Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 2

Why can't I edit the project page?
I want to copy and past the Wiki mark up in the project page so I can create a few proposals of my own. Normally, I would do this by clicking Edit and coping the text and then canceling. But the project page appears to be locked. Is this because of vandalism or does ArbCom normally not allow editors access to the PD? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was vandalized. You can get the wikicode by clicking "view source" at the top, which replaces the normal "edit" label.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a "view source" link. Maybe this is an admin only feature?  Would someone be so kind as to e-mail me the source?  My e-mail is A_Quest_For_Knowledg@yahoo.com.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, nevermind. I see it.  Duh!  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As part of keeping this talk page manageable and readable, could those willing to help please archive resolved threads like this when they spot them, preferably to a second archive page to keep it separate from the first archive page I created earlier. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chilling effect...
Imagine a discussion between scientific experts and laymen who are sometimes dubious about the claims of the scientists...at first, the scientists act as teachers, generally doing what they can to educate, in this case with references and examples. But the laymen are still skeptical and are unable or unwilling to "beleieve" the scientists, and seek out a support system to allow them to hold on to their beliefs...in this case, nonscientists. Over time, the scientists, recognize that they can't educate those that don't want an education, so they give up...why bother trying to educate someone that either won't or can't be educated. Meanwhile, the "nonbelievers" are able to find what appears to be credible evidence that the scientists may have their facts wrong or are at least off a bit...(disregarding that the publishers of such information are mostly interested in selling books, not spreading facts)...so faced with a barrage of nonscientific ignorance, the scientists are then forced to apply "due weight" to such things, even though they can easily see that the nonscientific books and, for lack of a better word, "junk science" are just that, unscientific and junk. Wikipedia, in its quest to become a reliable reference base allows great latitude to those defending against obvious junk science but this latitude has a price...sanity. Over time, the constant barrage of non-science (aka nonsense) takes its toll..the scientists, exhausted by the nonsense and knowing that they can't educate the nonbelievers, snap...they may become incivil at times, they may become possessive, they may become disgusted. I know I did...dealing with the absolute idiocy of 9/11 conspiracy theories was a whole lot like dealing with CC nonbelievers...thankfully we severly restricted those who kept trying to ramrod conspiracy theory junk science (oftentimes published by those more interested in selling books than providing facts) in 9/11 related articles...a huge success for this project. Connelley drew a line in the sand, said no, we're not going to have that junk science in this article as it is undue weight...vitually no reputable climate scientists support that premise so it is not worth considering. Eliminating Connelley from editing CC articles is the worst thing this project could do...if you must, eliminate him from editing BLP's related to CC for 1 year....recognize that the barrage has been unrelenting, that WMC has been provoked, needled and at times harassed, and DO NOT allow "uninvolved" (is there such a thing) administrators from applying any blocks against him for his "incivility"...instead, his incivilities should be shown to arbcom and they can do the blocks...finally, as in all cases, 3RR violations should result in blocks...as they normally would to any editor. For the record, I am a CC skeptic...but I am learning, thanks in no small part to Connelley and his "evil cabal".--MONGO 11:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please run for office somewhere. I will vote for you. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to characterize this debate as being about benevolent, intelligent, patient scientists vs. uneducated, ignorant, stubborn "skeptics" is unhelpful. There are intelligent people on both sides of the debate, which is anyway as much about politics as about science. The scientific case for AGW is strong and should clearly be presented as such by Wikipedia. All the same, there are weaknesses (not necessarily flaws) in it, and there are valid scientific and political criticisms that can be made. Rather than patronizing dismissal, both "blocs" need to recognize that the arguments of their opponents do actually have some merit, and do deserve fair representation. The complete intolerance for any neutral mention of opponents arguments is the root problem here. Thparkth (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that opponents of the science insist that the "weakness" and political opposition be given as much weight as the science itself. A paragraph of science should not automatically be accompanied by a paragraph of opponents arguments. 100:1 would be a more appropriate ratio, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for "opponents of the science", not being one, but that's actually a mischaracterization of the core problem. Trying to paint this, yet again, as science vs ignorance is... well... ignorant. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said you were, Lar? You're just an enabler of opponents of mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I actually think you are. Far more than someone who just wants wikipolicy adhered to... because you give "mainstream science" a bad name here on wiki with your tactics. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it started that way or ended up that way...I'm skeptical of CC too...but know the difference between fact and fiction as well...if the CC alarmists are wrong about anything it is perhaps how loud the alarm needs to be. Those that choose to not believe the writing on the wall, even when faced with overwhelming evidence, can only be those that won't or can't be educated on the matter.--MONGO 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We're almost getting into a content discussion here, but I agree with you. Baldly stating that CO2 has no effect on climate, or that because it is a trace gas it is not important? Junk science - needs no mention except perhaps in the context of discussing the associated politics. But a published statistician criticizing the hockey stick? That deserves a fair mention. A published economist arguing that adapting to climate change would be more effective than preventing it? There's no reason to exclude that material. And yet, we have all seen edit wars over precisely that kind of content, with one side trying to present it as a fatal blow to climate science (which it is not) and the other fighting to remove any mention of it at all. Thparkth (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There is no reason to exclude that material as long is it is given the proper weight and as long as it is in the appropriate place. On a matter of science, 100 scientists carry far more weight than 1 scientist with 99 politicians, economists and bloggers. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. So similarly, where we're talking about politics and political impacts and the like, we should then give view of politicians (and sources that are primarily political analysis and the like) precedence over views of scientists, and when we're talking about economics and economic impact and the like, we should then give views of economists (and sources that are primarily economic analysis and the like) precedence? Since the CC area is mostly not about science, we should be all set, right? ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Lar, Yes – provided we're clear what the majority view of the science is, and what are fringe views, there should be no difficulty in showing giving major emphasis to views of economists about economic impact and the like. Would that everyone agreed on this. . dave souza, talk 13:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Lar: This sounds like the same argument over again, but I don't think you would have anyone disagree on anything but your last sentence. Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory that has many social, political, and economic ramifications, yes. Where do you feel our articles on AGW are deficient in that regard? NW ( Talk ) 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, MONGO, these "nonbelievers" -- do we punish them by trashing their BLPs? Because that's what you seem to be arguing here. What level of non-belief in the theory is grounds for, say, insinuating that someone believes in Martians? ATren (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Where does MONGO advocate the trashing of BLPs? Tone down the provocation, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is arguing that WMC should not be banned, so obviously he supports WMC's actions, which include a long history of trashing BLPs of "non-believers". So I'm asking if MONGO supports that. Please let him answer. ATren (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So MONGO has to make a snap decision on a long-past content debate, without you giving him any links to the edits, the discussions or the refs, or his contribution here is invalid? And no-one else can help in the discussion? Neat. --Nigelj (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a bit strident but the implication follows, and MONGO should address whether he agrees that WMC is entirely blameless and if not, what actually should be done. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be genuine differences of opinion about what's notable in a BLP article. For example, several editors have been working away, despite some opposition, to make a major focus of the Michael Mann article a demand from a Republican climate change skeptic that Mann's former university produce information relating to grant applications, even though the skeptic has failed to specify exactly what Mann had done wrong. Looks to me like trashing a BLP, uninvolved review would be appreciated. . dave souza, talk 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, MONGO says "...if you must, eliminate him from editing BLP's related to CC for 1 year...", which should answer your question ATren/Lar. NW ( Talk ) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a few people seem to be confused here. But that's OK. We are none of us perfect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assumes facts not in evidence ;) Hal peridol (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two unhelpful comments in a row. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar could take this as a playful indication that his standard canned responses have become rather tiresome, and that as thought-terminating cliches they are not helpful in reaching a principled conclusion. (It's noteworthy that Hal peridol, who is not one of the "regulars" in the dispute, picked up on this.) One might argue that this would better be expressed to him directly but history shows that such attempts would most likely produce little more than -- well, the standard canned responses. I apologize to the arbitrators in the sense that the present forum may not be the best venue to bring this up, and will not press the point further. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Until and unless your side takes better to playfulness yourselves, (I remind you that you all beat me up unmercifully over one comment, while you mock me and others at length) your tactic of mocking others is completely out of place and you should discontinue it. Here and everywhere. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lar. Clearly MONGO expressed some concerns about WMC's BLP-related edits in the initial comment of this thread, so before telling other editors to "knock it off" you may wish to re-evaluate the pointed comment you aimed at MONGO and strike it out. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could quote him? Because I read the whole thing again just now and I didn't see any specific acknowledgment of anything in particular. I did see an admission that perhaps a CC BLP ban was warranted, (but we have more than that now) along with a lot of "it's not his fault". ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chilling Effect? In the past, I have participated (modestly) in climate change related articles and discussions, mostly on the side of 'wake up and open your eyes to the evidence, you nutters'. I do not do much (hardly any) now, mostly due to the continuous bad faith and unpleasantness of participants who also hold that viewpoint. WMC, and others (some of whom do not edit much any more) have actively cut back the participation of those who would make their 'job' of 'defending' the articles easier through constant negativity, system manipulations, and rude behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, "wake up and open your eyes to the evidence, you nutters" doesn't sound very civil, and under the current regime you'd quickly be hauled up before the CCSE for that. Especially if you said it to some editors promoting minority views who seem to be both tendentious and persistent. Anyway, very sorry you had that bad experience, and I do hope that we can improve the editing atmosphere when this is resolved. . dave souza, talk 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Like MONGO, I find all these criticisms of William highly problematic. As we can all see here, the fact that we have an expert editor with William's character here is not a coincidence. What happened was that Wikipedia more or less selected someone like William to come edit here at a time when people like Ed Poor and SEWilco were heavily involved here. Had William not been like the William we all know, then either someone else would have stepped in at that time who was like the William we know, or the article would have stayed a bad article for quite some years, severely compromizing Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source.

In the PD, ArbCom mentions that there are other expert editors who are not like William, but they forget that they mostly came here much later when things had changed here quite a lot. And William has in fact adapted quite a lot to the Wikipedia of today. Only very infrequently when someone behaves in the prehistoric-Wiki way, William may respond in an effective way similar to what was effective back then. Examples are the way William has dealt with ZuluPapa5 and the fact that William refused to compromize on inserting comments in edits on his talk page. Had an issue like the latter one flared up in 2004 when I joined Wikipedia, or even as late as 2008, the Admin would likely have been reprimanded or desysopped.

