Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

In addition to the usual guidelines for arbitration cases, the following procedures apply to this case:
 * The case will be opened within 24 hours after the posting of these guidelines.
 * The drafting arbitrators will be Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Risker. The arbitration clerk for the case will be Amorymeltzer, but all the active arbitration clerks are asked to assist with this case as needed.
 * The title of the case will be Climate change. Participants are asked to bear in mind that case titles are chosen for administrative convenience and do not reflect any prejudgment on the scope or outcome of the case.
 * Notice of the opening of the case will be given to all editors who were named as parties in the request for arbitration, all editors who commented on the request, and all editors who commented on either of the two pending related requests ("Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar"). If any other editor later becomes a potential subject of the case, such as by being mentioned extensively in evidence or named in a workshop proposal, a notice should also be given to that editor at that time.
 * The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
 * Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
 * Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question&mdash;for example:
 * "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
 * "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
 * "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
 * "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
 * The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.


 * All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
 * Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
 * The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence. For example, an editor may present evidence in a form such as "event A occurred [diff 1] and then event B occurred [2], which led to event C [3], followed by a personal attack [4], and an uncivil comment [5], resulting in a block [6], an unblock [7], and an ANI discussion [8]." It sometimes happens that the editor is asked to shorten his or her evidence, and it is refactored to read something like "there was a dispute about a block [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]." This does not make life easier for the arbitrators who have to study all the evidence. Editors should take this into account before complaining that other editors' sections are too long.
 * All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
 * The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
 * Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
 * Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (We hope that it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
 * This procedural notice shall be copied at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. Any questions about these procedures may be asked in a designated section of the workshop talkpage.
 * After this case is closed, editors will be asked to comment on whether any of the procedures listed above should be made standard practice for all future cases, or for future complex cases.

Statement by Literaturegeek (Uninvolved)
Ryan Postlethwaite, is right, it is time for ArbCom to accept this case and pass fair but strong remedies including site bans and topic bans if necessary and for ArbCom to take control of enforcing those remedies. I believe that ArbCom is the only way of resolving the battle ground on these articles; arbcom has in its history dealt with other horrific polarised battle grounds with significant success. I have read over the RfC and quite predictably the community is split down the middle with no consensus emerging. It is my perspective that the viewpoint that a polarised outcome from the RfC being able to resolve a complex battleground being waged by fanatical and polarised editors on climate change articles is silly. There is no realistic prospect that the RfC will resolve this battle ground.

I notice that several editors are advocating for ArbCom to not take on this case, expressing their belief that an RfC should be allowed to run its course to see if it helps matters. I am sure some of these editors are doing so in WP:GOODFAITH but I can't help wonder if others are trying to persuade ArbCom not to accept this case due to concerns that they themselves may be sanctioned. Thus I think ArbCom, should decide to accept this case based on the facts (rather than opinions of involved editors) such as the following;

Are there serious and complex behavioural problems and is there a battle ground on climate change articles and has community trust in the climate change probation process broken down? Has this poisonous battle field been ongoing for years without any sign of a let up? The answer I believe is yes to these questions and I thus think that ArbCom not only should but must accept this case as enough is enough.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@Regarding the RFC, I do not think that it has resolved anything of much. Sadly some people even used the RfC to character assassinate individual editors, rather than focusing on general problems of the probation system. The outcome of the RfC was a split down the middle of the community, with little consensus.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
I agree with Stephan Schulz about the fundamentals of the problem. I think what ArbCom should do is investigate how new rules could be beneficial. For that you initially don't need any input from the involved editors. It is better for ArbCom to start a closed case where they study the situation themselves without any input from editors, as such inputs will likely lead to polarized discussions that would distract attention from the real problems. And, of course, it is better that the Global Warming Cabal edit articles and not engage in polarized discussions on some ArbCom page leading to new disputes.

When ArbCom comes up with a few proposals for new rules, these proposals can be discussed with with the group of involved editors. Such discussions will be far less polarizing because all that can be talked about are the proposals, instead of, say, who was in the wrong in some previous editing dispute. ArbCom can then make a final ruling in which they can take into account the received feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
I don't think an ArbCom case is necessary at this time. There is an RfC in progress and the AGW/CC probation enforcement forum is, in my opinion, operating effectively. Cla68 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since it looks like the case will be accepted, I'll state up front the crux of what my evidentiary approach will be, which I think comprises the two main areas of problemmatic behavior regarding the climate change articles. You, the arbitrators, I believe will see cringe-inducing evidence of blatent BLP violations and unrepentant biting, baiting, and bullying of other editors, including newbies, by editors who appear to have no sincere interest in building an NPOV encyclopedia on climate change topics.  I could be wrong, but I suspect that the main result of this case, judging by what occurred in the Transcendental Meditation case, will be an emphasis on discretionary sanctions.  That's fine, but keep in mind that the climate change area already, in effect, has discretionary sanctions under its current probation enforcement forum. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
The probation quickly degenerated into a talking shop. Over the months this has intensified the battlefield mentality, and the uninvolved admins are nearly all showing signs of battle fatigue. We need less talk, more action. At this stage an arbitration case would not cause more harm than is already being caused, and could at least provide the clarity and focus the probation lacks. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

 * Uninvolved administrator who quit enforcing the community sanction due to unhappiness with the apparently unfair results.

Never run for ArbCom if you are popular enough to be elected. Otherwise it might become your duty to accept a case like this one. ;-) Have fun, and thank you for the generous donation of your time.  I sincerely hope you gain satisfaction from helping to solve this problem. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The RFC is not adding much new information because the same users have lined up on the same battle lines. We already know what these users think.  Jehochman Talk 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
Just an aside that the Arbitration Committee needs to consider its actions as a possible impediment to wider participation. I am broadly sympathetic to the CC point of view but I don't always agree with them on matters of sourcing and such. However, I have done virtually zero editing because of the threatening-looking THIS IS UNDER PROBATION notice that appears on these articles. If you decide to accept this case, and I agree that it is probably premature now, consider steps to make these articles more editor-friendly and less intimidating. That should involve appraising the talk page notices as well as frankly reviewing actions of administrators and other officialdom. Try to take a broad look at the climate of editing at the climate change articles, and try to "change" that climate.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@B: I just wanted to associated myself with User:B's comment that "it creates a chilling effect to issuing warnings to anyone who breathes in the general direction of a global warming article and then log those warnings on a sanctions page." This area is "overlitigated," as the lawyers say. All concerned should ease up. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
ArbCom are already aware of my position, but to restate it here: I think intervening would help in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @TheGoodLocust, claiming extremism is one thing; your comment was something else - it was inappropriate. I presumed that it was dealt with since Jehochman's note; had I checked the page sometime within the last few days, I would've also asked that it be removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Heyitspeter
To reiterate Ncmvocalist's point above, an Arbcom case would greatly improve the situation. The editing arena is poisonous. Neutral editors are generally absent from the topic area and are invariably polarized after a short time in such a combative environment. The probation itself is not working, as little if anything substantial is carried out in response to enforcement requests.

@Roger Davies: The RfE board certainly is calmer, recently, but this should not be taken as a sign that it is working fine. For example, many editors have left the topic area entirely due to frustration with the editing environment. Their absence makes the topic area run more smoothly, but that's not the kind of smooth running we want.

@Carcharoth's request. I am involved insofar as I have edited Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (and the RfE board). I have stopped, and not because that article's looking good.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the RfC is not helping. It's headed for a no consensus close, with one of the relevant parties suggesting a massive overhaul of the CC probation. Arbitration would be great. --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * addendum

Comment by B
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not arbcom takes the case, but it creates a chilling effect to issuing warnings to anyone who breathes in the general direction of a global warming article and then log those warnings on a sanctions page.

Wikipedia's climate change articles are horribly biased. For example, Global warming blames Bush for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, but doesn't mention that the Senate voted 95-0 in a resolution to preemptively reject any treaty that didn't contain emission targets for developing countries.

Creating an environment where outsiders are made to feel unwelcome only fosters an institutional bias. --B (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
Adding that I second SBHB in requesting arbcom anchor this WRT what we're all here for, which is writing an encyclopedia. This cannot be ignored. No-one is asking the committee to dictate content, but recognise that the dispute needs to be assessed on its relation to content-grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WavePart
It seems that there is a lot of sock puppet witch-hunting going on and indefinitely blocking of people as suspected sock puppets without any shred of evidence. In my case, without warning I logged on and saw that I was set on an indefinite block with the stated reason, "Abusing multiple accounts: fails the WP:DUCK test". This was quite surprising to me, since obviously I am not a sock puppet.

It seems my example started (without warning) with this edit by Hipocrite, followed 46 minutes later by this edit where I was again declared an "obvious" sock, given a permanent ban by The Wordsmith, and presumed without any evidence to be someone named Scibaby. Many ridiculous failures of logic then occurred on my talk page, where I was presumed guilty without a shred of evidence ever given, except repeated declarations that I was "obviously" a sock puppet. It was only on the third day that a rational admin finally removed the block declaring it "based more on suspicion than evidence".

I was also added to here as a sock puppet, which I was of course not. There appears to be a discussion here about the failures of "Duck" evidence. In that discussion, a user named User:Weakopedia challenged Hipocrite's standards for reporting "sock puppets", so Hipocrite promptly reported Weakopedia as a scibaby sock puppet, which received some criticism as a dubious action. It seems Hipocrite has indicated he supports policy changes to actively block editors with a POV contrary to his, and has stated that "all new editors that are brand newish and show single-purposed difficultness should be blocked ... that's the level of draconian I support".

Here is an example of the standards of evidence being used here by admins to support these blocks when users challenge them, such as "blatant", "obvious", and "compelling". Also, things like knowing how to use wikipedia tags, or knowing wikipedia policies, are being used as grounds for blocking. It is my understanding that wikipedia policies such as Clean Start and Privacy provide plenty of legitimate pathways for users with prior wikipedia experience to have new accounts, and thus mere familiarity with wikipedia cannot be grounds for blocking.

I mostly hope for the arbitration committee to issue a ruling about minimal standards of evidence before a sock puppet block is issued. It is my understanding that to even be a sock puppet, you essentially need to be using a new account to evade a block, ban, or injunction, or you need to be using multiple accounts at once to deceptively sway a debate. Yet clearly new users are being blocked indefinitely without evidence being shown that EITHER of those two things have been done, and that really needs to stop.

I also hope that the arbitration committee can issue an injunction specifically against Hipocrite reporting any more "sock puppets", given his apparent abuse of this process for the purpose of winning arguments.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs)


 * @TFD: I explained quite plainly and openly on my talk page that I have had previous wikipedia experience, and that I have edited here, not in a while, and not continuously, but for a very long time.  My first edits of wikipedia were probably before those of almost everyone reading this.  I've made no secret nor deception about this, have stated it openly, and never stated otherwise.  BUT, and I emphasize this, by no means are Clean Start users required to specifically notify arbcom upon returning unless running for an admin position.  (Which I obviously didn't!)  And by no means should they be required to, under Privacy.  WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jéské Couriano: For the record, since I haven't said it to you yet, I acknowledge you were acting in good faith in maintaining the block.  It is your faulty application of the rules and of basic principles of justice that I challenge, even though I did not mention you by name.  I make no contest about my edit history, it is plain for everyone to see.  I contest that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that edit history, and that you CANNOT treat an edit history like that as grounds for an indefinite block under wikipedia policy.  There are no policies against editing controversial articles as a new user account after 11 edits and months of existence.  There are no policies against "jumping" from non-controversial articles to controversial ones.  There are no policies against changing what articles you focus on for a time.  And there is no rational basis for giving a higher penalty (indefinite block) to someone doing these trivial things which violate NO rules, than the standard penalty (~24 hour block) for someone who does a dozen or so reverts.  WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jéské Couriano: And Hitler was an artist before he started a war, therefore everyone who is an artist is going to start wars?  There's a severe logical failure in using weak circumstantial evidence to apply indefinite blocks, and there's a further damage to the encyclopedia if those blocks are being requested and applied with partiality as they are.  WavePart (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Rievse: Arbcom doesn't need to create policy here.  I think the policy is already pretty established.  What is at issue here is the blocking of people from editing and contributing on the basis of poorly defined suspicion rather than policy.  And the fact is it appears this blocking is being requested and done on controversial articles to influence editorial consensus, and that makes this approach to blocking as insidious as the sock-puppeting the practice is trying to combat!  WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Shell: Can I ask, for the sake of clarification, what you think alternate steps are that would actually have a real chance of working prior to arbitration?  It's very hard for people who are blocked to make any sort of community-based progress (which is kind of the point, people are being selectively shut out of the discussion), and there don't really seem to be many figures around here other than the arbcom with the authority to rein in admins who are on a blocking spree.  WavePart (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @The Wordsmith: Since you continue to make accusations, can I ask you to define what the definition of the word "Sock Puppet" is?  In particular, I will ask you who I could possibly be a sock puppet of?  There are only a finite number of people editing the specified article, so you pretty much have to pick one of those to accuse me of being.  Go ahead.  Make a real falsifiable accusation or knock it off.  WavePart (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved?) Stephan Schulz
Have any other means of conflict resolution been tried? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Collect: How many of those "over 20" have actually been blocked? And unless I miscounted, there are at least 133 confirmed Scibaby socks and 12 certain socks which may or may not be Scibaby identified in the SPI reports from January 1st to May first. If we declare a mere report with a 85% or so success rate abusive, we are putting an unreasonable burden on all other editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Collect: From a short count, your 20+ in the January-May time frame include people identified as other abusive socks. Looking over the few cases where CU did not finally confirm socking, I found only 2 instances where a user was blocked due to Scibaby suspicion - one by a CU due to an error on her part (unblocked after 4 hours, indef reblocked after a week for disruptive editing) and exactly one case where a user was blocked, but the CU did not confirm socking. That block was never challenged and still stands. There are not "20 folks improperly blocked", and nobody has presented evidence that "one out of seven potential contributors [were forced ] off of WP". Blocks of Scibaby accounts without Checkuser confirmation are exceedingly rare, and blocks before CU confirmation that turn out to be mistaken are still more rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Weakopedia: I think you are confused. WavePart was unblocked without any intervention from ArbCom. As far as I know only User: ClimateOracle was blocked with talk page lockdown, and that was after two rejected unblock templates. And that still leaves unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, not just ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Collect
The current practice of "Sentence first, verdict afterwards" could be ameliorated by simple ArbCom motion. The standards appear to be "if a person acts like they know what they are doing, they must be a sock" and usually a sock of someone who has edited in that same area. The problem is, this is not always true, and the "duck" excuse has definitely driven away a number of potentially good editors. The motion should be on the order of ''In order not to drive away potentially valuable contributors to the project, it is important that no editor be blocked as a sock without strong and compelling evidence more than the WP:DUCK test. It is more important that innocent users be left unblocked than it is important that socks be blocked while an investigation is underway.'' Collect (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Polargeo: The problem is that users who are genuine users have been blocked in the past, and even prevented from contesting the block (by eliminating the ability to edit their own talk pages) in the past. This is contrary to the direct foundations of Wikipedia, and should not be allowed to continue, thus the proposal above. Your post does nothing to dissuade me from my position. Collect (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@any Looking at all the Scibaby accusations from 1 Jan to 1 May showed over 20 which were not actually Scibaby at all. "The usual" was given as the evidence in virtually every case. 20 folks improperly blocked is 20 too many. 5 a month. Clearly the system is broken at this point. Collect (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan -- what would you say if you were one of the "only one out of seven" who were forced off of WP? Suppose you were in a fight where "only one out of seven" got killed? Or suppose we said that "only one out of seven" wrongful convictions for murder was "acceptable"? Or that forcing one out of seven potential contributors off of WP because they hit someone's nerve - whose only "evidence" presented is "the usual"? Nope - One out of seven is far too high a ratio to continue "the usual" as evidence. And requiring more than "the usual" is not an "unreasonable burden" in my opinion. Collect (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC) @Stephan I realize you felt that "one in seven" inaccuracy was appreciably different from your claim of "85%"  accuracy as you aver on my UT page. I feel however that the minimal difference between the two did not mislead anyone. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Polargeo
What collect has outlined misses the point. I agree that if the duck test just shows some controversial edits and a knowledge of wikipedia then that is not enough to block. However, if a new user with clear indepth knowledge of policy enters into the middle of a heated debate in a way that it is highly unlikely that anyone would have done who was not already involved heavily in that debate then this screams sockpuppet. In such a sensitive area as climate change the duck test is very important. However, I agree that a simple knowledge of policy and a POV pushing edit or two is insufficient evidence. Polargeo (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a genuine concern that should be dealt with in its own right and this is not helped by LessHeard vanU (below) lumping it in to general editor problems or enforcement. In fact it should not be. This is a very specific detailled issue which is separate. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved LessHeard vanU
Either this could be accepted to be dealt with by Motion, or it could simply become part of the huge Climate Change ArbCom of 2010; Two other requests outstanding, awaiting an RfC or two to drift into stalemate, and the usual parade of characters (including me, I realise) commentating. How many more side issues need be brought here before it is realised that it is the subject matter and the participants rather than the specific concerns that require a case? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to NYB; Do you perhaps think there might be an issue whether the determining of Scibaby socks should be be one that involves admins who are otherwise determined to be "involved editors" as regards Global Warming Probation enforcement, or left to those involved in SPI. Admins who also edit CC related articles are likely the quickest to spot likely matches, through experience, but may also be more prone to positive/negative misinterpretation of a new accounts initial edits toward a skeptic viewpoint. Might the determination be left to "uninvolved admins" (per definition of CC/AE/RE) at SPI, and might this be enshrined via Motion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to Jehochman; As I understand matters, it is not viewpoint that Scibaby edits to but the disruptive way they did it that lead to the ban and the resultant sock war. Blocking accounts on the basis of the viewpoint being used as an indicator of likely Scibaby sockpuppetry is what is at issue here, since the viewpoint is (or should be) permissible if it is acted upon within WP policy and guideline. There needs to be stronger correlation to the puppetmaster than a preference for the same style of shoes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to NYB re procedual outline - though the use of terms which tend to denote a certain viewpoint held by two or more editors will likely form part of the deliberations of this case, is there to be any discussion about what is permissible to designate some editors who apparently agree on certain matters? I am referring to labels such as "cabal", "cadre", "deniers" and "skeptics", which have of themselves drawn criticism from those implied to belong to such groupings. Will these shorthand descriptions be permitted, or does this require consideration before evidence is posited using such terms? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to be proved wrong, but I don't think there's any doubt that one side of the climate change debate deny, or are skeptical about, the existence or magnitude of anthropogenic global warming; in that sense, it would appear to make some sense to call them global warming deniers or skeptics. On the other hand, if there is a different term that this group of scientists, or of editors, ascribe to themselves, it might be better to use that one instead.
 * The term "cabal" has taken on extremely negative overtones on Wikipedia, and except in humorous contexts, it is better that it not be used.
 * No opinion on "cadre." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be careful to distinguish between editors that are described as skeptical and editors that self-describe as skeptical. I know that at least myself and Atren have been misdescribed as skeptics, though we are both of the strong opinion that anthropogenic global climate change is 'real'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is part of the issue I am addressing, those who edit to a perception of WP policy that would allow greater input of the fact and substance of climate change denial or skepticism (regardless of their own opinion on the matter, and regardless on how the AGW consensus of the scientific community as regards the validity of those concerns) within GW articles are likely to be referred to as "skeptic" orientated. Of itself, I find that definition limiting and in some cases erroneous. That is going to be the focus of my contribution to this case. The other part of the issue is how to describe those editors whose combined aggregate actions have had the effect of removing or limiting content regarding opposition to the scientific consensus relating to global warming from climate change related articles. I think my coining of the collective noun "confluence" will need to suffice, even cadre denotes a certain uniformity of viewpoint and direction derived from an agenda - which is also likely inaccurate and limiting, since these editors edit from the mainstream of scientific AGW consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
A block was made. I wouldn't have made it myself. Some other administrators disagreed with the initial block and WavePart was eventually unblocked. I don't see that as anything that needs to rise to the ArbCom level.

Now, to address the larger issue, new users who exhibit signs of returning accounts/sockpuppeteers. The fact of the matter is, there is no easy way to differentiate between the two. They each exhibit much of the same signs – a familiarity when policy acronyms, a knowledge of when to cite which specific policy, the ability to use wikisyntax correctly, the ability to wikilawyer, etc. However, returning users in good standing (or even banned ones, to be honest) usually stick to uncontroversial articles and don't try to stir things up. If I see signs that a new user who exhibits all the signs of a returning one (which is not this case) acting disruptively in a controversial area, I am going to block. Unless ArbCom wishes to unnecessarily hamstring the ability to administrators to try to keep a somewhat peaceful editing atmosphere, then I suggest that they reject this case. NW ( Talk ) 13:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statment by ZuluPapa5
I suspect the Scibaby investigation may be abused when folks knowingly circumvent the SPI process and submit to the ongoing Scibaby investigation. Perhaps expecting a faster response. The result is the diagnostics applied for Scibaby can be mis-calibrated and we have upset editors such as in this case.

The WP:duck test must require a second if not third opinion to proceed. Sock suspects should not be blocked for investigation, unless there is direct diff evidence they have caused a standard disruption. The duck test suffers from Argument from ignorance.

This occurred within the Climate Change probation and my attempt to increase the warning to new editors was just reverted.

Arbcom should remand this to a Scibaby Investigation Request for Comment.

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, new users who display a surprisingly strong sense of justice, are being interpreted as behavior evidence that they have sock behavior because of past enforcement experiences. This may not be wise to assume that a new user knows and respects civility that they learned it from sock prosecution as wikipedia may run in a real lawyer new user one day, if this continues.  The sock enforcement business is ripe with fine line of violating AGF.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems as if around 8 to 20 editors have been harmed in the pursuit of only one Scibaby sock. This number can only go up.  Scibaby continues to wreak havoc on Wikipedia, not as directly, but at the expense of his pursuer's investigating innocent victims.  ArbComm should watch this closely and ask the community to improve the situation. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert
I urge rejection of this case. There's no sign anything requiring arbitration committee intervention happened: an apparently mistaken block was made, the review process worked. There's no evidence being presented that there's a long term problem with admins improperly blocking people based on "the duck test" or any other detection mechanisms for sockpuppets. If that evidence were presented, then the appropriate arena would be community review of policy via RFC, AN discussion, Village Pump, etc., with the intent of developing a new consensus approved working policy.

There's no sense here of an individual wrong needing arbcom intervention or a systemic problem the community can't handle needing arbcom intervention. Ordinary mistakes do not an Arbcom case make. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved B
There doesn't seem to be anything to arbitrate here, but it would be nice if those issuing sock blocks would make very clear (1) whether the block is based on checkuser evidence or just something you are doing based on contributions and (2) where to find relevant evidence or who the user is accused of being. --B (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved TotientDragooned
I myself was accused of being a sockpuppet about a year ago, to the point where I was banned from commenting on an arbitration case pending a review by the arbcom (who never followed up in any way). I urge the committee to scrutinize the current standard of evidence. Sadly, many people nowadays think there are only three kinds of Wikipedia editors: admins, sockpuppets, and "ripened" sockpuppets.

Comment by Weakopedia
The problem should be one for arbcom - admins are blocking based on no evidence whatsoever, and giving those blocked as an only option to email arbcom, so if arbcom are the ones who have to deal with the mistakes then they are the ones who should be enforcing the standards. This problem is most evident on controversial articles - the ones most likely to motivate an unregistered user to open an account and add something, and then get themselves blocked for daring to have an opinion. Probably many users just give up at that point - or actually start sockpuppeting, if in fact their editing privelages were wrongly removed and they were informed in their block of what a sockpuppet is. The act of blocking someone before they have done anything worth being blocked for and without providing any kind of evidence is just a way around all the other procedures that everyone else has to abide by to block someone when there is no evidence to support a block. And the fact that some people read up on policy before commenting is often evidence of nothing more than diligence - the fact that some do not is the issue here, and that some of those are admins. Weakopedia (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Rlevse - the evidence of DR is right there, and is there for every case where an admin blocks someone on socking grounds. Right now admins are using alegations of socking (alegations without evidence) to indefinitely block editors from editing, and giving them no option but to email arbcom. No evidence, no chance for other admins to review the block (unless someone else adds the blocked editors name to SPI), and often even removing the editors ability to edit their own talkpage and respond to the alegations. The blocking admin says 'take it to arbcom if you don't like it' so that is what is happening. Arbcom does not have to change any policies - the policy is already there, and admins are not always following it. Since arbcom is the only avenue for a blocked editor accused of socking it is arbcom who ultimately decide if the alegation was warranted. Arbcom therefore should ensure that admins follow policy when initiating blocks based on socking. Since the only way out of a socking block is an appeal to arbcom, arbcom should ensure that all SPI blocks are made within the existing policy, which does have some minimum standards of evidence. Weakopedia (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan - you say I must be confused and that WavePart was unblocked without arbcom intervention - but I didn't say that he was. This case is about minimum standards of evidence for blocking, it was only initiated by WavePart. This case covers all bad socking blocks, and if I make a comment about this case, it is about this case, not just about WavePart. You say that only ClimateOracle had his talkpage locked down - again, this case is about all socking blocks, not just the few most recent ones. This is not the first time that an editor has had his talkpage access removed for being a suspected sock, and this case is about all those times too, so if I comment about this case, I am commenting about this case, and not just ClimateOracle. And finally, if blocked editors have other avenues other than mailing arbcom, then blocking admins shouldn't be telling them that if they don't like it they have to ask arbcom to be unblocked.

ClimateOracles unblock denial reason #1
 * Decline reason: "We weren't born yesterday. Email ArbCom via the links on that page if you so desire."

ClimateOracles unblock denial reason #2
 * Decline reason: "This is NOT a court of law - "rebut evidence", "fair hearing" are not a part of the community process. You have been advised that you are to e-mail ArbCom directly, no administrators will remove this block."

