topics and exacerbating them. A reset is needed. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest if editors want to discuss the Remedy 3 which has been called the nuclear option they start a new thread and make the discussions precise about why they are for or against this remedy? The collasping of the thread I believe is the one that Roger Davies was polite enough to come to my talk page and tell me he was collasping and why he was doing it. Everyone, please calm down and comment directly on what you are disputing or in favor of in brief and to the point comments. I think that will make everyone happy, including the arbitrators and the clerks. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanquish

I'll take six months off from Climate Change, no problem. Would prefer to keep a clean record as best as possible. Thanks for the opportunity to disengage. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

I posted this earlier, but I'm not sure everyone had a chance to read it. Here's my statement in full:
[81][82][83][84] The first 4 diffs all relate to a single incident that happened over the course of a half a day . Yes, it's true that I edit-warred on a 1RR article over what I thought at the time was a BLP violation. In retrospect, I was naive and took the BLP policy too literally. As a result, I was blocked for 24 hours. I kicked and screamed a bit on my talk page, but I learned my lesson and have never repeated the offense.

[85][86][87][88][89] It's also true that when I first started editing this topic space almost a year ago, I said things that were less than ideal. At the time, I was still somewhat of a newbie and did not understand the nuances of which comments were acceptable and which ones weren't. In fact, I'm still learning. To be honest, an experienced editor should have taken me aside and helped explain this to me. In any case, I changed the tone of my comments around January of this year, and continue to make improvements as I continue to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better.

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

Example

As evidence of improved conduct, I want to point out the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article. An IP posts a message saying that the 9/11 was a false flag operation.[90] Rather than attacking the IP, I thanked them for their comments and patiently tried to explain our policies on neutrality, reliability, and WP:FRINGE.[91][92][93][94][95][96][97] When another editor used insulting language "utter morons",[98][99] I politely reminded the editor of our policies on being welcoming and civil.[100] The editor admitted his mistake, "Alas, you're right. My bad".[101] The IP even thanked me.[102] I then make a few edits on the FAQ regarding the importance of being civil.[103][104][105] The full discussion can be seen in its entirety here.[106]

[107] It's true that I once used the word "criminals" on an article talk page. But this is not a BLP violation. The University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. According to our article,[108] the UEA has a staff of 2,966 people. Not a single person is mentioned anywhere in my comment or even the entire discussion. In any case, this comment was a one-time incident. I have never repeated the remark.

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

[109] This one is baffling. I notified the admins of an edit war and asked them to protect the page which NuclearWarefare eventually did.[110] I'm not sure what I did wrong. I wasn't a participant in the dispute, nor was I assessing blame. I simply used an admin board to notify admins of a problem.

In short, with the exception of this diff,[111] - which I don't understand what I did wrong - any issues with my conduct have already been corrected and there is no evidence of any continuing pattern of misconduct that warrants this FoF in an Arbitration Case.

I would also like to add that I am not an SPA. I contribute to many different articles, including 9/11 Truth movement, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Amanda Peet, Bernard Foing, Jennie Finch, List of common misconceptions, Naperville Independent Film Festival, Neve Campbell, REO Speedwagon, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and countless others.

Finally, I would also like to add the following question. If there are still any outstanding issues with my conduct, what are they? I cannot fix a problems which no one has explained.

Before voting for any sanction against me, I ask that the Arbsat least do me the courtesy of explaining exactly what behavior they are trying to correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)