Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence/Archive 2

WMCab?
Before using section titles like that Cla should have the decency to demonstrate the existence of such a Cabal. Which will be tricky, since it doesn't exist. OR Cla could instead have the decency to refraim from such deliberately misleading "words". Remember the last big "Cabal"-er, and we don't want Cla to go that way do we? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Cla68 frequently makes such false implications against others. He did it to me on many occasions. It is not below Cla68 to assert an outright blatant lie to the arbitration committee. That is exactly what he did previously. I never stated anywhere what Cla68 falsely claims here.  Bill Huffman (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another PA in the guise of discussing evidence? The committee is capable, I trust, of weighing evidence without such asides. Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it an aside. The point is that when weighing evidence, the reliability of the source is important. If a source has tried to mislead an authority in the past then they may try to do the same thing again in the future. Here's my response to Cla68's false accusation which contains strong evidence as to the lack of veracity in Cla68's statement. Cla68 had plenty of opportunity to explain, which he never did. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the term "WMCab" supposed to mean? I've edited Wikipedia for five years but have never encountered the term before today. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a variation on the term "GWCab" that Cla68 uses on WR. Since one of Cla68's main concerns is the fact that WMC reverted him four years ago, he tends to see WMC as the ringleader and the rest of the "cabal" as his minions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you point to some refs on WR where Cla uses the terms? Also, why is he importing them here? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He uses GWCab over there but not WMCab as as far as I know. So technically he's not "importing" the term from WR. Despite the honor of having a cabal named after you, don't get a big head. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest changing it to "WC Taxi's", denoting fellow riders? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct term being fellow traveler, not imperialist automobile operator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to infer the freedom riders's... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68, in my opinion it would be better, on balance, if you found another term to use. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

False accusation
Cla68 states "Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who I understand has an alternate administrator account the he/she no longer uses.)" I do not have an administrator account under this or any other name. I once had administrative privileges under my previous user name, but voluntarily resigned my adminship two years ago because it stopped being enjoyable. It's quite simple to check these things, so I am mystified as to what point Cla68 is trying to make with this innuendo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I vouch for both these things. Especially the latter one about adminship not being enjoyable. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cardamon
Cardamon is citing evidence from the CC RfE page - which AFAIK is the appropriate place to discuss issues such as an editor's lack of civility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing this. Cardamon, I must apologize if I offend you. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

