Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop/Issues

As requested, please list your concise, one-sentence, neutrally worded question(s) here

Suggested topic(s) by LessHeard vanU
1) Is the scientific communities consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as evidenced by reliable sources, the encyclopedic neutral point of view? 00:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2) In determining NPOV should the fact and content of claims denying or skeptic toward AGW be weighed by their prominence in general media reliable sources, irrespective of it being a minority and challenged viewpoint within the scientific community or not being made from a sustainable scientific basis? 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Have some editors who subscribe to the scientific consensus regarding AGW acted in such a manner to restrict viewpoints outside of that consensus from being represented in the main articles, contrary to WP:DUE? 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there evidence of a concerted effort, including off site media, to diminish or deprecate the scientific consensus presented within AGW articles, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:V? 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

5) Are the interactions between contributors who edit toward the scientific consensus and those who edit in a manner to more widely represent the AGW denial or skeptic viewpoint generally in accordance with the preferred WP policies of consensus through respectful discussion and use of established methods of dispute resolution, or more example battlefield mentality? 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

6) Is the widely (but not universally) adopted practice of seeking consensus between uninvolved administrators at the AE/CC/Enforcement Requests page appropriate? 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

7) Is the editing environment within CC related article greatly at variance with the usual practices found within Wikipedia. 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

8) Should there be an expectation that editors new to the topic are required to familiarise themselves with the particular situation found in the AGW article area before either editing or commentating? 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

9) Has the Probation enforcement page become an instrument by which editors have sought sanctions upon other contributors as a means of deprecating their means and desire to edit? 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

10) Has the Probation enforcement page become a fulcrum of WP:Battlefield activity, where the process itself becomes an area where "competing" viewpoints attempt to influence the final decision? 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues by Hipocrite
1) When evaluating the prominence of a scientific argument, what is the appropriate weight given to various media types?

2) How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?

3) Are all editors appropriately following sourcing policies?

4) Are all adminstraotors appropraitely following involvement standards?

5) Are current involvement standards appropraite?

Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber
1) Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles be modified by having the Arbitration Committee appoint the administrators who would deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page?

2) If the Arbitration Committee decides to appoint administrators to deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page, should it ask the community in a year's time to suggest to ArbCom whether WP:GSCC is still needed in any form, and if so, whether that new, ArbCom-appointed set-up should be continued or revert back to the present set-up, and in either case, whether it should be modified in other ways?

3) Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for tendentious editing, ongoing incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks?

4) Should User:Kim Dabelstein Petersen be sanctioned for tendentious editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and WP:BLP violations on climate change articles?

5) Should User:Jehochman be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" (filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

6) Should User:Franamax be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

7} Has User:Polargeo been disruptive on various pages related to climate change articles, particularly WP:GSCCRE and its talk page?

8) Should User:Hipocrite be sanctioned for excessive and frequent incivility?

9) Should User: Short Brigade Harvester Boris be sanctioned for tendentious editing, edit warring and disruption at Climatic Research Unit email controversy? Withdrawn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested question by Tryptofish
1) Should the Committee provide a definition of "uninvolved administrator", for purposes of aiding Arbitration Enforcement in the future? --17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Cla68
1) Has there been any extended abuse of BLP articles by a group of established editors, including one or more administrators?

2) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, employed incivility including personal attacks, bullying, baiting, sarcasm, and insults over an extended period of time on the talk pages of any of the climate change articles and, if so, did the behavior result in decreased cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in expanding or improving the content of those articles?

4) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, displayed contempt, derision, or indifference towards Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and/or article-improvement forums such as WP:Good Article or WP:Featured Article?

5) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?

6) Have any established editors who may have a conflict of interest, such as having a close personal or professional relationship with BLP subjects involved with climate change controversies, edited climate change articles in a way that could be interpreted as a violation of NPOV?

Suggested issues to examine by Lar
1) Should the Scientific point of view be used in the GW/CC area instead of NPOV?

2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was?

2b)Further, is Global Warming such a dire threat to mankind that Wikipedia should take a position on it or at least modify normal standards to ensure that the articles adhere to generally accepted scientific consensus at all times and in all ways?