See? No administrators will remove this block. Hope that clears up your confusion. Weakopedia (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@TheWordsmith - you say that you are "fairly new to adminship, and sometimes I forget things", but that is exactly what we are talking about here. You are a new admin, there are various policies that you must follow - you don't know them all by heart yet. Maybe some day you will be able to quote off the top of your head what all the policies are, but for now if you want to implement one of the policies, like blocking on socking grounds, you could better take a moment to read the policy page. That way you are 100% sure of following the policy, even though as a new admin you might not be 100% familiar with it's finer points. Well, as a new editor I did exactly that - before I opened my big mouth I read the policies that covered anything I might have to say. Before I ever edited a Wikipedia article I read the policies that dealt with editing - after all, what is the point of blindly adding content and having it removed by someone who does know policy?

Anyone who turns up anywhere and wades in without first appraising themselves of the rules of conduct is one type of person. Another type of person is that which makes sure they are commenting in the right way first. Wiki policy is that this new editor may not edit semiprotected articles til they are confirmed - your policy is that they can't even do that. The rules are there for anyone to read, but your system punishes new editors for doing so. Weakopedia (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Even if we AGF over what seems to be a new (and more calculated) form of disruption, the very obvious cannot be ignored - utter failure to try earlier steps in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by involved Mark Nutley
Totaly agreeing with Collect and Weakopedia here, when i first came to WP i was accused of being scibaby, when it was painfully obvious i had no idea on how to use WP. The evidence given was "The Usual". Scibaby has been used as a bogyman to block and deter new editors and this has to stop. Editors can`t just get blocked if they happen to have read up on policy, i wish i had. Ten of all trades has just blocked another user claiming he is a sock, with no evidence at all, he has even stopped the guy from using his own talkpage even though a CU cleared him of being a sock This abuse has to stop, blocking editors just because they have taken the time to read the rules is just not on mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Kww
It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I do a lot of sock blocks: socking is the main focus of my administrative work, although I don't deal with Scibaby. I find in general that I am often extremely certain, and fill out the SPI only as a formality after I have already blocked all the sock accounts, tagged everyone, and reverted all of the sock's edits. Sometimes I'm not as certain, and request a checkuser before I proceed. That takes more work, more time, and generally leads to more disruption as the unblocked sockpuppet continues to edit. What we really need to do is to change the system to make running checkuser far more automatic in these circumstances: if the evidence was enough to persuade a reasonable admin to block, it's enough to run a checkuser on as well. Blocking an account indefinitely while refusing to run a checkuser on it based on privacy concerns doesn't seem reasonable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by named BozMo
@CHL you say "little is lost by waiting for a confirmation on alleged Scibaby socks" but I disagree. They may not move pages but Scibaby and the other handful of CC socks are pretty good at wasting a load of community time and goodwill with spurious arguments just calculated for the ignorant to take them seriously, protests, votes, disruption etc. and currently the very small number of wrong identifications and the medium number of argumentative socks who end up getting indef blocked later after a well meaning unblock before they are found to belong to a different sock master are not clearly a greater disruption than the socks. More checkusers then, please. --BozMo talk 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cool Hand Luke
Two opinions: I don't think there's a freestanding case here, but perhaps ArbCom could write some findings in the global warming case from hell, which is festering below. Cool Hand Luke 12:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) We probably need more checkusers.
 * 2) Scibaby is not a page move vandal; little is lost by waiting for a confirmation on alleged Scibaby socks.


 * @Count Iblis: "Opening up negotiations" with Scibaby would be a mistake. To use an over-worn cliche, he's not here to write an encyclopedia. He's trolling, and I suspect he enjoys it when he causes collateral damage. The solution is to be more restrained in our response. Cool Hand Luke 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved The Four Deuces
Wavepart, why are you referring to "clean start" both here and at the Sock puppetry talk page? Are you saying that you have made a "clean start"? If so you should have notified Arbcom. TFD (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This presents a problem to administrators. They are able to correctly identify that a new account was created by someone who previously had an account but it is difficult to determine whether the creator is attempting to evade a block or is a clean start. In one article, Individualist anarchism, there were no fewer than four blocked editors who returned as socks and it was difficult to connect the socks to the underlying accounts. Is it too onerous an obligation for a clean start editor to disclose this if challenged? TFD (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jéské Couriano
As the one who rejected WavePart's first unblock request, I examined his contributions beforehand and saw an immediate red flag - the only articles he'd edited before were unambiguously unrelated to global warming in any way, and he started editing on that topic less than half an hour after he'd made ten edits, the bare minimum for autoconfirmation (since he'd already had more than 3 days under his belt). In the interim, he made only one edit, and it was to the last article he'd edited (Algorithmic efficiency) before GW. As such, I (and a couple other reviewing administrators) came to the conclusion that he was indeed a sockpuppet, of the sleeper/autoconfirmation-busting variety, and declined upon that basis.

To be blunt, this whole situation could probably have been avoided if WavePart hadn't (1) jumped from one uncontroversial topic to another, controversial one in the space of under half an hour, (2) focused solely on GW after starting editing on that topic, and (3) waited only for the bare minimum of edits to start editing the semiprotected GW article. Those three signs, to me and most of the rest of us who deal with sockpuppets (not just Scibaby's), almost always indicate a ban-evading sockpuppet intending to circumvent semi-protection. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Breeblebrox) That isn't what I'm exactly suggesting. I'm merely stating that one of the major components of the duck test in areas where the articles most disrupted are semi-protected is whether or not an editor has barely more than ten edits before he starts editing in the disputed topic. The reason for this is because most of the banned sockmasters are more than aware of the means to get a sock autoconfirmed. (If I go any further on this topic, I'd be handing them ammunition, so I'll just leave it at that.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis) Your concern is touching, but WP:DENY exists for reason. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WavePart) Actually, behaviorally both those things you cited are, indeed, typical sleeper sockpuppet behavior (waiting for the bare minimum number of edits and editing in unrelated topics first). Again, I could explain why, but in doing so I'd be rendering the information I give useless as they'd latch onto what I say and learn from it. Serial puppeteers (again, not just Scibaby) are more than willing to learn ways to not arouse suspicion from incautious posts. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by William M. Connolley
Why isn't this a simple case of an error by a relatively inexperienced admin, TW? According to the block log, 2010-06-01T18:08:58 The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) blocked WavePart (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: fails the WP:DUCK test) yet there is no block notice on the users talk page, no sock tag on the user's page and more importantly no subsequent apology by TW for the error.

There is a fairly simple conclusion here - inexperienced admins should not block users on flimsy evidence. Which is not to say that WP isn't someone's sock, or a returning user. Nor does it say anything about the many other (good) Scibaby sock blocks.

Incidentally, I fully support WP's first "terrible" edit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion by Jehochman
If I can make a suggestion, the outcome of this discussion should be that we don't indef block accounts for socking without reasonably strong evidence. On the other hand, Global warming are highly troubled by Scibaby, a persistent and prodigious socker. On balance, we should have a low threshhold for topic banning suspected Scibaby socks from GW articles. If some of these new accounts turn out not to be Scibaby, but are instead users who've come here to edit like Scibaby (also problematic), there is a net benefit in topic banning them if they fit the Scibaby editing pattern.

Am I making sense? Socking is easy to do and takes minimal effort. We should not create a situation where reporting, investigating and blocking prodigious sockers takes substantially more effort than churning out throw away accounts. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, when there are three arbitration requests pending at same time in the same topic area, that's a pretty strong signal that you should start a case. (Don't start this case. It has the wrong scope. Start the one below.) Jehochman Talk 14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis
To prevent future collateral damage, we should start cease-fire negotiations with Scibaby. We could allow Scibaby to post a limited numbers of comments per week on some wiki talk-page if he agrees to stop creating socks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to comments

@ Atren. Yes, ignoring would work. The negatiations I'm talking about is only about Scibaby agreeing to stop creating socks. A ban can be re-imposed the moment he violates any agreement.

@ Beeblebrox, MuZemike & SirFozzy. When we ban someone, we are actually compromizing on the core principle that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. We should only do that if it is really necessary. So, if we can reverse or relax a restriction, then from our POV this should be considered positive move. From our POV, this should not be considered a compromize at all. Of course, the assumption here is that we can do this without harming any articles.

The precedent argument that this is a bad idea because if you just behave very badly, you can get around bans, does not hold here. You will not be allowed to edit if you don't (promise to) behave well. Of course, we then also have to re-examine all the bans imposed on everone else as well. On the long run, Wikipedia would be better off if it has the image that everyone, even those people who have behaved badly in the past, can and are editing Wikipedia. We also need to keep in mind here that while the heated controversies of today may not exist in a few years time, a permanent ban is forever.

Who knows, perhaps we would still be hunting for Scibaby socks 20 years from now while Scibaby would have accepted AGW by that time and stopped creating socks for many years. We would be like those Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle in Indonesia in 1975 who didn't know that WWII ended in 1945 :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Cool Hand Luke. We could call his bluff. He'll be re-blocked the moment he misbehaves again. This has the advantage of making it very clear to outsiders that Wikipedia can really be edited by everyone who can contribute constructively, regardless of any issues regarding past behavior, no matter how serious. Count Iblis (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that in the other ArbCom request below, I made the argument that ArbCom should make new rules for science related articles. I want to see Wikipedia moving more in the direction of SPOV. For the Scibaby related problems that would mean that someone would be in direct violation of the rules and not mereley behave in some vague tendentious way if he were to behave like Scibaby. So, we could say that Scibaby was exploiting a weakness of the system, we blocked him and he created socks to continue exploiting that weakness and we had to repond by checking for sockpuppets. Had we not had this weakness in the system, Scibaby would not have been able to cause so much disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * General comment

Comment by ATren
We shouldn't negotiate with Scibaby, we should ignore him, like any other troll. From what I've seen, most of his edits are not terribly damaging; just quietly revert, and if they escalate, then we escalate, without ever mentioning Scibaby. Perhaps if we stop making such a big deal about him, he will lose interest, like any other troll. This has the added benefit of not accidentally blocking good faith editors. ATren (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by marginally involved Beeblebrox
I say marginally involved because I unblocked WavePart. When he asked to be unblocked, I looked at the reasoning in the block log, saw that there was no SPI, no real explanation, just a simple statement that he failed WP:DUCK. Seeing as his unblock reasoning was at least as plausible as the blocking reason, I felt that WP:AGF demanded he be unblocked. I have made blocks of this nature myself, and I know when you have dealt with a serial sockmaster for a long time you can develop the ability to detect sock accounts that another user less familiar with them might miss. I also know from experience that sometimes you can get too close, too involved and start chasing ghosts and getting paranoid. The toxic editing environment in the area of global warming articles is a natural incubator for that sort of paranoia. What happened with WavePart was more or less inevitably going to happen to somebody. I don't really know what ArbCom could be expected to do here however, other than maybe finding more seasoned admins to help enforce the editing restrictions on GW articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Count Iblis: That is a terrible idea and would set a very problematic precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jeske: I don't think that a user being able to understand that becoming autoconfirmed allows them to edit semi-protected articles is in and of itself evidence of socking. What about a long term ip user who simply decides one day to register an account because they don't like being locked out of so many articles? That he made the ten edits required before trying to edit a protected article only shows that his brain is working. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by TheGoodLocust
I'm rather surprised that this hasn't been mentioned, but Ratel, a pro-AGW editor, was recently found to have been using a sockpuppet (Unit 5) for a very long time. If his sock's name is any indication, that it is his fifth account, and if we can safely assume that socks don't usually come in pairs, then I have to wonder why several of the other more aggressive pro-AGW editors haven't been checkusered as well based on "DUCK."

Since Ratel ironically had a habit of accusing people of being Scibaby socks, perhaps to throw people off his scent, then I'd suggest checkusering the pro-AGW editors who are most active in that arena. Additionally, I have a further concern that some pro-AGW editors are using at-work accounts w/ different IP addresses to supplement their at-home account's activities.

Live by the sock die by the sock. Cheers.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo: Like several others here I was accused of being a sock in an unrelated topic area. The checkuser report said I had the same ISP as the sock lord, but that I was a state away and that he "didn't know what that meant." You say "only" 20, or whatever, people were falsely identified as socks, but from capital punishment studies, which presumably have higher standards of evidence, we know a huge number of innocent people have been put to death. So three questions need to be asked - how many people have been falsely banned, added to the list, and not corrected? And, in falsely banning those people, creating a larger and larger pool of ISPs/IP ranges identified with a specific sock, does it not make it easier to "confirm" future socks and thus falsely ban more people? Finally, who benefits from having these convenient bogeymen (I wonder)?

Comments by MuZemike
What's the definition of "no evidence whatsoever"? That sounds very, very subjective, and many accused users (or non-accused from time to time) use that term to merely dismiss certain proofs of allegations. This is coming from an administrator who does his share of blocking as well as his share of AGFing on SPI.

I cannot see what there is that some of the users want ArbCom to do other than hold nooses over admins' heads more prominently than what the angry community already does (and they do a fine job on that IMO). How do you define "tighter standards" to block sock puppets, keeping in mind that CheckUser is not the be-all and end-all in determining sock puppetry? Perhaps some discussion is needed (i.e. via talk page, RFC, etc.), but I cannot forsee how that would work out. Should we make sure that we have admins that know how to detect signs of sock puppetry and block or warn if necessary if it does occur? Perhaps we should; we have requests for adminship in which to vet out admin candidates for that.

As a closing note, I do not think I can support any negotiation for Scibaby to return even on a limited basis. That's the equivalent of admitting that Scibaby has Wikipedia and/or the angry community by the balls, dictating what he can and cannot do. That would also show that if you sock hard enough, you can win; that is a terrible, terrible message to send to the good faith contributors here, not to mention, as SirFozzie said, make the blocking and banning policies virtually meaningless. –MuZemike 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I still believe that WavePart is a sockpuppet of somebody. I raised the possibility that it may be Scibaby, but I never said that it definitely was. I used the same standard for detecting the signs of socking that most admins involved in SPI would find pretty convincing: the 11th article-space edit was to a controversial topic (and semiprotected page), the first 10 were to something not even tangentially related to global warming, the 7th edit was to create a userpage with no meaningful content, so he wouldn't show up as a redlink, and his 12th total edit demonstrated knowledge of wikilinking and the finer points of NPOV. In his first 50 edits, he shows knowledge of diffs and 3RR], implied knowledge of AGF and in that same edit, telling Torontokid2006 that he would overlook the insults because TK2006 was new. In fact, if one examines Torontokid2006's contribs, he has been active for a few days longer than WavePart and displays the typical newbie behaviour just like 99% of editors do. I believe that my block was reasonable and based on sound behavioural evidence.

That said, I did apologise to WavePart for not leaving a block template. I am fairly new to adminship, and sometimes I forget things. I also told him that if he continues to be a productive editor, I won't trouble him. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved FT2
Wikipedia's nature as a collaboration between volunteer hobbyist writers using crowdsourcing, means editors do not have police grade evidence if a concern arises over bad faith or deceptive editing.

It also creates a degree of pragmatism, like the "duck" test. The community (including its administrators and checkusers) cannot access ISP records nor see through a net connection, so reasonable belief is often the standard. Not many people are interested in disrupting or editing the same topics in the same same way as a previous banned user, so behavior is often a good identifier.

The community's core editing process is a mix of be bold and consensus, means one person opines and may act on their view, and that view may in turn be challenged or cause discussion. It may not be ideal but it is basic to making Wikipedia work. The same applies to almost all other editorial areas. In this case a user was blocked and then upon review unblocked. The user was blocked for 1.5 days while the process took place. I'm not seeing anything to suggest abuse; although obviously for a legitimate user this would be discouraging and distressing it's within norms, not an arbitrable concern, and lesser approaches do not appear to have been tried nor failed.

Hipocrite is a user who supports stronger safeguards against abusive users and is willing to accept this may sometimes deter a small number of legitimate users. Since Wikipedia crowdsources its content and some abusers try "sock supporting sock" to bias the "crowd", many users take a harsh ("draconian") line on users who appear to be editing contentiously or possibly to an agenda, on one or few matters, especially if the area has previously been heavily socked. In this case Hipocrite reported his concerns, a second user reviewing concurred. The concern was not entirely unreasonable to raise in the context of a known prolific sock user though very direct in tone and lacking more direct behavioral evidence. The community further reviewed and expressed enough doubt to unconcur. None of this evidences abuse so far. Hopefully the concerns will include evidence of disturbing editing, not just of prior wiki knowhow and topic focus, another time.

This should not be read as confirming nor denying any claim of sock-puppetry nor whether any user should or should not be behaviorally blocked as a sock-puppet. It's more an observation that "normal idiosyncratic quirky Wikipedia community process has taken place in an unexceptional manner". If new socking is easier than the hoops needed to remove likely socks that's a bigger problem (Jehochman's comment). The more persistently socked an area has been, the more likely new accounts may be scrutinized and might be considered more sophisticated socks. In some cases it's common for many new accounts to be socks when reviewed with Checkuser (though all deny it).

These are non-ideal facts we have to work with, in the face of abusers who try clever ways to take advantage of Wikipedia's editorial process. Norms have developed accordingly. Should the norms change..? RFC is thataway but I'm not convinced it will get immense traction.

FT2 (Talk 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Crotalus horridus
Can someone please clarify exactly when Scibaby was banned, and on whose authority? I checked the List of Banned Users, and Scibaby doesn't seem to be on there. Looking through past cases, I could find no indication thta he had been banned by ArbCom, and I am also not aware of any discussion on AN/I or the old Community Sanctions noticeboard that would indicate he was banned by the Wikipedia community. The block log shows that he was indefinitely blocked by User:William M. Connolley on 9/25/2007, but, of course, a block is not the same thing as a ban. The single word "sock" was the only explanation given. On the talk page, he was accused of being a sock puppet of someone called User:Obedium, who I have never heard of. Further complicating matters, Obedium's user page says he is a sockpuppet of Scibaby! Why was William M. Connolley, an involved user on the other side of the AGW debate, involved in this block? Weren't many of the early checkusers conducted by User:Raul654, another involved user? I think we should seriously reconsider whether Scibaby should even be blocked at all. If he were permitted to edit under his own account, maybe the sockpuppeting (to the extent it really exists and isn't just an excuse to ban every anti-AGW account) would end. *** Crotalus *** 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The single word "sock" was the only explanation given - no. Look at his talk page User talk:Scibaby, where I explain why he was blocked. You'll notice my offer to discuss the block. Note also that CU was requested at the time, but declined by Lar per DUCK: Requests for checkuser/Case/Scibaby. I blocked Scibaby about 10 hours after the DUCK call William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So is Obedium a sockpuppet of Scibaby, or is Scibaby a sockpuppet of Obedium? It can't be both. In such cases, the appropriate solution is to restrict the user to one account, but in this instance it appears it was used as an excuse to block both. *** Crotalus *** 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to dredge through the history. As I recall it, Obedium was the first-noticed account, and Scibaby was regarded as the sock. That, as I said, is why I blocked him - as the CU commented, he failed WP:DUCK (which explains your Why was William M. Connolley, an involved user on the other side of the AGW debate, involved in this block). You'll notice I *didn't* block Obedium; he was blocked at about the same time 2007-09-25T02:49:21 Madman (talk | contribs) blocked Obedium (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation) but that was for a 3RR violation, which became a violation because he was identified with Scibaby. In November, Raul subsequently blocked Obedium for a week for vandalism , and then indef as a sock. The final block as a sock looks perhaps a bit opaque - see - and I can't comment on that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to place the blame for this situation solely on you &mdash; sorry if it came out sounding like that. It appears that Scibaby is not actually banned from Wikipedia. Blocked, yes, but not banned. Therefore any administrator can unblock him, and hopefully put an end to the sockpuppetry. *** Crotalus *** 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the first account was User:Slaphappie. I've assembled a brief chronology here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice you don't mention that Raul was edit warring with Obedium before blocking him and how Obedium seemed to indicate that several people used the same computer. It seems like it would've been better to tell them they should not edit in the same areas. Also, it seems like none of them were actually checkusered? For "sockpuppets" they seem amazingly honest without having been confronted with actual evidence that they used the same computer - they just admited it and said they wouldn't do it anymore. Also, I notice the "slaphappie" account only edited Hansen once.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Heyitspeter
--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For Rlevse's (1) and (2)

Comment by uninvolved Hans Adler
Blocks per the duck test can be a very useful tool to deal with ongoing disruption, and they are probably a necessary tool. I guess that initially this tool was used only in very specific circumstances: When it was obvious to everybody that A was a sockpuppet of B, continuing widespread disruption that B had started in precisely the same way. Or when A5 was simply the obvious next one in the row after A1 to A4, all of which had positive checkuser results. But it is tempting to expand the applicability of such a potent tool up to the point of diminishing returns – and in fact further than that. I think two years ago application of the duck test was already routine, but I don't remember anyone invoking it in the form "you are a sock of someone, per the duck test, although I have no idea of whom". Recently I seem to have seen this more and more often. That's not a good sign at all.

We may have to formalise the conditions for duck test blocks. WP:DUCK is obviously useless for this purpose. I believe there is nothing in WP:Blocking policy that authorises them. Therefore they are basically invocations of WP:IAR, and any type of invocation of that principle that becomes routine is unhealthy. Hans Adler 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite
Lar states he is an "uninvolved" admin for the purposes of WP:GSCC. Other users say he is involved, and yet other users say he is not involved. Lar is repeatedly removing statements made by Stephan Schulz‎ from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. Stephan Schulz‎ has removed statements by Lar from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. There is no reasonable way to resolve this dispute without a direct ruling by ArbCom that one or both of them are uninvolved/involved/whatever. Please limit the scope of this case to the issue of admin involvement - dealing with the Global Warming problem is a different, but related case. Trying to mush them together would merely slow down both. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While it might seem expiditious to deal with this by motion, I suggest that ArbCom, if it intends to do so, should at the very least allow for a limited presentation of evidence from people who care (namely, not me.) Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For GWH - arbcom has already stated as such - from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley: "...administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention..."

It should be noted that even as this request is live Lar continues to make determinations that other admins are involved. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And those determinations are being challenged by those other admins. I would ask that a clerk add Polargeo to this case. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar has now threatened to block another admin if that admin undoes Lar moving his edits out of the uninvolved admin section. Arbcom - this escalation (admins blocking eachother) is your narrow remit. Please step up. Individual message to each of you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo has promised to stop reverting his views back into the section. Will deescalation be rewarded, or will this be like poorly-implemented page protection, where the last reverter before protection "wins?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
I think a case is overkill, a clarification of this matter by attaching to the right existing case would be more efficient, I suspect. But I leave that to others to deterime

Simply put, while there are those that would find it convenient to remove me from the enforcement action, and who have labored hard to make it so, I'm not involved in climate change matters as I do not edit in the area. There is an RfC running about this, Requests_for_comment/Lar. I think my response is instructive. I think that all the other uninvolved admins have said they consider me uninvolved is also significant.

On the other hand, Stephan Schulz by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be uninvolved. His placing material in the uninvolved admin section is apparently provocative baiting.

I ask for a quick finding so we can get back to the real matters at hand. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie: Apparently your view that I am not involved isn't enough for some folks, who want another bite at the apple, and in taking their bite, are emitting all sorts of distortions and unfounded allegations. They should know better, but it's part and parcel of the tactics used by some in this area. Folks shouldn't fall for it. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not one to give up, I usually try hard to make things work, but you know what? Maybe JohnWBarber is right. Maybe it's time to pull the plug and knock some heads. It'll be a horrific case but maybe finally something will be done. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie II: (in regards to his narrowboat vs supertanker query) - My desire initially was for a narrow finding, to wit: "Lar is not involved, Stephan Schultz is" (As has been found before in previous requests here, talk page comments, and the like) and that would be that. But I despair of getting that, or, if I did, whether it would be enough or whether WMC, SBHB, Polargeo, et. al. would want yet another bite at the apple. JohnWBarber, Jehochman, et al. may be right and a big case is needed. I had hoped that the RfC pending on the progress of the probation so far, and the feedback and good ideas and new admins that participated as a result, might do to get things back on track. Perhaps not. If a big case is needed, so be it. It will be bloody. But perhaps it will at last level the playing field. At least for a while. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
The climate change probation explicitly spells out that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. I have not commented in the "uninvolved admin" section in any case in which I am engaged in any conflict with the user under discussion. In fact, I have contributed there rarely and usually only to correct misunderstandings. I don't think any of my contributions in that section can be considered particularly biased, either.

I have today moved an inappropriate comment by Lar on another clearly uninvolved editor only after Lar refused to amend or retract it and detached my comment on that from its context. The relevant discussion on Lar's talk page is here. I have not, to my knowledge, ever moved any other comment by Lar.

In my opinion Lar is clearly involved in the one way that is relevant: He came to the area with a strong prejudice, he has acted almost entirely one-sided, and he has rejected input and opinions from other editors on the flimsiest grounds. While any administrator who is willing to engage in that area deserves respect, Lar is not helping. He is escalating when he should de-escalate, he is sniping when he should consider his position, and he has the unfortunate habit of trying to declare "facts" by fiat without even a modicum of tolerance for other opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put down a somewhat longer statement on my problem with Lar as an uninvolved administrator at Requests_for_comment/Lar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Rlevse: Dead animals don't quite translate into cyberspace, but harassment does. See ,,, . I can add any number more, including at least one series with personal information on a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Sadly, several of these off-wiki smears are contributed to by users who play the same game, if more demure, on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU
As this is a fairly narrowly defined request I feel it might best be dealt with by Motion, and suggest acceptance on that basis. I would also suggest that a definition of "uninvolved admin" might follow that as suggested here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to SirFozzie - I am with regard to the narrow question; when the big one happens nobody is going to need ask... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Coren; there is a RfC being set up by 2/0 to gather the views of participants and others in respect the perception of the effectiveness of the Probation and what are the options going forward. It may be that returning it to ArbCom, a very likely option, will be the preferred course of action. It might be awaiting the outcome of the RfC, unless there is a meltdown in the meantime, would be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by likely involved ATren
Here is a recent capture of Stephan's top 30 pages, by edit count:

Top 30 pages:
 * Talk:Global warming - 1532
 * Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science - 655
 * User talk:Stephan Schulz - 630
 * Global warming - 512
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 303
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - 253
 * Talk:Global warming controversy - 243
 * Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - 224
 * Talk:Waterboarding - 212
 * Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - 194
 * Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement - 150
 * Talk:Jesus - 144
 * Global warming controversy - 141
 * Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change - 124
 * Talk:William Connolley - 108
 * Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy - 100
 * Global cooling - 98
 * Scientific opinion on climate change - 91
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - 90
 * Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle - 85
 * Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - 83
 * The Great Global Warming Swindle - 81
 * Effects of global warming - 78
 * Talk:Medieval Warm Period - 74
 * Kyoto Protocol - 71
 * Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics - 67
 * Talk:Global warming/FAQ - 67
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby - 65
 * Talk:Holocaust denial - 65
 * List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 63

I've highlighted the CC-related pages: 17 of 30 total pages for a total of over 3000 edits, more than 20% of Stephan's total of 14,000 edits.