To topic ban William from CC articles is like putting a dog who guarded your house for years to sleep because you now have an electric fence and the dog, while very friendly, very occasionally barks. Count Iblis (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's more like sending a pit bull to stay somewhere else because too many mailmen, schoolchildren, random passersby and the like are complaining about missing fingers. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read Page_organisation? This section is TLDR, but scanning, I see arguments about whether CO2 has an effect on climate. This isn't the page to reprise the whole debate, it is a page to discuss the PD. (Yes, abut 5% of the words opine that WMC should not be banned, and on topic, but surely that point can be made in less space.)-- SPhilbrick  T  18:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman and Franamax
No misconduct of administrators as administrators is described in the proposals. No admonishment of admins for bad admin-related conduct, either. I'm disappointed. My evidence against Franamax and Jehochman quite clearly showed that they violated WP:NPA and WP:ADMIN. Franamax showed some sign that he recognized his behavior was problematical. Jehochman did not. A statement by ArbCom recognizing the problem would alert those admins and others that they need to back up what they say with evidence when challenged about their characterizations of editors or they're committing a personal attack. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber's crusade against admins
I view the overblowing of a minor gripe against Jehochman and Franamax as further evidence of JWB's personal campaign against admins as he has shown towards myself. This shows a certain amount of bitterness which should not be allowed to be cultivated in this case. I think even those who benefit from the position of JWB should display some principles and be rational. Polargeo (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Why is a WMC BLP vio (the 5th diff in the supposed list of them)? It removed a contentious label. I haven't examined the others. The Solomon article currently doesn't say "environmentalist" for what that's worth. It is a pretty bad article either way in my opinion. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly does say environmentalist, so I can only guess that you haven't looked. Why don't you try again. Weakopedia (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, it's in the infobox but not in the paragraph. Still a poor article, and the one about his book The Deniers makes Wikipedia look terrible.  More to the point, where is the BLP vio?  At most I can see a possible POV issue in WMC's edit, but that's different. 67.117.145.46 (talk) (oops, address reset) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that's meant to substantiate the finding that WMC "has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements." Arbcom should have made a general finding that such editing is never acceptable. I'm not sure the current rules are too explicit on that, which is why a strong statement of general principle needs to be made. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps explain; clearer wording in the proposed finding would be helpful. In general though, I think the overall approach of this PD is not doing Wikipedia any good.  Of course it's partly the fault of a broken underlying policy structure, plus mission creep on the project's part away from writing an encyclopedia, neither of which arbcom can fix. 67.117.145.46 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, some of the negative material in The Deniers article was added by me, because it was reliably sourced, wasn't undue, and I try to follow WP:NPOV in contrast to some of the other editors involved in this topic area. Now that the voluntary topic bans are over for most of us, I'll go check the Solomon article about it saying "environmentalist" in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the voluntary bans are over? I asked about that below, and haven't gotten a definitive answer yet. I was under the impression that the voluntary bans aren't really voluntary, that they are enforceable by blocks, though I may be mistaken about that. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, feel free to end your voluntary ban, because you are not mentioned in the proposed decision. Done.  I expect there will be no more edit-warring over this, based on how I read the proposed decision. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but take a look here : I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation. I never noticed that before, and if I had I might not have signed on to the voluntary restriction, as it isn't really voluntary. I think we need a ruling on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Although I am an uninvolved party I have followed this case out of personal interest. From what I have read on various pages, one of the major problems that has not been addressed in the proposed decisions is that the WP:V is being applied too stringently. That sources that are normally satisfactory (i.e. New York Times) are being excluded by parties who say they aren't good enough.--*Kat* (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V says that the best sources are scientifically peer reviewed articles. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." For scientific information like in the GW articles, the New York Time article may not be a good source, especially if it contradicts a peer-reviewed publication. This is a fact that has apparently been assumed by arbcom as well, since it is not part of their ruling. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you two people miss this sentence? "Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits." Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed climate articles don't discuss the political side of the issue, which is a major part of the story. They also don't use common neologisms (such as "climategate"), an omission which has been used as a tool to eliminate particular points of view from articles which only tangentially deal with the science.  Horologium  (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The most reliable sources for the political sides of issues are usually academic publications, newspapers and popular books can be valuable but have to be treated with care for various reasons. One being that they often promote a particular political slant, as for instance in their treatment of loaded neologisms such as "climategate". Since much of the political debate involves claims about the validity of science, to that extent we have to ensure that due and proportionate weight is given to scientific views when discussing the science. It's also important to show the political debate in context, for example party politics and economic interests. Particular points of view should be included if they're significant, and shown proportionately in full accordance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed climate articles don't discuss the political side of the issue - true, but scholarly works in the history of science and the social sciences do. Spencer Weart and Naomi Oreskes' works are two notable examples in the history of science, while Aaron McCright, Maxwell Boykoff and Anthony Leiserowitz are among the social scientists who have looked at the issue. (See, for example, my evidence submission) Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ^^^Here's a perfect example illustrating how these proposed decisions did not go nearly far enough.  This type discussion is played out repeatedly ad infinitum on nearly every article in the CC topic area.   Without even looking at the usernames, you can see by the arguments that the second, fourth and fifth comments are from the AGW bloc.   And while their argument is civil and appears well-reasoned on its face, the effect is that the bloc will argue this point tenaciously so that reliable sources other than peer reviewed articles will be excluded, leaving the articles skewed and unbalanced. I would also point out that peer review in the climate change context is not exactly independent review as it may be in other areas -- although not Arb's remit to pass on that.  Now, I would bet money that the above editors did not coordinate their responses or make some secret agreement to support each other if this issue is brought up -- no need, as the talking points have been very finely honed for years and are nearly reflexive among members of this loosely formed bloc.


 * This needs to be dealt with. I don't know how, but we are seeing very early that even with the proposed decisions, the problems that have made a mess of the CC area will continue.  I don't see any clear cut enforcement mechanism when several editors show up and argue the same wrong interpretation of policy, likely because they all have a good faith belief in what they're saying.  Minor4th  21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The reverse of that is also true - one side (or bloc, as you call it) does not an arguement make. There are two distinct bloc/factions/groups/editing parties/whatever you want to call them that each have distinct goals and POV's.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientific and academic accuracy is not a 'POV'. "Significant alternate viewpoints" per 3.1.9 do include 'party politics and economic interests' as above. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Minor4th, those discussions are repeated over and over. On one hand, you have people who make arguments like Horologium's - opinions, based on their own limited experiences. And on the other side you have people responding that no, actual sources exist. Under normal circumstances, that would lead to a resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, in this topic area, an answer like mine is almost certain to either receive a response like Minor4th's which dismisses what's said based on who said it, or you receive an IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. Or, less frequently but all too often, a rant that these sources are all biased, and that it's all a conspiracy, and the CRU emails proved that there was a conspiracy, and... Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I heard you. And if there's a peer reviewed source, use it -- but that doesn't mean other reliable sources are excluded to present balancing information.Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you write this :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just as well nobody uses Wikiversity... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That article is hilarious. It's nice to have a good laugh in the middle of all this. Thanks for the pointer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL - no I didn't write that and have never seen it before. :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I've never edited in the GW space. I'm a software engineer not a scientist. I say what I said about peer-reviewed articles simply because it is what makes sense to me and is what is supported by the policy, at least as I read it. Actually, I believe that neither of us are wrong, at least not until a more concrete example is given to apply the different interpretations. I'm not arguing that the difference is not important, only that both arguments are correct. It is a continuous scale of gray between black and white, one end of the scale is most applicable to one argument. The other end is most applicable to the other argument. I'll guess that the real disagreement is where on that generic scale should one arguement be used over the other argument. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This subsection is veering off-topic (by all means look at articles on other projects and even compare them to early versions of Wikipedia climate change articles as well, but please don't discuss that here). The comments that referred to the wording of parts of the proposed decision were useful here. Could further discussion of sourcing please relate back to the wording used in the proposed decision, or be copied to a section within the more organised structure below. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stronger evidence please

 * I have concerns about the evidence presented. While I was not involved in editing climate change articles, from the small amount of time following them Mark in general appeared to be quite calm and polite, although I did see a 1 or 2 occasions where he lost his cool and was not civil; additionally from what I have seen he has contibuted productively in article development with at least one attempt to try and get an article to good article status.
 * Some problems with evidence. This poorly sourced BLP violation was among Mark's first 100 or so edits to wikipedia,, as was this one. The sourcing here was not great, and probably did constitute a BLP violation but again he was still fairly new to wikipedia. At his stage of editing I was using rat studies and single case reports for some of my edits.
 * This, however, was a BLP violation, as the source was not reliable.
 * This alledged assumption of bad faith, was in response to this vandalism. and this Going to the talk page appeared to be an attempt to avoid an edit war over disruptive original research during mark's attempt to get the article to GA status. I am sorry but as those edits were by a well established and policy literate editor it is actually a good example of when WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied and a spade called a spade, i.e. it is vandalism. Mark was making an attempt to get that article to good article status, and if I were working on an article and that kind of disruption occurred I would find it difficult to keep my cool and I would find it difficult to put on the tin foil hat and assume good faith when it obviously is bad faith and disruptive vandalism. There was no assumption of bad faith, the allegation is accurate.
 * The personal attacks seem in most instances to be mild to moderate; I am not trying to justify these instances but I am trying to fathom how a site ban or topic ban is justified. Most of the PA's appear to be taken out of context; this incivil comment, was in response to being threatened with a block. This incivil was in response to being called ignorant. Here he is told he is talking crap and he responds by saying get a sense of humour. Hardly examples of needing a topic ban or site wide ban. Site bans and topic bans are really only meant to be reserved for serious misconduct.WP:BAN
 * The one thing that did give me pause for thought was the diffs Chris has submitted regarding off-wiki canvassing. While Mark says this was when he was new to wikipedia and did not know the rules and guidelines I still feel he should have known this was wrong.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've provided a stirring defense of Mark, so I feel churlish taken issue with your final point. I suggest that people who have spent a lot of time with WP sometimes forget that WP rules aren't always obvious. I'm happy to say that in many cases they make sense - but it is understandable that a new editor would make some mistakes (as you have noted), but even in the case where you thought he should know better. Who should win an edit battle between Jerry Pournelle and the fry cook at McDonald's, when the article is the biography of Pournelle. Yep, the fry cook. Of course, but I trust you know why some people find that not exactly obvious. What happens in real life if you are arguing with someone that alcohol has deleterious effects on the brain, and you are losing the argument? You might call up some friends who happen to be experts and get them to help you out. Perfectly reasonable, out there, but not in here. My sole point is that the prohibition for off-wiki canvassing is well-intentioned, and a policy I support, but not exactly obvious. -- SPhilbrick  T  22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, the evidence is strong enough for an admonishment, mark has done wrong, just no evidence has been presented to justify a topic or site ban. All I did was put the diffs into context. The flaw to ArbCom is it takes an enormous amount of time to look at evidence in context, for a case this size too much time for a volunteer, so all I did was put the diffs into context and stated in my view correctly that the evidence only shows mild to moderate misconduct and in several cases no violation of rules; infact it could be argued that with some of the diffs used by ArbCom that it is they (ArbCom) who are assuming bad faith and not Mark, but then that would be assuming bad faith, argh, time to bang head on wall. :P Ah you have been looking at my discussions on alcohol articles, well not to go off-topic too long but tis difficult because people keep coming to talk pages saying it is biased but it is not me, it is the medical literature, I have yet to read a medical paper which says something positive about binge drinking for example but they get angry with me instead of the medical literature, argh, ugh. :-@ Similar to what I say in content disputes, if I am wrong about Mark, "show me the diffs" (rather than papers/references) and I will consider changing my mind. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point with regard to the issue I raised was that Mark clearly did know that he was violating the rules. Read what he said: "i can only make 3 edits a day to an article, they can team up and undo it without breaking the 3edit rule ... anyone want to go and undo changes to this article other than by mark nutley" . In other words he knew that he was prohibited from making more than 3 reverts but he tried to solicit others to break the rule for him. He was not so ignorant, in other words, that he was unaware of the 3 revert rule. That's why I raised this issue. I anticipated that he would plead ignorance about the ban on meatpuppetry, but his own words show that he was aware of the 3RR; he didn't want to transgress it himself, but he wanted others to transgress it on his behalf by using "their" reverts to support him. That's wilful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between knowing about the 3r rule which was posted on my talk page after i had done two reverts. I had no idea what meatpuppetry or offwiki canvassing was at the time. Had i actually know do you think i would have posted under my real name on a blog? mark nutley (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] You make a good point Chris and I agree with you that he did know he was trying to circumvent rules via off-wiki canvassing and it does concern me.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes mark, perhaps you did not know about off-wiki canvassing but you did know about the 3 revert rule, so even if per WP:AGF you didn't realise it was against policy to recruit people to join content disputes, I still feel that you must have known what you were doing was at least inappropriate (regarding off-wiki canvassing) and you definitely knew you were trying to circumvent 3rr by your own words. Knowledge of rules or guidelines set aside, I am sure you know right from wrong and at least knew you were being sneaky in doing that?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly no, i assumed tag teaming was the norm :) But i also admit it was wrong and it has only happened the once. In fact look at it this way, i could have had that post removed, i have not, why do you think that is? Because i know i made a mistake and i`m not ashamed to admit it nor for people to know about it. To err is human, and last time i looked i was kinda human :) mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Mark, it is human to make mistakes and it is reassuring that you acknowledge that it was wrong and have not repeated it. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. I think that this is a case where common sense comes into direct conflict with Wikipedia rules.  As I understand it, admins are not allowed to rule on content issues but are allowed to rule on conduct issues.  But how is a newbie editor supposed to understand this distinction?  Place yourself in the newbie's shoes.  Here we have a group of editors who routinely violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Is it reasonable to assume that a newbie would understand that it's a greater sin to violate WP:CANVASS than it is to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP?  Hell, I've been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and I still don't quite get it.  As best as I understand, the reason why admins can't rule on content is because of legal considerations.  But how is a newbie supposed to understand that?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your comment regarding other editor's behaviour being worse than Mark's is better placed in the "limited scope" talk page section that I created. Mark has acknowledged it was wrong and it appears to be a one off, that is all that matters. :) Whether it was very wrong or slightly wrong is an argument that could go on and on. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic Stuff