3a) Should the definition of "uninvolved" as used in the CC/RE pages be modified to conform to the generally accepted definition elsewhere? (taking into account editing in the general area as well as editor interaction)

3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case?

4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later)

5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately?

5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied?

6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets?

Submitted for consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) ... and revised. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo
1) Should the fact that an admin has not edited a Climate Change article give them carte blanche to deal with an editor in this area no matter what the admin's past history with the editor may be? Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Issues to examine by ATren
ATren (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it appropriate for editors with a strong POV to be editing the biographies of people with whom they disagree?
 * 2) Is it appropriate for editors to add blog-sourced criticism to BLPs, and in particular, when the editors have prior association with those blogs?
 * 3) Is the disruption caused by individual Scibaby socks so severe that we are willing to block on little or no evidence (i.e. less than 25 non-vandalism edits, no checkuser support)?
 * 4) Has the zeal of a small group of long term editors, protecting against real or presumed socks, caused a de-facto banning of opposing views in this topic area?
 * 5) Should editors be held to a basic standard of civility?
 * 6) Does truth supercede verifiability?

Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz
1) Is climate change a field in which "expertise is irrelevant", because Wikipedia only "reflects what reliable sources say" or is climate change a large, complex scientific topic in which a general understanding is necessary to achieve due weight?

2) How can the community deal with high-volume sophisticated socking without causing editor burn-out?

2a) Has the normal SPI process been an undue burden on non-socking editors?

3) Should participation in off-wiki discussions be taken into account when determining good faith and civility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there a concerted off-wiki attempt to influence on-wiki content, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

5) Is there a off-wiki campaign targeting certain Wikipedia users, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

6) Per "everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler", is the requirement that each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question something that should be strictly enforced or would we rather not force our competent editors to use their immense grammatical skills and the English language's ability to connect several sentences with conjunctions to write one long and convoluted sentence where two or three short ones would have been simpler and clearer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (last updated 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5

 * 1) Should William M. Connolley be topic banned for uncivil disruptions?


 * 2) Should Stephan Schulz be admonished for enabling William M. Connolley's problematic behavior?


 * 3) Was Lar's May 18, 2010 block for 1 hr to William M. Connolley for "Disruptive Editing" for valid and fair reasons?


 * 4) Should GoRight Request for Arbitration, which was closed and lead to the Climate change probation, be reopened in this case?


 * 5) Should Stephan Schultz or others be sanctioned when behavioral evidence is submitted in sock investigations and there is no sock puppet findings, and then they repeatedly continue to make false allegations on unknown editors?

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by William M. Connolley
1) Are wikipedia's science-of-climate-change articles (headed by global warming) generally held in high or low regard externally? 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Should editors be held to a basic standard of usefulness? 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Has the Cl Ch probation unnecessarily tagged large numbers of non-controversial pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by Count Iblis
1) Should the unofficial but de-facto WP:SPOV policy that editors stick to on almost all science related articles, including the global warming related articles, be made official (possibly after it is rewritten by the Arbitrators), for at least the global warming related pages, in order to reduce tensions?

2) Do we need new civility rules to prevent sniping at experts while allowing people to utter justified criticism at each other, so that the experts don't run away?

3) Is there a self-selection effect that contributes to and amplifies problems (i.e. does the Kindergarten like nature of many of the disputes attract editors who are most at ease in such a climate)?

4) Has enforcing civility rules without addressing the core problems made things worse?

5) Do we need periodic external peer review by climate science experts to see if the procedures the editors (and possibly Arbitrators) decide on, do indeed lead to high quality articles?

6) Do we need to study if the commonly used "reliable sources" in Wikipedia (newspapers as well as scientific journals) follow proper editorial policies in case of news reporting on climate change (e.g. when a news report has been debunked, the source retracts the report), to determine what sources can be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's climate change topics?

Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue suggested by Heyitspeter

 * 1) Do the arbitrators believe that WP:SPOV should be followed as it is written currently?
 * 2) Does WP:SPOV contradict WP:V?
 * 3) Are scientists to be considered authorities on metascientific issues at the expense of other reliable sources, e.g., with respect to research ethics, controversies surrounding the politics of global warming, etc.?
 * 4) How do WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply to articles related to global warming?
 * 5) Does a supportive editing environment yield better article content?
 * 6) Since the presence of certain editors has a negative effect on this topic area, would a topic ban for these editors improve the editing climate, or is some other response prudent?
 * 7) With respect to WP:RS, how should we approach sources that stem from scientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
 * 8) How should we approach sources that stem from nonscientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
 * 9) When otherwise reliable sources like the BBC, the Wall Street Journal and the ICO contradict scientists in the field over the truth of some proposition (e.g.), should they be treated as unreliable or fringe sources with respect to that proposition?

Issues suggested by TheGoodLocust

 * 1) What/who is the source of the problem?
 * 2) How long has this problem been going on?
 * 3) Have sanctions changed the behavior of the problem contributors?
 * 4) Have the problem contributors driven away both experienced and new editors from wikipedia?
 * 5) Has a culture been created in the topic area that promotes incivility and a battleground mentality?
 * 6) Which side on the debate has benefited from that culture?
 * 7) If the probation has not changed the culture in the area, then what can cure it?
 * 8) How do we deal with obstructive practices by a tight group of editors who show up at esoteric articles to defend each other?
 * 9) Is WP:MEAT being properly applied to long-term contributors in the area?
 * 10) Should all long term SPAs (or nearly SPAs) be checkusered to weed out socking?
 * 11) Is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of William Connolley - his at-work account?
 * 12) Is Hipocrite creating "false flag" socks in order to demonize the opposition and block new editors?
 * 13) Would sanctioning editors for wikilawyering help the situation?
 * 14) Should editors be able to extensively source articles to their blogs, ex-blogs or the blogs of their friends?
 * 15) Similarly, should editors be able to extensively source articles to the scientific papers of their friends, while excluding the viewpoints of other scientists?
 * 16) At what point, in % of edits, do revisions, reverts, and removals of other's edits become intentionally obstructive?
 * 17) Should editors with high %'s of such behavior describe themselves and each other as "high quality contributors?"
 * 18) What dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve any conflicts on article content?
 * 19) Would extending the probation to cover content fix obstructionism or codify it?
 * 20) Are the sides accurately described as skeptics vs. non-skeptics?
 * 21) Since the majority of people who oppose the long-term global warming group actually believe in global warming why do they oppose them?
 * 22) And why does the global warming group insist on calling those editors "skeptics" or "scientifically illiterate" if they hold the same beliefs?
 * 23) Does William Connolley have close relationships with certain controversial scientists?
 * 24) Do such relationships motivate him to promote their work and protect their reputations?
 * 25) Have his actions demonstrated such activity (e.g. using wikipedia to increase google page ranking of their websites)?
 * 26) Finally, would topic banning the top editors in the area improve the situation?

Issues suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
1) Are repeated declarations of a desire to "level the playing field" more favorably toward certain editors and less favorably toward others consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

2) Is the declaration of a specific content position while engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

3) Are repeated characterizations of editors as a "cabal," "cadre" and similar terms while engaged in enforcement with those editors consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

4) Are personal insults such as "socially inept" directed toward editors with whom an administrator is engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

5) On articles related to scientific topics, what weight should be given to views that have little or no credibility in the relevant scientific community but are widely promoted in blogs and the popular press?

6) How should Wikipedia respond to external criticism?

7) Should responses to external criticism vary according to the source; e.g., academic evaluations or straight news reporting versus partisan commentary?

8) How should op-eds and similar commentary be used as sources?

9) May editors deliberately insert or retain information that is attributable to an otherwise reliable source, but which is unambiguously known to be erroneous (e.g., misstatement of the author of a book) under Wikipedia's policy of "verifiability, not truth"? 10) Is global warming primarily a scientific topic that has sociopolitical and economic consequences, or is it primarily a political topic that is to some extent informed by science?