James Delingpole
The James Delingpole BLP is mentioned on the evidence page; Delingpole has just published another article on it in his blog on the Telegraph website: -- JN  466  12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this even relevent? Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delingpole is an outspoken critic of AGW and Wikipedia takes WP:BLP violations very seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I get that. How is it relevent to this case, given that none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it - unless, of course, you think I'm Sparticus, I mean, SpaceMonkey. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem is bigger than the editors named here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * H has now put in an analysis-of-evidence section, which makes for rather interesting reading William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. "none of the editors here who would be expected to be damaging Dellingpole's bio have edited it". A very interesting observation. None of them have edited to repair the issues either. Yet they are all quite quick to criticise all and sundry for not immediately dealing with Scibaby nonsense. Which is more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation? Cow farts or character assasination of living folk? But since this is a skeptic, who cares? ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of them even knew the biography existed untill today. But look - one of them did just repair it. I agree, howerver, that Marknutletys failure to alert editors he knows are responsible dealers with BLP problems (like, for instance, me) about problematic articles that he is aware of is seriously damaging to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, what a nonsensical position. Why would anyone even notice an edit to Delingpole's article? It's certainly not on my watchlist. And why don't you, personally, fix all the problems in all BLP's on Wikipedia, right about now? If you can spare EUR 300,- hour, I'll do BLP patrol on your choice of articles. Until then, I edit some of the articles I have an actual interest in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we even have a template for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys consistently miss the salient points in your enthusiastic point scoring against your adversaries. One might think it was convenience rather than oversight. There are two points here.
 * First... this BLP was a disaster, made WP look bad, and puts paid to the notion that all is rosy in article space. It's not. The science may be fine but everything else is a mess. So your stewardship (which you have asked for credit for as an excuse for your behavior) isn't cutting it.
 * Second... you guys tend to raise Scibaby as a spectre and find fault with everyone for not jumping up to clean up his cowfarts. Well, the shoe's on the other foot. Scibaby isn't the real problem here. If you want to clean up cowfarts, go for it, and have fun... it's how things work here, we all work on what we want to... but stop claiming you're performing some great service when actually there are far worse problems in the space.
 * Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What fascinates me here is that, had WMC edited the article, certain editors would have screamed COI!!! But if he doesn't edit it, we get this nonsense. It's simple -- if you care about an article, edit it. If you don't care, delete it. Community norms haven't stopped you in the past. But blaming others for your inaction isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That IS a fascinating theory all right. If WMC had edited it to clean up that allegation and someone accused him of COI, that might be a valid point to raise and if I were aware of it, I would have spoken in his defense. But that's not typically how WMC actually edits BLPs of skeptics, is it? He's long term banned from one already. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of "point-scoring", I don't think it's worth continuing to flog this. I've never heard of editors being assigned collective responsibility for failing to "correct" a substandard article that they weren't even aware of and/or had never worked on. Lar, if you seriously intend to pursue that argument, then we have a number of extremely far-reaching implications to deal with across the project. Editors have always been responsible for the edits they actually make, but I'm not aware of any precedent for holding them responsible for edits that they failed to make, particularly on articles where they've never even set foot. MastCell Talk 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed the points made, MastCell. (you're strawdogging me on a point I am actively not trying to make, besides). I'll repeat, and then I'm done.  1) The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point 2) Editors saying "look at us and how wonderful our edits are", it excuses acting like a prat... ought not to do that, because of #1. They also ought not to play the "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby" unless that goes both ways. It doesn't, so they ought to stop waxing eloquent about the cowfart threat. This particular BLP violation is small beer (to everyone except the person violated) unfortunately, because we have thousands more just like it and not in just this topic area. But it's a useful and instructive example. Unless one is not willing to learn from it. Done. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, I think you misunderstand the Scibaby issue. It's not "why isn't everyone helping us combat Scibaby?" it's "Stop being difficult, I'm dealing with Scibaby." Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic area is far from spiffy. Claims that the science articles are awesome miss the point - The "topic area" for this article is journalism, maybe right-wing politics. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point Lar. The more good editors are hounded, the less likely they are to watch new, controversial articles. You still have done nothing to improve the article, but you're going on about other editors not editing the article. If you can't be bothered to fix it, you most certainly have no standing to lecture other editors about failing to fix the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But I don't edit in this topic area. (CC/GW, which this article assuredly is, although it may be other topic areas as well) You do. And further, I lecture no one. I merely say "don't claim the area's spiffy" when it is not spiffy, and say "don't use your editing prowess as a free pass". Much evidence backed by those two falsehoods needs to be discounted. And will be. Done again. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, you're demanding a unique and unreasonable standard of perfection. If you take any general topic area where our coverage has been recognized as excellent - say, the Second World War, or medicine - and then drill down to BLPs of low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole, you might find problems. That is a real problem, but it is not an indictment of all editors who work in the general topic area, nor is it evidence that the topic area's coverage is not generally high-quality. MastCell Talk 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of which "low-profile individuals analogous to Delingpole" does the WW II area have BLPs? No, the Delingpole bio, in my view, is symptomatic of a greater rot. Others have introduced evidence of how one side tends to slant bios of those they favor and those they denigrate. This isn't one of those sort, but it nevertheless puts paid to certain notions. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I find an obscure, poor-quality WWII-related BLP, will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame for any damage it may have caused? I would hope the answer is "no". If your point is that those you label a "gang" or "cadre" have violated BLP, then why not evidence that, rather than trying to shoehorn this incident - which clearly had nothing to do with the "gang" - into the narrative you favor? Again, I don't see how this low-quality, obscure BLP invalidates the work that's been done on climate-change articles, but that seems to be the case you're making. MastCell Talk 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Will you hold the members of WP:MILHIST retroactively to blame"? No, because they don't all claim that their awesome l33t editing gives them a free pass to be snarky. If you introduce a "the articles in this area are teh AWESUM!!!11!!11!" behavioral defense, you deserve to get called on it if the articles aren't actually uniformly AWESUM... That's what this evidence is. Not invalidation of the good work, invalidation of the defense. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no-one is making this argument (well, no-one does on this pages), I fail to see the value of this contribution. But I admire your knowledge of L33t. Of course, I don't think anybody but you has used that, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought several folk have been introducing evidence of how excellent the CC/GW article space is? Am I confused about that evidence? If not, and folk are actually introducing it, then, given what you say, what's the relevance of it? So what if the articles are excellent? Help me understand where you're going. I'm willing to stipulate that the lead articles are good, even great. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently. It's about the main science articles, not about an obscure conservative journalist. Climate change ≠ journalism. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You tried that one on for size already. Didn't fit. Articles can and do slot into more than one topic area, after all. StS linked to this article in previous statements so apparently he thinks the article has some relevance. So, again, what's the point of introducing evidence about how good the topic area is? That's the actual question. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read my "previous statement" (are there "-ments where I mention the article?), you can see that I only link to that article to provide context for my evidence about the off-wiki campaign. I made no comment about the article at all, and, at that time, I only skimmed it to verify it's the right Delingpole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I introduced evidence about the quality of climate-change content to address a mistaken but tenaciously held belief that these articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Numerous people assert that the climate-change articles reflect shamefully on the project; when pressed for specific examples, they usually produce a few blog posts from partisan talking heads or answer vaguely (e.g. "I do recall having read stuff like this, just not where.") But in true Wikipedia fashion, the misconception persists despite a lack of factual basis. I've gotten a little tired of continually going to the record every time someone brings this up, so I wanted to centralize and catalog what sources have said on the matter. The point is to address a persistent and pernicious misconception so that this proceeding is grounded in reality. I have not asserted, nor do I plan to assert, that the quality of climate-change articles excuses inappropriate behavior or BLP violations, although that opinion seems to have been imputed to me. I do think that we can't have a nuanced discussion about the interplay of content quality and editorial environment if we can't be bothered to check our basic assumptions. Again, speaking only for myself, that was my point in introducing the evidence. MastCell Talk 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Lar's talking rot, and failing to recognise the sort of pushing of undue weight to dubious BLP material indulged in by editors such as Cla and CoM. I've added some links to discussion of a bio which, fortunately, was under closer scrutiny. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We're offtopic again. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? This is analysis of evidence is it not? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please consider your evidence more carefully, Lar. You've shown that even editors sympathetic to Dellingpole's "skeptic" agenda didn't respond to this undue weight being given to a single, albeit reliable, source. As I've noted, even an excellent editor innocently proposed a very dubious hit piece by Dellingpole, apparently unaware that it was a blog and had serious BLP problems. These things happen, and we don't all watch every new article in the broad topic area. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Analyzing evidence is one thing, analyzing each other is another. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is relatively restrained, but can everyone discussing this and presenting evidence please keep WP:BLP in mind, as that still applies to arbitration cases where people with articles are mentioned, as well as elsewhere. If someone could point to the discussions on how blogs like this are handled, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"The wacko diff"
This diff has been cited multiple times (in the RFC, by Polargeo on my talk page, by WMC, 2/0, and Polargeo in their evidence sections) as an example of incivility on Lar's part. Lar provided a context to his comments (one which I had pointed out to Polargeo in May) which severely undercuts the assertions that the difference is uncivil. Polargeo (and anyone else who followed the discussion on my talk page) knew about the context in May, and anyone who read Lar's statement from Saturday should also be aware of the context, yet it is still being brought up. Why? It demonstrates nothing except that Lar has a slightly skewed sense of humor. Horologium  (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide this context here? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help but point out that whenever one of his perceived adversaries shows "a slightly skewed sense of humor" Lar accuses them of snarkiness. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite--The context is that earlier in the thread to which Lar commented, WMC commented that he received the "lowest vote percentage of all of the non-wacko [Arbcom] candidates". Lar's joke simply changed the verbiage to "highest vote total of all of the wacko candidates".  Lar clearly provides the missing context in the very first section of his evidence. Horologium  (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Context is indeed all. The relationship between Lar and me is not one in which he can use "wacko" at me as "humour". That should be fairly obvious. I look forward to you making comments on other perceived insults with a similarly lenient eye - or do you only hold a brief for Lar? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obvious now. It wasn't obvious then, as my reservoir of good faith about your reasonableness and collegiality wasn't yet completely exhausted. I think it's significant how much focus this one incident gets and how little focus your many uses of derogatory terms about others get. Gnats and camels. Fortunately for you, we've had limits imposed on our evidence or the list would be well nigh endless. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't "hold a brief" for anyone. I have never directly interacted with Lar or with you, although I am aware of areas in which I am supportive of both of you (Lar's checkuser work, your admin actions in the truther arena), and areas in which I disagree with both of you (Lar's role in the SV/FM/JzG arbcom, your arguably CoI editing in reference to BLPs of AGW opponents here). Thank you for the lack of assumption of good faith, something which is quite endemic to this topic, and one of the reasons it's so toxic. Horologium  (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is odd that you pick this one issue to comment on. There are so many others which you appear to lack any interest in - for example, Lar's bizarre stuff over Delingpole. Why do you pick this one issue to commment on? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Because it has appeared over and over again, in the RFC, on my talk page, and in no fewer than four different evidence sections in the arbitration. I want to know why an obvious joke has been imparted with so much significance. Horologium  (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it deflects attention from other more serious matters. Standard defense tactic, shoot the messenger, latch onto something minor and blow it out of proportion, or if at all possible, provoke them and then use the provocation. Cla introduced plenty of examples of that in the RfC this lot started and tried to use to take me out of the game. They'd like nothing more than to see LHVU and myself ruled out as refs, I bet. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect it hurt a lot more than anyone let on at the time. I saw it there and was pretty shocked, and I didn't lose an election in what might be considered a slightly humiliating fashion. I remember trying to cheer another failed candidate up, with "don't blame me, I voted for Jehochamn." I sensed he was feeling kinda down also. A bit of empathy was called for, and when people fail that empathy spectaularly, grudges result. I strongly suspect that happened here. What do you think? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe Lar and WMC had the kind of relationship where Lar can call WMC a wacko, even if earlier WMC was making self-deprecating jokes? Have you considered that WMC may have been hurting from a bitter electoral defeat, and further rubbing it in by someone who was certainly not friendly with WMC might have been questionable behavior? Do you agree with me that Lar's action might not have been the best idea at the time, and with 20/20 hindsight (that Lar would become WMCs major prosecutor) was a significant lapse in judgement? Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My sympathy for WMC far exceeds his sympathy for me. Let's review. He lost an election fair and square. I'm sorry for him, but he couldn't really have thought he had a chance with his record... does anyone else really think that candidacy was more than a WP:POINT exercise?. I "lost" a stewardship I'd been executing with good feedback for two years... for arbitrary and capricious reasons having little or nothing to do with the task, and everything to do with grudge letting (there was no consensus not to reconfirm, a good majority of folk and a good majority of stewards were very satisfied) in a way that was decided by folks carrying things out in a secret star chamber. No sympathy was offered, rather there was a bit of grave dancing by you lot. Oh well. WP and the WMF projects aren't fair, they're projects. But I think that you're on the wrong track here, Hipocrite, because you sound, well... hypocritical.


 * Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice. That bit of background has been conveniently overlooked as well. WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists. I don't think any has been introduced yet. If there were shedfuls of it, you'd think with a day left to go there'd be plenty. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Further, I didn't vote in your stewardship, wasn't aware the stewards were up for reconfirmation, and even if I was, I wouldn't have voted either way, because, unlike many others, I don't see random flags as relevent at all. You bring it up, I guess, because the people who believe Wikipedia should be a vehicle for harassments campaign to have you destewarded is relevent to these proceedings, somehow - or, perhaps, because you are well aware that losing an election hurts. Of course, you now accuse "you lot," which I guess includes me as "grave dancing." I don't think I've ever commented on your stewarship or lack-thereof. I'd really like a diff of my grave dancing, but, failing that, grave dancing from any of mylot. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (after another ec) I have trouble believing that WMC's ego is so brittle that he was smarting from his loss (his electoral history IRL tends to support that view), and I don't think that it is "rubbing it in". As for Lar's role in this arbitration, I don't think that anyone involved expected this eight months out. Horologium  (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (I've moved comments to make the timeline clear) Which is why I say "with 20/20 hindsight." I'm glad you assume that WMC is so stable that Stewards can show up on his talk page, which they had only previously edited to notify WMC that they were wheelwarring to have a page WMC wanted kept instead deleted, call them a whacko and he could be expected not to take it personally. As a note, most people are not that stable, so if any stewards are reading, unless you have an ongoing relationship with a user that would cause them to expect you to be showing up on their talk page making insulting jokes, just don't. That pretty much holds true for everyone - not just stewards. Of course, civility is more a "for thee, but not for me" requirement here, so feel free to not listen to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, let me know if I need to introduce in evidence the discussion where I acknowledged that perhaps the comment wasn't the most prudent comment I might have made and that I regretted making it as it wasn't very nice - yes please, you do need to do this.

''WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. Assuming such exists'' - yes indeed I will, that is a good point. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone understands - you apologized to WMC for your unkind remark on your talk page in a section WMC had never edited. But, I guess you'll just say I'm spinning by pointing this out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, that's your spin, not mine. I said I acknowledged it wasn't a good remark. YOU are the one who jumped to conclusions about who I acknowledged it to and asked for diffs that don't exist. As an aside, it's rather late to apologise to WMC now, unfortunately.... if I thought it would do any good I would, though. But none of that is actually relevant. The actual spin here (from your side) is that I flubbed up, and that somehow excuses WMC's much more egregious flubs. Right. You guys keep pounding me with this... because it's way easier to do than try to defend WMC... I admit fault and then it can be used. He doesn't or if he does, it's not all that often. Carry on. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Lar, the spin from me is that you flubbed up, and an admin flubbing up in their adminly duties is serious, and needs to be dealt with seriously. It's only you who believes that you and WMC can't both flub up - that it's either one or the other that needs to be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no perfect admins. There are no perfect people, for that matter. Sorry to break it to you. What matters here is not perfection, but how far from the mark one is, and whether one has the introspection to acknowledge where one could improve. This case is primarily, or should be, about the topic area and what a hash it is, and about the editors who edit in the area, and what a hash they've made of things. Not primarily about me. You're engaging in diversionary tactics, and you should focus on what's important. This messenger shooting isn't it. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, Horologium - my entire reason for even mentioning that overdiscussed situation is that that diff is really not very useful for making the point it is cited to support. I think that the point itself may be valid, though (emphasis on my uncertainty - it is worth investigating in this context, but not something I am going to bother myself about). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That didn't parse for me, I am afraid. Do you think this incident is significant in the larger context? Do you think those making much of it are doing so appropriately? Do you think there are more important things to focus on in this case? Do you think that this incident proves my supposed bias? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that on the face of it that is innocuous jocu-Lar comment, of the sort that is good for community-building when everybody is on the same wavelength. I do not think that it shows what it is being described as showing; if you made that comment *now* I might worry, but to the best of my knowledge you had no way of predicting later acrimony. I think that there is a reasonable case to be made without using questionable diffs that you may have some degree of bias related to the content or editors in this area. Having worked with you extensively at WP:GSCCRE, it is my considered opinion that you consistently strive for fairness, and your biases have developed based on your experiences adminning the area rather than being preconceived. I am humble enough, though, to acknowledge that what I see as bias might be entirely rational conclusions, or conversely that my own lack of preconceptions may have coloured my perceptions of yours.
 * Mostly, as a confessed pedant, it just bothered me to bad evidence being used where good evidence may exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think. :) And you, a pedant? I had no idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, if you have evidence of you apologizing to WMC for that gratituous dig, it would be nice to see, yes. Hipocrite, if you have evidence of you apologizing to any of the people you've made gratuitous digs against, that too would be nice for arbitrators to see. To get an idea of who you'd be apologizing to, see my section of the evidence page. Single instances should tend to be of little importance to ArbCom, patterns of bad behavior should be of a lot of interest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As JohnWBarber says, what arbs are looking for is long-term patterns or egregious problems, not single or isolated instances of poor judgment. The amount of talk above over a single diff in evidence and its context is illuminating but long overdone. I would recommend that more time be spent on developing and discussing other evidence. There is quite enough now related to this set of evidence for arbs to review. Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been pretty foreboding sifting through the 30-some-odd pages of archives to Climatic Research Unit documents controversy, and some of the 'sections' I've written take this into account by stating something to the effect that "here is the easiest example to find, there are others." If it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling me if you want me to find those other examples or if those included are 'enough'? It will be a frustrating couple hours, but I'm willing to do it if that's what it will take to get something done about the issues I've raised. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage.. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a rule, one example per person or article is not enough. Three to five would at least begin to establish a pattern in my mind (though other arbs may have different thresholds for that) and I also look for the timescale as well, as scattered diffs over years can indicate a low-level problem that can be excused, or a long-running one that can't be excused (it depends), and several diffs over a few months can also indicate a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair, though frustrating. I won't be able to add anything before the 'deadline' (I'm taking a break from a party to write this). But I get the impression you'll ask for further evidence at a later date. If your next step includes a "please give me evidence you say you have of x" it'd be well received.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC is welcome to in turn introduce evidence of where he's ever apologised to anyone for anything or admitted fault of any kind. - done. I look forward to Lar's retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I would have put this inline, right below where I asserted it, but someone hatted the discussion I think. Whoever hatted can move it up there if they want So yes... I acknowledge you've provided not just one, but four different links to where you used the word "apologize" (well, actually, "apologise", since this is a UK/US variant spelling). One from 2006(!) and one to BozMo about something trivial while arguing with him about the rest of the matter at hand. Those two aren't too impressive. The one to Hipocrite, though... that's actually a pretty significant one. As is the one to Hans Adler. You could have skipped the first two I mentioned, as in that one you're admitting you erred about something substantial. Bravo. I was wrong. You are willing to apologise. I am sorry I misjudged you. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hatted the discussion because it was veering into farce. Far too much attention is being paid to a single incident, ending up with people challenging each other to find diffs of where they apologised to other people. As I said above, there is other evidence that would benefit more from discussion. Also, some of the above comments come across (intentionally or not) as sarcastic, so people might want to bear that in mind. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The wacko comment is just one of many diffs that shows Lar had a hostility to WMC before CC probation began. At the time of the wacko comment Lar had already tried to delete one of WMC's user pages. Let us not debate over one single edit but over whether Lar's previous non-admin interactions with WMC really allow Lar's "uninvolved admin" calls for WMC to be banned. I strongly believe they do not allow this and that Lar has not applied the necessary restrictions on his behaviour necessitating that others apply these restrictions. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadlines?
I thought we had a deadline for posting evidence? Is it as meaningless as all the other deadlines? Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be. I followed the deadline, fool that I am. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was intended to be end of day today but I could be mistaken. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence I see it says "11:59" which on quick read meant end of day to me at the time... but on a more careful read, noting the lack of an AM/PM indication (and thus meaning a 24 hour clock and thus one minute before noon) or a timezone indication (thus meaning UTC by default, I think) yes. It's expired. By the way: I don't think the tone you guys take is very helpful/collegial. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my mistake, being an American and not used to a 24-hour clock. Make it 2359. Or even 23:59:59 if you like. In any time zone of the posting party's choosing.
 * The point of deadlines is not to have deadlines for the sake of having deadlines. It's to facilitate a resolution of the case. In the past, the arbitrators have been criticized, sometimes fairly, for taking much too long to resolve disputes, so we want to aim for this one to be addressed in a sensible time-span. I'm back from my trip today and will be rolling up my sleeves tonight and getting into the evidence, and I know the other drafters are as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. In a case as complex as this one I sometimes wonder if it is realistic to expect the arbs to read all the evidence in detail and click on every diff. In this regard note Cla68 is using a tactic he has employed in other settings, which is to put his best diffs first and then bulk up the list with a large number of marginally relevant or irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whew! Had me scared there for a minute. I'd read it as a minute before "midnight", though I should know better. I plan to cut down my verbiage later, just trying to squeeze in the diffs now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got one more section to add before the 24-hour clock rolls over. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I right in assuming the deadline is 23:59 UTC today (July 7)? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The official statement by Brad is "In any time zone of the posting party's choosing." - that gives you (or me) another 12 hours or so (it's to late to consider the effect of DST here). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to Samoa time just so you don't miss the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. We can always use samoa evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Such trivialities have no place here. Puns may be enjoyable for young people, but most of us have groan out of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a Boris unlikely to like 'em. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was midnight Greenwich time. I'll add some more evidence. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, have to admit I'm stumped -- I don't see the pun there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is not to forbid further submission of evidence or require rushed submissions to meet a deadline, but to allow a breathing space for arbitrators to consider the evidence submitted so far, and to respect that by asking the drafting arbitrators (I'm not one of them) if you want to submit further evidence or modify the evidence submitted so far. There is nothing more annoying than reviewing a set of evidence to then find it has been changed or added to. If there are substantial chunks of evidence that anyone feels they need to submit after this deadline, again, ask the drafting arbitrators and wait for a reply. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you all like to see more evidence of abuse of and POV editing in BLPs  of warming contrarians?  It is so pervasive and has gone on for so long that it would take more time to present it all. Cla68 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I could add something about inappropriate BLP editing by focusing on the Fred Singer article, but I don't want to if it's not needed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68 specifically cited BLPs of "contrarians." Does that mean individuals adhering to the consensus view have no right to BLP protection? Consider for example AQFN's characterization of CRU scientists as "criminals" in the absence of any conviction (or even trial).  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Contrarians" evidently means, according to what I've seen while compiling evidence, anyone who WMC or RealClimate appears to disagree with. That doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a human-caused-global-warming skeptic.  It could be, for example, someone who supports the human-caused theory to some degree, but may find fault with the hockey team's research. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're dodging the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my evidence, second source. That should explain the meaning of "contrarian". Peer-reviewed social science article. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence limits