 * Mark, there is one other matter I'd like to ask you about. Back in December, you were edit warring on Rajendra K. Pachauri and you posted this on an external blog, which apparently resulted in this and this edit from IP editors in support of your earlier edits. Would you care to comment on this apparent bid to violate 3RR which regrettably nobody appears to have spotted during the evidence phase? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is back from when i first started to edit wikipedia, i did not know the rules then about off wiki canvassing mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof - looks to me like harping on "first edits" is something which should be left to the past by now. Collect (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How do we know that this edit contains a BLP sourcing issue? The cited source is a dead link and there is no archive of it at the Wayback Machine.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason you can't find it is that the Telegraph withdrew it, deleted it from their website and printed a public apology because the story was a pack of lies. So, yes, a BLP sourcing issue, to say the least. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: Cite?  BTW, if Marknutley had made this edit prior to a retraction, it's not really a BLP issue (unless you invoke the clause of WP:BLP that refers to reliable sources in the plural form) and certainly not anything a newbie editor would understand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . MastCell Talk 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A question of weight, and not very different from another case of undue weight to a properly sourced allegation, which Lar highlighted in evidence. Not all that easy to get the right balance. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Discretion Sanctions (proposed remedy 1)
The Discretion Sanctions (proposed remedy 1) could use some tightening up.

They refer to "editor working on an article within the area of conflict" I assume contributing to the article talk page counts. I don't know whether this includes discussion at a user talk page, or a user subpage. I think it should, but possibly dispensation for discussions on your own talk pages, or user subpages. If a sanction enjoins editor A from interacting with editor B, does this mean everywhere, including non CC articles? What about CC articles that are not in conflict?-- SPhilbrick  T  16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally "the area of conflict" refers to the area defined as the locus of the case. This does include the article talk pages as well as discussions about the topic elsewhere (which could include user pages and project space).  For example, an editor under a topic ban shouldn't contributed to a deletion discussion if the article would fall under that ban.  If editors need to be directed not to interact with each other, this typically means that they've become disruptive in relation to each other outside the topic area as well.  Most interaction bans are written so that the editors must avoid each other everywhere on Wikipedia, but it's possible someone could make an interaction ban more narrow if the disruption didn't happen outside of the topic area.  CC articles that are not currently in conflict are still covered by the sanctions; if no disruption ever occurs there, all the better but since there's clearly the potential for disruption, admins will have the tools they need to resolve them. Shell   babelfish 12:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of something or the other
I prefer the earlier draft of the PD. The substance was essentially the same, but it was more concise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposed decision is the wettest non-decision I could have ever envisaged and is unlikely to solve any issues whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to find the upside in this. My take: maybe this proposed decision is all the endgame of some elaborate plan, brilliantly concocted and implemented by the arbitrators. In order to to restore some peace to the area of conflict, they decided to do everything possible to craft a decision that does nothing, yet pisses off both sides in the hopes that it will manifest itself in some form of mutually beneficial cooperation -- surely nobody on either side or in the middle would want to get involved in such a charlie foxtrot situation ever again. (Didn't a bunch of editors subject themselves to a voluntary "no fault" topic ban for five days for similar reasons?) If successful, this would be pure genius and pretty much render all past community-ArbCom grievances obsolete. All involved parties get along and work out their differences in a civil manner, and the arbitrators could play the "No, We Weren't Trying To Dick You All Over, We Were Just Trying To Bring The Best Out Of You" card now and in all future cases that drag on longer than they should. Everybody wins. I'm going to refer to this as the "If This Is True, I've Really Seen It All" plan, but it should probably be called the "Yeah Right, It's Just Optimism Bias On East's Part" plan. — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. The only thing that surprised me even a little was the overt sympathy for Scibaby (not just anyone who might have been mistakenly blocked, but Scibaby himself). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everything in the sockpuppetry/Scibaby section is pretty much accurate. My quibble is that it correctly diagnoses the problem, but doesn't lead to any constructive suggestions about how to better handle the situation. Given Wikipedia's emphasis on personality politics, I think the finding will be spun as evidence of the moral failings of editors who have tried to deal with Scibaby, rather than an opportunity for a supportive and constructive dialog about how we can do better in handling sockpuppetry on these articles. MastCell Talk 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it grossly overestimates the false positive rate, but I agree with you that it will be used by certain editors as a stick with which to beat up those dealing with a sockpuppeteer who, by a strange coincidence, happens to be promoting their POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: That's not completely true. A few weeks ago, I reviewed some of the changes allegedly made by SciBaby and some of them were completely valid.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BAN. I rather think that if Scibaby was an environmental activist rather than an anti-science activist, there would be a lot fewer voices complaining about efforts to deal with his sockpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was making a point that some of his alleged edits were good, not about whether the ban is valid.  SciBaby was before my time so I have no idea if he was a genuine disruption or if he was tag-teamed and gamed into oblivion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested the ban isn't valid. He was a chronic sockpuppeteer well before he got banned. It's why he got banned. There is no excuse whatsoever for his actions since his ban and I am, frankly, disappointed at the apparent sympathy being shown towards him from some quarters. He's the worst sockpuppeteer I've ever come across and I think I'm right in saying the most prolific sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia's history. That deserves condemnation, not sympathy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: I don't know if he's getting "sympathy" as you put it, but if so, perhaps its the still unaddressed misconduct of the pro-AGW block that triggers this reaction. If I may offer an analogy, Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." BTW, I hereby invoke Godwin's law and proclaim the Great Wikipedia Climate Change War to be over.  Going forward, no one is allowed to argue.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ A Quest For Knowledge, epic fail on your part ;-) Presumably you're part of the pro-AGW block, as I'm rather against it and think we should be trying to stop it getting out of hand. Irrespective of how good or bad a sockpuppet's edits appear, policy requires us to revert them. It's then open to other editors to decide if they want to explicitly adopt the ideas as suggestions, as I'm sure you'll know. Much as I've Sympathy for the Devil. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "obvious" solution for the sockpuppetry problem is to replace the current rangeblock system with something that only restricts IP ranges from editing certain blacklists of articles. Might not even take much coding to implement.... BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed principles: Neutrality and conflicts of interest
I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but part of the wording in this section is at odds with our policy on neutral point of view. Specifically, it states, "all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source (emphasis mine). This is not what WP:WEIGHT states.  Rather, weight should be assigned according to the proportion to its prominence in reliable sources.  This proposed principle needs to be changed to accurately reflect with NPOV actually says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that this introduces a vague new formulation, rather than clarifying particular application of NPOV to this topic area as proposed in the workshop. The policy is properly stated in the lead of WP:NPOV as "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." [emphasis in the policy] That's a better statement of what NPOV actually says. The detail of "proportionately" is set out in WP:WEIGHT which has its own section in the proposed principles, and which does not say "weight should be assigned according to the proportion to its prominence in reliable sources". The section goes into a careful formulation which should be read as a whole. It requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and properly reflect the relative levels of support for views. Note the link to WP:SOURCES which requires us to assess the quality of sources, not just quantity. Something similar to your formulation appears as "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." There remains the question of assessing reliable sources. That's been an area of debate in this topic area, but it would appear that the arbiters are not minded to clarify that issue, so we abide by policy on NPOV and WEIGHT which is of course unaffected by this arbitration. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been scratching my head over this one too. As far as I can see "in proportion to the weight of the source" doesn't even make sense as English. Clarification is desperately needed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's a drafting error, not an intentional effort to change policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom rulings can't change policy. It's worth fixing, yes, but presumably it's a "you know what I'm talking about" kind of error. Sloppy, sure, but that's barely worth noting. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda is correct that arbitration case principles are guided by policy (or interpretations of existing policy) and cannot make new policy. It is worth checking the edit history of the page where the WP:UNDUE text exists, as it is possible the wording here was taken from a principle used in an older case, and the wording at WP:UNDUE changed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the (to me at least) relatively minor point about wording, it seems to me that the drafters got these issues exactly right. I note that, at several places in this talk, editors involved in the dispute are, yet again, arguing the same points that led to this case. I hope that the committee will not get sidetracked by such arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Limited scope
The scope of the findings of fact seems quite limited, there was more than 3 editors involved in disruptive conduct on these article pages. What about other editors who were involved in edit warring, some of which occurred during the arbcom case. How come there are no findings of fact? What was the rational on singling out just these three editors? Does ArbCom feel this is enough to stop tag team edit warring and other issues? What reassurance can ArbCom that these articles are no longer going to cause so much disruption to the encyclopedia? I know I am being quite negative here, I do not intend to be, I do on balance think that this arbcom case will result in an improved atmosphere for the encyclopedia.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also a bit concerned that the PD focuses on just two of the 'combatants' (and that's how they behave, so deal with the characterization) when there are quite a few more whose behavior is similar if not to the degree. Perhaps the committee thinks that newly fully involved admins at AE will simply topic ban the lot of them at the next disruption?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that is exactly what the thinking is behind the draft. And when I go to the AE page, I find that enforcement decisions made by individual administrators can be appealed to A/N or AN/E. Where a good-sized phalanx of editors who shield their allies will march to clamor for overturning or lessening sanctions. I think this is basically what was going on before WP:GSCC was set up. So we return full circle, only this time with enforcing admins being able to cite this ArbCom decision. That won't slow down the phalanx. It remains to be seen how other editors and admins at A/N and AN/I will react. We know we can expect a lot more drama and tempers getting even higher. It won't be good for the climate change pages, for editors or for Wikipedia. If ArbCom admonished or even blocked more editors, it would strengthen the hands of the enforcing admins when the inevitable appeals start. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following the CC drama for long, but I'm not sure how I see the proposed decisions shutting down the POV WP:BATTLEGROUND that seems to exist throughout the CC article-space. I somewhat expected something decidedly tougher, like long-term 1RR restrictions at a minimum or .. hell, with this amount of unproductive behavior maybe even only 1 revert per week, or other such wider-ranging sanctions being implemented. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I pointed in my statement, the proposed decision does too little, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere will almost certainly resume by the editors whose misconduct has gone unaddressed by this proposed decision. However, I do not agree with an 'across the board' 1RR restriction because this equally affects those editors who engage in WP:ADVOCACY with those who follow WP:NPOV.  Instead, I favor sanctioning only those editors who repeatedly engage in WP:ADVOCACY and which side of the AGW divide they happen to be on is completely irreverent.  Our goal as a project should be to write informative articles for our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Proposed Finding of Fact: The effect of confluences of editors within articles and article talkpages
"It has been shown that almost all editors who contributed regularly to CC related articles were indicated as being in either of one of two generally viewpoint orientated groupings; those who agreed with the scientific consensus, or those who subscribed to a denialist or sceptic viewpoint - sometimes regardless of the editors own expressed viewpoint. The dynamics of these confluences of editors was the reactionary manner of their interactions; a viewpoint or edit offered by a contributor considered part of one confluence would invariably be removed/questioned/tagged by an account from the other grouping, with only minimal observance to the discussion aspect of WP:BRD. Sometimes edit wars over the inclusion or exclusion of a reference would erupt with many editors reverting in accordance with their perceived viewpoint sympathies, although no or few editors would violate WP:3RR. Discussions on the talkpage in regard to disputed edits would also quickly fall into a similar stand off between groups of editors advocating one stance and deprecating its opposite. A battleground mentality was quickly adopted and fostered by this appearance of fractionalism, and further that any input by a nominally independent editor was quickly assigned to one of the confluences and lauded/disregarded accordingly. The existence of these strongly held communal views on a viewpoint does not excuse editors from complying with all of Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms." Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This accusation about "almost all editors who contributed regularly to CC related articles" seems to me both inaccurate and very badly thought out. It does seem to have been the motivation behind Lar and to a lesser extent yourself going about, for example 1 AGW factional editor and two skeptics, but you missed the mark there, it won't be enough to break the powerful AGW faction of their pernicious behavior (merely being right about the science is no excuse for their antics)." All editors should behave properly, and what I've seen is some editors getting out of line, and other editors, including those who share their views, encouraging proper behaviour. Your approach seems to promote the battleground mentality that has been a clear feature of the CC request for sanctions pages, but has by no means been universal. . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dave Souza. Anybody who edits so as to reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change runs the risk of being identified, absurdly, as a member of a "pro-AGW faction". Let's try to avoid that kind of unhelpful language. Those who are skeptical of the science are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but their edits should also reflect the known science. Most of the problems arising over the past few years come from editors who mistake their own personal opinion for "truth" that trumps the science, and heavy-handedness in response to the resulting point-of-view pushing. The content hasn't suffered much but it's often been a close run thing.