Lar has never significantly edited a CC page before this probation, and I don't believe he's edited any during the probation either.

I have followed this debate for some time, and I can vouch for the fact that Stephan is an active participant on these pages -- in other words, it's not 3000 vandalism reverts. Certainly, given the amount of vandalism on these pages, some of those edits will be janitorial in nature, but on the whole, editorial debate has been a significant portion of Stephan's CC edits. If this case gets accepted, I will present a more thorough analysis to justify this statement.

Stephan is involved. Lar is not. ATren (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
In the past, "involved" has generally meant "editorially involved in a topic area" - else the instant any person who had not editted significantly in the area would be accused of being "involved" as soon as he or she acted as an admin in the area the second time. Catch-22, if you will. This case, therefore, is ill-suited for an ArbCom discussion as such, though at some point in a case where the actual disctnction becomes important, it may decide to adopt a formal position as to what point makes a person who is not actively editing an area (making the normal exclusions for formatting edits, spelling etc.) become "involved" when this has not been the status quo ante on Wikipedia as far as I have been able to determine reading past ArbCom findings of fact. Collect (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert
Point of information - the sequence of edits did not result in either editor removing the other's edits - they were both "move to section I believe they belong in" moves. Several intermediate edits had a section removed but in both cases they put it back in, somewhere else.

I think that this doesn't come close to justifying a real case. It might be useful to see if a wider community consensus could be developed around Sandstein's proposal wrt admin neutrality and appearance of bias, at Requests for comment/Lar in the conduct RFC on Lar from earlier this year. Appearance of bias, even while one is completely technically compliant with the existing admin bias restrictions as written, can be as corrosive as any other real or perceived admin abuses. I don't think it's in Arbcom's remit to impose that as policy, but a good word towards discussing it might be helpful to prod things along. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68
Stephan Schulz clearly knows that he is involved and shouldn't be posting in the "uninvolved admin" section of the enforcement requests. He only does so, as far as I can see, when William M. Connolley appears to be facing an imminent sanction for yet another violation of Wikipedia's policies. Thus, I submit that Stephan's interference in the admin decision-making process at that board is in bad faith and disruptive. In sum, I think this constitutes a misuse of admin privileges by Stephan Schulz. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that several people here have gone on record as stating that there are bias problems with most of the admins currently helping enforce the AGW probation forum. I think there is some evidence of this.  For example, here it appears that 2/0 is hinting to Hipocrite that he should file an RfC on yours truly.  I disagree, however, that the probation isn't working.  Just today, in fact, WMC was banned from the Fred Singer article due to disruption and BLP violations.  Actions like that will slowly but surely correct the problematic behavior involved in the AGW articles.  For the probation to continue to work, however, heavily involved editors like Stephan Schulz need to be stopped from purposely disrupting the proceedings as he has attempted to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: 2/0 has stated that he was not trying to encourage Hipocrite to start an RfC in the diff I mentioned above.  I believe what 2/0 is saying and withdraw my allegation of bias as regards to that example. Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mathsci
In the current RfCU on Lar, Short Brigade Harvester Boris has made a statement that many editors have agreed with concerning Lar's views on groups of editors. I think that Lar is very well meaning. However, because the same names and games recur on the CC probation enforcement page, like other administrators who have tried to police problematic pages (eg Chiropractic or Homeopathy), friction between users creates a "relationship" and various unspoken assumptions. Possibly after a while the administrator develops a mental picture of particular users or groups of users which is not particularly helpful. I don't recall that Stephan Schulz has been sanctioned so far in any way at all. Atren and Cla68 spend a lot of time themselves on the CC probation enforcement pages, so again may possibly have developed their own idées fixes. The best that could happen here is for ArbCom not to accept the case, not even to pass a motion, but gently to remind administrators to take note of complaints and, even if they don't quite agree with them, quietly to move on to something else, with no loss of face. I also agree with the view expressed by many other editors that it would be a good thing to find a way of rotating uninvolved administrators overseeing CC probation enforcement. Mathsci (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @ SirFozzie: here's what arbitrators wrote when Cla68 filed a similar request 2 months ago. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Carcharoth: That was the diff immediately prior to the case being discarded by Ryan Postlethwaite as ArbCom clerk . I'm not sure I can do much better than that :) Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Popping over here to briefly explain things... The original diff you provided was the one of Rlevse accepting what became the Russavia-Biophys case. The diffs that work best for me (and all users regardless of their settings) are the following: and the second one you provided. If you look in your preferences, there is an option under "misc" that says "Do not show page content below diffs". I have that option ticked. I presume you don't, and hence when you load a diff you have a table of contents you can click on to generate links like this, which combine a diff (the "&diff" bit) and an anchored link to a section on the page (the "#..." bit). For those who don't have page content shown below diffs, those sort of links won't work. Does that make sense now? Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by TheGoodLocust
Stephan Schulz (and indeed others on his side like WMC) often break/bend rules with the full knowledge of their actions. The intent is obviously to evoke in others, through constant provocation, diffs which can be used as "evidence" of bias and therefore banning. I wish to highlight another example of Schulz's insistence that the rules don't apply to him by noting this enforcement discussion (Note: Schulz was involved in the edit war discussed; Bozmo overstated my reversions while understating WMC's).

Despite being directly involved in the edit war, Stephan Schulz claimed he could comment in the "uninvolved administrator" section through WP:IAR.

On a side note, if this case is accepted then I believe it should include a review of the actions/involvement of several administrators such as Bozmo and 2over0. For example, 2over0 has been a staunch defender of WMC, unblocking him without consulting the blocking admin, while diff mining/misrepresenting and avoiding the climate change enforcement page in order to unilaterally topic ban, for draconian lengths, climate change skeptics like myself and several others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Your comment does not apply, at all, to my comment. Stephan has shown that he is willing to flagrantly violate the definition of "uninvolved." Additionally, the terms of the climate change probation have consistently been altered/ignored/extended in order to topic ban people like myself, but in contrast, regarding those you've defended for years, only a strictly literal interpretation is allowed - and even when that is violated we can be guaranteed enough shouting to drown out any presented facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo: Agreed - especially Horologium's comment. In fact, to extend his own comment somewhat, I can think of several long term contributors who've been driven off of not only the climate change articles, but wikipedia itself (e.g. rootology and unitanode off the top of my head). TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo2:Astute observers will notice that Lar's support was not "focused" on a single statement and over a few days, but spread out over a long period of time and over several comments - with a far greater sample of truly outside observers. In fact, counting everyone who supported him brings his number closer to 30. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Okip: He sounds like someone who is tired of letting people slander BLP's of skeptics as believers in "martians" and who argue that the New York Times is unreliable when it doesn't fit in with a certain agenda (proudly violating core wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFY) - all while quoting their own blogs as "sources." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@CountIblis: Incorrect. AFAIK climate change skeptics have almost all been either banned or driven away - the subjects of the current quest for ideological purity actually believe in AGW, but don't think that has anything to do with the constant BLP violations, wikilawyering, baiting and rampantly unapologetic incivility.

Comment by ZuluPapa5
This is a petty issue which can be handled by the CC Sanctions Project. The real issue is that has repeatedly caused disruption (20+ cases) such that Admins are siting involved as a straw-man distraction. ArbCom's time would be better invested in reviewing William M. Connolley's disruptions to determine if his involvement in so many cases is the root cause. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forming a group of appointed or elected admins at the sanctions would moot this issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Comment by Vsmith
Stephan Schulz above has quoted the "definition" of "uninvolved" from the probation page. That is the definition he is operating under in his edits to the Results section of probation cases. He has pointed that out in his comments on that page in the past. All others commenting here and in dispute with him seem to be using a more general definition of "uninvolved" - whether they haven't read the probation page or just disagree with it, I don't know. All here need to re-read the probation page. If that definition needs to be changed, then work on that - meanwhile it is the definition in effect for admins on that probation. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seeems almost everyone is continuing to ignore the definition given on the probation page. Lar has basically stated that policy is made up on the fly and what is written down is irrelevant. That is a recipe for confusion and conflict and a disturbing comment directly relevant to the narrow scope of this arbitration request. Lar and Stephan Schulz are involved in a conflict based primarily on this point. I urge the committee to address this limited conflict and avoid (for now at least) the drama of a broader case. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnWBarber
Pull the damn plug already on WP:GSCC. It isn't working, and it's obvious it isn't working. Replace it with five or so appointed admins and rotate one out each month. That would ease the pressure on admins who, frankly, sometimes seem to be getting a little punch-drunk with the strain. If the admins are appointed by you, they'll have a mandate and confidence that self-selection doesn't give them, and you're more likely to select careful, discreet people than self-selection will. Appointed admins know they can be removed by ArbCom if they go to far out of line (and they can be reminded by email), but they'll also know that there will be a time for them to gracefully exit. The main problem with this request is that it's narrowly focused when the disaster that is WP:GSCC is very broad. I agree with ZuluPapa5 that you should include William Connolley in this and look into topic banning him because the constant complaints that his behavior generates are an enormous time sink. Look at Polargeo's recent disruption (an involved editor posting in the "uninvolved admins" section of a complaint) and the thinly veiled personal attacks in his comments. The admins at GSCC are bickering among themselves and find it difficult to come to consensus on various cases. It's an unholy mess. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68's opinion on whether or not GSCC is working is much too rosey. It's true that Wordsmith banned William Connolley from editing one BLP. This was the result of -- what? -- the 20th or 21st or sixteen dozenth complaint about Connolley at GSCC. And there was disagreement from other admins over whether or not Wordsmith's action had consensus.  If GSCC were working, then Cla68 should not have been able to gather all these diffs about the conduct of WMC, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Guettarda and Stephan Shulz here  or about Polargeo here  No editor should have to put up with this kind of abuse. But if Lar exits GSCC, he leaves it in the hands of open to more influence from admins like the one who put this on my talk page.  If you think 2/0 was possibly being reasonable in his what looks like an effort to intimidate me, please follow the diffs he and I provided in that discussion. Frankly, under the present set-up I don't believe any admin is likely to be able to do this job without making significant blunders. When many drivers get into accidents at a particular spot, traffic engineers are called in to see whether or not a redesign of the spot and the traffic rules for it may be necessary. We are at that point. ArbCom appointment would help: each month a new admin, to serve for five months on a five-member board. Cracking down on some repeat offenders would also help, pour encourager les autres. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC) small revision for clarity -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) -- softening the language a little on 2/0. It's possible that his comments were good-faith, although I still don't think they were reasonable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Iblis: There are a gazillion disputes having nothing to do with the scientific point of view. I'm not a skeptic. Lar says he isn't one. Not everything boils down to outside-Wiki POV. Having a house POV would not have made WMC's edits to Fred Singer any more acceptable, or any incivility any more acceptable. Or any gaming the system any more acceptable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79
Simply put, if Lar is involved, then so are the majority of administrators who have worked in the area. Nearly all hold and have expressed views about what is responsible for the poor editing environment in this area. Some, including 2/0 and Bozmo, clearly come from within the movement of anti-fringe editors. Lar comes from the view that some "vested contributors" are also creating a problem. No claim has even been made that Lar is more involved than those editors; he is far less involved than several by any measure.

Stephan Schulz is in a completely different category, not just because of his extensive ongoing involvement in the area, but because he has also commented as uninvolved in disputes where he is involved in the dispute itself. He then argues that if he is involved, then so is Lar. In my view this is part of the same gamesmanship that has been continually attacking admins who are seen to have disfavorable views in order to suggest that they are biased and therefore "involved." I would like to clarify that there was similar criticism of other admins in the area; however editors including myself attempted to play a moderating role, which unfortunately has not been reciprocated. If ArbCom did look at that issue, my best realist take is that ArbCom would find significant cause to admonish editors including Stephan Schulz and William M. Connolley for this type of gamesmanship, which would be a slap on the wrist, but may help. Mackan79 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On possible routes for an omnibus case: It strikes me that ArbCom mainly has the options of directly applying sanctions, or of empowering admins to do so. The main benefit of the first route (direct evaluation) seems to be that ArbCom could give a real look at some evidence, and make a clear statement about what types of behavior will or won't be tolerated.  The weakness is that its real impact would either be draconian or mostly implied, given the impossibility of dealing with all current and future editors at once.  The obvious weakness of the second route (discretionary sanctions) is that it has already been tried; nevertheless, maybe by tightening the terms, and maybe even with with some findings, ArbCom could create a better ongoing system for enforcement (maybe with broader admin input as well if it were brought over to AE).  Either could help, in theory. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BozMo
I think rather than repeat things here, people should be referred to Requests_for_comment/Lar where many more people have thoughtfully contributed (there is a lot of duplication but as at today 21 people have endorsed Lar's defence and 23 have endorsed this summary of the issue. Good luck. --BozMo talk 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
I see no merit to this case. Lar has not edited within the climate change topic area, and thus cannot be claimed to be not-uninvolved. I was briefly active in this topic area's enforcement page earlier in the week, upon being asked to comment on a peripheral issue about general philosophy with respect to enforcement requests—as were many other administrators who frequent the main enforcement board. What struck me there was the ferocity with which debate on any topic, significant or not, is pursued by many parties. Lar especially was spoken to in an abrupt and markedly unfriendly way. That kind of heat cannot be conducive to good editing.

The climate change enforcement board would benefit more than anything else from some fresh eyes. Lar, from what I gather, has been active there for some time; he may like to take a break from enforcement duties there, and have some other administrators cover in his absence. But that clearly is his prerogative, and as an uninvolved sysop with no prejudices on the topic or its contributors, he is under no obligation to do so. Irrespective of the outcome of this case, I'll be messaging a few of the other sysops who are active on the main AE board to enquire as to whether they would like to devote some attention to GS/CC.

A healthy dose of calming-the-hell down is needed here. I don't think another arbitration case would administer that, by any stretch of the imagination; but the careful attention of some uninvolved administrators not previously active there might. AGK  11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @SirFozzie: In what was a moment of obvious insanity, I took the case request at face value. Silly me! I maintain my opinion with respect to both a narrowly-framed case to look at this specific incident and a case of wide scope that would re-examine the wider climate change subject area. I do, however, fear that we are headed for an omnibus case (at best, in six months or so) if things don't improve. If the Committee were to examine the wider subject area, perhaps it would be better to do so sooner, not later. I'm on the fence for now. AGK   23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium
As this is a contentious issue, a determination by motion as to whether Stephan Schulz‎ and Lar are involved and in which respect may be needed. No case is needed for that determination, and I don't think that a broader case on CC is warranted, I'm pretty sure that would not be beneficial and severely increase tensions in this area. I agree with AGK that the CC probation needs more uninvolved admins. That's why I've decided to participate as uninvolved admin, funnily it seems that this specific incident was induced by a comment directed at my own (non-)involvement. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren made good points on the perspective of taking a general case on CC. I'd prefer that the community make a review of the probation before any arbitration. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I'm confused as to why this case is being brought at this time, at the same time that there is an RfC running on one of the parties. Apart from that, which is more of a question than an objection, I agree generally with Hipocrite. I also wish that this case wasn't brought.

My feeling is that there is generally too much adjudicating/beefing/whining in this area. One of the underlying issues is the personal animosity between the users, and the high degree of incivility that seems to be tolerated on both sides. I don't think that formal tribunals are the way to deal with such problems.

I think that there needs to be a greater appreciation of the appearance as well as the actuality of bias. Administrators need to show more self-restraint, not become involved in personal squabbles with editors, and not engage in name-calling or labeling. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, it is certainly possible for an Internet discussion moderator, which is what administrators here basically are, to become involved in a subject through his/her moderation as well as participation in the discussion. I don't think that this principle is sufficiently recognized. There needs to be a broader definition of involvement, and greater intervention by genuinely uninvolved administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pessimism by Jehochman
Global warming conflicts are intense, and involve teams of pro and con forces who'll stop at nothing to get their way. The lobbying, goading, and gaming is a big turn off for uninvolved editors and administrators. It is long past time for ArbCom to investigate these behavioral issues. Jehochman Talk 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Timid comments by arbitrators are disappointing. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The timorous may stay at home."

- Benjamin N. Cardozo

Statement by Literaturegeek (uninvolved)
Jehochman, sums up the problem well. We all have views on climate change but the extremism, aggression, gaming the system, BLP violations, tag teaming, edit warring etc on climate change articles, seems never ending and trust has broken down within the community with allegations of bias and misdeeds by admins. I feel it is time to accept a full case into climate change. I think that a case just looking into climate change probation will not be possible as climate change probation is about misdeeds on climate change articles so arbcom will end up looking article diffs to understand the background and context to CC probation actions. It is also in my mind unfair to single out a couple of admins, who don't even edit the articles, for special attention when there are teams of POV pushers behaving much worse on these articles who require looking into rather than just a couple of admins who are dealing with POV teams; look at all alledged problem editors and admins fairly and squarely. Also a full case is needed to sort out the climate change problems once and for all; rather than chop at the branches, chop at the root causes of the problem. The climate change battle field is perhaps the worst and longest lasting of chronic disuptions on wikipedia. It is time to get it sorted out. I would like to see as Sirfozzie puts it "The Great Climate Change Omnibus case of 2010".-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
The driving forces behind all the trouble on the climate change related pages are the simple content disputes between climate sceptics and the people who support the mainstream scientific POV. The probation system, as it is set up now, leads to this main content dispute to dissipate into a myriad of micro disputes, each on some stupid triviality.

The fundamentals of the dispute are robust. The climate sceptics are not going to change their opinion anytime soon, nor are the other editors. So the situation is analogous to thermodynamics where you have a first law (problem is not going away) and a second law (the main dispute can either stay as it is or it can spread into a larger number of smaller disputes).

This means that the only feasible solution is to tackle the main dispute. ArbCom can simply ignore the details of the present disputes and look at the general issue of editing climate change related articles in a climate where you have many sceptics. My proposal would be for ArbCom to declare that all climate change related articles have to be edited from a SPOV perspective. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The request as framed (is one specific admin uninvolved?) is unsuitable for an arbitration case. But as a look at WP:GS/CC/RE shows, the topic has reached Balkanic levels of contention and battlegrounding, and would benefit from Committee intervention. A case should be opened to examine everyone's conduct. Ideally, this case should result in a topic ban for the most problematic editors (although I don't know who that is), discretionary sanctions, and an expeditious means of reviewing further disagreements about involvedness (perhaps referral to a panel of one or three arbitrators). <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
I first became involved in editing in this area at the beginining of the month. The situation there is very bad, as Sandstein describes, and it's unlikely to be sorted out without ArbCom assistance. My main concern is that it's affecting the BLPs of scientists and others who express minority views.

It would help if, as JohnWBarber suggests above, the committee could appoint a group of experienced, uninvolved admins to enforce the probation. As things stand, CC editors who also happen to be admins are claiming to be uninvolved (Stephan Schulz and Polargeo, for example), and are causing significant disruption on the probation page, to the point where it has become difficult to follow discussions, or work out what the decisions are. For what it's worth I haven't seen any diffs that suggest Lar is involved.

Failing that, I agree that a full ArbCom case may be necessary. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
You can choose to make this a huge case, but I (along with others including LHVU) would like you to decide on the narrow issue: just what definition of "uninvolved" should be used. As Stephan Schultz has pointed out, the probation was set up with a clear definition of uninvolved: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Others, including Lar, have chosen not to abide by that definition. Who is right? Note also that the issue is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
Addressing the crux of who is an involved admin would not be too arduous for the arbitration committee and at least put an end to a few arguments for the time being (including the RFC on Lar which is split with two sets of views and unlikely to reach consensus.) I think once this is settled, the framework is there to allow matters to continue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 2over0
When the GSCC were established, several editors opined that the community should review the sanctions in a few months. I have opened General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC, which may have some bearing on this case. On the matter at hand, my opinions are set out at Requests for comment/Lar, which venue I think is a better way to address this question. No particular opinion on the merits of opening an omnibus case except that I think it should be started as such rather than allowed to morph into one. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I have been completely uninvolved in the climate change editing area, but have participated in the RfC/U on Lar. I suggest that, for now, the Committee decline the narrowly-defined case requested here and, instead, pass by motion a clarification of the definition of "uninvolved" for these purposes, reflecting the definition given by Coren. I also think that, subsequently, an "omnibus" case will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments on case decisions
Not sure if this is the appropriate place to comment on final actions of the Main Case page...please move or delete if this is inappropriate. I wanted to applaud the Committee for their diligence in intervening in what seems to have been a long-running Climate drama. The final decisions are quite a bit stiffer than I first would guessed based on the proposed remedies. Insofar as the battleground mentality should largely be eliminated, I think the range of topic bans is a straightforward and effective remedy. It seems this was a pretty tough case, so know that your efforts are appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done all of you. In the wake of the banter about Cancun on the proposed decision talk page, I find myself wishing the United Nations could draft the lot of you to knock some sense into the politicians at the climate conference.

Then again, after four months I wouldn't blame you if all nine of you (not forgetting Rlevse) spent all the time there lounging on the beaches and making the occasional foray into Wiki-gnome work on articles about extinct therapods.

Do get some rest, renew contact with your families, and go with my sincere thanks for a very decent and carefully thought out effort. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this case has (at long last!) been closed myself. I'd like to add my thanks to the arbitrators for their dedicated efforts to protect Wikipedia and enforce the rules, and congratulate them on reaching what seems to be a pretty reasonable solution to an extremely intractable area of conflict. Here's hoping it works. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Motion 1
Proposed: That Remedy 3.1 of the Climate change case be amended as follows:
 * Scope of topic bans (original text) : 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles.
 * Scope of topic bans (amended text) : 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
 * Support:
 * Roger talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion tweaked per NYB's suggestion. Please revert if you object.  Roger  talk 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am dismayed that this needed to be spelled out. I still cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that engaging in battleground behavior on their talk page about the topic area they have been sanctionned away from because of that very behavior can possibly be a reasonable interpretation of a topic ban regardless of its exact wording!  I note the amended remedy also doesn't mention "deleting pages in the topic area", and "renaming pages in the topic area".  Would any consider those to be acceptable?  (They are hardly "edits").  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This vote is provisional, pending statements from the editors notified of these motions (including those editors who are currently blocked), but this is what I had in mind when I voted on the original remedy (as I've stated elsewhere), so clearly I support this clarification by amendment, while noting that it really shouldn't have been necessary. User talk pages have a specific purpose (to enable communication with the editor whose user talk page it is), and they shouldn't be used as a noticeboard to communicate with an audience of talk page watchers or prompt them to make edits on behalf of a topic-banned editor. User talk pages should most certainly not be used to circumvent a topic ban. In passing, the reason I proposed that WMC request unblock to make a clarification request of this nature (which he refused to do) was so he could hear from the entire committee, not just one or two arbitrators. If WMC or anyone thinks the above is still unclear, I urge them to file a request for clarification before making edits that may be seen as testing the edge of their topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm with the others - is it really necessary to run down a list of every action that could possibly be prohibited here? Drop the topic area or anything that looks vaguely like the topic area, entirely.  If you think something might be related don't do it; if you feel strongly about doing it, come ask first. Shell   babelfish 01:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Carcharoth's comments on this motion. One proposed copyedit: in clause (iii), I would add "particularly" before "affecting". To illustrate, I do not believe an editor topic-banned editor from the climate-change area would be prohibited from commenting in a general discussion of the featured article process, even though global warming is one of the 2000 or so FAs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Added,  Roger  talk 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regrettable that this is necessary. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been away and have missed most of the details of the original case and I am supporting this clarification regardless of remedies adjudicated. The point here is that Wikipedia talk pages –among others, in fact everywhere– are not venues for extending and propagating disputes after a case is closed. That should be discouraged. This applies to all cases of course. -- <font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain:

Motion 2
Proposed: That Remedy 3.2.1 of the Climate change case be amended as follows:
 * Appeal of topic bans (original text) : 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
 * Appeal of topic bans (amended text) : 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * Roger talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that provision was there to begin with. It's certainly a very good example of collaborative editing, but there's nothing magical about the FA process that makes it better than, say, categorizing articles or helping to flesh out stubs in areas of poor coverage.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The new wording is better - it leaves room to consider content work, while not being too specific. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Better explanation. Shell  babelfish 01:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * <font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion 3
Proposed: That provided they unequivocally accept the spirit and the letter of the amended terms above by message on their talk pages, User:Marknutley and User:William M. Connolley will be unblocked upon the passing of Motion 1 above.


 * Support:
 * Roger talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all about the spirit, I believe. The letter goes with. -- <font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I see no reason to overturn, in substance or in principle, the result of a reasonable enforcement request. It's not like it came as a genuine surprise to anyone; and they had been repeatedly warned away from that behavior.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to deal with these blocks here - that would accord them special treatment. A better approach would be to give both editors leave to submit a new appeal at arbitration enforcement upon the conclusion of voting on the motions above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for us to interfere with enforcement. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the right time. KnightLago (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I fully support the decisions of the admins working at AE and think they would go back and remove blocks if it was warranted, but at the same time, don't want to keep an editor blocked if we've resolved the issue. Shell  babelfish 01:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators on motions

 * @Hipocrite: By clarifying boundaries, this helps you keep yourself on the right side of them.  Roger  talk 07:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hipocrite: You have it there when you say "I'll just keep ignoring the topic area". If you are clearly making good faith efforts to do this, you shouldn't fall foul of the restriction.  Roger  talk 07:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All: Please note This is not the right place for raising fresh matters or - if topic-banned - adding wishlists of proposed motions for other topic-banned editors. Please keep discussion strictly restricted to the motions. Roger  talk 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Climate Change case (3)
Initiated by  JohnWBarber (talk) at 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * JohnWBarber (initiator)
 * William M. Connolley
 * Polargeo
 * Thegoodlocust
 * Marknutley
 * ChrisO
 * Minor4th
 * ATren
 * Hipocrite
 * Cla68
 * GregJackP
 * A Quest For Knowledge
 * Verbal
 * ZuluPapa5
 * FellGleaming

All notified (except for ChrisO).