Does anyone (arbs, clerks) care about evidence limits at all? By my count, Cla is up to 3k, JWB at 2.3k. Boris User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration reckons the arbs barely read the evidence anyway so it may be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a large case, and there is a tension. When people hew to the limits it leads to "but that was an isolated incident" sorts of characterizations. When they don't, then there are complaints about length. I suppose someone could find some other people to take on parts of Cla's evidence under their names, thus hewing to the letter of the restriction, if not the spirit. That seems a bad idea, though. Personally, the more evidence from Cla, the better, as his evidence is high quality, and damning. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you like damning evidence. How unbiased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's certainly better than irrelevant evidence, isn't it? Exonerating evidence is always nice too, though. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the excess text in those sections are explaining or quoting the diffs provided. That's explicitly what the drafters requested. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear: 3k of evidence when the limit is 1k is just fine by you and arbcomm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes. Long answer: it is more important that evidence is comprehensible, rather than a particular length. It can take longer to read a barrage of diffs with little attached commentary, than it can to read a few diffs clearly explained. If I had had more time, I would have tried to point out which bits of evidence I found easier to read, and encouraged those presenting evidence to adopt the clearest possible style. It shouldn't be too much of a problem in this case, as three arbs are drafting, but I would hope that any arbitrator that struggles to understand someone's evidence would leave a note asking for clarification. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More time for analysis of evidence?
I think that, if anything, more time is needed for editors to evaluate the "evidence" (scare quotes intentional) that has already been given. Allegation is not proof, and much of the so-called evidence consists of unsubstantiated accusations, prettied up by diffs that, I've found, don't even come close to supporting the underlying accusations. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The rolling "deadlines" have been a fiasco. May as well cut it off right now as any time. Agreed on the proof by repeated assertion and bulking-up with irrelevant diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any deadline for analysis-of-evidence? I'd assumed that after the evidence deadline (if there ever is one) there would be, say, a week for analysis. Having the analysis deadline the same as the evidence one would be really weird William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Given the volume of diffs thrown out there, many at the last moment, it's not fair for the deadlines to be the same. Some of the diffs reach back years. To find the version of Climate change referenced in a discussion back in 2006 that Cla68 cited, I had to go back through pages upon pages of article history, which took a fair amount of time even at 500 per page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis should be ongoing, as it may take some time for arbs to go through the evidence presented so far (see also what Brad said below at 21:54, 8 July 2010). There are short cuts that can be used to get to a particular date or period in the page history. Use the year and month options in the page history to find a particular month. Use the date parameters in the URLs to find a particular day or time (you can narrow this down to each second if needed). So if you have the timestamp of the discussion, it should be relatively eassy to see what the page looked like at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to discard any evidence sections (or polemic masquerading as such) which are not explicitly referred to by any workshop findings. I know that SlimVirgin's statement would fall into that category; there may be quite a bit more.  One of the (many) problems in the Abd-WMC arbitration was massive 'evidence' submissions that never actually made it into any proposed findings.  While we haven't approached that case's epic level of chaff here, pruning of unused or irrelevant material could still be helpful.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that would be premature. I have been taking a look at SV's contribution, and if she does not suggest some findings and proposed remedies of her own, I might take a crack at it. Her section does not contain an exhaustive list of diffs, but looks at some of the underlying dispute, which is a great deal deeper than most of the "he's been mean/he's been stupid/he's too involved/my way or the highway" whinging which permeates a lot of the diffs here. (added after Lar's comment) I'm not referring to the e-mail incident, I am referring to the whole sourcing issue which the bulk of her evidence discusses. Horologium  (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SV's evidence, I believe, requires some institutional knowledge of past arbitration regarding a group which was sometimes referred to as the "Intelligent Design Cabal." Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No deadline was given for analysis but I've assumed that it would be welcome for some time to come, it's a give and take process... certainly until just before the arbs start drafting the proposed decision, if not later. Just my guess, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Holologium, I hadn't thought of suggesting specific remedies, because there's so much for the Arbs to read, I kind of assumed they wouldn't want any. But if I were going to suggest anything it would be that they reaffirm the spirit of the NPOV policy, and perhaps also that they ask the community to examine whether the policy's current wording lends itself to misuse. That was why I posted the statement, to pull some of the focus onto what I see as the essence of the problem. I probably won't be back online until tomorrow (my time), but I'll try to come up with some wording then for a finding or remedy. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the proposal page (I will admit that I have not been following it all that closely), I see that some of the topics I wanted to address have already have been suggested by others, with the sort of unhelpful language that makes me throw up my hands in disgust. The science may have a preponderance of support for one theory over another, but the politics have not been settled, and the politics are a huge part of the issue. Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus, regardless of the credentials of the person arguing against the consensus. I will be going back to ignoring this topic, because it is irretrievably broken, like any political topic on Wikipedia. We have people who have a severe conflict of interest guarding the henhouse, and the culture of Wikipedia cannot effectively deal with this issue without tearing the project apart. Horologium  (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that if everyone who feels as you do walks away in disgust, there won't be anyone left to present that perspective. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, there has been a concerted effort to totally eliminate any views which do not square with the consensus. You're wrong, as shown by the evidence page. But if you have any evidence that says otherwise it would be a good idea to present it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's odd, I thought several points of my evidence demonstrated how much obstructionism occurs when any biting criticism is added to the articles. As I've said before, even on the articles/sections that deal with AGW skepticism there is a tendency to cull the most damning criticisms and instead set up straw men that you can knock down easily - rarely, if ever, presenting the counterarguments to your straw men. It must be nice being able to set up your opponents arguments and then "thrash" them with your brilliance - I've never been one to play chess games with myself since I rather like improving my game. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not obviously. I've just had another look and I can't see any relevant section headers. Could you point out you "best diff" or two that shows up this problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, obvious to outside eyes, I admit some of the evidence is a bit thick and it is hard to wade through such a mire to see patterns, but I suppose I could just show the pre-Arbcom article edits of Kim (seems to be trying to avoid sanction by staying so quiet right now), Schulz  and yourself  and let the pattern speak for itself, noting slightly there are many more "reversions" that aren't labeled as such in the edit summaries. The fact of the matter is that the majority of your groups contributions consist of removing other people's content - which is indeed obstructionism. I'm sure you have a good excuse for it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for something more specific. But I took the first diff in the first list and it seems perfectly acceptable: as it says in the edit summary: it removes non-scientific opinion from an article about scientific opinion. Continuing, the first from Stephan  adds, rather than removes, information, so I don't think you have done your homework properly. Even you can't claim that is censoring stuff, can you? And my first  takes out some really dodgy stuff sourced to Sciencedaily. In any case it has nothing to do with "controversy". Do you really have nothing better? I think your mistake is trying to scatter-shot stuff: you need to pick out some actual diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh this gave me a good chuckle. I show you a pattern and you cherrypick some specifics, I show specifics in my evidence page and you all cry out that you are all are generally "fantastic content contributors." Nevertheless, my evidence page speaks for itself, but clearly not everyone is capable of listening - otherwise we wouldn't be here. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am reading through the case pages in detail and so are the other drafters. The deadlines are guidelines for when evidence and other submissions needed to be submitted to make sure we read everything. If someone adds additional evidence or proposals now, the problem is not that they are "past the deadline"; it is that if I've already read that section or that page, I'm likely to miss it. We'll probably read the analysis of evidence section last, and additional cogent analysis will probably be helpful to everyone, although reiteration for the umpteenth time of points alrady made will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. If you can provide some kind of cut-off point for analysis it would be helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Archive" the present evidence?
Why not create a subpage for all the presented evidence to a date/time of approx. now, and once that is done continue adding evidence on this page? Any archived evidence being worked upon can be transferred to the live page. Arbs can then read the subpage, then declare a moratorium on presentation of fresh evidence effective in 24 hours and then read the newer evidence page. That way Arbs can review without potential disruption, and evidence can continue to be gathered until a definitive deadline is announced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Better to just enforce the evidence deadline instead and avoid the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea: strikethrough all mentions of deadlines on the Evidence and Workshop pages, as they are only creating confusion. Then all the effort being spent trying to figure out what the deadlines mean could be devoted to something substantive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Archiving would mess up links from the Workshop. If a page for "new" evidence is to be set it, that should be done on a subpage. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sure would. A page for new evidence makes a bit more sense. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea, but probably best for now to stick to analysing the current evidence and letting arbitrators review the evidence presented so far. As I said before, if you think more evidence is needed, that can be discussed, but it is important to have this pause to allow everyone participating to absorb/digest/understand the evidence presented so far. That will help to focus the case and avoid wasted effort. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My invitation to present more evidence of BLP abuses is still open. I pointed out one avenue in my evidence section for the Committee members to find much of it for themselves, but if you all would rather someone collate more of it for you, please let me/us know. Cla68 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction to my evidence section
I just realized that I erred in my evidence section and have corrected it. I forgot that it was 2/0 who asked for assistance from the BLPN forum about the Lawrence Solomon article, not me. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had just protected the article to interrupt an edit war that included an invocation of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. The Wrong Version in this case was the version that included the questionably sourced material. I did not think that the seriousness of the issue merited the potential chilling effects of invoking the BLP-hammer, but I requested that the good volunteers at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79 take a look as a check on my judgment. Also, thanks for the correction, Cla68, I had forgotten that issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One other note, I was just made aware of this article, started by SBHB on June 15 two days after this case opened. Guettarda has also helped out with it. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
I have not edited any of the articles or talk pages. Ive never participated in sny of the disciplinary discussions, and any interaction I've had with any involved editor has been incidental and unrelated. I have basically no interest in the subject of global warming and no opinion on the science. I discovered this corner of Wikipedia quite by accident.