We can hope that as the science gains more clarity the pov-pushers will become less of a problem. Meanwhile we need a good sanctions regime in which to deal with the problems and to encourage administrators to use their initiative. The death of the admin-hampering probation, if it makes it into the final decision, cannot come too soon. Admins must be encouraged to take action. --TS 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with LHVU, EVERYONE is put into a box on one side or the other. And many operate purely within this box/battleground structure, and rarely try to get out of it.  to TS's point about admins encouraged to take action... will you be one to Topic Ban an editor who consistently blocks information from reliable news sources from a CC article that is substantially about news related matters, not the science and data of CC?  and will you then defend that topic ban at AN/I when 5 editors and admins will decry that you are over reaching and that this one instance of bad behavior will stop and be then end of it?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. I don't think one can describe news articles as intrinsically reliable in this subject. For instance the BBC has apologised to the CRU for falsely claiming that the scientists distorted the science, and the Telegraph has withdrawn a story falsely accusing the head of the IPCC of corruption.  We knew at the time that these stories were unreliable because they were not based in fact and thus not verifiable. This is unacceptable sourcing on a science subject, and unacceptable sourcing on a BLP. I would have commended any editor objecting to the abuse of Wikipedia by insertion of those obvious falsehoods as fact into Wikipedia.  I would have pushed for the exclusion from the climate change field anybody with a habit of trying to insert poorly sourced factual claims into the articles. The use of such sources as illustration of points of view, or of distortions by the news media (where a secondary source such as the Press Complaints Commission confirms it) is acceptable. --TS 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is another point worth making here in relation to yours, Tony, which is that there were obvious warning signs about the Telegraph story - notably the fact that it was written by Christopher Booker, a person with a long history of making false claims about scientific matters (cf. ). I'm pretty sure Booker's record of falsehoods was brought up on the Pachauri article talk page as a reason why the story should not be trusted without additional confirmation. The lesson, I think, is that editors need take a more considered approach - very often (as we saw with the CRU controversy) sensational media claims turn out to be baseless. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am open to the wording being tweaked, or even ripped apart and reassembled, but are people really saying that there is either no perception that editors appeared to be aligned with one of two camps, or that the perception is entirely wrong? Forget labels, is there really disagreement that any named editor is placed among other specific editors in reviewers minds? Further, are people also saying that the perception of knee jerk reaction by members of one "amalgam" to the actions or opinions of persons from the "other camp" entirely fanciful? Even if it is agreed that there seemed to be a lot of sharing of similar opinions/viewpoint between two distinct groups of editors, is it suggested that this was always beneficial and did not instigate edit wars and long, involved and often inconclusive discussions on talkpages and Probation enforcement? If so, why are we involved in an ArbCom case? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this proposal and the one below are just not necessary. If there has been edit warring, then it should be addressed. If there is battleground behavior, it should be addressed, and the same goes for incivility. Labeling of people has been a part of the problem, not part of the solution, and has actually contributed to the battleground mentality. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we should get away from labeling. It's antagonistic and drives editors apart; we should be promoting cooperation, not conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no PD about ChrisO?
ChrisO was involved in 7 or so of the edit wars that are listed on the PD page. The Monckton article had to be protected three times just during the course of Arb case. Three editors have presented diffs on this page about BLP violations and edit warring, and several other editors have endorsed the proposal for sanctions against him. Not one arb has addressed this in comments at all, and there is nothing whatsoever in the PD that mentions him or deals with him. He has been sanctioned and desysopped by ArbCom in 4 prior cases, and it was stated on this very page that past Arb actions can be considered in determining a patter of misconduct. Why is this not being addressed? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) '
 * looks like you spoke about 15 mins to soon....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