Statement by JohnWBarber
In the discussion of the previous clarification, I made this point:
 * I assume requests to modify the CC case decision are exempt from this, and discussing on Arb election pages actions by Arbitrators in this case is also exempt. I may do both (if I have the time and the stomach for it), but in recent days I haven't even had time to think about it. Those possible future posts would be discussing actions of arbitrators, but that might touch on behavior of other editors. If I make any statements, it will be clear that I'm focusing on arbitrators and their decision and not trying to coatrack some kind of attack on other editors. If that's disallowed, please tell me now. This case should be brought up in the upcoming elections, and that shouldn't be a part of any topic ban as long as editors aren't trying to use discussions to fight among themselves.

No ArbCom member directly addressed my concern. Please address it now. I think it's absurd to have to bring this up, but a lot of things I think are absurd become reasons admins use to issue blocks, and Jehochman just announced on Newyorkbrad's talk page that he'd block editors sanctioned in this case from bringing up the actions of ArbCom members as they relate to this case in discussions about Arb elections. Please confirm that you haven't taken away our right to criticize you. I think we should be able to do so on your talk pages (to the extent that individual arbs agree to that discussion) or on pages reserved for discussions about the elections.

I realize this is not a government and that no one has actual "rights" here on Wikipedia, but gagging editors when what they really want to do is discuss ArbCom actions in an ArbCom election, even if the ArbCom actions under discussion are about how ArbCom members acted in the CC case, seems to take a desire for order in the CC topic area to a ridiculous extreme. We're not editing the articles. We're not discussing CC topics. There is a desire to discuss how ArbCom members judged editors who edited CC-topic articles. By necessity in such a discussion, some CC-topic edits, or at least edits to ArbCom pages that link to CC-topic edits, will come up. There's a point at which a ban on discussing a topic becomes absurd. This is that point. We're not a government, but we're not East Germany either. Or am I going to be blocked for posting this?

Statement by Wikidemon
Wait a minute, does every arbitrator involved in a case who is standing for re-election have to recuse from ruling on whether a gag order issued in the case bars editors from commenting on the case in the upcoming election? That would be interesting. Who is left to decide the motion? Maybe we should form a committee of uninvolved nonadmins to rule on this.

Basic principles of governance -- of any organization, not just political bodies -- dictate that an order issued by an elected / appointed body restricting a person's actions cannot bar the person from appealing the order or from discussing the wisdom of those issuing it, each in the appropriate forum. The only thing that would justify closing the doors of appeal to someone (other than sundry matters like secrecy, libel, or court orders) is that they have exhausted all appeals and/or are abusing the forum. ArbCom members and administrators involved in ArbCom matters sometimes forget this, or perhaps they never learned it. A party to a case cannot reasonably be banned from criticizing or advocating in good faith against administrators who ruled against them in the case. We have to allow that discussion. If it becomes a proxy for re-arguing the merits of climate change science and the behavior of the parties to the case, that goes too far and somebody could declare some limits. Short of that, ArbCom is criticized enough as it is for being out of touch with the process of editing the encyclopedia and the volunteers who do so. Closing the door to those editors would only worsen that perception.

Statement by Jehochman
Those who got themselves topic banned from Climate Change did not demonstrate a good-sized dollop of common sense. Usually editors are topic banned for lack of common sense or lack of self control. If the "usual suspects" decide to get into a battle on the election pages, I will block them if I see it. If you want to comment on the arbitrator only, that's fine, but I don't think your words will carry that much weight. No doubt there will be a chorus singing "sour grapes" if you decide to attack an arbitrator for having dared to sanction you. For your own good, just drop the subject completely, in all venues, at all times, and do not look for exceptions, exemptions or ways to get in your last licks. Go edit productively, and soon enough this sorry incident will be a fading memory. Jehochman Talk 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I agree with Jehochman. While it may be theoretically possible for involved editors - both those sanctioned and named in the decision - to comment on the Arbcom elections, it runs the risk of reeking of sour grapes. I think that such editors has better stay away, and the same goes for editors in other cases who have been spanked by Arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I'm so teed off by the recent, unjustified blocks of Hipocrite and Connelley for voting in an RfA that I'm withdrawing my statement and now arguing in favor of allowing topic banned editors to make whatever statements they want int he Arbcom elections. I'm disturbed by the trigger-happy blocking that I'm seeing, and I believe that it must stop. The pendulum has officially swung too far in the opposite direction. Let's take the gags from the mouths of topic banned editors.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WMC
I agree with Kirill, and reject the comments by JEH and SB who should (IMHO) realise that their comments here really are neither necessary nor useful; JEH, in particular, whilst basically a good guy, needs to stop acting as though someone appointed him sheriff of this case William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*
Topic bans are for topics, election bans are for elections. Impacted editors must be able to express their opinions in elections, without disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest the ARBs consider issuing a Request For Comment on the case (and their performance), prior to the elections. This could help provide productive feedback, or incite further battle game flames. Take your POV, then take your pick. Outside critiques would be appreciated I am sure. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, it might be a good time for Jehochman, to pause and re-evaluate. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ATren
This is getting ridiculous. JEH is handing out block threats like candy on Halloween. The elections have nothing to do with the climate change topic area, but the events surrounding this case are entirely relevant to the elections. I have serious issues with the way 3 specific arbitrators handled this case (I think they know who they are) and I fully intend to ask very hard questions of those arbs if they are running. There is nothing in the letter or spirit of the topic ban that prevents me from doing so. JEH is out of line here.

And frankly, I am getting tired of people like JEH, SA, and TS (note: TS has indicated he has stepped back from CC, so this only refers to prior actions ATren (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)) acting in enforcement roles in all this. All three of these editors were significantly involved in this topic area, to the point where there was significant discussion of their behavior on the PD talk page. And it's these three who have, since the case closed, repeatedly overreacted with spurious enforcement requests, warnings and/or threats. Their responses, in most cases, have escalated minor issues into major blowups. In this example, it was a discussion about the particulars of a case finding on an arbitrator's talk page. The arb himself responded and there was civil disagreement, but no major issue. Then JEH showed up and started threatening blocks for merely participating in the election process, and here we are again with another clarification. More needless drama, caused not by one of the banned editors (WMC in this case, whom I almost NEVER defend), but by the overreaction of JEH. ATren (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
What ATren said. Take heed, this is something that has been extremely rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Clarification: I agree with the general gist of ATren's comment, i.e. that enforcement actions are used to stifle legitimate debate, and that some editors and admins are overly aggressive in acting against trivial and perceived deviations from what they perceive as the officially blessed behavior, creating unnecessary drama and an unproductive editing environment. I have not followed the actions of all individual editors named by him to have a settled opinion on each. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Polargeo
I agree with ATren. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
It doesn't happen often that Stephan Schulz, Polargeo, and SBHB agree with ATren. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Awickert
What ATren, Kirill, and Coren said. Hurrah for rapidly-evolving consensus to be reasonable! Awickert (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse, as I'll be a candidate in the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Wikidemon: If all or most the sitting arbitrators were going to be involved in the election, then those of us who will be candidates would have a duty to respond to the request for clarification anyway, since no one else could do it; this is the wiki equivalent of the "rule of necessity" (see discussion of real-world aspects in the recusal article). But that is not the situation here: we have 7 arbitrators with another year to go in their terms, plus some more who are choosing not to run for reelection this year. Thus, there will be more than enough eligible arbitrators to comment on the request for clarification without my and others chiming in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The very rare DOUBLE Recusal, as I recused in the original case, and I'm standing in the election. SirFozzie(talk) 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, appeals to the Committee remain permitted unless we specifically prohibit them, which we have not done in this case. If people begin filing frivolous appeals in an attempt to continue fighting with the other parties to the case, of course, that may change. As far as elections are concerned, if you wish to comment on the Committee's ruling, or on individual arbitrator's statements as they relate to the case, you're quite free to do so.  You may not, however, use the election as a pretext to engage in advocacy regarding content or policy disputes in the climate change area, or to attack other parties to the climate change case.  The line between these may be a thin one in certain circumstances, and it will ultimately be up to the administrators enforcing the topic ban to determine whether you're misusing the election pages; but, so long as we remain the only targets of your criticism, I think everyone will be reasonable about it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with how Kirill has put things; in particular, we generally only limit the rate of appeals and not the ability to make a timely appeal. And I agree that criticism of arbitrators (or candidates) regarding past record of decisions isexactly what an election discussion is for; and so this is pretty much by definition permissible. But there is a line between legitimate criticism and disruptive advocacy, and a good dollop of common sense suffices to stay well behind that line.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill pretty much hit the nail on the head. Shell  babelfish22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agreeing with Kirill. Risker (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. Please remember that while elections do give some latitude for frank discussions and forceful questioning, they are not a free-for-all and restraint is still required. If the election co-ordinators, or others looking on, raise concerns, pleaselisten to them and moderate your conduct accordingly. And as Kirill says, focus on the candidates, and don't use the elections as a coatrack to relitigate the case or attack those you were in dispute with. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Climate Change
Initiated by  Hipocrite (talk) at 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Sphilbrick

Amendment 1

 * New finding of fact

Sphilbrick has edited

27) Sphilbrick has edited pages related to Climate Change.

Clarification 2

 * Regarding topic bans

Are topic banned users permitted to !vote in RFA's related to people who have once edited climate change articles? If yes, are they permitted, on request, to justify their vote, as long as such justification is not a re-fighting of the same thing?

Statement by Hipocrite
Sphilbrick is currently in the middle of an RFA. If he were an admin at the time the CC case went through the motions, I would have sought to have him mentioned similarly to StephanS. Since he was not an admin at the time, and was not a major participant in the troubles, he was ignored by most. However, as he is nearly an admin now, I think that it is important and relevant that ArbCom note that he edited Climate Change articles. It should also be noted that making this finding of fact will subject Sphilbrick to the "Involved administrators" standing order that individuals identified by name in the decision are not permitted to impose sanctions. Sphilbrick has already consented to avoid using any hypothetical admin tools to administrate CC articles in.

Further, I was recently blocked for a week as I !voted in an RFA, but when asked for a justification was forced to dodge said with the comment that I was topic banned. Was that the appropriate response, or should I have never !voted in any RFA related to any Climate Change related party, or should I have just provided a climate change related justification? (Or should I just have lied about my concerns?)

My goal, as I have stated before, was to leave the topic area behind, and I have done that. I was not involved in any of the flare-ups, but I don't think that I should be forced to have my voice discounted. I can provide other circumstances where I have dodged discussing climate change, if the committee desires. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NYB - I was blocked for a week for my comment. I don't think my comment was incorrect. Please confirm if my comments were correct or incorrect. Coren had previously commented that my understanding of my topic ban was overbroad. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I agree with Hipocrite. His request was occasioned by an absurd block of him and Connelly for participating in that RfA. I would take his request one step further: topic banned users should receive a safe harbor from blocking, and should be permitted to vote and comment on RfAs, without restriction on their comments concerning CC. This trigger-happy blocking must stop; it is preventing a free exchange of ideas in one of the most crucial parts of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, this experience has made me change the view that I previously expressed on Arbcom voting/discussions as well. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by jc37
I just wanted to note (in case anyone reading this wasn't aware) that the RfA part of this request may have somewhat of a time constraint, due to interactions at Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick. And this has been discussed in several places, most notably at WP:BN, and User talk:Hipocrite.

Also, I'm wondering if the comments concerning the arb elections atArbitration/Requests/Clarification, would equally apply here. In particular, what should we consider "common sense", in usage and potential enforcement WP:AE.

While topic bans are not new, this particular case did seem to have some results which were unique to it, or at the very least, making topic bans seem unique when compared to other (typical) types of sanction. So typical generalisations about common sense would seem to be more difficult here. Maybe something general about what is common sense in how one may interact with other editors when under a topic ban. Since: topic bans suggest interaction with content, vs. these questions which involve interactions with other editors.

So clarification on this would be most welcome. - jc37 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Arbitrator votes and comments

 * As Hipocrite correctly points out, in his RfA, Sphilbrick has already acknowledged that he has edited climate change. He also has confirmed (partly in response to a question by me) that if his RfA is successful, he will take no administrator actions in that topic area. I perceive no need to amend the closed case to make a historical finding of a clearly undisputed fact. (If we are asked for an amendment every time an editor on an article subject to discretionary sanctions starts an RfA, we are going to be very, and unnecessarily, busy on this page). ¶ The scope of the topic bans needs, as we have said several times before, to be interpreted in a common-sense manner. The observations made by several of us on various other requests for clarification on this page apply equally here. ¶ (Disclosure: I have cast a support !vote on Sphilbrick's RfA, raising a potential recusal issue. I see no value to recusing from making a general comment here and posting pro forma in another section. If a motion is proposed, I will reevaluate any need to recuse at that time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not going to retroactively add a finding to the case every time someone who has edited in the area requests adminship. The remedy prohibiting enforcement by named administrators was created in the context of the specific administrators who were actually named in the case, and based on the nature and degree of their involvement; it was never intended as a general sanction against any administrator who might have a similar background.  Further, given that Sphilbrick has voluntarily agreed to avoid any potentially controversial administrative actions, I see no reason for the Committee to be involved at all. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Kirill and Brad have said, no need for the amendment. As far as the clarification goes, that should technically be on a different page, but the question might as well be answered here. My view, as I stated elsewhere, is that civil and reasonable RFA comments that help the bureaucrats, that contribute constructively to the discussion, and do not stoke drama, are perfectly acceptable. Please avoid purposefully reigniting disputes over the disputed topic area (the topic area that is the subject of the topic ban in question). In other words, provide the bureaucrats with enough information to weigh the value of your comment, but also pay heed to the topic ban. If you are in any doubt, ask for clarification. It also helps to state whether or not you regularly participate at RFA and undertake a careful review of the candidates, or whether you tend to comment only on RFAs of those that you recognise. If you are only aware of an editor and their RfA because you've previously interacted with them in the disputed topic area, then that is less acceptable than if you've interacted with them elsewhere and are prepared to comment on their editing and actions outside the topic area. If you have no interest in anything outside the disputed topic area, that indicates a loss of perspective and an excessive focus on one topic area. So my advice to topic-banned editors who wish to comment on RFAs of editors who they are mostly aware of due to their editing in the disputed topic area, is to look at their editing and actions elsewhere, to review that, and then make a comment at the RFA accordingly. That allows you to contribute constructively, and avoids drama. Let others comment on the editing and actions of the editor in question in the disputed topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Topic-banned editors are not prevented from discussing the candidate in RFAs. However, they are under restrictions, and consensus – both here here and at WP:BN – seems to be that they should comment with restraint, common sense and some circumspection. As RFAs run seven days, there is plenty of time to comment and it might be sensible to avoid appearing to take the lead/provoke drama in areas that impinge on the topic ban. As there is of course no requirement that each oppose !vote must be made from whole cloth, it is difficult to see how a simple "Oppose: Concerns about [insert concern] per X or Y" or very similar, would result in either the !vote carrying less than full weight or in a breach the topic ban.  Roger  talk08:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues, particularly Newyorkbrad and Kirill. Risker (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2011)
Initiated by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) at 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Other editors at Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change. There are no concerns over conduct of a specific editor or editors; I have notified those participating in the article here.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Confusion has arisen with regard to the intent of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. Discussion (see here) centers on whether the provision regarding blogs and other self-published sources is meant to apply solely to BLPs (and especially to BLPs of individuals taking a contrarian perspective on the issue) or whether it was meant to apply more broadly. In the interest of disclosure my own view is the former; i.e., Arbcom's intent was to prohibit use of blogs in BLPs rather than to discourage the use of blogs more generally. Clarification of the Committee's intent would be helpful in keeping the situation from becoming more heated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur (strongly) in User talk:Scott MacDonald's comment below regarding scope. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Query: I'm new to clarification requests. Will there be a bottom-line closing statement from the committee, or will things just sort of die out after arbitrators give their individual views? Responses so far have differed such that the situation has not been, in a word, "clarified." To expand on this a bit: Several have commented on the use of self-published sources in BLPs. The request here does not center around use of blogs (or other self-published sources) in BLP material.  That's not to be done; it's clear; we get that (or should get it). The need for clarification regards restrictions on the use of blogs and other low-rank sources on topics outside of BLP material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald
I've no interest in Climate Change, but if this is to be limited to BLP (and I take no view on that), then I'm sure arbcom and Short Brigade would agree that it should be "BLP material" rather than simply BLPs. This is an important point, but should not be contentious.--Scott Mac 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ron Cram
I wrote the paragraph which has become the subject of contention. I did so with knowledge of the arbcom ruling Boris cited and in the belief the paragraph I wrote complies with the ruling. In my view, the intent of the ruling is clear - it is to make certain that blogs are not used in situations in which they might not be reliable sources. Blogs would typically be considered reliable when speaking about the blog proprietor and so would most typically only be used in articles about the blog or the blog proprietor. The ruling does not say this is the "only" use. Some blogs are written by notable people. Such is the case here. Roger A. Pielke is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. As the proprietor of the blog, there is no question the comments he has written reliably reflect his opinion. It is Wikipedia's policy that a blog post, even by as famous and well-respected researcher as Pielke, should not be considered a reliable source on the science itself. Fair enough. After all, there are qualified experts on both sides. But there is no way anyone can say Pielke's blog is not a reliable source for Pielke's opinion regarding his criticism of the IPCC. It is an unreasonable position for anyone to take.RonCram (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to give arbiters feedback regarding the helpfulness of their comments. So far, Jclemons comment has been the most helpful and applicable to the situation. The criticism being contested is from Roger A. Pielke, taken from his blog.  It is criticism of an organization, not an individual, so comments about BLP are not applicable to this request for clarification.  Finally, the citing of WP:SELFPUB was helpful because I had not seen it before and clarifying because it directly applies. Actually, WP:BLOGS (just above SELPUB) also applies since Pielke is an established expert in the field. RonCram (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
I'm glad I voted for Jclemens. He's one of the few who knows "teh rulz" these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
In addition to WP:SELFPUB, see WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". -- JN 466  17:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Blogs, self-published materials, and the like are to be used as sources with great caution, especially when better sources are available, and especially in highly contentious topic areas, of which Climate change is the preeminent example for 2010. Blogs are particularly disfavored as sourcesw where their contents are negative comments about individuals. As Scott MacDonald observes, it is inappropriate to post an inadequately sourced negative statement about a living person (or anyone, really) in any article, whether or not the article is the BLP on the person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree that a blog that is undisputedly written by one individual can be a reliable source in defining the stated views of that individual (as of the date of the post in question). A separate question is whether a view expressed only on a blog is sufficient important to warrant inclusion in an article; as to that, as much else, context is all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The short of it is "No, this applies everywhere". This is a straightforward interpretation of both policy and practice regarding careful sourcing; the point is that it's all the more important to get things right in BLPs, not that subpar sources are acceptable elsewhere.  Primary sources of the sort are difficult to use right, and of very limited scope, because they are not reliable sources.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above, except I take a harder line. Blogs, self-published materials and the like are not usable sources, ESPECIALLY in highly contentious topic areas. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ... Except under the limited, narrow conditions of WP:SELFPUB, of course. That shouldn't normally be necessary to say, but the fact is, blogs can be useful in certain cases, such as to illustrate a BLP subject's own views, as expressed on his or her self-authored blog.  Note that each of the five conditions of WP:SELFPUB must be met in order for the usage of a blog to be acceptable.  To amplify Newyorkbrad's comment, I'm uncertain how a blog containing a negative statement about another person could pass point 2, "does not involve claims about third parties". (arb-elect, as of this point ...) Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with what Guettarda said here: "The ruling says "typically articles about the blog or source itself here". That means you could use Pielke's blog in Pielke's bio, or in an article about Pielke's blog. This is neither of those." I also agree with the point made by Arthur Rubin that the IPCC is not a BLP individual. Criticisms of organisations are a valid topic for articles about those organisations, but the criticisms need to be reliably sourced. Really, though, at the end of the day, editors working on these articles should be able to resolve differences like this without needing clarification from ArbCom. Was there not a noticeboard that you could have gone to first - one that deals with self-published sources, such as the WP:RSN? That would, I suppose, only work if those asking for clarification there held their tongue and didn't all pile in to repeat what they had said on the article talk page. Agree on the article talk page on a suitable phrasing for the question, ask the question, and then step back and let others have room to give their opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Boris, it's my understanding that if the arbs conclude that a motion is necessary, then a motion is voted on. Otherwise, if arbs conclude that a motion is unnecessary, the arbs request the clerks archive the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SBHB: I think if you glue together the bits here, the general feeling is (as per Coren) we believe policy should be interpreted as "this applies everywhere" and (as per Carcharoth) whether or not a particular source is reliable is an editorial question, perhaps for WP:RS/N and not a question of an ArbCom motion. Shell  babelfish 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User: Marknutley (January 2011)
Initiated by  Stephan Schulz (talk) at 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
User:Marknutley has been indef blocked by FloNight in early November 2010 in connection with WP:ARBCC topic bans. She instructed him to appeal to ArbCom for unblocking. On appeal, he had been told to wait for the new committee, and has received no feedback to his new request yet. I have no particular opinion on whether an unblock is a good idea or not, but I think it's unfair to let him hang out without any acknowledgement. ArbCom owes him at least an answer.

Statement by Petri Krohn
Mark's anonymous edits can most likely be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy. There are however at least two other users using the same proxy farm. There was a related sock puppet investigation somewhere (now deleted). All the IPs have since been blocked as known and proven proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about whether or not Mark should be unblocked, but as far as I know, there is nothing tying him to the so-called "pink proxies". I seem to remember he was indeffed for one edit as an anon from his own IP while he was blocked, but I may be wrong. -- Sander Säde 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for the indefinite block is not clearly documented, but I believe was the reason. That administrator forgot to extend the block to indefinite, a mistake which was quickly corrected by another admin.  Hey  Mid  (contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight
User:Marknutley was been indef blocked by me after contacting him privately with my concerns about violations of our multiple account policy and he chose to be blocked rather than continue the discussion about the situation at that time. Before he was blocked the matter was also reviewed on the Functionaries mailing list.

Later Mark changed his mind and asked for his situation to be reviewed. It needs to be done by arbcom because it involves his use of various ip that should not be discussed on site.

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Ban appeal cases are not usually quick, especially those involving private data; discussion of this one is still on-going. I would suggest patience is the best option here or Marknutley could always contact ArbCom directly if he would like an update - he's not done so since his initial request. It's only been 10 days at this point and there's quite a few new Arbs who need to review the original information from last year. Shell   babelfish 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Shell notes, this is currently being discussed and should be addressed fairly soon. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Activist)
Initiated by  TS at 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)
 * (notified)
 * (notification)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
The essay Activist was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (see early revision), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:
 *  Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

Here four days ago now admin Nuclearwarfare fully protected the essay for 48 hours because, in his words "This essay and this talk page have completely devolved into utter uselessness. Nothing in these recent talk page discussions look like they have any promise of ultimately helping the encyclopedia." Since then Cla68 has engaged in discussion on the talk page.

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, "since when did essays need references", went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to WP:AE (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --TS 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In case anybody doesn't understand what this request is about, it's a request for arbitrator comment: viz, comment on the scope of the remedies pertaining to the case I cite and their implication for the editing of tangentially related essays. As far as I'm aware that's what this process is intended for: clarification. --TS 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On reading Casliber's comments it occurred to me that a bold redirect to the essay Advocacy may be more useful than trying to resolve the issues with this one. I've done it. Material from one essay may be merged into the other if necessary. --TS 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than getting ourselves bogged down in the pros and cons of the essay (which is apparently here to stay, at least for the time being) perhaps the arbitrators should address the way in which this document is being used to continue the bad faith and bickering that was hosted on the climate change articles until recently, apparently prosecuted by some of the topic-banned editors and their enablers. Surely this is something on which the Committee can suggest a way forward. --TS 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The essay was found to be allowable at AfD, and some who demurred seem to have made edits which are, on their face, a bit less than helpful thereto.  is one thereof. Cla68 has made 6 of the last 250 edits, of which he made none since 25 December. Nor have any of Zulu's edits appeared to be in any way, shape or form disruptive to normal editing of essays. I would suggest a simple statement that disruption of editing of an essay for the clear sake of disruption has occurred, and should be denounced. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just one example -- see, , ad nauseam. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See,  etc.  In the words of Cicero, "How long, O Cataline?" applies.  There are dozens of such edits - and this does not even begin to touch the weirdness found on the article talk page.  Collect (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "bold redirect" as essentially allowing the improper edits to have the effect they were intended to have - that is, deletion of the essay when it was not deleted at AfD. Allowing misbehaviour to circumvent WP policies is the worst possible sort of precedent imaginable. Collect (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I'm not certain of the purpose of this clarification request, or if one is needed. The essay was written while the CC case was underway, and nobody brought it up, and it was not mentioned in the decision. The sole diff diffs provided by Collect above is not worth making a fuss about. The essay has problems and should have been deleted. I do believe that it was at least in part influenced by the then-ongoing CC arbitration, but I don't see what needs to be clarified. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The cherry-picked diffs provided by Collect are of zero relevancy to this clarification request. If it is OK for topic-banned editors to create/participate in this essay, whether the edits are good or not is not an issue for arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Casliber's concern that the essay may "read like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders." I was concerned about that from the beginning and wrote a section on "activism to advance fringe points of view." It was gutted without discussion and with the edit summary "trying to tidy some of the writing.". Even with that section, the essay was problematic. In one of its most recent permutations it suggested that poor writing may be a hallmark of activists! Tony's redirect is the only solution. I see that edit warring has taken place to revert Tony's redirect, with, naturally, a "don't edit war" edit summary . ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5
I sought clarification when entering the essay. I've seen no evidence but guilt by association in regards to the CC sanctions. Best I can tell, those working to keep CC banned editors out of the essay, are escalating the CC issues. Guess I'll have to start my own essay. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Bold redirect is battle like. The essay had progressed to address concerns. Have faith.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * can we establish an clear issue before jumping to conclusion, I am befuddled why I was called in here, other then the pretext of my topic ban. The only way I have to satisfy concerns, is to apparently stay out of the essay for good? That is, after being forced to wear the badge of shame, called a battleground topic ban, until I can appeal on my building content record.  How can I build content, if my actions continue to be called into question by association? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
The essay was originally drafted by me and several other editors, and presumably (in the case of the other participating editors) and for sure on my part, based on all of our experiences and observations participating in Wikipedia over a number of years. Once posted, I have participated in content discussions on the essay's talk page and, along with other editors, have added some more content. I have not, however, made a single revert to the essay. Some editors agree with what the essay says, and some obviously disagree, but I don't see any problem with that, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia essays are to provoke reflection, discussion, and critical thinking of issues involved in building an encyclopedia.