^^ The fact that I found it necessary to make such a disclaimer before making a substantive comment should be revealing to anyone considering the outcome of this process. The environment is beyond hostile. The social dynamics is more akin to that portrayed in "Lord of the Flies." This is a Wikipedia embarrassment of gigantic proportion.

Having said that, here are the observations from an outsider (and I'm certain I will be eviscerated for stating it so bluntly):

1. There's a cabal on both sides and it's quite easy for outsiders to find the bright line that separates each side. The AGW cabal is more cohesive and coordinated because they have a very clear figurehead in William M. Connolley. I doubt Connolley has to canvass at all or rally the troups -- at this juncture, the cheerleading is automatic and reflexive. The AGW cabal is generally much nastier and tenacious. That fact is borne out by a quick perusal of the subject articles which remain disproportionately biased in tone and content in favor of the AGW POV.

2. "Scientific consensus" is a misnomer used to describe the majority view. There are enough notable experts who are skeptical of the AGW science that it is intellectually dishonest to say there's a consensus. As such, it is equally dishonest to refer to the growing minority view as a "fringe view." The phrase "scientific consensus" is being used as a weapon to silence notable alternative views and that needs to stop. The two camps should be referred to as "majority view" and "alternate view" or something equally benign.

3. BLP treatment, especially by AGW POV-ers,  is absolutely abhorrent. It is difficult to believe that this has been tolerated for so long. Part of the problem is that CC issues are insulated from the larger Wikipedia community and disciplinary discussions and enforcement actions are self-contained. Any request for sanctions, BLP discussions, probation enforcenents etc should be exposed to the whole community as prominently as AN/I so that the commuity may enforce its collective will. Having kept this area isolated, it has developed its own code of conduct and its own set of content and behavioral rules that absolutely would not be tolerated in the wider Wikipedia community.

4. William M. Conolley appears to be one of the most disruptive forces Wikipedia has ever seen. This subject area has become his playground in derogation of all that Wikipedia stands for. The amount of human hours devoted to dealing with his behavior and the natural consequences of his behavior is staggering! His contributions are not so valuable that he should be allowed to continue. Sanctions against him are ignored. He is a bully and I would imagine even other admins are afraid to cross him. In my opinion, if Connolley is removed, most of the existing problems will be resolved without the need for special probations and arbitrations because without his influence other editors will settle down into more reasonable behavior.

5. Although sockpuppetry has been a plague, it is a predictable and natural result of being unfairly silenced and bullied. Remove the oppression in the environment here and the sockpuppet problem will likewise resolve itself. Minor4th</b> <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:60%;">• talk</b> 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very little of that makes sense. Most obviously self-contradictory is I have basically no interest in the subject of global warming and no opinion on the science... There are enough notable experts who are skeptical of the AGW science that it is intellectually dishonest to say there's a consensus. which makes it clear that actually you *do* hold a strong position on the state of the science. As for all the rest... you'd be far better off producing diffs rather than a long screed. Also, you've somehow omitted to note our previous interaction, where you failed to read TND's block log correctly William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doctor Connolley is a former admin (and apparently does not give or receive small US monetary coinage consequently...) Other than that, and especially the call for the legitimisation of sockpuppetry in these matters, your comments are singularly unhelpful and it is hoped that the clerk will exorcise them when they become aware of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor4th's view seems fairly accurate to me.  I disagree, however, that topic-banning a single editor will be enough to end the problem.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mispelled "excoriated." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @LessHeard vanU This is not a call for legitimisation of sockpuppetry at all.  Socks should be banned when discovered, and by no means should the practice be encouraged or tolerated.  I was offering an opinion as to why there has been a prolific use of sockpuppets in this area.  If you find my comments unhelpful, please disregard them.  I'm not accustomed to a request for comments on a talk page to be exorcised when someone finds them "unhelpful", but if that is the way things are done in the CC corner of Wikipedia, by all means .....


 * @William M. Conolley - I do not hold a strong opinion of the science and couldn't even tell you what the majority view says or what the alternate view criticisms are.  I just know there is a large body of criticism and it's not just from a handful of fringe wackos. I commented on an SPI block that looked questionable to me.   I don't know any of the people involved and thank you for pointing it out if it's relevant to this discussion.  I'm sorry you had trouble understanding my comment, but it's been deemed unhelpful in any event so no need to trouble yourself over it.    <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:110%;">Minor</b><b span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;">4th</b>  <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:60%;">• talk</b> 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "I do not hold a strong opinion of the science" and "there is a large body of criticism and it's not just from a handful of fringe wackos" are not compatible. Please take a look at scientific opinion on climate change and think about why all major academies of science, from the US NAS to the Chinese Academy and the Royal Society, support the consensus position. If anything, our articles overrepresent alternative opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, thank you. :) My comments are not incompatible. There are competing blogs debating the issue, various op-ed pieces in notable publications debating the issue, books are written by notable people who have authored other books, meta-wiki pages tracking the edits here -- whether it's right or wrong, there is plenty of criticism out there, and one can acknowledge the existence of the criticism without knowing anything about the science or forming an opinion about it.   <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:110%;">Minor</b><b span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;">4th</b>  <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:60%;">• talk</b> 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the outside view. To be honest, I don't see WMC as the main issue. Most of his edits are so obviously disruptive that they're reverted with little or no fuss. It's editors like ChrisO (e.g., User_talk:ChrisO, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit), Tony Sidaway (e.g. "we should paraphrase reports by WSJ and Reason of 'x' as 'there was selective and lurid presentation of x' and then remove WSJ and Reason from the article",  ), Guettarda, Dave Souza (e.g., Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence), and co. that make the editing environment so awful.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply.   I'm going to read your links.   <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:110%;">Minor</b><b span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;">4th</b>  <b span style="color:#000000;font-size:60%;">• talk</b> 02:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Editors not welcome?
Watts up with that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Galatians 4:16? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Galatians 4:17 ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 01:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Galatians 4:18 TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine: I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to. The point remains that just because you may agree with the IP doesn't make his/her actions okay.  It was insulting and the very definition of a throw-away post, and your attempt to legitimize what for many editors is a blockable offense serves no purpose. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you are perfectly welcome to collapse and delete things to your heart's content. That isn't what I'd do, but it doesn't really matter. Personally I find Stephan's claim that the blog I contribute at is telling people to be meat/sockpuppets to be an outrageous lie, but I don't think his claims should be deleted - I want people to measure his honesty themselves. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Climatic Research Unit documents controversy to your watchlist?
I was thinking. Is it too much to ask that arbitrators (or at least >/=1 arbitrator) follow events at Climatic Research Unit documents controversy and its associated talkpage? Since it's arguably the most contentious article I think that would be fruitful, and would probably give them a better idea of "what's going on" than would the painstakingly gathered sections of diffs you see on the evidence section. There's still plenty enough ongoing drama for this to be worthwhile, it seems to me. No worries if the answer to the second question of this sentence is "no." Just thought I'd ask.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear arbitrators
There were a lot of requests that evidence show not just an isolated incident but a longterm pattern of disruptive editing. I've been lazy about sifting through the 30 or so archive pages, but since I was roughly doing so for another editor anyway, and since I was looking for more of the same kind of editing I brought to your attention here, and over the exact same section, but much older, I figured I'd post it. It was deleted by Amory here, and reasonably I think. He suggested that I ask the arbitrators about it before adding it so it doesn't confuse or frustrate any of you. That's kind of what I'm doing here. No worries if you'd rather I abstain, and no worries if you want me to bring further examples to your attention. I can do either. I'd like to add this too, as a recent indication that Dave souza, even after the evidence raised in this arbcom case, refuses to respect WP:V (see further discussion of the same content here, this time with Hipocrite advocating for the rejection of WP:V).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This section of your evidence complements mine nicely - core wikipedia policy like WP:Verify is routinely ignored in order to POV push. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering evidence
I have really tried to avoid adding new evidence past the deadline in this case. But a recent dispute is such a good example of the wikilawyering that goes on around this topic area I thought I should bring it up here.