General thrust of the decision

 * ''Off-topic thread moved here from general discussion page and header added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I presented extremely compelling evidence but much of it appears not to have factored into the Arbitration Committee's proposed decision. The problem we face is far greater than the three editors sanctioned or even the six editors that I've presented evidence against. Does anyone seriously believe that sanctioning a mere three editors will result in an editing environment based on mutual respect and cooperation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To deal fully with the editing behaviour in the topic area in question would take a much longer arbitration case. The general approach is to sanction the most egregious conduct, and let admins utilise discretionary sanctions to sort out the rest. That will only work, though, if clueful and uninvolved admins get involved (different meaning of involved there) following the close of the case. The lack of admins willing to get involved is a problem that does need to be addressed, but we can't force admins to work in this area. There is also a danger of ArbCom micromanaging an area. The ultimate aim is not to have ArbCom wading in periodically to apply sanctions, but for the editing environment to be normalised so that ArbCom is not needed. If that is not possible, then we may have to look at things again in a future case, but what is likely to happen then is that practically everyone gets topic banned for even the slightest indiscretion (including many of the current case participants), so before that happens we see if the people left after this case can manage to work together or not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had enough warnings. We need to make real progress towards a better editing environment.
 * A topic area probation, countless AN/Is and RS/Ns, multiple RfCs, and a case opened for Arbitration, and still we have at least six cases of heavy edit warring by upwards of thirty editors party to this case, of which only two are being sanctioned in Arbitration, Wikipedia's forum of last resort. One of those two editors, WMC, edits so ridiculously that he is either ignored or reverted with little to no fuss, and is viewed as a handicap even by those who believe his heart is in the right place. Wikipedia doesn't need help with WMC, it needs help with a group of climate change editors.
 * I see little progress made at this point and will not edit the climate change topic area until that changes. This process has so far been very disillusioning.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I made is covered at Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, under the title Arbitration aims to "break the back" of the dispute. From that section: "[arbitrators] will want to get the case to the point that if it recurs it will be easier to address". FWIW, I agree that more findings and sanctions are needed, but it will take time to add them to the existing proposed decision, so the choice is between doing that now, over the next few months, or in a later case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While it may be helpful to remove WMC from the rather large faction causing the most trouble here, I don't think it will break the back of it... you need to name a few more names and hand out a few more topic bans. You all had a month to do what is needful, so spare us the "take up time" argument, please. If it took you a month to write that PD you all need serious help. If it took you a month of wrangling to water down a better PD to that one, WE all need serious help. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, have you ever written a proposed decision for an arbitration case? I thought the same as you until the dynamics of the process became clearer from experience. The most useful advice incoming arbs are given is this: when writing a proposed decision, drop everything else and concentrate on writing the decision. Some arbs are quicker and/or better at writing a decision than others, and real-life gets in the way as well, and sometimes new evidence has to be added. Meanwhile, the rest of the committee has other arbitration matters to deal with. Without exception, those participating in a case see their case as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ARBCOM HAVE TO DEAL WITH (tm). But it really is not. Regardless of the actual import of a case, the amount of pressure put on ArbCom to complete a case increases with the number of participants in the case and the volume of evidence and proposals submitted. There are some that recognise this, but some just never seem to get this. But enough of that. Back to the topic here: General thrust of the decision. If you could say again what your opinion is here, without the side-commentary, we might make some progress. i.e. my comment on the time it might take to expand the PD was meant to inform the subsequent discussion, not be an excuse to divert the discussion to one about how long we took to get this far. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, no, since I'm not an arbitrator obviously I haven't written an en:wp arbitration decision. Was that a rhetorical question or were you confused on that point? However, I've some not inconsiderable experience elsewhere that suggests a good part of the problem is in how you go about getting to the decision, that is, your process. Second, oddly, at the time of Lar-SV I didn't think it (my case) was the most important case before ArbCom. There were other more important ones running, as I recall. But you all managed to drag a relatively simple case out for months anyway. Third, since you asked, here's my opinion, again, on the general thrust of this case. (Apologies to those who read it already.) . I'm assuming that you didn't actually read it? ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, you know I know you are not an arbitrator and I know you know that I wasn't an arbitrator at the time of the Lar-SV case, so let's get those two points out of the way first. And you also know I read what you said, so try and work with people here, instead of scoring debating points. The crux of what you said is: "you need to name a few more names and hand out a few more topic bans". That is a start, but go a bit further. Help us out here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. First a minor point: Answer the "is Lar, is StS" question explicitly. Nothing less will shut certain parties up. More importantly: In the principles you (collective you) acknowledge how damaging factional behavior is. THANK YOU! But, despite the evidence presented by many parties that factions exist and are active in this area, and who some of the principal factional participants are, you issue no finding that factions are active here, much less name names. (why articulate the principle if you don't use it? For grins? Because someone watered something down?) You can refer to workshop for details on who I think (or who others think) some of the key factional participants are in case it is in any way unclear. Given the lack of those findings, it's not surprising that you focus on a mere 3... 1 AGW factional editor and two skeptics, but you missed the mark there, it won't be enough to break the powerful AGW faction of their pernicious behavior (merely being right about the science is no excuse for their antics). You need to, as several others have advocated, name names, and sanction the names you name for their persistent factional behavior. Note particularly that this faction derides me (and anyone else) for even pointing out that a faction exists. Which is rather unhelpful, so you ought to point that out too. Is that enough of a hint or do you need more? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (@Lar): In some respects, this is the fruit of months and months of personality politics. About 80% of the evidence and workshop consisted of argumentation about the threat posed to Wikipedia by one William Connolley. A logical conclusion of this obsession with a single editor is the belief that sanctioning him will be sufficient to kickstart progress. ArbCom seems to have reached this conclusion. Put another way, you can't spend the past 8 months building William up into some sort of outsized nemesis, and then (having achieved the desired result) turn around and depict him as one small cog in a POV-pushing machine. MastCell Talk 05:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well my workshop proposals tackled more faction members than just WMC. As did those of some others. But you may have a point... WMC is merely the biggest cog, not the only cog, in the AGW faction. As Heyitspeter ably explains, above. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)@Mastcell: It is not the case that "80% of the evidence and workshop consisted of argumentation about the threat posed to Wikipedia by one William Connolley." Refresh your memory? WMC is mentioned in several of the sections of evidence, and his username is occasionally employed to refer to a bloc of editors (viz. "WMC and his group"). That's the extent. I think this will be my second and last comment to this page. I only want to make clear that WMC is not viewed or framed as the principal threat to wikipedia by editors that have submitted evidence to this case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help finding all these throwaway references to "the AGW faction" rather amusing. Are we supposed to refer to editors who accept evolution as "the evolution faction" or those who accept that Obama is an American as "the Obama-is-an-American" faction? Since when have editors who accept an overwhelming-majority viewpoint in a field constituted a "faction"? This isn't a simple case of factionalism, like pro-Palestinians vs. pro-Israelis. On the one hand we have editors doing what encyclopedists should do by documenting overwhelming-majority viewpoints. On the other hand we have political activists who are waging a politically motivated war on science and expertise. You only have to look at the comments section of any media article on climate change to see that there's a roaming hate mob of anti-science activists. Their activities range from making disproved unscientific arguments to denouncing scientists as corrupt frauds to sending death threats and leaving dead animals on scientists' doorsteps. There is nothing remotely comparable on the pro-science side. That dynamic is what's fuelling the disputes on Wikipedia. The proposed decision alludes vaguely to real-world conflicts but it's disappointing that it doesn't acknowledge the fact that the disputes in this topic area are being driven by an off-wiki campaign against science. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very true that we see the use of rhetorical devices (which somebody better versed than I may know the names of) where small groups characterise the scientific and political establishment as a 'faction' (so with no more legitimacy than themselves), established facts as 'beliefs' (as in 'AGW believers'), scientific observations as 'theories', and make ad hominem attacks against key opponents of their campaign. The use of these tactics is well documented and should explicitly be noted in articles where it is relevant, but should not be allowed to alter the NPOV of the rest of the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly - very well put. This is essentially the same approach as that taken by creationists but adopted on a much wider scale in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "AGW faction" refers to those editors, you two (ChrisO and Nigelj) included, who engage in factional behavior in general, and who happen to agree with the mainstream scientific point of view. It does not include those editors, myself included, who do not engage in factional behavior, and who happen to agree with the mainstream point of view. You are trying to paint this as some grand crusade on your part on behalf of "science", and that is false. You do the topic a disservice with your tactics. Follow our policies, present the information in strict accordance with NPOV, let the reader decide for themself, and stop trying to use terror tactics to control the topic area, driving the majority of good editors away. A good place to start, among many, would be to stop pumping up alarmist bios and dumping on skeptic bios. Yes, I'm talking to you, ChrisO. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some very specific accusations in that comment, directed in part at me, personally and by name. For the record, I do not "engage in factional behavior in general"; I am not "trying to paint this as some grand crusade on [my] part on behalf of "science""; I do not feel that I "do the topic a disservice"; I do "[f]ollow our policies" and encourage others to do so too; I do not "use terror tactics to control the topic area" or for any other purpose; and I have seen no evidence that I have been "driving the majority of good editors away". I am not used to being spoken to like that in Wikipedia (or in real life) and am tempted to leave such a level of debate to those who enjoy it. I can see no benefit in having to defend myself against (or ignore) such unwarranted attacks after trying to contribute positively here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO has a valid point on several levels. The term "faction" may well be viewed as pejorative. More importantly, a substantial portion (my guess is a large majority) of people identifying as skeptics agree that the earth is warmer than it was a century ago, and that mankind has contributed. So the "pro-AGW" aspect isn't accurate. Some have tried to use the term "scientific camp" or some variation, but this fails miserably, because there's use of science (and misuse of science ) and lack of science in all camps. I've seen the term "warmist" used, but it isn't intended to be positive. Perhaps we need better neutral terms.--  SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Faction" is the term used in WP:BATTLE. I'm open to whatever descriptive term everyone agrees is accurate but I'm not open to not identifying, to ignoring, this factional behavior. It is the root of the problem in this topic area. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with Sphilbrick on this, there's a complex range of views on the topic, and while editors may be influenced by simplistic reporting, we should be looking for positive ways of encouraging cooperation. Not trying to lump editors together as the "AGW faction", "the evolution faction" or "the Obama-is-an-American" faction, then making the unwarranted assumption that anyone agreeing with another editor is colluding in a great conspiracy. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Someone give this man a gold star. (unless you prefer to be rewarded with virtual cookies?) Shell   babelfish 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. (Though I suspect he'd prefer a wee dram.) Getting back to the point of this exercise, should there not be a principle or finding on these lines? Right now the PD does exactly the opposite with its statement about "blocs of editors," implicitly endorsing the accusations of conspiracy (or factionalism, or whatever it is). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as we would like editors not to create a battleground mentality, I think it would be rather short-sighted to pretend that it didn't happen - that finding is fairly specific about this having been problematic. The next finding, about Wikipedia not being a battleground covers the other bit of "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view". Shell   babelfish 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell, you're misrepresenting the draft and misrepresenting what critics of the AGW faction are saying when they call it the AGW faction. Lar has very explicitly stated that the objectionable element is not the viewpoint on the outside-Wikipedia issue (which he shares and which I share) but the behavior. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy that that behavior is frowned on, and here we are in a proper dispute-resolution forum. And there is the criticism of factional behavior right in the draft. That same principle in the draft zeroes in on just the distinction that Lar made (and that I've made in the past): in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. That principle then states that mere sharing of an opinion is not faction behavior, the point you make, and then adds At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. Those pillars include NPOV and interacting well with others, two fundamental elements of this case. So when editors here object to the idea that they've formed a faction contrary to Wikipedia policy, they're simply defending themselves on a point that's a part of this case. To call it WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to bring up an accusation that others are contravening WP:BATTLEGROUND kind of defeats the purpose of having that behavior policy: It can't be an effective policy if it can't be brought up. The question is whether, aside from simple agreement on an issue, editors have worked together in ways that obstructed the good order and good purposes of the encyclopedia. Personal attacks, edit warring and NPOV violations are not matters of science but behavior, and all of these things were done in groups that stayed cohesive over time, not just individually, contrary to WP:NOTFACTIONS policy. Now can we please put to bed this idea that all we have here is an ideological dispute and it's rude to say that there's a faction here. This is the place where we are meant to bring up this kind of question. If you want to say that the evidence doesn't convince you, fine. But don't say it's wrong to bring it up unless you're prepared to say the evidence is not even reasonable. But then your dispute will be with the writers of the draft. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clarifies things. Which brings up a question: if the committee means to say "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view" would it be too much for the PD to actually state "don't lump people into groups just because they agree with a particular view"? I don't see anything in the "battleground" finding (principle) that even remotely implies such a principle. It's just a broad reference to off-wiki conflicts, which each editor is going to interpret in their own way (e.g., it refers to personal tiffs or whatever). I'm also going to gently suggest that this exemplifies a larger problem with the PD, and indeed with the proceedings overall: the committee knows what they mean, but doesn't always state things in clear and direct terms so participants are left trying to make their own inferences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said in the discussion above. One of the major "attack modes" in CC talk page discussions, at least in the limited time I've observed, has been the constant use of labels to identify people on the other side of debates. For a while it was "cabal." That fell out of favor within the past month or two, and was succeeded by "faction." The committee's repudiation of such labeling is reassuring, but its failure to explicitly censure editors using such labels to promote a battleground mentality is one of the shortcomings of the PD. The game seems to be, if you don't like what somebody says, you say "this is so typical of your faction." It's part of the background noise of incivility that, I'm afraid, this PD has failed to address. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled as to why acknowledging the elephant in the room is a Bad Thing®. It seems to me that the elephant is the issue, not the acknowledgment of the issue.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is a considerable number of scientifically literate editors who, agreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus, also tend to agree with one another's edits, does not make it appropriate to say there is a cabal. Rather, the claim that there is such a cabal, based on such flimsy evidence, suggests a different kind of problem: namely a battleground mentality founded upon scientific illiteracy or contrarianism. Such a phenomenon has been noted in the outside world for some time. On Wikipedia, I and others have used the term "anti-science" to describe the general point of view, though perhaps that's a little uncharitable.


 * Of course I acknowledge that the response to anti-science pov-pushing has often been heavy-handed. Nevertheless this pov-pushing exists and is a problem for Wikipedia, and it has visibly worsened over the past eight months or so.  --TS 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony Sidaway: Both sides are guilty of the behavior that you're complaining about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there has been bad behavior that is not limited to the scientifically illiterate or contrarian editors. The underlying problem, however, is failure of strong admin action in response to anti-science pov-pushing. We need to get admins back confidently identifying the more egregious pov-pushers and neutralize them using warnings, advice and if necessary sanctions and blocks. --TS 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony Sidaway: That's a rather bizarre take on the situation. Apart from Marknutley, I believe that most of the skeptical editors have already been banned or blocked months ago.  The biggest problem now is the remaining faction.  But I do agree that we need strong admin action against the remaining activist editors.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about skeptics. There is an ongoing problem of people attempting to push unsourced and poorly sourced factual claims into articles on global warming. Compare, for instance, the material that some editors managed to insert into the article on the CRU hacking, to the version that has emerged in the wake of the investigations. The wiser editors awaited the results, but damage was done to the credibility of the encyclopedia in the meantime by the continued attempts to insert wild claims of scientific fraud into the article. Some of those attempts were successful for a time. This wasn't entirely our fault ("we" being here the collective editors of Wikipedia) because the press reporting was in a terrible mess. But that isn't really an excuse. We're supposed to carefully examine and evaluate sources for reliability, and we often failed in that during the period of "climategate" hysteria. --TS 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony Sidaway: Again, for the most part, that issue was taken care of around January. Since then, the main problem with our Climategate has been the 'pro-AGW viewpoint' faction.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @TS and AQFK - all sides will point away from themselves when assessing the bulk of the blame. I suspect this is true, not just here, not just for every edit-war on WP, but real-world conflicts as well. I don't see how asserting it one more time advances the debate. For that matter, I struggling to figure out what exactly are we supposed to be debating. I thought we were supposed to be reacting to the PD, and offering concrete steps to remedy short-comings, yet I feel we are simply devolving into a reprise of the same ol' arguments. What, exactly, are we supposed to be doing? This feels quite unstructured.
 * Well the point is that climate science is very controversial to those who don't examine the science. As an encyclopedia we have a duty to reflect the reliable sources, which happen (as is usual in such circumstances) to be a huge consensus of scientists. --TS 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I've been arguing since November. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing of BLPs
One observation I wanted to make here is that one of main problems I've observed with the editing of biographies of living people (BLPs), though it applies to other articles as well, is that people too often edit such articles piecemeal. Some new bit of information comes up, or someone thinks some bit of information would be good to put in or take out of a BLP (for whatever reason), and the article bloats in one particular area, and not enough thought is given to the overall state of the article.