Of Tony's actions here, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate request. He isn't asking for clarification, instead asking for "arbitrator comments". In other words, it looks like he's trying to pull some comments out of the arbitrators that he can use as weapons later to continue the battlefield behavior that he has exhibited since the close of the CC arbitration case. He has previously tried to make what appears to be an attempt to draw me and others back into a battle with him as the instigator. To be honest, I resent his attempts, whether intentional or not, to do so. I ask that the arbitrators not allow themselves to be drawn into whatever it is he's trying to do here, and let the rest of us get back to building an encyclopedia, of which some of us are actually trying to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Count Iblis...a few (fortunately, very few) editors involved with the essay have tried to turn it into a battleground over the CC topic.  Most of the participating editors (including me, IMHO) have refrained from being drawn into that type of behavior, which is appropriate since the essay is not a part of the CC topic area.  Personally, I am disappointed to see those few editors try to turn the essay into a CC battleground, but they are responsible for their own actions.  Therefore, if the behavior of those few editors needs to be dealt with, then AE might be the appropriate forum, not here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Solution: Make a template like this

with "article" replaced by "essay".

Clearly, there is a problem with the way the essay is being edited. The main points made in the essay are the same that the climate sceptical editors have complained about since 2007, however the essay formulates these abstractly, avoiding mention of climate change or global warming. Of course, editors are allowed to write such essays, but the problem is that there is no real collaborative editing going on. Moreover, many of the main editors were involved in the CC case, in fact quite a few were topic banned. So, i.m.o. one should make the essay subject to general sanctions. Alternatively, Cla68 could move it to his userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2
Allow me to point out that I have seen this issue raised many times on wikipedia - in at least three essays, and in countless talk page and ANI threads on multiple topics, so this in not something that's specific to climate change. I fact, it affects (to my personal knowledge) climate change, alternative medicine, fringe science issues, issues concerning israel and palestine, judaism more broadly put, socialism broadly put, and many issues in American politics.

The problem (put most generally) occurs when a number of editors implicitly or explicitly decide to coordinate their efforts in order to impose a particular viewpoint as truth on wikipedia. they may do this intentionally (as part of a real-world effort to use wikipedia for propaganda) or they may do it unintentionally (out of a personal conviction that what they are arguing for is the truth), but in either case they use the same series of edit-warring and shout-down tactics to achieve their end (basically a kamikaze approach that either gets them what they want or renders the article and talk page unreadable and uneditable). It's a major behavioral problem that wikipedia has not yet managed to master (because every time someone tries to address the issue, one or more of these loose coordinate groups feels threatened and shouts-down the effort).

There's more I could say on the issue (I could talk on this topic extensively) but I'll restrict myself to pointing out that if the raison d'etre for this request is that this is something specific to climate change, then this request is specious and should be dismissed out of hand. this isn't even remotely restricted to climate change. -- Ludwigs 2 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker
Calsiber gave an opinion on the Essay. However it was just that, an opinion. There is no arbcom ruling that overides the community decision to keep the essay. Casliber and all arbitrators are welcome of course to participate in any community discussion on the essay itself in their editorial capacity.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
Casliber, you have missed User:Ravpapa/Tilt, which is far more hands on. I don't see how documenting the alleged practices is a "violation" of anything but WP:BEANS, an essay itself.

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I must say I have a problem with the essay as is, as I am concerned that it reads like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders...which strikes me as antithetical to the production of neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. For that reason, I am saddened that the deletion discussion did not come to a conclusion that a merge with Advocacy. The rationale is that the discussion can be applied to mainstream and fringe activists, rather than concentrating on the former, which I feel is unhelpful. That said, we don't have a policy on merging essays, and we have over a thousand of them apparently - what worries me is a "not seeing the forest for the trees" - Policies_and_guidelines - doesn't have alot to say. If it were up to me, I think the essay as is is a little too close to home to the recent arbitration case, and hence does have battleground elements to it, yet I recognise others don't see it as such. I would hope that in general, there is more of an effort to merge similar essays into more solid essays, which would helpfully give them greater weight, readability and legitimacy, and that if this is not spontaneous, then maybe an RfC into essays and looking at how to streamline them is fruitful. I note there is a new Essays Wikiproject which might be  agood place to log centralised discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At times in the essay, Cla68 may possibly allude to his role in the global warming articles dispute, but I don't consider that he has breeched the sanctions imposed on him. Otherwise, perhaps a future consensus will support a merge, a userfication or rewrite of this essay, however that's outside of ArbCom's prerogative. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This situation is being overblown on all sides. I do not presently see a need for arbitrator intervention here, although I hope I will still be able to make that comment a few days from now. I will add that when an essay proves to be this divisive in Wikipedia space, the obvious solution is often to userfy it; although perhaps this is more in the nature of an MfD !vote as opposed to an arbitrator comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation appears to have quieted down a bit. Can we close out this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this situation appears to have been resolved without arbitrator intervention. My review of the recent edits shows that the worst behavior involved in the essay editing belonged to an editor who has since departed from Wikipedia for at least a year. The named Climate Change parties' edits, though inadvisable, do not appear to have risen to the level that AE would have been unavoidable.  At the same time, had an uninvolved administrator sanctioned either one for their participation in the editing of this essay, I would not have objected.  The clarification I would encourage all parties to take is this: finding proxy topics on which to snipe or snark at former opponents on topics from which one is currently banned is entirely against the spirit of such topic bans. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with the comments of my colleagues. I think this can be closed. Risker (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur also with the above.  Roger  talk 08:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy
A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Arbitration/Requests/Motions. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The topic ban imposed on in the Climate change'' case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so.


 * There are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, so a majority is 7.


 * Support:
 * Proposed, per discussion above. Suggestions for copyedits are welcome, and other arbitrators may wish to offer alternative proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Risker (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I would view any attempt at wikilawyering around the BLP restriction very poorly indeed and grounds for restoring the sanction. Everyone involved is quite intelligent enough to know what "relating to any living person" entails. WMC, if I may offer a bit of advice: concentrate on the science, not the people.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much per Coren and in the expectation that WMC will remain as good as his word.  Roger Davies  talk 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope WMC will use this opportunity to develop content and engage in productive discussions, and not get involved in the firefights. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't see any compelling reason to relax anything here. While I appreciate that assurances have been offered to comply with specific requests, for such, I don't happen to find them compelling.  It seems like this request has been seen by all parties as an opportunity to re-hear or re-fight a past decision.  Compliance with sanctions (after a block) is not cause for removal of sanctions, it's a basic requirement for continuing editing privileges.  Rather than seeing a benefit in the return of a knowledgeable editor to the topic area, I'm seeing an attempt by a group of people to erase an outcome with which they disagreed.  It's a shame that this can't be anything other than a public tug-of-war, but given that it is such a de facto tug of war, I find that lifting the sanctions on this particular user would send a particularly bad message. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon puts it well that sanction compliance is the expected minimum, not some sort of bonus. In the discussions above I see similar problems that led to previous issues cropping up again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:
 * recused. SirFozzie (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Motion
The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused Arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggested copyedit (just for consistency with similar motions): "lifted" --> "terminated, effective immediately." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; with or without the (desirable) copyedit. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have copy edited to "..is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion." Colleagues may revert my copy edit if they feel it is appropriate. Risker (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 09:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Request to amend prior case: WP:ARBCC (Cla68)
Initiated by  Cla68 (talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected : WP:ARBCC
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) ARBCC (Remedy 15)
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Cla68
I'd like to request removal of the topic ban. I was thinking of not ever requesting a return to the topic, but an incident caused me to reconsider.

I am a daily reader of the Japan Times newspaper. One of my WP activities is adding citations to articles, mainly about Japan, related to articles I read in the morning's paper. I think it was this edit using a non-web-available citation, which made me reconsider the topic ban. The citation in question contained some useful information on Japan's response to carbon-reduction efforts, which is related to the global warming issue. Because of the topic ban, I was able to use the citation to add some non-related information to the article, but was unable to add the information related to global warming. I realized that the ban was getting in the way of me being able to improve articles on Japan.

Since the ban was enacted on 14 October 2010, the following is a sample of my contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and admin space:


 * Three featured articles which I co-edited with other editors (primarily Sturmvogel 66 and Dank):
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga (Actually this one passed FA while the ARBCC case was ongoing)
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō (17 January 2011)
 * Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (4 February 2012)


 * Helped significantly expand or improve several other articles, including:
 * Vermouth (one of WP's top 10,000 most viewed articles and scores above 4 in all its page ratings)
 * Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy
 * Camp Lejeune water contamination
 * 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (many edits since this article started immediately after the incident)


 * Co-certifier on the Cirt RfC
 * WP:V RfC. Although I didn't take part in the final decision, I think it was my push which finally got three admins to buckle down and close it.


 * I was blocked once during this time, for a matter related to the Fae RfC. The majority opinion at the block review was that the block was incorrect, and me and blocking admin don't appear to have any acrimony.  On that issue, I have started drafting an essay on logical fallacies, which I will eventually propose for upgrading to a guideline.  The goal is to influence WP editors to stop using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem or straw man arguments, when debating an issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK, the finding was correct. I did engage in those behaviors while editing the climate change (CC)/global warming topic area.  I won't do it again.  I do have actual evidence of my commitment not to do so. After the case was over, I wrote an essay, called WP:ACTIVIST with help from SlimVirgin and a few others.  The essay was not only, or even primarily, based on my experience in the CC topic area.  After completion, the essay was amended quite a bit, to say the least, by other editors, including some of the climate change regulars.  If you check the edit history, although many editors revert-warred with each other over that essay, I was not one of them.  I made not a single revert.  This is what my original draft looked like.  These are the drastic changes made to it by other editors, including Will Beback and Scotty Berg, who has been revealed recently to have been a sock of Mantanmoreland.  I basically let them have at it even though it had taken me a lot of time and effort to get the essay to where it was.  Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to MastCell: I think MastCell's statement constitutes an ad hominem argument, because it is my behavior on wiki that matters, which he omitted.  For example, when WMC requested that his topic ban be lifted four months ago, although I had some reservations about one statement he made, I supported the lifting of his ban, with one restriction.  Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Casliber. Your statement, "the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months" is not exactly true.  One of the individuals in question revert warred on that essay as recently as 17 October, which was after the WR comment.  I did not agree with that revert or the edit summary, but I let it go.  Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (WMC notified).


 * Response to Dave Souza. Me and Dave Souza disagreed on the use of that source.  Dave revert warred its use, but I didn't engage in a revert war with him.  I did what you are supposed to do, I started a discussion on it on the article's talk page, and started the threads on both the RS and FT noticeboards, then followed their advice.  Although the majority of uninvolved responders believed that the source should not be used, the opinions were not unanimous.  Intelligent Design is a difficult topic to edit for various reasons, as this incident illustrates, but I will leave it at that for now. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Count Iblis. Actually, I believe in a higher standard, the "zero revert" way of doing things.  When someone adds text which appears to be reliably sourced, if I or anyone else disagrees with it, we should start a talk page discussion before considering its removal.  If someone reverts something I added, I will start a talk page discussion instead of reverting it back.  BLPs and obvious vandalism would be the only exceptions.  If WP editors would start doing things this way, there would be a lot less acrimony in controversial topics.  I have already started practicing what I preach on this     .  I think giving someone a one revert a day restriction, or some variation of that, sounds like WP's administration is saying that revert warring is ok, within limits.  I think that's the wrong message to send.  Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Raul654. Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult topic to edit, as a good number of the regular editors there apparently have undisguisedly strong feelings on the topic.  Raul, if you have a concern over my approach to an article talk page dicussion, please next time bring it up with me on my user talk page.  I have no problem talking things over with other editors.  Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
On 9 October 2011, posted on Wikipedia Review:

That statement raises some doubt in my mind as to whether Cla68 has, in fact, moved past a battleground mentality on climate-change articles.

Regarding the admissibility of off-site commentary, policy clearly states that "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." MastCell Talk 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza
Arbcom's 2010 finding referred to Cla68's "inappropriate use of sources". Recently, Cla68 ignored talk page discussion showing that a source was fringe and at best questionable, and joined in with suggestions that it be used as a source for other articles. After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles. When I undid this addition, he posted accusations on my talk page, took it up on the article talk page, and also took it to FTN and RSN. Cla68 received little or no support in these discussions, or in the continuation of the original discussion. The links in the Arbcom finding show misrepresentation of a reliable source: this instance is different in being, in my opinion, disruptive pushing of an unreliable fringe source while omitting mainstream context. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK asks if there's something more recent than the example cited by Raul654: in his "Response to Raul654" Cla68 himself pointed to a (less blatant) example. Cla68 says "Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult topic to edit, as a good number of the regular editors there apparently have undisguisedly strong feelings on the topic." The second link points to the start of this discussion, begun by Cla68 with his unsourced allegation that there may be a "scientific/academic campaign" against ID, and his curious understanding that "academics or scientists usually try to keep an objective distance from the subjects they cover, in order to, among other reasons, show that their conclusions or research methodologies weren't unduly influenced by personal feelings or biases" – it's my understanding that scientists and academics are commonly and openly passionate about their topic areas. He then alleges "that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it". In that context of borderline trolling, Raul's response is reasonable and restrained. Cla68 responds to reasonable questioning about sources with "we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here have appeared to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed?" Later, he himself personalises discussion: "Do you belong to any organizations that have established a formal program or agenda to combat ID?" Cla68's approach combines "battlefield conduct" with civil POV pushing, and such conduct would clearly be disruptive in the climate change area which he would also find "an extremely difficult topic to edit" in that manner. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Raul654 commented below on Cla68's January 2011 arguments that when intelligent design advocates say something, we should simply take their word for it, and Cla68's view that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" or taking sides on issues where there is any disagreement. On 27 March 2012 Cla68 wrote that describing ID as a political strategy "means that Wikipedia would be taking a side on the debate about it. Unless, of course, DI's proponents themselves have acknowledged that it is a political strategy, not a philosophy." Shortly afterwards, he said "There are obviously at least two sides to this topic: DIs and their critics. If we take the critics' side, then we are violating NPOV. I take it you have answered my question, DI has not stated that the idea is a political strategy." and later again, "Actually, wouldn't DI's opinions on ID be considered as also coming from "recognized experts" since they are the ones promoting the philosophy?" In fairness, Cla68 did not continue the discussion. . dave souza, talk 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Replace the CC topic ban by a 0RR restriction for CC related edits originally made by Cla68 himself. This means that when corrected or completely reverted by non-vandals, Cla68 cannot revert back, but he can revert any other edits (and that only once, because once he reverts it counts as his edits, so it amounts to 1RR such a case). Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I think this is effective is because Cla68 is then forced to think carefully if his edits will stick before making them. Then given that most active editors in this topic edit from the scientific POV that means having to approach editing the topic from that angle, and this may lead Cla68 to read more about the topic from scientific sources. The scientific aspects of the topic are not controversial (at least not within the scientific community, the controversy is far more political in nature), so that may lead Cla68's view on the topic to change in the direction of most of the current editors there. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not lift Cla68's topic ban for a trial period, say 6 weeks or some fixed number of edits? After that trial period expires, ArbCom can judge better if Cla68's topic ban can be lifted, if some restriction need to be in place, or if it cannot be lifted at all. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
I'm not sure that Count Iblis' proposal makes sense in this context. Straightforward revert warring is one of those things that can actually be handled reasonably well (in most cases) by existing enforcement processes; a focus on mechanical counting of reverts would seem to miss the point here. While the arbitration case's findings certainly touched on Cla68's edit warring, also mentioned – and arguably more harmful – were his misuse of sources, incivility, and overall battleground mentality.

Above (in his response to MastCell) Cla68 presents his tepid support for an easing of WMC's editing restrictions as evidence of his reformed conduct; he doesn't think that the ArbCom should take notice of his egregious personal attacks on WMC just a few days later, where he calls into question WMC's professional ethics and basic competence, accusing WMC (and other scientists and fellow editors) of behaving "deceitfully, dishonestly...insecurely and cowardly" and regretting the absence of a ""Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule" that would eliminate WMC from this project.

That isn't the mark of an editor who has left his battleground attitude behind; it's an editor who is playing games with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. We get one superficially reasonable comment for the benefit of watching Arbitrators on-wiki; we get egregious personal attacks off-wiki. Does Cla68 believe that WMC (and the other editors he attacked) should be allowed to edit, or not? If so, why make the attacks on Wikipedia Review? If not, why endorse the return of WMC in his comment here? Cla68 is surely well aware that Wikipedia Review is fairly widely read by Wikipedia editors, and he made his attacks there well before WMC's appeal was closed. Was he expecting his comments there to influence the outcome here, or was it just another cheap shot intended to poison the editing environment after WMC's ban was partially lifted, or what? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it appears that Cla68 was violating the terms of his climate change topic ban by even commenting on WMC's appeal, a point which has been apparently missed so far in this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Only a month ago, Cla68 was involved in a content dispute at. He added a section to the article that offered a detailed description of the views of a single individual:. (Looking back, it appears that this was carried over from a larger dispute involving Cla68 and others at Talk:Intelligent design and science.) When his addition to irreducible complexity was reverted, Cla68 opened a thread on the article talk page (Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 6), but escalated to two separate noticeboards less than an hour later – before any other editor commented on the talk page – needlessly fracturing the discussion into three separate locations. In those discussions, Cla68's position was universally rejected by the editors who participated. Cla68 nevertheless tried to declare the discussion at WP:RSN closed as lacking consensus and implied that the discussions had been tainted by the presence of non-neutral parties and non-'regular' contributors to WP:RSN and WP:FTN.
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116

Arguing strenuously across multiple discussion pages for the inclusion of a dubious source and for content giving undue weight to a non-expert's opinion strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that should ring alarm bells when the ArbCom considers returning an editor to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
I oppose Cla68's request for a blanket lifting of his ban. I would have been prepared to argue for a partial lifting, but I think that the quote MastCell provides is powerful evidence of the disruptive nature of Cla68, and that that his problematic attitudes continue. It is also evidence of his two-faced-ness: on-wiki, he strives for smoothness, but off-wiki the truth emerges. Cla68 attempts to dismiss this as a mere ad hominem argument and fails in any way to address the obvious problems that it demonstrates; I suggest that means any relaxation is inappropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I notice that Cla68 has recently announced his intent to edit for money. Its possible that this is just trolling (which would itself speak against Cla68) but if it is intended seriously, it further argues against easing the restriction due to the high possibility of COI this could cause William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Harvey
This request here is really a test of ArbCom - not Cla68 who in my opinion is a very good editor with no attachment to the climate change area at all. I find it truly amazing that arbitrators - after lifting the ban of editors as abusive as William M. Connolley (who engaged in battlefield conduct in his own request to have his ban lifted!) - are apparently listening to biased statements by William Connolley and his supporters.

I would like to make some pertinent points:


 * Cla68 was a model editor in the climate change area. This made him unpopular because he was willing to stand up to the POV-pushing majority in defence of neutrality.  Cla68 is NOT a climate skeptic as far as I can tell.  Nonetheless, in all the time I worked with him, alone of other editors, he was one of the few who never lost his cool while I was present.  He was also perfectly even-handed - he would side with the majority against skeptics if skeptics were in violation of the policy.  Frankly, Wikipedia owes him an award of some kind for the hard work he did mediating in the climate change area - not a topic ban.


 * Evidence presented for Cla68's topic ban fails to show justification. It is fairly obvious that ArbCom did not consider the actual evidence and based their topic ban on unproven allegations.  To make up for this, the present Arbitrators should actually review the so-called evidence now.  I provide some highlights but Arbs can find the diffs themselves by following the link in the previous sentence.

Since they were both given the same topic ban, it is instructive to compare the quality of evidence in the case of WMC and Cla68.

Evidence for lack of civility


 * Number of diffs given as evidence: WMC - 15, Cla68 - 4
 * Side by side comparison of civility:

WMC #1: 'you're still a noob in some ways. ... I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you'. Cla #1: 'Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles'. (a general statement, not directed at individuals, a perfectly accurate observation, and stated politely.) IMPORTANT NOTE: this is the ONLY diff of Cla68 about civility that occurred outside the ArbCom case itself, where people typically are allowed to speak more freely for obvious reasons.

WMC #2: (in the second edit WMC redacted another editor's comment with 'redacted PA - WMC' because the other editor wrote him 'Hi Will'. Cla #2:  (after being accused of misrepresenting suggests "one side" is being "disingenuous").

WMC #3: (after being blocked for 48 hours for blatant violation of talk page rules by editing others' talk page comments, WMC edits the administrator's comment with [pap redacted - WMC] and [pap redacted - WMC]. Cla #3:  (Cla68 points out using diffs that an admin claiming to be uninvolved is actually involved. The closest to 'incivility' I find is "Come on!" (Yes, that's right. Cla68 really did use an exclamation mark.)

WMC #4: (after ATren asks why pointing out WMC's incivility is the same as a 'vendetta', WMC directs ATren to his personal blog that makes it clear he is calling ATren a 'fool' and much worse. Cla #4:  (criticises an Arb for not looking at the evidence against WMC close enough. In the process, points out that WMC repeatedly violated the BLPs of RealClimate's critics.)

I will stop at #4 but the morbidly curious should review the remaining WMC diffs to see how ridiculous it was to compare the behaviour of Cla68 with WMC in the first place.

Evidence for inappropriate use of sources

This is possibly the silliest of the three claims. Cla68 attempted to use a peer reviewed paper by William M. Connolley himself in an article. Three diffs are given to present the appearance of a pattern of behaviour, but in fact the remaining two diffs are just talk page comments. The totality of evidence given that Cla68 'inappropriately' used sources is a demonstration that he cited a paper by William Connolley.

Evidence for edit-warring

In order to demonstrate edit-warring you typically need to show that 3RR was violated, or in limited cases, perhaps 1RR. The evidence here though simply involves 7 unrelated reverts. It's possible that Cla68 was edit warring, of course; but this evidence doesn't show it.

So let me be clear and state this as politely as possible - the suggestion that Cla68's behaviour was within even the same orbit as WMC's - based on the evidence presented - is sad. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (signature added belatedly.)

Statement by Binksternet
One of the possible interim solutions to help Cla68 regain the trust of the community is to allow one talk page entry per day per article in the previously banned topic. The talk page entry could be used to suggest changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I managed to find an online source for the Japan Times article Cla is mentioning. Though it is just a screen capture on Flickr it is sufficiently legible to see what he is talking about. All the article says related to climate change is that the solar power plant would significantly reduce Japan's carbon emissions. It doesn't touch on the general dispute over climate change so his concern about the topic ban in this respect is legitimate. Reducing the topic ban to be a more limited ban as Jclemens suggests would appropriately address that concern about having difficulty improving articles such as this. Perhaps the topic ban should be limited to any edits specifically on the dispute over anthropogenic global warming. In other words, mentioning climate change or matters related to climate change would be permitted so long as the edits do not have the effect of addressing the dispute over anthropogenic global warming.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654
Cla68 is a very good editor on military and historical articles, but to be honest, his editing over at Intelligent design leaves me seriously doubtful of his competence when it comes to editing on science articles. I can point to one specific incident that crystallized this idea for me. Last January, Cla tagged the intelligent design article as a scientific theory. By itself, this edit should raise a very large red flag. He was reverted by Guettarda, who opened a talk page thread on the revert. Cla responded there, and that's when things really got crazy. Everyone here should go and read that thread in its entirety, because (IMO) Cla's comments there are so bizarre that it makes me seriously doubt his abilities as an editor. He said, among other things, that because Intelligent Design's advocates say that it is a scientific theory, we should simply take their word that it is when categorizing the article. Further, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between reporting on an advocate's belief and sharing that belief. To wit:


 * Me: If the New York Times prints the sentence Astrologers maintain that Astrology predicts the future, then by your logic it would be perfectly appropriate to edit the Astrology article to say that Astrology predicts the future
 * Cla68: I would say, "The New York Times says that Astrology predicts the future." Anything wrong with saying that?
 * Me: yes!! The New York Times is not making that assertion! The advocates of astrology are!

He went on to say that Wikipedia should avoid "taking a stand" on issues where there is any disagreement. As I responded to him there: ''Wikipedia "takes a side" anytime we say anything is factual that anyone disagrees with. Flat earthers claim that the world is flat. Creationists claim the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Holocaust deniers claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews died during World War II. Should be write articles to take these competing claims into account, in order to avoid taking sides? Should we describe the earth as "allegedly round" because doing otherwise would be taking sides in the flat earth "debate"? No, obviously we do not. Obviously, we should not. We have to use our critical thinking skills (*gasp*) to sort out which assertions are true and which ones are not. On Wikipedia, this is done by using reliable sources.''