I, and several other editors, have tried to use a book, which appears to meet our criteria as a reliable source, in an article, without success. We did not add new text to the article, just a citation, but the source was removed anyway. I filed an enforcement request over what I felt was a clear violation of our policies and guidelines, but the responding admins classified it as a content dispute and declined to intervene. A debate took place on the talk page for the article   and at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN). The opposing editors then edit warred to remove favorable information from the article on the book itself. The removal of this content is not supported by policy, IMO, as discussed on the talk page.

I believe that this is a clear example of tendentious and POV editing by WMC's group. The book is published by an independent publisher who does not appear to have a bad repuation on fact checking, the book does not promote a "fringe" theory (the hockey stick is very controversial, including two papers disputing the graph published in peer reviewed scientific journals by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, hearings before the US Congress in which geoscientist Gerald North and statistician Edward Wegman presented reports criticizing the research (note this and removal of RS, this is probably an acceptable edit) and other criticisms which aren't included presently in the hockey stick controversy article. The book has been informally recommended by climatologist Judith Curry and used as a source in two academic papers, one of which was signed by climate change scientist Mike Hulme. The opinions of uninvolved editors at the RSN differed, but generally appeared to endorse at least limited use of the book   although other opinions differed to varying degrees, both pro and con.

What concerns me is the intractability of the editors in question to even discuss using the book as a source for uncontroversial information. They have made it clear that they will continue to do so in the future with books which haven't even been released yet. In response to a post of mine at the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article in which I said that I was looking forward to more books coming out on the subject in the future, Tony Sideaway and ChrisO responded by clearly stating that they would not allow books to be used that gave views that they don't agree with. In other words, they're making it clear in advance that they plan on barring any book, yet sight unseen, which presents a view that they consider "fringe" or "psuedoscience." Their definition of what constitutes "fringe" as related to climate change appears to me, based on what I've observed, to mean an opinion which differs with theirs, no matter how well the published opinion complies with our RS guidelines. As my example above illustrates with the Illusion book, even if it is shown that the book has been used as a source in one or more academic papers, they still will fight it. I don't think this is a very reasonable attitude and is not appropriate for Wikipedia's culture of editing which requires a willingness and ability to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A general problem I see with this kind of argument is that many of the conclusions asserted require a climate change expert to really evaluate the WP:DUE accurately. In other words, is this a case of wikilawyering or a case of pushing something in violation of wp:DUE? I'm not a climate change expert. So all I can give are hypothetical examples of more specific examples. For example, being referenced as a source in two academic papers requires expertise to evaluate the real relevance of that point. Two doesn't sound like very many references to me and I don't know what the references were for, perhaps it was referenced as an example of how a really bad idea can lead to ridiculous theories? Like I said, I'm not such an expert, therefore the example should be considered hypothetical only. I think in these kind of content disputes, we require expert opinions. My uninvolved view is that one side is not able to assume good faith in the experts that Wikipedia is lucky enough to have in this area. I'm not trying to decipher cause-and-effect blame here. I'm just trying to explain what appears to be one of the root cause issues in the case. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, first of all, while you are technically accurate, that it does qualify as reliable under wikipedia's rules, I generally don't think you should use it. That being said, your specific use of it was quite innocuous and it was rather silly to remove it - several scientists, even social scientists, trumped up by the other side like Naomi Oreskes have published their own books which are clearly more tilted towards advocacy/money-making. In short, considering the topic area I think it is a bad precedent to set.


 * That being said, I suspect, assuming it properly cites sources, that the book may be a fine resource for you by leading you to specific sections in other sources (e.g. the Wegman report). Of course, the crux of the matter isn't really the source, that's just an example of obstructionism meant to frustrate people, the real problem is that anything critical of the Real Climate crowd/conclusions, no matter how well sourced, will be edit warred and wikilawyered to death. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I doubt that any arbcom members have read over the evidence yet, unless the drafting arbcom member (who I think is newyorkbrad for this case) is presently preparing proposed decisions to vote on. Once the drafting arbcom member posts proposed decisions, then typically other arbcom members will read over the evidence and vote. I could be wrong though but that is the impression I got, combined with an educated guess of what happens. The worst that can happen by adding late evidence is that some arbcom members won't read it. There is no point and it could be seen to be disruptive to add evidence after proposed decisions have been posted on the proposed decision page. ArbCom members are welcome to correct me if I am wrong and even trout slap me but only if necessary. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As the talk page discussion shows, Cla68 has been wikilawyering to cite a fringe source for factual information in the article, and disregarding the clear requirements of WP:SOURCES policy regarding basing articles on sources which are reliable in that the authors and the works being cited have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The book opposes the majority scientific view and promotes claims that mainstream science is fraudulent, including inaccurate representation of the position. Cla68 misrepresents sources he quotes above, specifically the North report and Judith Curry, as has been discussed on the talk page. From one of the few reviews in the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book [is] built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial." AS well as clearly promoting views opposed to "the scientific establishment", the book is out of line with more reputable sources which show that, far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been supported by numerous independent studies, and "A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed.... So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." Note that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." The source promotes these attacks, and as such is a questionable source which remains a reliable source only for the opinions of its author. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is not for introducing evidence without technically introducing evidence. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess this page is for us to argue over evidence already presented. I'll copy it over to the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, technically it's for us to discuss. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - discussing, not arguing. The point is not to provide a loophole to introducing evidence.  As requested, ask here if you should be posting evidence so the arbs can respond.  You did that above. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I told Rlevse on his talk page that I was doing this. I guess I should have asked first. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is that the new evidence is really nothing new at all. (My attempt to turn a phrase. :-) ) It is but another example of what appears to be a root cause problem in this case. One side, in a good faith effort, wants to push a fringe theory. When other people with more expertise in the area say, "no that is undue weight" then there are accusations of wikilawyering, delaying tactics, violations of wp:V, edit warring, POV pushing etc.. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good observation. As for this whole dispute, it is a content issue being misportrayed as editor behavior, which itself is "wikilawyering". ScottyBerg (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an analysis of evidence section on the workshop page. That is the place to discuss evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)