Rather than edit parts of the article, or argue over a sentence here or a paragraph there, the aim when editing BLPs (or any articles containing BLP material) should be to (before hitting save) to put the small-scale considerations to one side, and to step back and consider the article as a whole. Whenever you edit a BLP and hit save, it is not the state of the bit of the article that you edited that should be of greatest concern, but the overall state of the article. If there is imbalance, distortion, irrelevance, or incorrect tone, then by saving the article without correcting that, you are contributing to the problem.

Probably the best state of mind in which to edit a BLP is a slightly disinterested state, but still thinking "if I was this person, would I be happy with the overall state of this article?". If, on the other hand, you are editing a BLP and thinking "how can I get this bit of information I just found in a news story to fit in the article", or "how can I get this snippet of information from this book or journal paper to fit in the article", or "how can I get this vital bit of climate change information into this article", and you do so without looking at the rest of the article or even trying to expand the rest of the article, and you then walk away from the article having successfully added the snippet of information you wanted to add, then you probably shouldn't be editing that BLP (by failing to consider overall balance, you may be distorting the article or even pushing a point of view).

In other words, those heavily editing a topic area can lose perspective on BLPs within that topic area, and it helps to ask others (who may have a more objective viewpoint) to assess whether the balance, tone and comprehensiveness of the BLP is as good as it could be.

This concern is one reason why I support the current emphasis on BLPs in the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, the concern about BLPs is understated. My personal opinion, oft-stated, is that we should be more zealous about being fair on BLPs of people we despise than of BLPs of people we admire.   All too often, the game is played of adding trivial nastiness to BLPs to demean the person - if we err, let if be on the side of presenting the person as dispassionately as humanly possible.   Collect (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we err, let it be to amplify the good and diminish the bad - nobody complains about being made better than is the case, and when RS provides correction then there is no recourse to the subject for demanding retraction or apology. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But but but that would mean admiting that one's opponents are not ogres! How can this be?!?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: I believe that problem is worse that you describe. In my brief experience within this topic space, very few editors seem to be genuinely interested in writing a real biography.  Instead, BLPs are being used as coat racks to re-argue the case for/against AGW or are being used to score points for/against their ideological opponents.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is infinitely worse than Carcharoth describes because Carcharoth is approaching this from the assumption that everyone editing a BLP has an interest in it being a good and fair BLP article or that the BLP editors actually want the article to be objective or well-written or balanced. That is far from the truth.   And on this score, it is the consensus bloc that is so highly disruptive -- including whatever smears, no matter how poorly sourced, in BLP's of skeptics and adamently refusing to include impeccably sourced, even slightly negative information in BLP articles about consensus supporters.  It is quite deliberate and agenda-driven, so comments about how to write a better BLP are not helpful in this context.  Compare Christopher Monckton and Michael Mann.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming that everyone editing a BLP has an interest in it being a good and fair BLP article, but I'm describing how things should be. I should also point out that those looking through a BLP editing history to find evidence to use can also lose perspective on what the correct editing approach should be. They may strive to find BLP violations where none exist, or miss BLP violations because they are made by an editor whose edits they don't check. There is a way to demonstrate commitment to the principles of BLP editing, and that is to assemble a good set of sources and edit the whole article, rather than just part of it. Or if not able to do that immediately, to at least commit to doing that at some future point. Currently, the approach in this proposed decision is to topic ban from BLPs in the topic area those who have demonstrated poor BLP editing, and that will be a sanction we would expect to be used under discretionary sanctions as well. But is there a need to go further? To require that those editing BLPs in this topic area have demonstrated competence to edit BLPs? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a need to go further. ChrisO edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during this very ArbCom case.  ChrisO's misconduct is not that drastically different than MN's or WMC's.  Why is he not being sanctioned?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFN, you yourself have referred to scientists as "criminals" in the absence or any trial or even formal charges. Glass houses and all that. But the larger issue is that this is endemic to the project, and the GW/CC BLPs comprise only one small corner. What we really need to do is to delete all marginally notable BLPs, wholesale, mercilessly and without let or hindrance, and to have a much higher standard of notability (including default-to-delete). Putting band-aids on specific topic areas, while well-intended and of some immediate benefit, also gives us an excuse to put off real system-wide solutions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SBHB: If your argument is that two wrongs make a right, then it is an epic fail. First, for the obvious reasons.  Second, I've never edit-warred to include BLP violations in any BLP.  If you have a diff to prove otherwise, please post it.  Your forthcoming inability to provide these diffs will speak volumes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me put this bluntly: when you and Minor4th claim that I "edit warred to include BLP violations", the two of you are lying. I've explained above that I removed unequivocal BLP violations by Marknutley, which strangely enough you don't seem to have any concerns about, and I did not at any stage use any self-published material as sources. As for your "evidence", this would be the same "evidence" that you omitted to notify me about as required by policy - or even notify me about the case - until after the evidence phase had closed, by which time I couldn't respond to it? That was a nice bit of tactical backstabbing right there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, you edit-warred to include an obscure professor's unpublished presentation in Christopher Monckton, a presentation that openly questioned his intelligence, honesty, and motives. Come on, now, quit rewriting history. ATren (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC yet again) @AQFN: Read what I said. I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right, but that painting the BLP problem (and it is a problem) as a one-sided issue is incorrect. All have sinned and fallen short. Let's work together to fix the problem instead of using it as one more way to score points against the other side. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: Really?! Are you seriously accusing me of lying? Marknutley edit-warred to remove BLP violations from a BLP.  You edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP.  What you did was far worse than Marknutley.  BTW, contrary to your claim, I have presented evidence against Marknutley. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @SBHB, The point is, ChrisO's BLP abuse of Monckton alone is as bad as anything Marknutley did, and he's been very active on other BLPs during this case when others stepped back. Not only that, MN was the one who revealed the Monckton mess, and he's been active in raising red flags in other skeptic BLPs. So in my view, he's at worst a mirror-image of ChrisO, and if MN is banned ChrisO should be too. Get rid of all the partisan editors who lack good editorial judgement in this area. I would gladly include myself in that if all the major partisan players (particularly the BLP abusers) were banned with me. ATren (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I take BLP issues very seriously, when I noticed slow edit warring to keep reintroducing detailed accusations into a bio I checked the sources and found that unsourced information was being added, in the form of statements that misrepresented the sources. Rather than delete the paragraph and continue the edit war, I carefully rewrote the paragraph on the basis of the cited sources, and described my reasoning on the article talk page. My edit was largely undone by Minor4th, with an incorrect claim in the edit summary "remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; ..." – the quotes and description of Cuccinelli came from the cited source. Rather than continue editing the article, I let others argue for improvements, and later added a description of the issues to the BLP noticeboard. A similar though more subtle issue arose on another BLP, where a columnist's comments on environmental issues have been portrayed in a questionable source as being "a shocking proposal to save the earth from climate change". In this instance I added my analysis to an existing BLP discussion where a version of the inclusion was being defended by A Quest For Knowledge, but did not edit the article. While AQFK was rightly objecting to worse information being added to the bio, in my view this still seemed to be coatracking climate change into a bio with, in my view, inadequate sourcing. I've now amended the bio entry. . . dave souza, talk 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave souza -- I just want to clarify something here because I take BLP issues very seriously too and you mentioned my edit.  My edit summary was (→Virginia Attorney General investigation: remove unsourced interview quotes/ POV desc. of Cuccinelli; remove "several", attribute properly; clarify data inquiry in the fraud investigation)  -- I think the only part of your edit that was changed was the quotes you attributed to "an interview" without citing the interview.    The Diane Francis issue is very strange -- this is a view that she has written a column about and given interviews about with Fox News -- it is a notable view of hers and sourced with her own words.   I can't see how that is coatracking.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit restored a statement that "Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann" – that's not supported by the source, which provides the quotes concerned, and fully supports the version you changed from. You reintroduced a statement by Mann taken out of context in a misleading way, and paraphrased a statement by Cuccinelli's spokesman in a way that changed its meaning, to the detriment of the subject of the bio. The current version of that section is much improved, though there's now an over-emphasis on this current news story in the lead of the bio – a ruling is expected in a week. The Diane Francis issue is clear – she noted climate change talks, and said that more pressing environmental issues were arising from overpopulation which could be tackled by draconian population control. Fox News spun that as her promoting population control to deal with global warming, and AQFK removed another slur, but still presented it as spun by Fox, coatracking it as a global warming issue. More care in reading sources is required. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there's an essay in here somewhere - say, PIECEMEAL - that goes to the point that any individual contribution, however salient, must not be allowed to degrade the overall quality of the article. Anyone else agree? Ronnotel (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I confess that my immediate reaction is that it will turn into a club for other than its intended purpose. Suppose you add something that doesn't promote another editor's POV. They can revert it is if it an attack, but it isn't. They can revert it if it is unsourced, but it isn't. They can attack the sourcing if the sourcing is sketchy, but the sourcing is impeccable. WP:PIECEMEAL gives them a new tool to (mis)use. "Oh yes, I agree your addition is well-sourced, and it is salient, but in my judgment, it degrades the overall quality of the article, so sorry, it has to be removed, per policy." No doubt the removal will be challenged, but we are back to an edit war, except there is one more arrow in the quiver of those who want to maintain a particular POV.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For everyone's immediate dislike WP:An article is the sum of its parts. Please improve. Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes balance is very very important in all articles but particularly in BLPs. The simple claim "this article is just a stub so anything I add should be welcome as long as it is sourced" is poor. Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Scorched earth approach