It's worth noting that after my above reply, Cla simply ignored me and continued (three more times) to assert that Wikipedia should avoid taking a stand, a textbook case of wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He also claimed that nowhere in Wikipedia's policies could he find a definition of what does and does not constitute science. (Needless to say, it didn't take me or others long to find such a definition) The discussion only ended when people started losing patience with his tactic of ignoring rebuttals and then bringing up the same debunked talking points two or three comments later. But even the reason he gave to end the discussion is alarming: "Clearly, current consensus is against adding a science category to this article, although I don't think policy supports the majority position." In other words, the dozens of comments by others made no impact whatsoever on his thinking and he was only dropping it because he could not find anyone to agree with him. This is classic tendentious editing. And, all of this happened *after* he was admonished by the arbitration committee about "battlefield conduct". (Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,[154][155][156][157][158][159][160] inappropriate use of sources,[161][162][163] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality,[164][165][166][167] -- ARBCC

Cla is a good editor on military and historical topics, and his failings that I've described aren't particularly relevant to those areas. But he is here asking for permission to be allowed to edit highly contentious scientific articles, when his track record suggests he is clearly not competent to edit them. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to AGK - AGK, see Dave Souza's comment above for a more recent example of that kind of behavior. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D
I'm not at all familiar with Cla68's editing on science-related topics, but I'd like to confirm that he's continued to make first-rate edits to military history articles, and was very helpful in preparing the Battle of Arawe article for its recent successful FAC. He's also made important contributions to the Air raids on Japan article which is currently at FAC, and these edits included adding excellent material on the long-running debate over the morality and legality of the bombing of Japanese civilians. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Noting the suggestions below, I would think that allowing him to edit on Japan-related articles in general including those on CC issues involving Japan and related areas should be reasonable - if he specifically edit wars on CC issues therein (I am not counting typos, sourced corrections, etc. which just happen to be in a CC section, etc.) existing noticeboards should be sufficient to determine the severity of the offence. Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us." I suggest that "1.5RR" type rules tend to bring out baiters and the like in profusion. Collect (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Calton
On the talk page, Cla68 wrote: ''Committee, is there going to be any more discussion on my amendment request? If not, could you please close it? I was reminded that it was still open when I saw this article in this morning's Japan Times and realized that I still don't know if I can add such information to the appropriate WP article. Cla68 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)''


 * Some questions, therefore:
 * What, exactly would that appropriate Wikipedia article be for this government news release?
 * What fact will it be supporting or what point is going to be made with this statistic?
 * As it's a government news release about a recent statistic:
 * What's the hurry?
 * Why is it critical that Cla68, personally, is the only person who can deal with it?
 * Given that this story is easily available to anyone with Internet access, what possible special value is Cla68's personal subscription to the Japan Times here?
 * Given the extraordinarily limited intersection of the topics of "Japan" and "climate change", why is did Cla68 feel it necessary to ask for a wholesale reversal on the ENTIRE area of climate change -- for which he compiled a massive track record of problematic editing -- rather than its tiny intersection with Japan?
 * There are many, many Japan-based English-language editors who have ready access to the print edition of the Japan Times -- or who may even subscribe, too -- why is Cla68 unable to ask those editors to include take action whenever the uncommon intersection of "Japan" and "climate change" comes up?

I will say that I'm not only skeptical about the value of lifting Cla68's restrictions, but I'm skeptical about its supposed basis and the sincerity of the request itself. --Calton | Talk 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Cla68: In 2010, this committee found that you "engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I make no presumption about your current contributions, but we must know: in relation to the subject of Climate Change (and not your - admittedly admirable - edits elsewhere), what has changed? AGK  [•] 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Raul, the evidence in your submission is rather outdated. The Intelligent design debacle, for instance, was over a year ago. Is there something more recent we should look at? To check back in here: I would have us decline this request for amendment, with the understanding that we can re-visit in about six months. At that time, I think we will be in a position to remove the topic ban - so long as no new evidence comes to light in the interim. I cannot support a circumscribed topic-ban; if an editor is banned from Climate change, then he is inherently unsuited to even the most incremental restoration of editing privileges, and frankly it's too large a risk for my liking. AGK  [•]


 * Given the rationale for the amendment request, as an intermediate or interim step, I wonder whether it would make sense to start with a modification that would allow edits about climate change specifically in the context of Japan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good first step (lifting WRT Japan articles) the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months. I can't see how that attitude is going to avoid clashing horns with someone sooner rather than later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that the volume of edits currently prohibited by the topic ban merit an outright lifting in terms of the others who raise concerns about it. At most, I would be inclined to support something more limited as a first step. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to Jclemens above, I'm unconvinced of the need to modify the current restriction which seems to be working well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Climate change (A Quest For Knowledge)
Initiated by  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) at 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 18


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Removal of topic ban

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge
I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC. The main reason is I am not the same editor I was back then. Mainly, I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. (In fact, I rarely get too involved in content disputes on topics that do interest me.) At the time I stumbled into the CC topic area, I was a relative newbie and had no idea content disputes like that existed or that it had lasted years. Now, when I encounter contentious articles, I prefer to stay on the sidelines, either by avoiding the dispute or providing advice at a distance such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin or Seamus (dog). Since the case concluded, I've maintained a clean record despite working in a number of contentious areas such as Mass killings under Communist regimes, Aquatic ape hypothesis and Astrology to name a few. (I dropped out of Astrology after Ludwigs2 was topic banned and dropped out of Mass killings under Communist regimes after the article was locked.) I either WikiGnomed and performed other minor changes, or I attempted to provide advice to other editors. The only topic space that is contentious that I do involve myself in is September 11 attacks where I'm happy to say I (along with other fine editors) were able to resolve a long-standing content dispute over how fringe theories should be covered. See here. Some other recent examples of me collaborating effectively with other editors include WP:List of self-publishing companies and the new header instructions at WP:RSN. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: FWIW, CC is not a topic I'm interested in and I have no plans to return to it in any substantive way. (Believe me, if I had known that a simple curiosity would turn into what it did, I never would have gotten involved.) As I said, I now prefer to offer advice as a distance. If someone posts something at one of our noticeboards or opens an RfC, I'd like the option to comment, but I don't plan on getting any more involved than that. To your first point, I said relative newbie. Yes, I was familiar with our main content policies but completely naive in thinking I could single-handedly fix the CC topic-space. I would never try to do that now. Also, I was completely unfamiliar with all the nuances of our various policies and guidelines which you only learn with experience. Since you brought it up, yes, I edit-warred and referred to editors in groups ("faction", "cabal", etc.) which contributed to a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. I don't agree that I was uncivil. The lone diff in the finding on civility has me saying "Please don't waste our time" which IMO is not worth a finding-of-fact in an ArbCom case. To be honest, the topic-ban is a black mark hanging over me, and I'd like a sense of closure. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC) @Jclemens: I think that my biggest mistake is that I just simply argued too much. Wikipedia's rules encourage discussion, but at some point, that discussion becomes deadlocked or counter productive. Since the close of the case, I've learned not to repeat a point more than once or twice. If an argument fails to sway someone the first couple times, repeating it 20 more times isn't going to convince them. If anything, it's more likely to make the discussion more polarized. I've learned that sometimes it's a good idea to slow down a dispute. That is to say that if I'm a discussion, and someone posts something in a thread, rather than respond immediately, I'll wait a few hours or even limit myself to one post a day. I've learned that when in a dispute to try to come up with alternative solutions that might be mutually acceptable. For example, at Astrology, I objected to the use of the phrase "reputable astrologer" in Wikipedia's voice. Rather than insist on the One True Way, I offered 3 possible solutions and asked that editor if any of them were acceptable. I'm much better at judging whether a proposal has a chance at reaching consensus. If I don't think something has a realistic chance at gaining consensus, I'll say my peace and move on. I have better perspective now and don't take things as seriously. I think this is best exemplified by this. I used to be that guy. There's more, of course, but hopefully that's a good start. If you'd like more details or have any more questions or concerns, I'd be happy to provide more details for you. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC) @SirFonzie: I'm genuinely confused by your commment. I thought I did explain what I learned and why I won't do it again. My reply to Jclemens gave 5 specific examples of what I learned and how I handle things differently now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC) @AGK: I think that you can see improvement during the case itself. Most of the diffs about battleground behavior were close to a year old by the time that the case concluded, leaving the remaining finding a single incident of edit-warring (I broke 3RR on a 1RR article) that was six months old. It was a temporary lapse of judement and one I have never repeated, proving, I think, that I learn from my mistakes. I now try to follow WP:BRD and rarely even get to 2RR let alone 3RR. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) @The Devil's Advocate: I was not involved in that edit war. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited that article even once. What happened was that I was responding to a complaint filed by someone else at AN/I: Admin used powers in content_dispute. (See also: Shooting of Trayvon). I saw the discussions at AN/I and AN and I commented in both of them. The second discussion is 12 pages long and dozens of editors participated in it. I never said that I don't comment at AN/I or any other Admin or Arb board. In fact, I do so regularly. That doesn't make me involved in the content dispute. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited that article. I don't know how to prove that definitively, but go check the last 500 edits to the article and its talk page. How many times is my name listed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) @The Devil's Advocate: Again, that's a misrepresentation of what happened. First, the discussions at AN and AN/I were about a conduct issue, not a content issue. Maybe you see those as the same thing, but I don't. I was concerned about an admin using their tools in a content dispute that they were directly involved in. I knew they were involved in the content dispute, because I was watching it. After someone else brought it to AN/I, I commented in it. But even if you see it as a content dispute, it was at a distance and in the appropriate forum. Further, I was not the first nor the only editor who discussed desysopping or taking the issue to ArbCom. In the end, I decided that unless there was a pattern of misconduct, there was no point in pursuing the matter so I dropped it. In fact, my involvement in the conduct issue lasted less than 24 hours if my math is correct. My first post was at 20:45, 26 March 2012 and my last post was at 16:53, 27 March 2012 and then I walked away. The community, meanwhile, continued the debate for another 5 days where apparently the consensus was for a trout (proving there was some warrant for my concern). Again, the full discussion are here and here. I agree that the record does speak for itself as long as you don't take anything out of context. I'm not saying I am perfect, but perfection isn't required for admins or editors. I don't want to go back and forth with you, so I'll quit at this point. I'll be happy to respond should the Arbs have any questions or concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) @Drmies: First of all, I didn't bring you into this; The Devil's Advocate did. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about this until TDA brought it up. What I said in my statement is that I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. I believe that remains true. Yes, I was involved in a conduct issue regarding the Trayvon article. My involvement only lasted a day and even then, I believe I was commenting on the dispute as an outside observer. As I said, I dropped the issue while the rest of the community continued to discuss it for another 5 days. To the best of my knowledge, I did not engage in any problematic behavior such as edit-warring, personal attacks, etc.. I expressed an opinion which you disagreed with. If I had to do my statement all over again, I would have disclosed that I did get involved in a conduct issue. Like I said, I had forgotten about this until TDA brought it up. It was an honest mistake, I'm sorry about that but there was no attempt at deception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
As currently formulated, I oppose this request. AQFK attempts to minimise his errors by asserting that he was a newbie then. But he wasn't. Furthermore, I can see none of what has been required of previous requests - viz, specific acknowledgement of errors and a promise not to repeat them (edit warring, incivility, promoting battleground, etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
Willing to consider reintroduction to the topic area without WP:BLP edits to see how it goes for a few months, living people were attacked. - After a nudge - I have struck the last part - it wasn't meant specific to this user - it was more of a general comment in regards to what was going on prior to the CC case and this user has pointed out to me that he was never judged to have committed any WP:BLP violations. I support a halfway house for all these users reintegration into the topic area, non BLP first to see how it develops. You really  can  04:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Similar to Youreallycan, it may be a good idea to let AQFK back into the topic area without restrictions for a while and then evaluate how things are going. Instead of a fixed time, it may be better to re-evaluate after some number of edits. There may be some problems which may not surface within a few months if he doesn't edit a lot in the topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
AQFK is being blatantly deceptive in his description of his involvement on the Trayvon Martin article. I dare say he is actually lying by stating that his involvement there was merely "providing advice at a distance" as he was making a huge fuss over that article being protected by Drmies. Here is an archive of a discussion about the action where AQFK was involved. The comments being left there hardly give off the same image AQFK is trying to present here and are just a sample of his conduct with regards to that incident.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@AQFK Dude, anyone can look at that archived talk page there and see what you said. Whether you edited the article or not is quite irrelevant. You described your involvement with the article as if you just provided some outside advice, when in fact you got heatedly involved in a dispute over that article and behaved in a very confrontational manner. Threatening to go to ArbCom and telling an admin he is going to get de-sysopped if he doesn't do what you say with regards to an article is not "providing advice at a distance" as you claimed was the extent of your involvement with that article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I've worked with AQFK on 9/11 related pages and it needs to be noted that though it subsequently went to Good Article Review and was demoted, AQFK was the editor that made substantive improvements to the September 11 attacks article and got it to GA. I know he has planned on resuming an effort to once again meet the GA criteria on that article soon. When confronted with conspiracy theories and fringe POV pushing on 9/11 topics, AQFK has always been a voice of reason, demonstrated a cool demeanor and avoided making personal atacks. My belief is that AQFK would do as he claims he would if he did participate in CC articles...and his behavior would be as explenary as it has been on 9/11 topics. I also don't think AQFK wants to have this topic ban lifted just so he can edit CC articles. I believe, as he has stated, that he simply wants this "black mark" removed from his portfolio.--MONGO 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@To Drmies...Found the thread you mention below. Seems AQFK was initially questioning your admin decision in this case and did mention desysopping...Wehwalt and Alanscottwalker also questioned the action. However, I think in this situation you made the right call...a tough one but the right one....but someone else could have done it as well. But I don't see that AQFK commented anymore aggresively than Bob K31416 in regards to what should happen to your tools.--MONGO 04:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
Ahem. Yes, I don't really see how AQFK's involvement in the Trayvon Martin affair is advice from a (safe) distance at all--it's a gross understatement at best. Calling for my head at AN/I is what you did here (even though you didn't start the thread). This edit and its summary are pretty clear also: you are not giving advice, you are endorsing action. Whether this relates to your restriction here at all is another matter, but since you brought up the Trayvon Martin case as an example of your good behavior, you brought me into this, since you were one of the most active editors in that desysop request. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison
On the topic of 9/11 and the related conspiracy theories, which is where I've worked with him, AQFK has always been calm and responsible. What he writes is thogough, neutral, and referenced. If he had problems in the past working on climate change, he would not in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: I have no problem with lifting this restriction. I haven't assiduously trawled through AQFK's contributions but my general impression from seeing them around is that they have moved on considerably from their earlier, um, dogmatism and developed clue. In the event that fresh problems arise, they can be handled by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies  talk 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it.  Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally agree with Jclemens. SirFozzie (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the one hand AQFK is not putting forward a persuasive argument for lifting the topic block with his comment that he has no interest in the topic, but on the other he states that he has edited in contentious areas since his topic ban and has had no complaints. We accept that people make mistakes and we hope that they learn from them. AQFK is saying that he has learned from his mistake, so there seems to reason to keep him banned. Unless someone can raise concerns about his editing in the past 12 months, I would support lifting the topic ban.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you to AQFK if the quality of his editing at contentious articles has genuinely improved; this is always heartening to see. However, I do not hesitate in saying I am minded to decline this appeal. AGK  [•] 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the entire climate change area remains under discretionary sanctions, I think we can lift this restriction on the same basis as we're using for the other requests in this case—if any problems do recur, they can easily be addressed by the discretionary sanctions mechanism—and will propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (A Quest For Knowledge)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Roger Davies  talk 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A little more tenuously than the below ones, but still... Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker and per my voting comment on the original decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I do not have the necessary confidences that the lessons needed to be learned to avoid future issues have actually been learned, therefore voting oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think the argument for vacating the topic ban is sufficient. However, I oppose without prejudice to a revocation in the near future (though of course this motion will probably carry). In any case, I thank AQFK for his self-improvement, and wish him luck if he is allowed to return to the Climate Change topic. AGK  [•] 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Climate change (Prioryman)
Initiated by  Prioryman (talk) at 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedies 3.1, 3.2


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Prioryman
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBSCI appeal below. The discussion has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal here, and the ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself, passed 18 months ago. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors."

The current situation is as follows:


 * Since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have made nearly 10,000 edits and have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing two Good Articles, 65 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. The FAs, GAs and DYKs are all linked from the top of my user page.
 * My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months. I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions.
 * I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged here.
 * I have been working closely with Wikimedia UK, which provided a grant to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend in April. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others.

In response to the specific concerns of the case (i.e. edit-warring and incivility) and a few other issues, I'd like to note the following points:


 * In my approach to resolving these specific concerns, I've followed the example of in concentrating on producing "audited content" and demonstrating that I meet the remedy's requirements. This approach resulted in restrictions on him being lifted in January 2011 (see ). I have so far produced 70 items of audited content which have been widely praised for their quality.
 * I've acknowledged making errors in my approach to these articles and have not repeated them in other topic areas since the case.
 * As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely Battle of Vukovar - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars).
 * I'm not under any BLP restrictions in the ARBCC topic area, though this occasionally been incorrectly claimed by others - perhaps through confusion with the ARBSCI below where such a restriction does exist.
 * The ARBCC sanctions have not resulted in conflict with other editors since the case.
 * I've sought to avoid conflict and, where conflict has arisen as a result of the actions of others, to find long-term solutions. When an interaction ban relating to me was recently violated, I sought the assistance of other editors to find a permanent solution, which resulted in an agreement on a more robust enforcement mechanism and stricter terms for the ban. This was a positive outcome, definitively ending an ongoing conflict situation. More recently I've helped to find an acceptable way forward to resolve issues that have seen him repeatedly getting blocked (see ) - another positive outcome that will benefit the community going forward.

I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. In the extremely unlikely event of any future issues, there is no reason to believe that the existing discretionary sanctions in the topic area will be insufficient. I therefore request that the Arbitration Committee consider one of the following options:


 * A full lifting of the topic ban (the simplest option).
 * A half-way house, under which I would be permitted to contribute DYKs to the topic area for a period of six months, following which the topic ban would be lifted if there were no further problems. This would have the advantage of allowing me to demonstrate an ability to contribute constructively to the topic area in a limited capacity. As Casliber is a DYK regular, he would be in a good position to keep an eye on my DYK contributions.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? Count Iblis (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect: The problem in general with this is that ArbCom restrictions come with a reversal of the burden of proof. So, e.g. I'm not under any ArbCom sanctions and I have to misbehave quite badly before I'll be blocked. If there are some editors who are very critical of my editing who are mnitoring me, they will hve to present a strong case in an RFC/U or ArbCom case against me.

If, on the other hand, I were operating under some ArbCom restrictions, then any hint of a violation of those restrictons by me implies guilt, unless I can prove that I'm innocent. E.g. Prioryman had to explain himself here about his editing of BLP pages. So, there was a hint that he might have violated an ArbCom restriction, and he had to explain that this was not a violation of a restriction he's under.

Then with Prioryman being monitored by quite a few editors, Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces. This is extremely distracting, so one has to consider if the restrictions are necessary at all. This would be the case even if the critics were always acting in good faith, but obviously that's not always the case here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect & Prioryman, what I mean is that you have to defend yourself, obviously with good arguments, not in some negative way. When I was under a stupid advocacy restriction imposed by ArbCom which barred me from defending an editor here, that caused me a lot of headaches, even a long time after that restriction was lifted, see here. I ended up at AE twice after that restriction was lifted, because of misunderstandings by editors about that restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No relevant objections have been raised so far.

What is relevant here is whether Prioryman can edit CC pages without problems. Both in case of William's amendment request and Cla68's request, the discussions here were centered around that question. I was in favor of lifting the topic ban for both editors with some restrictions (BLP restriction for William I think, although that may have been a compromise I supported, in case of Cla68, I argued for a 1RR or 0RR restriction).

Basically, one considers the editor in question back into the topic area and discusses what problems are likely to occur based on current editing behavior or very recent editing history. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
PM has been quite evident on several noticeboards, incuding a current extensive discussion at AN/I. I would humbly suggest he get down to a "no drama" level for a month or two before pursuing this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM -- I know that you were the "victim" and that you had nothing to do with the "drama" evinced at AN/I. Yeppers. The way for you to have avoided the drama was to not promote the drama. And as others have noted, your problems in the past were heavily imbued with "drama." Ergo - a couple of months more with a cup of tea will not harm you. to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - Last I looked, you quite appeared to be actively seeking the "drama" per notceboard postings and also per your posts on ErantX's UT page. Hence my suggestion that you swear off the "drama" for a couple of months before pursuing this further. Have some tea - the "deadline" is not yet arrived. Collect (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@ST My overall impression is that those who routinely complain on noticeboards as the "victim" generally do not emend their behaviour therein without being rather specifically urged to reduce such actions. ArbCom has seen a number of editors who seek "arbitration enforcement" aganst their perceived "foes" and I have seen no cases where such behaviour has been improved by simply removing sanctions thereon. Thus my suggestion that a couple of months without such drama would make me more convinced that the initial behaviours have possibly been ameliorated. Is this more clear? I would hold the same position, for what it s worth, on any "amnesty" acts where full and open discussions, not sullied by any "false consensus", led to the initial restrictions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@CI
 * Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces

Exemplifies the drama problem. There is no need to "go on the attack" - that sort of battleground mentality is precisely one of the major problems on Wikipedia, and I am aghast anyone would say it is right to engage in battleground acts. If you feel your post should work in PM's favour, I regret to inform you that it is more likely to redound to his handicap in my opinion. Your mileage appears to differ. Collect (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note further PM's apparent love of drama at. Suchh claims as
 * ''He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.
 * ''His judgement is often faulty.
 * ''He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.
 * ''He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.
 * ''He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.

Are used by PM as a rationale to seek a 1RR restriction and a draconian civility restriction:
 *  If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.  

on an editor who appears to have aroused PM's personal animus. As all of the above claims seem to suit PM fairly well, I suggest "goose sauce" should be considered here as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - the issue is not whether you are pals with YRC, but whether you routinely jump to noticeboards seeking punishment for others. I note that the evidence is fairly clear on this - that you do so routinely run to the noticeboards seeking punishment for others. Cheers - you make this very clear indeed. Collect (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(noting that the comments by PM to which I herein replied have apparently been redacted, making it ddifficult for others to see precisely to what I replied and for what reasons) Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
Prioryman, did you write the L. Ron Hubbard featured article, as User:Helatrobus?

I am asking because at the time of that article's FAC, I was quite certain, having observed your (outstanding) work on the Inner German border article during that article's FAC, that you were the author. Not just from the (equally outstanding) quality of the work, but for many other on-wiki and off-wiki reasons as well.

Of course, under ARBSCI you were and are allowed to work on articles in that topic area to bring them to GA or FA status. I supported the FA nomination in recognition of that fact, and indeed assumed that the arbitration committee were most likely aware of your operating the Helatrobus account.

However, I later learnt from Cool Hand Luke that they were not aware of the Helatrobus account, and indeed would have been disappointed to find it was yours, given your previous socking after invoking the Right To Vanish. Could you clear this up, once and for all?  J N  466  12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Prioryman, I am sure you are well aware that answering this question does not require you to make reference to any other editor. It's a simple yes-or-no question. For what it's worth, I took part in and supported the Hubbard FAC, and came to my conclusions quite independently of any user you might have in mind. It was blindingly obvious. If you want all your sanctions lifted, I would recommend that you come clean first, as otherwise this stuff will just continue to hang around you. And if you aren't prepared to do that, then I have no confidence that the factors that led to your being restricted in the first place are in any way resolved.  J N  466  13:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can call a Paxman here and assume that's a Yes then, shall we?
 * You were sanctioned in ARBSCI because you considered yourself above the law. Your recent behaviour, claiming the right to vanish during arbitration and then immediately returning as a sock, and then with your present account when the first sock was found out and blocked, and with the Helatrobus account as well, seems to indicate that you still do.
 * Battleground mentality, along with incivility and edit-warring, was the finding in ARBCC, in late 2010. And battlegrounding is how you chose to respond right here, to being asked a not unreasonable question. You refuse to give a straight answer, and instead turn the matter into a pissing contest over whose sanctions were worse, yours or mine. ;)  J N  466  02:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are able, under the present sanctions, to perform GA and FA improvement drives on non-BLP articles. No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors.

I honestly think that's the best of both worlds. This topic area has mostly remained quiet since ARBSCI, one of the most successful arbitration cases of its kind in the history of Wikipedia, and is mercifully free of activists now. Some outrageously slanted biographies or other articles with BLP impact have been deleted or fixed, and the important articles in the topic area are stable and in reasonable shape. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you really see some clanger in a biography, you are very welcome to drop me a note with suggestions; and there are other editors in the topic area who would look into any such concern for you too. Regards.  J N  466  12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you're in attack mode again. I said, "No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors." That is correct, and surely was the intent of the remedy, which read:

17) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And it has worked, because as you say, you haven't been in spats with other contributors. But instead of acknowledging that, you bristle, " It's absolutely, unequivocally false to claim that I was 'involved in routine spats with other contributors'" – as though you had never been in any such spat, which is complete nonsense. When you were active in the topic area, in editing BLPs and general editing outside GA and FA drives, you were involved in such spats. One two-year "spat" is mentioned in the ARBSCI FoF:

13) significantly edited, between August 2005 and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion. In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material.