11) In the interest of fairness, should WP:WEIGHT be abandoned in favor of a perspective that treats all views presented in any reliable source as equally valid, regardless of their proportion those sources?

Issues suggested by KimDabelsteinPetersen
1) Where does BLP start and stop with regards to professional/scientific controversy?

2) Are comments (by another published expert) [critical or non-critical] on published papers by a scientist considered BLP material?

3) Is there a difference between material/content/text placed in a regular article, and a biography, with regards to the materials BLP or non-BLP status?

4) When considering content on different articles with differing amounts of published material both in time and distribution, should there be a set standard for how much neutral/praising/criticising material there is? (both in distribution and length?)

5) If a reference can be shown to be factually incorrect (by using more reliable sources), what consequences does this have for its state of reliability/weight?

6) Do books published by political commentators automatically count as reliable and weighty sources to science?

7) If a political advocate writes a book or makes a film about a topic, does the book/film count as opinion or as a general reliable source (to science or otherwise)?

8) When dealing with a top-level summary article on a very large topic, is it considered incivil to point out that discussion and possible inclusion of a "news/blog issue of the day" doesn't belong, but instead should go to a sub-article?

9) Is it incivil to point out that WP:TALK seems to disallows general discussion on a topic?

10) What, if any, measures can be taken so that article talkpages do not become soapboxes/forums for the "issue of the day" within a topic-area?

11) Would a welcoming committee consisting of bipartisan editors for a topic-area be useful for catching newbie editors, on their talkpage (pointing out problematic behaviour/editing) before making mistakes ending up in grief?

Question raised by BozMo
1) Should Social Inclusiveness have equal or greater or lower priority than content quality?

2) What should our approach be to the "attitude" which is not quite uncivil, but goes along the lines of "why should well qualified contributing editors reasonably have to spend a large proportion of their time civilly educating a rotating series of much less qualified virtually non-contributing editors about fairly basic errors/meanings", even assuming that we agree that the judgements therein are merited.

--BozMo talk 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by WavePart
1) Should Hipocrite be prohibited from filing further requests for users to be blocked as sock puppets?

2) Given the controversial nature of climate change articles, and the tendency for bad faith assumptions to run rampant from one side toward the "other" side, should all non-scibaby-checkusered sock puppet blocks be accompanied by specific evidence justifying the block as a sock puppet?

WavePart (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by ScottyBerg
1) Can administrators be considered "uninvolved" in a particular matter if they have a history of personal animosity toward the editors involved, even if they have not edited within that subject area?

2) Are existing enforcement mechanisms adequate in dealing with the set of circumstances presented by the global warming articles?

3) To what extent are administrators to be held accountable for statements, wherever made, reflecting on the integrity of editors and groups of editors?

ScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by dave souza
1) Should editors be required to accept there is a clear scientific consensus on the basic science of global warming, and that all articles making mention of the science should make that consensus view clear, as well as giving appropriate coverage to fringe and pseudoscientific views where notable in the context of the article?

2) When reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines and books published by respected publishing houses publish claims that the scientific consensus on global warming has been overturned or exposed as a hoax, should such statements always be presented as fringe views in the clear and immediate context of the scientific consensus view shown in specialist scientific publications?

3) Should the definition of an uninvolved administrator for purposes of community sanctions be revised to the informal definition being used by administrators currently implementing the sanctions?

4) In articles on social and political debate on global warming, should priority be given to third party analysis by reputable historians rather than views promoted by active participants in the debate?

dave souza, talk 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by A Quest for Knowledge
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What's the best way to restore the editing atmosphere at the CC articles to being based on civility and cooperation?
 * 2) Should a Scientology-type topic ban be applied editors with repeated conduct issues including failure to assume good faith, incivility and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
 * 3) Should User:ChrisO be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
 * 4) Should User:GoRight be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith, promotion of a battleground atmosphere and sock puppetry?
 * 5) Should User:Marknutley be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
 * 6) Should User:Scjessey be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
 * 7) Should User:Thegoodlocust be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?
 * 8) Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of a battleground atmosphere?