 * This section was originally titled 'SirFozzie's Statement' and was moved here under a new header. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie describes what I've often called Kindergarten like behavior. The problem I have with his proposals is that instead of fixing this and turning this place back into the University it should be, he proposes to solve the problems by actually accepting that this is indeed Kindergarten which then needs to be managed by rules appropriate for Kindergarten. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse SirFozzie's statement 100%, including his banning of everyone who has edit-warred, which no doubt includes me. This idea of wide scale banning has been thrown around (AQFK has been a big proponent of it) and after seeing what's been going on since the case started, I think it's absolutely necessary. But the important thing is to keep the policy in place, so if new users arrive with the same battleground mentality, they get banned as well. Otherwise this will likely start up again in a few months. ATren (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish there were a solution other than this that would work, but in all the virtual trees we've killed discussing this problem we have not found one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have proposed a remedy along the lines of what SirFozzie proposes, but which takes it even further: any participation whatsoever in this topic area over the last two years earns a ban, broadly construed. This will remove all judgement from the equation. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. ATren (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also proposed remedies that actually tackle the real problems. Under my proposals, we could unblock GoRight, there would be no need to impose any topic bans a priori to anyone as is proposed by ArbCom now. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with SirFozzie's statement. His criterion for issuing topic bans would be practical and appropriate, and I believe the approach would be effective. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, all those who have expressed support for SirFozzie's proposal, and who agree that they themselves have edit warred a bit in the topic area, don't have to wait for the final decision. All they have to do is stop editing in the topic area now, for good. --TS 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * quite true. Though many of the worst edit warring offenders feel that they are on the side of righteousness and therefore it's not edit warring.  But we live in hope.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but improving the area by voluntary stand-off can work one editor at a time, too. I figured out a while ago that, since I have pretty mainstream views on matters of science, I have little or no incentive to perform edits for myself, and everything to gain from simply remarking on problem areas on talk pages.  The problems are invariably fixed almost as soon as I point them out.  The discretionary sanctions should take care of problem editors. --TS 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have stopped. But it hasn't solved the problems -- BLPs are still being abused. So it has to be everyone involved that is banned, or the problems will persist. ATren (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a problem of group psychology. There has to be a willingness on the part of good faith editors to disengage from article editing.  Those who aren't prepared to do so, and continue to cause problems, will tend to stand out and can be excluded by an involuntary topic ban. --TS 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And in the meantime what happens to the articles, Tony? It seems to me that you are relying on others to make the edits you would like, and then leaving them to take the flak. NPOV and BLP compliance doesn't happen by magic; someone actively has to work on it to make it happen, and to stop abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd rely on other good faith editors to perform the edits. These would be editors who know the science but haven't been involved up to now. The neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, verifiability, etc are all quite well known policies and can be applied just as well by somebody else as by me. --TS 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to voice my agreement here - there are such editors out there. Many of them are scared off at present by the hostility in the climate change area - the graveyard of good faith. I don't believe there would be any shortage of fresh blood if the atmosphere was changed. Thparkth (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is contradictory, I'm afraid. On the one hand you say that you'd rely on good faith editors. On the other hand, you say that good faith editors should withdraw. Is that not simply another way of saying that articles should be abandoned to the depredations of bad faith editors? - letting the bad drive out the good? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be diplomatic. Those editors (and administrators) who in good faith want the editing environment to improve should, I propose, recognise that it's time to hand over to a new team. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Invite previously uninvolved good faith editors, since those involved up to now (whether "good faith editors" or "bad faith editors") have demonstrated an inability to foster an atmosphere of collegial editing. alanyst /talk/ 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you have it exactly. --TS 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also want to say that it's a good time to bow out. Our global warming articles are widely recognised as some of our best science coverage. There's a lot to be proud of. --TS 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Isn't that quality due to the work of the existing editors? And how long do you think the articles would stay that way if they quit en masse? Good articles are good because people have worked hard to get them to that state in the face of relentless opposition and provocations. The editing environment has not simply been poisoned by existing editors failing to work together - it's been poisoned by the external situation, where we have bloggers and columnists ranting about conspiracies and directing people to Wikipedia to "put the record straight". Nothing we do here is going to change that. The driver for the dispute is not editorial relationships on Wikipedia, it's the external environment. Any new editors who enter this topic area are going to face exactly the same pressures and adversarial relationships as the current editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, then having new editors will reproduce the old situation, with the exception that we'll be ready for it this time with the discretionary sanctions. And if that doesn't work, you'll be able to say "I told you so." --TS 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd say that, Tony, so I didn't bother adding it myself... Seriously, I'd like to second Chris here. One potted history of why we're here is that a lot of people got overexcited by what they called 'Climategate', thought that global warming was dead and descended on Wikipedia to bury it. Then they got stroppy when they found that a tireless group of scientific literates weren't happy with that reading of the reported facts, and so they wanted something done about it (e.g. disable WMC, GS/CC/RE etc). Tempers flared, and patience wore thin, among the scientific experts too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * People have collective amnesia and very short memories. "Climategate" and the actions and behavior of the editors involved is not new and these attacks on science have been going on since the 1980s.  It is a large part of what is called the The Republican War on Science and it involves the same people and players. (NASA 2009)  Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for these special interests. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been going on for decades, especially in the US. It's only recently people have been able to 'join the dots', Oreskes says. 'Climategate' was just a recent moment when it went global or viral or whatever the right internet word is. I do think it's no coincidence that we're here at ArbCom nine months later, when there is no more juice to be had from sucking on the Climategate pips, now that the reviews are in, though. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)\
 * Do you guys have any idea how strong your POV comes across in these comments? I find it amazing that you don't even recognize how biased you all are. If editors expressed the same kinds of sentiments for the "other side" you'd be up in arms. It is editors like you who are turning Wikipedia into Conservapedia's mirror image. ATren (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What was said was neither POV nor bias, but an historical fact supported by reliable sources whose accuracy is not in dispute by any recognized authority. Reality is not a liberal bias. I recommend you check the two sources that were raised. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Historical fact? The book you cited is written by a contributor to The American Prospect, which is described as "American political magazine dedicated to liberalism." Now consider if someone promoted something written by an AEI fellow and claimed it was "historical fact" -- are you honestly saying you wouldn't consider that editor blinded by his own POV? You're insistence that such material is unquestioned fact actually proves my point. ATren (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused. I was neither citing the book nor it's conclusions. If you had bothered to read my comments, you would have noticed I was citing a NASA report published by the U.S. government which mentioned the book and the history of opposition to and attacks upon climate science. Your response indicates you are reacting instead of analyzing. The historical facts are not in dispute by anyone. This is a part of the historical record and is documented by massive amounts of data, transcripts, news reports, studies, and books. Reality is not a liberal bias.  I suggest you read the NASA source before blindly replying again. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A NASA report? It seems to be authored by NASA's "Chief Historian." I wonder if his duties are related to outreach to the Muslim community(NASA is so cosmopolitan these days)? Perhaps he knows NASA's James Hansen, who is in charge of the surface temperature data? Hansen, of course, has been arrested for protesting at a coal plant and thinks executives of fossil fuel companies should be charged for "high crimes against humanity and nature" for spreading doubt about global warming. Sorry, but planting the "NASA" logo on something doesn't give it automatic credibility - and yes yes, we've all heard the "reality doesn't have a liberal bias" line before, I used to enjoy the Daily Show myself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Republican and conservative groups have been targeting and attacking climate science for three decades. This is a historical fact and evidence supporting it has never been challenged. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Three decades? Yep, that's almost about when the CIA released their report warning about climate change (I can throw out government initials too) - I bet "conservative and republican groups" were attacking the CIA for their report warning about global cooling then too.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All you and ATren can offer are distractions and red herrings because there is nothing to dispute. The war against climate science and climate scientists is so well documented that one would have to deny history itself to ignore it.  To remind you yet again, the source is found here.  By your own inability to address it, or to point out any flaws in it, you have all but admitted that I am correct.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah is that what you call healthy skepticism? I was taught not to swallow hook, line and sinker everything I read - especially the things I want to believe. You are welcome to think there is a "great war against science" if you like - even if this relies on your belief that government agencies aren't politically motivated and directed entities (I guess NASA's Muslim outreach mission must be non-political). I'm sure you can find several individuals publishing similar thoughts, just like I could find books claiming all sorts of ridiculous things. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a great number of footnotes, studies, papers, reports, transcripts, and scholarly books on the subject and the NASA source is described by the GPO as a scholarly source. There is no dispute here, and since you can't directly address the evidence, I will assume that any further reply from you on this topic is another form of distraction.  That there is a "war against climate science" is not a subject of debate. It is fully substantiated by more than enough evidence and is part of the historical record.  The source I offered you gives you more than enough pointers on the subject.  Educate yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the section and wasn't impressed. Many of his assertions were uncited, what he did cite was often not relevant and it was clear that his conclusions had already come first and that all he was doing is putting a few "diffs" together to justify his pre-determined belief. And no, I'm obviously not going to debate the tiny points with you, if you want to claim victory on this basis in your mind then I'm certainly not going to stop you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a section, it's a series of three pages from pp. 281-284. All of the major claims are fastidiously sourced, so I don't believe you when you say that "many of his assertions were uncited".  That is demonstrably false as the footnotes show.  You really need to actually read the material in question and directly respond to it.  I don't think you can, because there's not a single thing about the historical record you can actually dispute, but I'm sure you'll keep returning here to waste my time. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The NASA book you cite is actually a conference proceedings, and the essay you present as absolute historical fact is written by Erik M. Conway, who has also authored a book (with Naomi Oreskes) called "Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt". His "fastidious sourcing" includes George Soros and Paul Krugman. Your continued insistence that this is "the truth" simply amplifies my original point that you (and others) are blinded by your own POV on these topics. ATren (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your only response appears to attack the messenger, while ignoring the message. We are discussing the message, namely the "war against climate change" that has been going on now for thirty years and is well documented.  What part of it do you dispute?  Please point to specific instances and particular sources.   You can't, because it's all part of the historical record, and is beyond dispute.  All you can do is attack the authors.  How sad.  Again, point to specific examples in this "war" that you dispute, or remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely! I'm not disputing Conway's opinions, nor am I saying they don't contain elements of truth. All I'm saying is he is a partisan source and his opinions should be treated as such. You are treating this essay from a partisan source to assert as fact that "Republicans are anti-science". This is no different than someone claiming, as unquestioned fact, that environmentalists are "waging war on our way of life" based on the opinion of a conservative columnist. Do you not recognize this? ATren (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one missing the point. What "opinion" should be treated as partisan?  You can't point to one, because the source is talking about documented, historical facts supported by non-partisan sources.  So, again point to an opinion we should treat as partisan.  Are you denying that there has been a campaign by conservatives and Republicans since the 1980s targeting climate science and climate scientists?  Then you'll have to directly refute the evidence in the source.  Do so. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The main problem here is that you haven't made any argument Viriditas. You've pointed to an essay, declared it historical fact and then asserted victory when we didn't go through the essay and refute your unstated points. If there are any key facts, not assertions for your claim then present them instead of complaining that Atren and I aren't addressing the specific points that you have never made. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more flabbergasted that they keep referring to a study that used a "Real Climate" founder to evaluate wikipedia's coverage of the climate change articles and act like that is really an independent and unbiased review. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nigel, I did notice the "Climategate" nonsense. That was a situation where, for me, complete disengagement from editing worked.  I waited for the reports to come out, and as it was obvious what they would say it only required a bit of patience on my part.  In Spring I looked at the article a few times and made a few talk page edits.  Some problems that had crept in were fixed by the editing fairies.  Why?  I'm not an especially persuasive writer, I'm incredibly arrogant and I don't care much about detail.  But my proposal were based firmly in policy and so they were implemented with barely a murmur. --TS 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong Tony, I'm all for wait-and-see and a light touch as well as using talk pages sparingly to promote a healthy respect for policies or for drawing attention to significant publications. What I'm not sure about is the voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of all those who understand the matter, who can lay their finger on just the right paper or academic quote, who know the chief authors and their arguments backwards and forwards, and who keep these articles sane. It's easy enough to reproduce some intelligent-sounding snippet from a conspiracy-theory blog or right-wing editorial, but it can be much harder to show exactly how and where each of such factoids contradicts the published science. If this decision were to take out all current editors, those who know very little about climate science would be easily replaced, but the real experts would take some matching, as the PD recognises with "William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians". --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are speaking from the assumption that getting rid of knowledgeable editors would a bad thing. This would require debate to achieve consensus, as some have explicitly stated otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The root of the problem is that there are different, conflicting, dynamics operating here. On the one hand, you have science-literate editors working away steadily over a long period, not being driven by external factors. They're the ones who've got our CC articles up to their present, overall very good state. On the other hand you have politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors - whether the "Climategate" nonsense, or the false accusations against Rajendra Pachauri, or some new publication that they naively think disproves the whole of climate science. They turn up in swarms with a rabidly oppositional attitude, denouncing mainstream science and scientists as "fraudulent" or "criminals". You can see exactly this kind of thing in the comments section of any newspaper article on climate science. The entire approach of such editors is completely antithetical to Wikipedia's basic principles. That is what is driving the conflict here. Now, maybe discretionary sanctions will help with that, but the only reason right now that articles are not turning into Conservapedia-style travesties is because good editors are working hard to uphold policy. The sanctions will not change the dynamic of oppositional politically activist newcomers versus established science-literate editors; it's that dynamic that underlies the conflict here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, when you and your ilk fought -- fought -- to deny any mention that the CRU unit administrators faced possible legal liability for violating the UK's FOI law, something impeccably sourced, something supported by independent observers at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, you weren't supporting science, you were supporting a political grouping. No more, no less. Your fighting was partisan in the extreme. It was WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by a group. It was POV from top to bottom. You have no excuse for it. You should stop hiding behind the curtain of "Science" and start admitting your partisanship. Now. I'll slap the links here in a minute. They completely demolish your posturing. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, well, just follow the links. Just follow the links. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ONE: (the passage you and your faction couldn't stand being in the article) TWO: (must be read to be believed) THREE: (ChrisO's request at RS/N demolished) I believe this is already in evidence, I'm not bringing up anything new. Had the Workshop page not been closed, I'd have been discussing it there. Well, here you are: ChrisO can't claim to be merely an Acolyte of Science And Reason. His behavior was partisan and it is impossible to say he was attempting to make the page impartial. You don't get there by denying that emails declaring "Let's conspire to keep documents from becoming public" were not even indicative of potential FOI law violations. It was, by the way, one thing that came out of the sympathetic investigations: FOI law was, in fact, violated, although the CRU emailers were themselves not blamed for it. I think all of these links are on the the evidence page in my section on KimDPetersen, ChrisO's close ally in their faction's blocking of NPOV coverage of that. Reading ChrisO's holier-than-thou pontificating in light of that episode is really just too much. And don't anybody tell me I'm arguing a content issue: I'm arguing a freaking WP:BATTLEGROUND issue to which ArbCom has not given adequate attention. (ec with below)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) And here's another from the same archive page. I meant to link to this one earlier. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I do think you're exaggerating but let's see what you have to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * politically activist editors who come here in response to external factors Oh. How. True. Anyone who goes through my links should reread ChrisO's comment that I just responded to above. The Science Halo will never look quite as shiny again. I think it's a great illustration of just what's been going on in CC article and GSCC pages for months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, JWB, the hypocrisy of some editors here is astounding. ATren (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should have recognised (some of us did) that the information commission officer had spoken out of turn. In the end he was reprimanded for it.  Insofar as we carried the erroneous reports (the emphasis was erroneous) we failed. We failed even though many of us knew that the newspaper reports were nonsense. That's the downside of my disengagement.  I didn't monitor the talk page much. --TS 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The episode illustrates why WP:RECENTISM is such a valuable essay to bear in mind when writing an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another point of order here. Carrying erroneous reports is done all the time in Wikipedia. The key is correcting things when it is reliably known that such reports are erroneous. It is important to distinguish between: (1) suggesting that Wikipedia remain silent or non-committal on an issue until the full facts are known or conclusions and reports are published (that is acceptable); and (2) engaging in original research and using investigative journalism techniques, or synthesis of disparate sources, to conclude that a source is wrong (that is almost always not acceptable). In most cases, Wikipedia editors should remember that it is not their job to get ahead of the story, but rather to decide what it is possible to report about the current state of the story using the best and most reliable sources. In that sense, carrying an report (later found to be erroneous) from a reliable source is not a failing on Wikipedia's part, but a failing on the part of the supposedly reliable source. Wikipedia editors can only be expected to go so far in assessing the content of certain types of sources (particularly the ones where you don't know the primary sources used). This can be contrasted with assessing the reliability of a source. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to pass judgment on whether a source is correct or not. Other sources do that for us. Note the difference here between assessing reliability and correctness (two subtly different, though related, matters). Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly so. This is of course not an issue that's confined to this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All that matters here is that because of extreme partisanship, Wikipedia could not say that there "may" be "liability" for an FOIA violation, despite the air-tight reliability of the sourcing. It is that simple now. It was that simple then. The fact of potential liability was never shown to be wrong until authorities simply made it obsolete by ruling that the emailers were not the ones at fault. That couldn't be known until the authorities ruled. And until they ruled, the fact of potential liability on FOIA was a very important part of the subject of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This Wikipedia episode illustrates successful partisanship by ChrisO and ChrisO's faction. Period. Point proven. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly, and I don't have a "faction". Accusations of serious wrongdoings are always problematic to deal with. The difficulty here is one of perceptions of where to draw the line - some editors favour taking a conservative, wait-and-see approach to issues that may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, others want to rush in and document the latest media sensation in detail. WP:RECENTISM was written with the latter type of editor in mind. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Problematic to say FOIA may have been violated: If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) LINK for anyone who wants to make sure of the accuracy of the quote: -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for weighing in. I'm pretty serious about the potential benefits of withdrawal from editing but at the same I don't think SirFozzie's proposal is a runner. I think the main thrust of the arbitration should and probably will be a very strong, uncompromisingly stated, discretionary sanctions regime.