 * ''Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There may have been periods where you weren't involved in any spats in this topic area, but I doubt that you were editing the topic area much in those periods. Your unwillingness to give a straight answer on the Helatrobus account, your bristling, and your nibbling at the topic ban now, before it's lifted, like here, are warning signs to me. I don't expect anything good to result if the ban is lifted and you go back to editing BLPs in the ARBSCI topic area, or do routine editing outside GA/FA drives. Focus on the latter – you have the demonstrated ability to take articles to that quality level, and your temperament doesn't equip you well for the rest. Your opponent is interaction-banned, so don't worry about him. I personally am generally a fan of your FA work, and the FAC process is a much better, more controlled setting to fine-tune an article. Regards.  J N  466  23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean you've violated your topic ban regularly for the past three years? I can't say I've noticed, despite having a good few pages in the topic area on my watchlist, but if you have, then I don't think that inspires added confidence that you are committed to editing BLPs and other articles within policy if the ban were lifted formally. I see a continuous and worrying history of you thinking various policies and guidelines don't apply to you like they do to other editors – whether it's RTV, acting when involved, citing your own self-published writing, violating BLP, returning to areas your previous account was topic-banned in under new identities without disclosing prior sanctions and identities, etc. (Your BLP ban in the ARBCC topic area was as recent as a year and a half ago – so there is a more than five-year continuous history of you getting banned from BLPs in topic areas you are passionate about.) I also see some great work, but frankly don't understand why you can't simply do good work and drop all the games. Cheers.  J N  466  00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is now getting ridiculous. Prioryman is accusing me of having violated my ARBSCI sanction by commenting here. For reference, my ARBSCI sanction is, in total, per ARBSCI:

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

If you want evidence of the risk of drama, or battleground editing, it couldn't come clearer than this. A bull in a china shop comes to mind!  J N  466  01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
Just a note to comment about my relating with Prioryman. I was pointed here in email by the user after I was mentioned in the comments. He has been suggesting topic bans and edit restrictions for me but generally/imo in a goods faith manner to help me stop repeatedly getting blocked for silly stuff before i get myself perma banned - I have been in dispute with him previously but I/we have been attempting to improve our working relationship so I wouldn't want any of his interactions with me to affect the outcome of this request, which I have not really investigated but it is generally my feeling that we should not be overly severe in our restrictions on editors contributions for excessive lengths of time unless there are clear related issues with a users contributions - if they improve  we can give them a chance and if they need restrictions again they can easily be replaced. - I would add that clearly the Helatrobus account is a sock of Prioryman - it was a year ago and he shouldn't have written that, ... I wish he would fess up and be honest about that, denying such clear realities just removes all good faith NPOV support. The users that violated BLP in the climate change area held/and still hold very opinionated vocal positions, those have not changed at all and living people were attacked , perhaps a position of non BLP contributing to the sector such as User:WMC is allowed would be a good start to see how it goes. You really  can  02:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Query from Short Brigade Harvester Boris
SirFozzie has voted on several requests related to WP:ARBCC, but was recused from the original case. I am curious as to what circumstances have changed so that his reason for recusual no longer applies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie, thank you for the clarification. I do not recall your having explained this previously but then there's much that I do not recall. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork, I think I would need to formally oppose any lifting of the sanction at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As previously explained to you, Boris (or at least I certainly remember explaining this before), I recused on the original CC case because one of the main parties, WMC, had filed a RfC against me several years ago. I could have just recused on the WMC related questions (as is now the process), but that does not create a case for recusal on non-WMC related CC issues, even under my liberal recusal policies. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Willing to consider this; if things don't go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues.  Risker (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman's topic ban. AGK  [•] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies  talk 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: My take is that the sanctions themselves have become the issue, with the bickering switching from content to who is in breach of what. This view is confirmed by recent events. I still have no problem with lifting the existing sanctions because discretionary sanctions are in place and thus sanctions can be re-imposed if problems arise. Lifting the sanctions now will I think help everyone move on.  Roger Davies  talk 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Under the historic sanctions from Prioryman's prior account (which he now also wants lifted) he agreed to make "no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people", but a look through recent contributions shows edits to Edward Davenport (fraudster), Zuzana Žirková and Kumar priyank. Am I right in thinking that edits to those articles would be a violation of the sanctions if the sanctions are applicable to this current account? Could Prioryman provide an explanation for those edits - and offer up any other BLP articles he has edited as I only went back through contributions as far as the Kumar priyank edit.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) My bad, I misread the sanction.
 * This seems a reasonable request. Prioryman produces good contributions and acknowledges the poor conduct from the past. I am unclear regarding Collect's points - is the suggestion that Prioryman reduce general involvement in noticeboards, or is there a particular concern about the focus or tone of the involvement?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I note this, this, this and this. I'm a little uncomfortable at the amount of drama that has unfolded and I'd like to see what other Committee members feel about what has happened.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would feel more comfortable supporting this if there was no associated drama. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by colleagues, though my inclination would be to decline this for now, and hear an appeal again in six months, and if Prioryman sees at that time any provocative posts that he show an ability to ignore it/rise above it, allowing others to deal with the matter if they feel it significant enough.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Roger, I'm OK with lifting the individual sanctions if discretionary sanctions would cover any new misconduct in the area. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the discretionary sanctions argument is a convincing one; if any problems do recur, additional sanctions can very rapidly be imposed. In that light, I'll propose a motion to lift the older sanction below. Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (Prioryman)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Roger Davies  talk 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above. The discretionary sanctions remain in force and apply to Prioryman. Risker (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Willing to go along with this, but wouldn't support much rope at AE if problems re-appear. Courcelles 19:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. SirFozzie (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Climate Change
Initiated by  GregJackP   Boomer!   at 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 17


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Not applicable


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change


 * Details of desired modification: Topic-ban lifted

Statement by GregJackP
I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC, and to request the restrictions I was placed under on my unblock be lifted (CC & new age religious movements). In the time since I have been back, I have been a productive editor, taking a WP:SCOTUS article to FA status and generally editing in the SCOTUS/Law/Native American areas. I have worked in Articles for Creation, attempting to help new and IP editors get their ideas to article status and into the mainspace. I also do patrol work as far as Prods, BLPProds, CSD & AfD noms. I have received the WP:FOUR award and an Article Rescue barnstar since returning from my block.

I have no intent to go back into either area, but I sometimes catch myself looking at an article at AfD/AfC that could (widely construed) be in either of the areas of the ban. I would rather not have to worry about inadvertently or mistakenly crossing the line.

I know that in the CC area, that the findings were correct and the topic ban was needed. I have learned from that experience and I no longer take a battlefield approach to the issues. I've found that most issues can be worked out with talk and restraint, or, if need be, by simply walking away. Thanks. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. I don't have a problem with the block, per se. It demonstrated the battleground mentality that I had at the time and was appropriate. I believed at the time, and still believe, that you only blocked or took action against one side of the issue, at least during that time period. I also realize that some of that could be lingering bitterness about your role in what happened to me in the incident with you and ScienceApologist. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to avoid you since my return. It is also why I do not intend to return to the Climate Change area. GregJackP  Boomer!   15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK. Thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Would that also include the restriction on New Age Religious Movements? A part of the condition of my unblock was to stay away from it also. I do not intend to edit there, but would like to be free of that restriction for the same reason as CC. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. Thank you. I do want to reassure you (and anyone else) that I do not intend to do anything in CC. What caused this appeal were two articles I looked at. One was an article that was pretty much crap - unsourced, no hits on anything, etc. that had been CSD'd but declined. I was about to AfD it when I noticed that it tangentially might be connected with global warming. I backed off of it. The other was an AfC I was looking at that was a BLP where the individual was a member of the LDS church. I did nothing there either. I just don't want to get blocked again if for some reason I miss the connection in my normal work. The most likely conflict would be in Native America SCOTUS area, since both the CC/religious areas could touch it there. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@ST. I certainly understand your concern, however be assured that I am not going to go further with this, and made sure that I was well within 3RR. If you'll note, I started an RfC on the talkpage for the issues, and intend to abide by the consensus. I would be pleased if you would watch how this plays out, rather than assuming that I intend to edit-war on this issue. I would prefer to walk away before that occurs. GregJackP  Boomer!   14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if you would prefer to put this on hold to see how it plays out, I would be happy with that.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@SBHB. I have to disagree with you on the sources. The first source listed, (Bennett, "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?") was cited to support two statements. First, the arrest and imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, and second, that only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment. The text of the article stated: "only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad" (which supports the first statement), and "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan" (which supports the second statement). These lines are at p.81, para. 1 of the cited source. In addition, the cited article repeatedly discusses the us of the UN Defamation of Religions resolution to support censorship. I don't have the time to address this or to answer the second source immediately (RL commitment), but will be happy to do so later today. GregJackP  Boomer!   14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this since I posted earlier. This is not the time or place to delve into a content issue, unless requested by the committee members.  I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, and have shown how one of the sources directly supported the material it was cited to support.  If you still disagree, I would invite you to join the RfC, the AfD, or another appropriate forum for discussing the sources.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098. I am open to suggestions on how to handle the matter. After going through the BRD and getting into the discussion phase with the RFC, I was working at compromising on the language. It's not exactly what I would prefer, but it was moving forward. I would also request that you look at the editor that repeatedly removes material while the discussion is going on, and that has thus far not offered any suggestions other than to delete the entire article. If they continue to remove material, it will continue to the point that there is a) no material to discuss, and b) a deleted article. I don't think that is the way to go about this, and I've repeated asked them to stop and discuss it - they won't. I was under the impression that requesting page protection was within policy, and was better than edit warring. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo98. I responded to that allegation at the location it was made, here. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I would be interested to hear GregJackP's opinion on the situation where I article-banned him for disruptive editing (described best here) with the benefit of two years' hindsight. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For what it's worth, I have liked your SCOTUS-related work and hope you continue with it. As it's looking likely that the ban will be lifted (which I do not oppose), my unsolicited advice would be for you to just stick with a few articles or AFDs here and there, not dive back in to the topic area (which seems to be your intent). But take that with as much salt as you wish. Best of luck, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Ultimately the internal squabbles over conduct that absorb so much time in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures matter little to our readers. What matters most to them is how accurately we convey information. In this regard the most serious concern over GregJackP's involvement in the ARBCC mess was persistent misrepresentation of source material. Some very recent diffs are concerning on this point. (I have checked the sources and one of them definitely does not support the charge of "censorship" while the other is more borderline.) As far as I can tell there is no problem at all with his work on court-related articles which by all accounts has been quite good. The problems arise when he ventures into topics related to certain political perspectives, such as climate change or Islam. It would be helpful if GregJackP were to make a strong and enforceable commitment to hold himself to high standards with regard to sourcing, even (or especially) on topics where he has strong personal opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris. GregJackP's behavior at Talk:Censorship_in_Islamic_societies shows some battleground mentality and an attempt to win a dispute by admin/procedural means. Although he did not revert much by himself, he jumped into yet another team effort (at edit warring), which is too often seen on Wikipedia on contentious issues. Almost all the arguments on the talk page are procedural (who reverted first and who has dibs to the "B" in BRD and so forth), so it's little more than edit warring by words. Additionally, GregJackP's inability to understand slightly technical sources coupled with his willingness to express an opinion anyway can be seen in action at Articles for deletion/Worley noise. But we need to retain editors, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply: protection, yes. Asking an admin to protect your favorite version, no. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are #2 in recent reverts on that article  (top place goes to Roscelese, no doubt). By the way, it's fun to see another one of those articles. It keeps the place lively and fun. And how much progress has been made. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A related incident was reported to ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like GregJackP has been misrepresenting sources again:. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements, but my initial reaction is favorable: this appeal contains both a recounting of the editor's successes in other areas and a plausible explanation of why they topic ban is hindering full participation. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statements. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statements. Likely to lift ban considering conduct since Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting more statements, but inclined to grant the appeal; AE can always put the topic ban back if needed under the discretionary sanctions. Courcelles 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am minded to grant this appeal. If there are no objections from the community in the next 48 hours or so, I will propose a motion to vacate remedy 17), "GregJackP topic-banned", of the Climate Change decision. AGK  [•] 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)
1) The restriction imposed on  in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.
 * Enacted - Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.


 * Support:
 * This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force,  Roger Davies  talk 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the Climate change decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Incredibly weakly. I don't really see lifting both of these at once, and would prefer we had just lifted one, and come back to the other in a few months. Courcelles 20:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * On noting the comments above and reviewing the case I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - . I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?).  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. Courcelles 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification (March 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=548770660#Clarification_request:_Climate_change Original location]

Initiated by  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy (initiator)
Intro

Hi, There is a broken link in the instructions in the current lead at ARBCC which has created some confusion as evidenced by this and this.

The relevant text, with the link text just underlined here, now reads


 * "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. * * * Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise."

The broken link was discovered when I and others were pondering exactly what regular editors may, and may not, edit on this page.

Ways to read the ambiguity

INTERPRETATION OPTION 1)  Regular editors can ONLY add to the sanctions log after they have been imposed.  Clarification needed on notification procedure.

INTERPRETATION OPTION 2)  In the spirit of "prevention, not punishment" any regular editor can post ARBCC notices and add to the notifications log as well as the sanctions log.

INTERPRETATION OPTION 3)  Other?

Insights from case version history

To best of my knowledge the only relevant text from the case history is


 * June 12 2010   Link in lead about what reg eds can tweak ( #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions ) now works.


 * Oct 14 2010 Relevant tweak A   Link in lead about what reg eds can tweak ( #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions )  was accidentally broken when section heading was deleted during initial case closure.


 * Oct 14 2010 Relevant tweak B  Section heading restored but with different wording so link in lead is still broken.  HOWEVER a link in logging section ( #Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions ) does work.


 * Oct 15 2010  TOC level 2 heading for "Notifications" section added under level 1 heading "Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions".   Lead link is still broken but logging link to #Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions still works, and appears to encompass the notifications section

I don't think there have been any other relevant changes to the section headings or links.

REPEAT THE QUESTION: Can reg eds post ARBCC notices to other users' talk pages, and then log the posting here?

Conclusion
 * 1. Regardless what ya'll think, the busted lead link needs to be fixed;
 * 2. My own opinion is that in the spirit of "prevention, not punishment" any editor should be allowed to spread the word of ARBCC and post names and notices here.
 * 3. If ya'll agree, then suggest you change the section heading itself to Log of NOTICES, blocks, bans, and sanctions  and then fix the lead link to point to that.
 * 4. The above edit history looks like this is what was supposed to happen in the first place.

Thanks for your attention and direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's Reply to Elvey's opening comments
 * First, this matter is not just about Elvey. It is asking whether any editor active in the climate change area can service and log notice on any others.  I think I am up to three users besides myself, including but not limited to Elvey.  I expect to feel justified in adding more in the future.  So please don't tune out on the assumption this is unique problem that will blow over.


 * Second, contrary to the Elvey's assertion, I am only trying to prevent (not punish) by forestalling any disruption that might be caused should Elvey wikihound JJ into the climate change area. Evidence of my basis for this fear consists of Elvey's (1) zero WP:DR to 1000mph-outright-ban proposal in under a second (see his WP:AN that refused to die); (2) Elvey's preliminary canvassing of other editors, mostly from the climate area, that had bumped with JJ (see list in the WP:AN case); (3) Elvey's multiple postings in various forums to beat the drum for his drive to ban JJ (village pump-policy and WP:BAN); (4) to me Elvey appears to have an interest in exploiting the ARBCC decision as a potential tool against JJ. Since he was relying so heavily on JJ's interactions with 3rd parties, mostly from the climate area, it seems like a reasonable fear that he might enter the climate area himself to try to wikihound JJ into producing more first-hand ammunition for Elvey's next assault against JJ, and if so, this tactic would be based on a perversion of the purpose of ARBCC. I'm in the climate area to edit. ARBCC is designed for prevention, not punishment, and that's all I really care about here - maintaining a conducive editing environment on the climate pages. Beats me why he objects to being on the list if he doesn't plan to edit the area, or make trouble there if he does. I put myself on the list, after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's Updated Comments


 * (1) Clerk Penwhale's comment below is based on his subjective interpretation of DS text, or so he said in this side conversation, but nonetheless are consistent with the persuasive remarks by......
 * (2) Dave Souza, who has convinced me that there are two elements before AE sanctions will be imposed by an uninvolved admin, and they are
 * Element 1 - Simple harmless "notice" or awareness of ARBCC of a sort that does not carry a presumption of guilt; and
 * Element 2 - A warning by an uninvolved admin following problematic editor behavior


 * (3) In light of paragraph 2 above, the "notifications" section seems to be ineffectively named for Element 1, even though its purpose appears to be to log satisfaction of Element 2.
 * (4) I am persuaded to self-revert my additions to the notification list.
 * (5) Please prevent future identical issues, by fixing the ambiguities in the ARBCC wording


 * NewsAndEventsGuy's PROPOSAL

Maybe this will take a motion, I don't know, but this makes sense to me
 * A Change "Notifications" section heading and add one sentence of text to read
 * ''ADMINISTRATOR WARNINGS
 * Any editor may informally call ARBCC to the attention of any other editor at any time, for any reason, and such notices are deemed nothing more than "FYI". Formal warnings may only be given by an uninvolved administrator after a showing of problematic editor behavior.  In this section, any user may log a formal ARBCC warning given by an uninvolved administrator to any other editor, or may add their own name.''


 * B Fix link in lead to point to the reworded TOC level 1 heading


 * C Close this clarification request

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * D Thank you all for your attention, and attention to these details.  Sometimes a little prevention goes a long way.

PS WHY NOW? The climate pages are relatively quiescent but you can bet that area will heat up next year when the IPCC's big 2007 report (AR4) is updated with a new one (AR5). Better to fix this now when its quiet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dave Souza, and alt wording
 * You should include the part about anyone letting anyone else know about ARBCC anytime for any reason as an FYI. Consider the problem ed who has already been politely told about how he is afoul of DR, RS, NPOV, etc
 * NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??
 * NAEG to X - Just calling your attention to ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Harassment!!!! Accusations!!!! Slander!!!! I ((((demand)))) to know the basis of this warning!!!!
 * NAEG to X - See prior comments in this thread
 * X to NAEG - I filed an ANI on you


 * Of course, the ANI will go nowhere, but why invite this scenario in the first place?  By providing an instant get-out-of-jail free card for spreading the word about ARBCC, the ANI never happens and that dialogue quickly cools off with something like this.


 * NAEG to X - Caution, please see ARBCC
 * X to NAEG - Sanctions?? You threatening ME with SANCTIONS??
 * NAEG to X - No, I don't have that power, only admins can decide if you have violated ARBCC. I just wanted to call ARBCC to your attention, and the ARBCC decision itself encourages us to spread the word about it, because it says right on its face "Any ed can tell  any other ed about ARBCC for any reason at any time and such notices are treated as simple FYIs."


 * Presumably, that ends the drama.


 * In sum, simple wording is excellent. But sometimes a second helping of simple wording is better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua Let's break down your idea into two parts. (1) Helpful notice, before any wrongs, (2) Changing the DS and AE status quo regarding formal warnings after one or more fouls. If the first part is pursued as being supplemental to the status quo, and if the world made sense, it should be simple to get consensus and implement. By taking it in two steps we could realize the benefit of part 1 (even if it is just supplemental to the status quo) quickly, whereas it will entail a lot more discussion to get consensus to change part 2. Why hold up the first part's payback while we (endlessly?) debate step 2? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@AGK I await your motion with interest! Do you have a guesstimate when you will really sink your teeth into motion prep? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the draft I will check it out. OK with me for this request to be closed & archived . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Elvey
Per the Clerk's note below, NAEG should immediately revert the 3 adds (and of course an uninvolved admin can add me, NAEG, JJ, etc. if they have adequate rationale to do so and do so appropriately, at which point those editors will be subject to discretionary sanctions). When have I last edited in Climate Change? If I haven't then ISTM that even an admin, let a lone a non-admin can't make these sanctions apply to me by posting my name up. Untrue? I may have edited in Climate Change long ago, but if I have come closer than, it was either so long ago or so minor I don't recall. Since this restriction went into effect? I don't think so. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no [Minority Report (film)|Minority Report-style PreCrime police force], and NAEG has no precognitive abilities. I can't find any edits at all; is there a tool to search for this? [Deafening silence]

NewsAndEventsGuy's reply on my talk page confirms (diff) he is attempting to apply sanctions for my daring to launch an AN proceeding against J Johnson (JJ) in a way that policy specifically permits, but some admins didn't like as much as the complaint processes they insisted I use instead, saying, saying that he did it because I had not "shown a positive response to the multiple pieces of advice (such as rfc/u) presented by several eds in your recent AN proceeding against JJ." I had a very hard time there because only at the end did admin Dougweller realize he had made about half a dozen false accusations against me, and there was quite a snowball effect from the false accusations that made it look like it was I and not Dougweller who didn't understand policy. Doug wants it both ways. He has what reason to comment here if he is sorry for the over half a dozen false accusations he made against me? If he isn't sorry, then he's lying when he says he's already apologized to me; in his comment below, he even explicitly blames me for his confusion! I haven't accepted an apology from Doug - because he hasn't given me one. Details below.

As he's chosen to attack me here yet again, perhaps to distract from the over half a dozen times he took the time to falsely accuse me of violating 2RR, I respond, and I encourage others to read this over too:

I've asked Doug MULTIPLE TIMES AND I'd STILL like to have answers to: Doug, "do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?... (It was long after I'd clearly shown I had NOT violated 2RR.)  Would you mind explicitly retracting the false accusations, which you made here:"denying 2 reverts" and here (2): warning retracted, but "you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR" isn't and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=543016012#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment. here (4-7, depending on how you count repeats):"he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had)", "Now you are admitting to [violating] 2RR? Which you did.", "clearly don't understand", "need to start AGFing", and finally "My edit above is my response." - which is a restatement of the last 3 false accusations])? An apology would go a lot further than a futile and defensive (and on and on-going) attempt to deny or justify ~half a dozen false accusations.  How 'bout it, Doug?"  I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction.  Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say it to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine.  In your comment below, you even explicitly blame me for your confusion !   You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion.  Again, I ask for relief - Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here or at least somewhere that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?)" I feel it's clear that Doug has not retracted his false accusations against me, and yet is badgering me for favors and answers regarding what he imagines are my misunderstandings. This is so ridiculous!: Doug is posting here and to my talk page in a desperate attempt to convince me to admit to misunderstanding what the warning he gave me was for. (If I do, the (long since archived!) warning I put on his talk page for having been abusive would be retractable.) But he won't take the time to do the edit to Earthquake prediction that he deceptively said he'd do. !?

Doug won't retract his false accusations, OR answer my questions, e.g.: "You advise 'calm, civil discussion' so, I've gone back to the beginning to review my attitude-and yours, to be fair. Please go back and carefullyreadmy first post about all this, right after you accused me of being "engaged in an edit war".  And take a look at how YOU responded too.  If you hadn't "ignored the bulk of my post" (your words) in December - including the stuff about JJ, and more carefully read what I wrote about 3RR, things would have gone a helluva lot better. Or at least Ronz would think they'd have gone better, I'm sure. See what I'm saying?"

and yet gets pissy if I expect him to answer questions I've already asked before answering his. I wrote, "I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link." I guess Doug's reply and link were an attempt to show that I have. Well, it failed. Doug, if you want to understand why, look at each of the false accusations I point out that I feel you've made. Which of them do you admit to, and which do you not. If you cease trying to keep it a secret which ones you do or don't admit to, we can make some progress, and figurw out who actually misunderstands the warnings in question. Post particularly, see my reply to which Doug replied by falsely accusing me of "denying 2 reverts" when I had done no such thing. (link above.) I am SICK and TIRED of arguing with an admin who has done such a horrible job reading what I've written, that he's still making the same false accusations against me that I've refuted what feels like a million times. Isn't there a term for someone who is psychologically incapable of admitting, even to themselves, that they've done something wrong? Me, can admit it if I do something wrong, and not have my brain explode. I admitted and clearly apologized when I felt I'd screwed up 5 days ago, and it hasn't killed me-and AFAIK, I hadn't even violated policy. Also, I just discovered something! It looks like there are two clearly conflicting statements in policy - the ones I quoted and referenced (from WP:Reprimands) that clearly state that AN was the place for me to bring the dispute with JJ, and the one that, unfortunately, the folks beating me up at AN refused to quote or reference, but may have been thinking of. So there was policy clearly supporting my use of AN, and there's a conflict with other policy that I'll document and try to get addressed after the dust settles.

If I am later re-added properly and by an uninvolved admin, at least I'll have received help or have an uninvolved admin to ask again for the help understanding I asked for, (the Request for Clarification reproduced below) rather than just a restriction slapped on me sans answers by NAEG, which is what I got, instead.

P.S The restriction I proposed for JJ was 1RR, and I provided links and diffs to show that a huge fraction of his edits were uncivil, hostile, responses to civil DR, and I quoted and referenced the policy (from WP:Reprimands) authorizing the proposal. FYI, I may be offline for a couple days.

--Elvey (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Revised 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Clarification
Since this is Requests/Clarification, I ask for answers to my questions regarding sanctions here:

Climate Change sanctions/restrictions
I could use some help understanding the comments some have made about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content, in that if JJ is violating Arbcom sanctions/restrictions, which ones? I'm trying to figure out what means. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions means that if JJ has been warned, admins can impose whatever sanction they choose, if he violates a policy he's been warned of? Yes, No, sorta? If I read correctly, the warning doesn't count if it's from a regular user or an involved administrator, or doesn't reference the sanctions; is that correct? Yes, No, sorta? If so, I wonder if JJ has been or should be thus warned re. OWN, CIVIL, etc., W.R.T. global warming.--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I warn JJ as NewsAndEventsGuy has? --Elvey (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Does NewsAndEventsGuy need to notify JJ, Ronz, etc-  those who have made comments about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content? I don't understand this process I've been dragged into.--Elvey (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller
Since I've been dragged into this I shall comment. Because a 3rd edit by Elvey had an automatic edit summary that said it was a revert, I gave him a 3RR template. His response was to template me for abuse of the 3RR template. Things spiraled downhill from there as I allowed his language to confuse me and although I apologised he didn't accept my apology. However, he never withdrew his accusation that I'd abused the template and indeed seems confused about the purpose of the template. I've asked him twice, once at AN and last night at his talk page about this. My post to his talk page says " I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and "So even if I had violated 2RR, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this?" My post was before his last response above. He hasn't responded to my question.

With this issue he again seems to misunderstand the purpose of warnings. They are meant to advise an editor of a situation in which they might be blocked if they continue a certain pattern of behavior. His behavior the last few days at AN and elsewhere seem similar to the behavior that got him an indefinite block in 2007 for "user fails to get a clue, creates a hostile editing environment while disregarding our policies, come back when you can be constructive". There is also an open SPI on him (waiting for CU at Sockpuppet investigations/Elvey concerning accounts created that immediately involved themselves in Elvey related disputes.

NAEG seems to have acted in good faith. And as I understand it, Elvey and NAEG now know about the sanctions so whether or not they have been warned appropriately if they break them they can be sanctioned. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza
In short, even with a vague recollections that there were retractions restrictions [autocorrect error!] on who could list notifications, there was nothing obvious on the ARBCC page to confirm this one way or another. A clarification note would be very useful, and I thought it sensible for NAEG to ask for such clarification.

When asked by NAEG about issues with an editor, I pointed out that it appeared to come under WP:ARBCC. It wasn't clear if the user had been notified under WP:ARBCC#Notifications. At that stage I couldn't recall the procedure, and could not see anything on the ARBCC page to clarify who gave notifications. I'd recently given an editor an informal note about ARBCC, but was not sure if my own position as an involved editor and admin stopped me from listing the editor formally.

Looking again at WP:ARBCC, the struck out section Warning of intended sanctions stated "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorising sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counselled on specific steps to take to bring his or her editing into line with the relevant policies and guidelines." That is superseded by WP:ARBCC "24) The climate change topic, broadly interpreted, is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

In retrospect, the WP:ARBCC section is actually a log of warnings by uninvolved administrators, but there's nothing to indicate that and in the past notifications appear to have been given by non-admins. Probably the best approach is to add a subheading making it clear that these are formal notifications of warnings by uninvolved administrators.

It may be worth considering removing or striking notifications by non-admins, but looking at the discretionary sanctions page, it states that "Uw-sanctions can be used to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process. A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." . dave souza, talk 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simple wording under the heading could be "This section logs formal warnings by uninvolved administrators. Informal notification may be given on user talk pages by others, but should not be listed here." As an option, clerks could remove non-admin notifications and advise the user concerned of this rule. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to KC and Sandstein for thoughtful views on the broader context. In this particular case, non-admin notifications by NAEG were not formal warnings so no harm done, and they have since been removed from the log by NAEG. It's clearly good, as with 3RR, that any editor getting into the disputed area gets a notification [from anyone] advising with no presumption of guilt that they may be subject to a block if they go over the line. Such notifications aren't logged for 3RR, but the log at discretionary sanctions areas does seem to have been helpful in some cases. In the climate change area, General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log had a similar function before being superseded by the ARBCC decision. WP:AC/DS states "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning". It requires that sanctions be logged, but doesn't mention logging warnings. . . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement J. Johnson
I have added myself as a very much interested party.

It seems to me that the "giving of due warning" — I presume that is the point of allowing any regular editor to post ARBCC notices — enables such ominous consequences ("discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved adminstrator", point #2 at WP:AC/DS) that it should not be automatically enabled at the whim of any editor. For sure, everyone editing at (say) Climate Change should understand the requirements. But if anyone should stray then the first recourse by any non-admin editor should be an informal reminder. If that (and other remedies) fail and the strongest measures are to be contemplated, then the seriousness of the matter should require that "due warning" be made by an administrator. Otherwise there is too much potential for abuse, and a likely possibility that a warned editor might mistake it for non-consequential harassment. Also, an administrator is presumably more likely to be observant of the requirements of "due" warning. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Query. Elvey has suggested that we become "subject to discretionary sanctions" by being listed here. My understanding is that any editing in the Climate Change area is subject to sanctions; that being listed here is (generally) constructive notice of particular instances that may result in specific sanctions. Perhaps this could be clarified? Also, perhaps it could be clarified that what is being requested in this case (by NAEG) is not a sanction, but clarification of who can give constructive notice of a request for a sanction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The request by NewsAndEventsGuy is a bit confusing, but it raises the following questions: I recommend to resolve these questions by I understand that is currently evaluating, pursuant to a now-archived clarification request by me, whether under DS, "warnings" should be replaced by "notifications" that do not presuppose misconduct. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since 2011 the topic is subject to WP:AC/DS, which require "warnings". It is unclear under the wording of these procedures who may issue "warnings" - whether uninvolved administrators or all editors. It is similarly unclear who may log such warnings on the case page.
 * The "Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions" section of the case page has a subsection called "Notifications", even though no provision of the decision calls for "notifications" (instead, as mentioned above, "warnings" are required).
 * clarifying the relevant wording of WP:AC/DS, and
 * standardizing the format, title etc. of the logging subsections of all DS case pages, which are rather diverse at the moment.

Statement by KillerChihuahua
I have long felt that notifications should be the standard, as opposed to warnings. Keep formal warnings, they have their place; but leaving out the notification option has led to a sticky situation where an editor effectively cannot be informed without being accused of wrongdoing, and cannot be sanctioned without a step which is often pointless and harmful to the encyclopedia (in the sense that one must cross off "warning" before doing anything else which might be indicated.) This is absurd, so sorry. Editors ought to be able to tell other editors without having to wait until the new editor has committed a foul which they might have been able to avoid; articles should not be left at risk just because an editor has to be warned, and then another filing must take place before they're actually prevented from harming the encyclopedia. Then comes the second problem; editors who are warned react in a hostile fashion if they think there is any question regarding their actions, leading to more drama and bad feelings. Then there is the third problem, which has led to truly ridiculous arguments on AE; editors argue that they can't be sanctioned because they were never formally, adequately, procedurally correctly, warned. Notifications solve all these problems. I have always had notifications on articles on community probation which I have written and enforced, and there is far less hostility, far less wiki-lawyering, and far less bizarre rules wankery. With notifications, one is truly being kind and letting someone know before they get into trouble. This is my view not just on this case but every case on DS as well as CS; we should change the standard approach to a more proactive, helpful one. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation for an example; "Listing here indicates only that an editor has been notified. Listing here should not be taken to mean that the user's edits were in violation of the article probation." IOW notification is not to be taken that an editor has done anything wrong; and the verbiage of the Uw-probation template is also friendly and informative ("a routine friendly notice"), rather than accusatory. This is one instance where I think the community standard practice is preferable to the ArbCom standard practice. Killer Chihuahua 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * The standard section name is "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions". It was removed erroneously when the affected case is closed. T. Canens then added it back with the section title as directed by the remedy that passed.
 * That being said: This area is now under Discretionary sanctions. Thus, uninvolved administrators are the ones to warn (and place notice). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Thanks for bringing up this point. I can see the aid a "list of notices", etc., could provide, but I'm also of the mind that, in trying to keep a fraught area cool, giving friendly (unlogged) notices first might be the best option (also per WP:TEMPLAR). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As was implied above, I do intend to deal with the wider issue of notices by means of an overarching motion, which I hope to draft in the near future (the motion will require a large commitment of time and a lot of attention to detail). Ultimately, the nature of notices (and the notices–warnings dichotomy) will need to be decided through a binding vote among the committee, but community comment will certainly be solicited. AGK  [•] 23:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: I have published a draft motion at User talk:AGK/DS, where you are welcome to submit your thoughts and comments. AGK  [•] 23:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This appears to be being handled. Thanks to AGK for the draft motion. I agree with KillerChihuahua's comments on notifications (similar to such comments made elsewhere). Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (May 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=559065919 Original discussion]

Initiated by  Phoenix and Winslow (talk) at 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Dave_souza notified here. Stephan_Schulz notified here. Prioryman notified here. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix and Winslow
There was another posting of Climatic Research Unit emails by "Mr. FOIA" in the middle of March, 2013. Two months later there's no mention of this event in Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as Climategate), and one comment by an IP editor on the Talk page. This is the third such posting by Mr. FOIA. The first two are already covered in the article mainspace; and the first one (with its reaction) makes up the bulk of the controversy, and the article. The third posting has been reported by at least three sources I believe to be reliable: an op-ed column by Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston in Forbes magazine ; a blog by James Delingpole at The Daily Telegraph ; and a non-partisan think tank called CFACT. As well as a large number of personal blogs, which I concede would probably be considered unreliable; a few samples here. ArbCom's prohibition against the use of blogs as a source (WP:ARBCC) has been cited on the article Talk page by User:Dave_souza, however, the Telegraph blog by Delingpole appears to be an exception to this rule per WP:NEWSBLOG. User:Stephan_Schulz has also indicated his opposition to using CFACT, and User:Prioryman has indicated he would oppose use of the Forbes op-ed by Larry Bell. So I would appreciate a clarification of the Committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources. Are these three sources reliable enough to use in the Climategate article?


 * I notice below that Prioryman believes this should be addressed at WP:RSN and if this were any one of 4 million other articles, he'd be right. However, at WP:RSN, they'd notice that the reliability of blogs (as well as the reliability of other sources) has already been addressed in the ArbCom proceeding and the final decision regarding this particular article, so they'll just defer to the ArbCom decision, and I'll end up back here at ArbCom requesting this clarification. I think proceeding directly to ArbCom may be the best route. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:SilkTork I hope you don't mind me responding in this spot to make sure everyone sees it before investing a lot of time in it. Let me save you some time. The above comments by the arbitrators have given me all the clarification I need, and I thank you. As I understand it, the Daily Telegraph blog can definitely be used as a reliable source, and the other two sources I mentioned should probably go to WP:RSN. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman
On a procedural note, this is clearly the wrong place for such a request and it should have been posted to Reliable sources noticeboard instead. Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Phoenix and Winslow, what Arbcom always says in this kind of situation is try dispute resolution first and come to them last. I'm afraid that in this case you've got that the wrong way round. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
This is the wrong venue to be asking this question. ArbCom can't settle content disputes between editors. The correct venue for this question is the Reliable sources noticeboard. BTW, there is no ArbCom prohibition against the use of blogs as a source. They can be used, but in very limited situations. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Phoenix and Winslow is here because of section 4.2.1, WP:ARBCC. That section merely quotes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:BLP. Arbcom has not placed any restriction on the use of sources in the Climate Change area that exceeds what these policies already say. Note that they use the word 'reminded': It would be astounding if Arbcom gave you a special exemption for the three sources that you have proposed. Instead, you should ask for review at WP:RSN on anything you are uncertain about. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline: being a content dispute, this is outside of the Committee's remit; this should indeed be addressed at WP:RSN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the CC decision prohibits the use of any suitable blog from being used as verification for a Wikipedia article about climate change. Like Ed says, the remedy merely "reminds" editors about existing Wikipedia policy. As for whether the specific blogs are suitable for use in a citation, that would plainly be outwith this committee's remit - but it does seem appropriate to me to distinguish between personal blogs (on which anything can be written) and online versions of newspaper opinion pieces (like the Telegraph blog) that are significantly more reliable. AGK  [•] 13:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Salvio giuliano and AGK that this isn't a question for ArbCom. That being said, since we are here, it seems to me to be suboptimal use of time to argue about what precise sources can be used to support a statement (that more e-mails were released in March) if no one is questioning the truth of the statement. A more relevant question might potentially be how notable the release of the additional e-mails was if the only references to them anywhere are in places like blogs. But as said above, that's a question to be answered by others than us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of blogs as sources was part of an ArbCom remedy in the Climate change case. As we lay weight on using appropriate procedures, and given the special power that is granted to ArbCom, I can see how there might be some concern in answering this question in other venues, and to prefer to come direct to ArbCom. On looking at the wording, I would say the remedy did not make special provision regarding such sources in relation to the topic matter, and so the question can be raised at WP:RSN without fear of breaking any ArbCom rules.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of enforcement action (January 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=592220529#Amendment_request:_Climate_change Original discussion]

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  Darkness Shines (talk) at 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Details of desired modification. I want it lifted.

Statement Darkness Shines
Sandstein has banned me from reverting on any article relating to climate change. Even if the edit is an obvious violation of BLP. His rationale for this sanction was to prevent further disruption, however as there was no further disruption from me then this sanction is not preventative. BLP policy is that "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" This sanction is a violation of our policy on BLP. Yes I edit warred, yes I was wrong, but banning an editor from removing blatant violations of BLP is ridiculous. A 1RR restriction would make more sense, if I were reverted by an editor then I would go to the article talk page to make a case.

I suppose I have to point out that Kaj Taj Mahal is a SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to denigrate the BLP James Delingpole. Edits such as writing having no scientific or intellectual qualifications himself to make this accusation. Or calling him a mental-midget. Or violating NPOV and LABEL by adding a section title Anthropogenic climate change denial The sanction imposed on myself means the first diff I presented here could not be removed by me, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The article protection was removed before I was sanctioned, and there were no reverts by myself on it. Please explain where this "continuing disruption" was? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, please read what I have written. I said that if I am reverted then off to the talk page I go, how exactly could I do 1RR a day under that restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

,, . At 13:28, 15 January 2014 editor IHaveAMastersDegree, added this to a BLP "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy thoeries and has been cited as an example of conspiracy theories in science that "target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies"", the source does not mention Delingpole, I rasied this at 13:41, 15 January 2014 It was finally removed at 16:56, 15 January 2014, so that BLP violation sat in the article for an hour and a half, because had I removed that content it would be deemed a revert and I would be blocked. And if the next time the BLP vio is worse? Does it sit in an article for hours in the hope someone will come along to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For three days this BLP violation has sat in an article. I am unable to remove it and am hoping someone will see my post on the talk page, thing is, Delingpole did not write the blog post the authors of that paper are referring to, it was a guest post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Say what? Every BLP violation I have pointed out has been agreed with by other editors that they were BLP violations. The diffs I presented prove the exact opposite of what you are saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, where have I said those violations were "outrageous name-calling and vandalism" I am pointing out obvious BLP violations, which I cannot rectify because of this sanction, are you really OK with BLP vios sitting in articles for days at a time? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Please note that DarknessShines appealed his restriction to WP:AE this past week, where his appeal was reviewed and declined unanimously by 5 admins. Here's a link to the appeal, as I don't see one provided above. MastCell Talk 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
While admins are allowed to extend editing restrictions to include a ban on removing BLP violations and vandalism, it is excessive for Sandstein to have both removed the exemption and subjected DS to a 0RR. A block for edit-warring given the contentious nature of the BLP claim, simply removing the exemption, or even a 1RR with no exemption for removing BLP violations and vandalism would have all been better geared towards addressing the cause of the problem without needlessly barring constructive editing in the topic area. Going straight to a 0RR with no exemptions is unduly severe.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio, it is not reasonable at all. It is completely overkill to give someone an indefinite 0RR with no exemptions in a topic area for a single BLP dispute over a single article when there are no prior sanctions within the topic area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kaj Taj Mahal
His behaviour at Talk:James Delingpole was rather disheartening, and precludes me from supporting any relaxation of sanctions. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Collect: I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with whose behaviours you are talking about (perhaps you could inform me), but my reservations about Darkness Shines' sanction-lifting comes from the template fiasco, for which he was admonished for here. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add one more thing, I think this baseless SPI request is somewhat indicative of his maturity level. This sort of ad hominem targeting lowers my confidence in his ability to edit these types of sensitive articles without provoking a conflict. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Darkness Shines: I have many varied purposes on Wikipedia. Just one of my aims isn't to denigrate, but to improve the accuracy and neutrality on the James Delingpole article.  --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
Please note the talk page discussions on "section titles" at that page  and at the corresponding BLP/N discussion wherein I fear that some of the disputants complaining most loudly about DS seem to evince essentially the same behaviour as they dislike in him. I suggest that the equivalent sanction actually be extended to each of those editors de novo by motion as a result in order to calm down what appears to be a relatively toxic atmosphere in that corner of the Wiki-world. My sole connection here is suggesting a neutral and clear section title, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I recommend that this appeal is declined, for the reasons it was declined at WP:AE. I refer to my comments there. This additional appeal is forum shopping.

I did not impose a one-revert restriction, as now suggested by the appellant, because such a restriction would be insufficiently preventative. Even at the rate of one revert per day, edit wars can still be carried out. Especially in the case of particularly argumentative and wiki-litigious editors, I prefer imposing sanctions that are as simple as possible and contain as few loopholes, exceptions and caveats as possible.

The conduct of Kaj Taj Mahal has been the subject of a separate, now-closed AE request, and does not concern this appeal. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
@: Darkness Shines has already shown that he can't exercise the sort of judgment your proposal would require (which is why the sanction Sandstein imposed didn't give him room for it). Moreover it's not necessary: if Mr Shines perceives an egregious BLP violation, he can bring it to the attention of other editors and it will be dealt with in short order. This has already worked:, followed by. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the things one can seen in DS's posts above is the intention to deal with BLP issues that are not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". This is the point: he cannot effectively make the kind of judgment that would be required to cope with a less stringent restriction.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is, they're not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". You seem not to understand the less stringent restriction that might be considered for you.  That's one of the reasons the more stringent one was imposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline The purpose of your restriction is to prevent disruption. I find this diff persuasive.   Roger Davies  talk 09:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ For information, the words I used were "to prevent disruption" not "continuing disruption". It is a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to prevent disruption in topic areas that are very prone to it.  Roger Davies  talk 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Darkness Shines is an editor I've found to be often right; the problem is that he's sometimes right in the wrong way and, so, ends up sanctioned. In this case, speaking personally, I'd have imposed a slightly different sanction (one allowing for one single revert for obvious BLP violations), but, when adjudicating appeals, we are not supposed to substitute our own judgement to that of the imposing administrator. We can only determine whether the use he made of the power we delegated to him was reasonable and, in my opinion, it was. So, for that reason, decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @TDA, considering that a. this is not the first time Darkness Shines has been placed under a revert restriction and b. the disruptive edits which led to the imposition of this sanction concerned material which DS wrongly considered a BLP-violation, I disagree with you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines should not be reverting legitimately disputable material, even if it is his personal opinion that the material is violative or problematic. However, I find a sanction that prohibits the reverting of even outrageous name-calling and vandalism to be troublesome, except in truly exceptional circumstances, and wonder if the sanction might be rethought to that extent. Criticism of this appeal as forum-shopping is unfounded as the administrator who closed the AE thread specifically told Darkness Shines that he had the right to bring this here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Salvio sums this up well. I would probably have put forth a different sanction, similar to the one he describes, but that's not the question. Climate change is under discretionary sanctions, the sanction imposed might well be more excessive than I would have imposed, but the logic behind it is reasonable. I'd decline this request. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline; the sanction is well within admin discretion under the circumstances. T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances leading to it, the sanction applied is well within reasonable administrative discretion. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Climate change (WP:ARBCC)
Original request

Initiated by  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

List of any users involved or directly affected
 * (initiator)
 * Generic FYI link posted to affected article talk page

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
The question As you know, WP:ARBCC (and the new DS system that enforces it) applies to the broadly construed topic of climate change. Does that encompass the article Scientific consensus? My request/opinion I would like to see you answer "YES", and an admin or clerk paste the notification template on the article talk page. Supporting article history
 * Dec 4 2004 (William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that attacked global warming.
 * July 18, 2005 OK, now that the Climate wars have quieted down a bit following the Arbcom decision, I've taken a look at the rewrites. -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What prompts the motion Originally I wrote something about the users and editing that has been happening recently, but after completing it I decided to redact it. After all, I'm not seeking AE against anyone at this time. If anyone asks, I can just add it back. It should also be obvious that well-funded PR firms are paid to undercut belief in the notion of "scientific consensus" as part of various industries' fight against regulations, fees, and taxes. The fossil fuel industry is joined in that regard by tobacco, big pharma, and many others. There are plenty of RSs for that too, if needed. Conclusion If you agree, then please have a clerk post the DS notice on the article talk page. Thanks for your attention, Happy Holidays NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Serten's odd Jan 5 comment, the article in question has had a static title ("scientific consensus") since it was first created by someone else in 2004, and Serten was a prolific participant at the article talk page where I posted the notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
The discretionary sanctions would apply to any edit was what broadly construed to be related to climate change, so not every edit on the page would be covered, though the two edits you linked (2004 & 2005) would be covered. Edits regarding tobacco and big pharma very likely wouldn't be covered, but edits regarding fossil fuel probably would. So the short answer is yes and no, and it depends on the edit. For example, an edit to Al Gore regarding his military service wouldn't be covered by the ARBCC discretionary sanctions but an edit to the Environmentalism section very likely would be. Whether it's worth adding the DS template to Talk:Scientific consensus, I don't think it matters two much, the template doesn't need to be there for someone to be sanctioned, nor for them to be alerted about the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by J. Johnson
I would point out that Scientific consensus and the editing and issues there are directly connected with Draft:IPCC consensus, which has parallel issues and authorship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, NAEG provided notice at Talk:Scientific consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serten II
I am the author of the Draft and I was as well involved on the page here. Nobody informed me so far. Nice approach. Point is, the Article Scientific consensus has been dragged into the WP climate wars, via copy and pasting from Politicization of science, which is parroting the US specific controversies, merchants of doubt, Climate change, evolution and so on. Yawn. I have been told today that a scientist daring to write a critical review about Oreske in a scientific journal is no scientist at all and major contributions (from a Holberg Prize laureate) from science studies about science are "cargo cult science". Thats the sort of debating culture at the moment.

In the meanwhile, I have rewritten the entry Science studies and received some friendly support from an actual scholar in the field. . The stage here is not my game. However I am sort of annoyed about the way scientific consensus is being hold hostage for a low quality side show of the US climate wars. It could be improved in an valuable entry about the development, use, limitations and strenghts of science consensus approaches in addressing wicked problems, using a more abstract level than Ozone depletion and climate change. Serten II (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Climate change (WP:ARBCC): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Essentially as stated by Callanecc. In the case here, the entire article isn't related to climate change, but portions of it could be. If the edit is in a portion of the article not related, it is fine, if it is related, that particular edit falls under discretionary sanctions. As to templating, normally, an article talk page should not be templated unless all or almost all of the article would fall under DS, as almost any article could have a portion related to various areas under DS. The example of Al Gore is a good one. We wouldn't template the article on Gore himself because part of the article could relate to climate change, since edits could be made to most of the article in regards to his political career, life, etc., that would have nothing to do with climate change. A template on An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, would be appropriate, as that entire article would fall under the climate change DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything to add beyond what Callanecc and Seraphimblade have already said. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What they said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The test to be applied to the article on Scientific consensus is, as stated above, quite clear. Please proceed accordingly. AGK  [•] 23:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think nails how this one should be handled. Courcelles 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree with the above. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same view as the above, FWIW. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade's comments are all that needs to be said here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above, particularly endorsing Seraphimblade's statement of the way to evaluate particular pages.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add here beyond what has been said above -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Climate change (August 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hipocrite at 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Hipocrite topic-banned


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Hipocrite topic-banned
 * Termination

Statement by Hipocrite
I have successfully not edited this website for over 1 year at this point, and have, to first order, not edited for over 4 years. I would like this stain removed from my record going forward. I have no present intention to edit this website, but if I were to edit again, I would not, in the future, be nearly as combative with people I disagreed with - instead relying on the wisdom of crowds, as opposed to feeling sole ownership to do the right thing. I have successfully demonstrated this by not editing in large bulk, for the past many years. Over the past 10 years, I have become 10 years more mature and realised that this stuff is mostly meaningless anyway. The one block I received as a result of this sanction was determined to be in error -. I will respond to any direct questions anyone has for me, but otherwise, leave it in your good judgement. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence presented of my not editing for years demonstrates my ability to not get involved and/or walk away from conflict, which was the key failure I believe I needed to fix a decade ago. While I currently have no intention of editing, that might change - however, I'm not very excited to edit with an albatross around my neck. You can review my edits post the case for 5+ years of semi-active participation - I am in no way saying that I did not edit at all - noting that in those 5 years I was not blocked once, while never requesting this restriction be modified. Hipocrite (talk)
 * I don't mean to be smarmy or hypocritical, but you'd review the case if I merely said "I'd like to edit climate change articles again?" Can do. "I'd like to edit climate change articles again, if that's the only way I can get this topic ban lifted." I will pledge to make 15 good non-controversial edits to climate change articles as soon as the topic ban is lifted - here's the first edit - in the "Discovery" section of Global_warming, the first reference to Edme Mariotte refers to them only by Mariotte. Alternatively, the reference to Svante Arrhenius uses his full name. I would attempt to normalise this to full name first time, last name future times unless there's a failure to be clear (S. Arrhenius if there's also an A. Arrhenius). If there's push back, I'd try to go the other way. If there's further pushback, I'd just leave it in the non-normalised state it's in. I continue to have no intention to get in any arguments about Climate Change, regardless of the abject wrongness of anyone else. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Climate change: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Climate change: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If you have not edited at all, what evidence should we have to consider that the topic ban is no longer necessary? Also, if you have no intention of further editing, what would be the point of formally removing a remedy? In general, I don't think there is a point to repeal a remedy for editors who are not interested in returning to editing and in this case in particular the very fact that editing ceased means there is no evidence to judge whether the remedy is still required. Regards So  Why  12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know – that case was in 2010, and while there's certainly not a lot of recent editing, Hipocrite does have a track record for us to view. I'd like to hear from some others, but I'd be willing to consider vacating it. Katietalk 15:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Katie said, I'm open to the idea but would like to hear a bit more before making any decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in entertaining an appeal from someone for whom the point is some sort of "honor". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless something unexpected is brought to our attention soon, I would grant the request. Ten years is a long time under any circumstances and certainly with respect to this topic-area. (By way of disclosure, although it's not especially relevant now, I was the only 2010 arbitrator who thought the sanction was probably too severe in the first place.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support vacating the old remedy absent evidence it remains necessary. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't even intend to return to editing, isn't this a bit of a waste of time? You can not edit just as effectively with a topic ban than without. I think we should dismiss this request for now and look at it again if/when Hipocrite actually wants to edit climate change-related articles. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The appeal has shown that the restriction is no longer necessary, and while the net effect to the encyclopedia seems the same regardless of whether the restriction is active or not, it remains that the continued restriction does bother the appellant, and thus I see a convincing case to remove it.  Maxim (talk)  12:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Climate Change (Hipocrite)
The restriction imposed on by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hypocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted.


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As no longer necessary. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  12:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comment above.   Maxim (talk)  18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) While I fully understand the position of the arbs who think this isn't necessary, I'm generally in favor of lifting older restrictions if there is no demonstrable need to keep them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Per my comments above. Edit wisely, Hipocrite. Katietalk 21:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) Per my and SoWhy's comments above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above. Regards  So  Why  08:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)