I also think that the arbitrators should probably look closely at the conduct of administrators, particularly those who may be technically uninvolved, don't take any admin actions in the area, but have nevertheless dominated the probation to the extent that it has been transformed from a discretionary regime to one that cannot operate without their support. I think this is a case where such administrators might benefit from counselling about appropriate behavior. Harm can drip from a honeyed tongue. --TS 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not a party to the case I've been following its latter stages with interest. As far as I can see, the main effect of the PD will be to replace the failed probation regime by remanding enforcement to WP:AE, which will bring in many more uninvolved admins. In fact, I'd suggest that all the admins involved in the probation regime should voluntarily desist from participation on WP:AE threads concerning climate change - let's make a fresh start and get fresh faces in, without all the disputes and baggage of the probation regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent suggestion. New editors, new admins. But of course the whole idea of discretionary sanctions is that they're discretionary.  You don't have to participate in a WP:AE thread to cast a sanction.  A certain amount of disengagement would be seemly, I think. --TS 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, there is a point of order that needs to be made here. You say that you are "not a party to the case". This case does not have a list of parties (see the note that Newyorkbrad posted at the start of the case). Rather, any such lists are an informal and incomplete list of those participating in the case (the list is used for notification purposes). Anyone (whether participating in the case or not) for whom evidence is posted and/or for whom a finding is posted by an arbitrator (either now or later) may end up being sanctioned. The only condition is that the editor(s) involved be notified of that finding to be allowed to present a defence. I'll quote in full what was said at the start of the case: "'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.'" I'm emphasising this because it is quite possible that more editors will have findings added about them, so people should avoid saying things like "I am not a party to the case", because that is meaningless in this particular arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not notified of the case at any point, nor was I even aware of its existence until after the evidence page had closed. Hence my limited involvement in these discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You are mentioned a fair number of times on the evidence page. You should have been notified by a clerk. I've asked the clerks as a matter of urgency to make sure that all those mentioned on the evidence page that were not on their notification list are notified. And to also carry out any notifications needed. 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was mentioned on the evidence page but those mentioning me saw fit not to tell to me - which of course meant that I wasn't able to post any response, which I'm sure was quite intentional. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC on steroids) @Carcharoth: The practice of not naming parties and simply handing down findings/sanctions is a little unsettling (though of course the identity of at least one party at risk was obvious). Recognizing that arbcom is not a law court and so on, we might take into account that the western cultural tradition that largely guides Wikipedia's functioning has tended to deprecate the imposition of findings and sanctions without prior notice, using proceedings that are "held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is why such notifications are carried out (unless those for whom sanctions are proposed are already aware of the case). All those named in the proposed decision have posted to this talk page since the proposed decision was posted. If (as several people have requested) more findings are added, then any new editors named in those findings will be notified (as both Brad and I said). Given that, I don't see the problem here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Informing people after the fact doesn't quite address the concern I raised, but I won't argue it further. Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether Fozzie's proposal would work, but the evidence of this talk thread is that the arguments might just keep on going, on other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we're not yet calling one another names. This is a good sign. --TS 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When cancer has metastasized it is too late for the scalpel. I doubt there is the stomach for multiple surgeries and it is likely that such actions would miss some of the infection. It may indeed be time for the chemo and the rads - healthy tissue is going to get hurt either way, but at least the latter options have a better chance at success. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is well meant, but it disenfranchises those good editors who have taken part in efforts to reverse some of the more extreme edits to be found in CC subject edit histories - and especially those who have access to excellent sources because of their standing within the field of science. [redacted for readibility - see edit history for the full post] The problem [R4R] is that the scientific consensus is only one viewpoint and the viewpoints of the denialist/skeptic [R4R] are many and varied[R4R]. Expertise is required to debunk poor(ly understood) science and hokum, and it is also needed to note where arguments are made in good faith upon sources that are not invalid. My appeals to understand the precepts of NPOV, as it applies to WP articles, made to those who preferred the application of SPOV or considered that the scientific consensus was the NPOV, was so that RS and commentary in regard to skeptic/denialist opinion could be better weighted and accommodated within the article space, so that the reader was provided with all notable aspects of the subject, rather than the dismissal of editors and content whose opinions differed. [R4R] I think that among the ranks of those who [R4R agree with] the scientific consensus regarding AGW are those who can work with those who, in good faith, contest the sources and content currently within CC article space. These are smart people, as are many who edit to the contrarian viewpoint(s), and should be able to adapt to a regime that more closely examples the preferred Wikipedia editing model. Get rid of the bad influences, and give them that chance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Certain passages "Redacted for Readability", per request. If commenting, please read the entire post from the edit history - hopefully reviewers of the comments will do likewise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse Sir Fozzie's statement. I believe his topic ban would include me also, because I was blocked once for edit-warring in this subject area.  That's ok, I'm willing and able to be accountable for my actions.  I believe the draconian measure he advocates would restore order to the AGW topic area, because editors who want to edit would be forced to be very careful not to violate WP's policies.  I think the result would be a marked increase in efforts to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise among the involved editors, knowing that just one edit war or one personal attack could get them topic banned. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Sir Fozzie's statement. Lots of good editors with whom I agree and disagree have been in edit wars on the global warming topic area. There are many reasons for this: background knowledge, sources of information, and BLP concerns are all in there. There are several editors who do not do useful things, sometimes agressively so, and they should be banned. But I believe that SirFozzie misses the issues in this area, especially surrounding the wide variety of potential sources and large gray areas in opinion, and that his remedy would affect the long-term editors who have had the time to get into an argument or two. I also strongly support Count I: this is not a kindergarden, and I don't want to see the law laid down by someone like Sir F who (sorry - nothing personal) practically ignores article space. I think that added rules like this will also just make people try to game the system more. I am in strong agreement with LHVU on feeling "disenfranchised" if this passes. Awickert (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that Sir Fozzie's suggestion is too draconian and extreme.--MONGO 02:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we conduct an experiment to see if Sir Fozzie's proposal is really that extreme? Please read this article from The Guardian.  The article goes into some detail on the Climategate emails in which Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones, among several others, discuss taking hostile action against two an academic journal which had published a paper which they did not approve of.  Notice that the related article, the Soon and Baliunas controversy, does not currently contain any information on this aspect of the controversy.  Now, over the next several days, unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to go and add a section on the email controversy to that article, of two or three paragraphs.  I may use The Hockey Stick Illusion, which contains the texts of the emails in question, as a back up source.  Hopefully, the regulars in this topic, even though at least one of them has a personal relationship with Mann and Jones, will help out with what I try to do.  If they do, then perhaps there is hope that the editors in this topic are willing and able to change the way they approach editing in this topic area. Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I had to do four paragraphs to present the whole story, but I believe I represented it fairly and accurately.  Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is at least the second time you have edited a climate change article during the case and made some announcement on the case pages that you are conducting an "experiment". Please stop doing this. It is disruptive and it is a borderline breaching/baiting experiment. If you and others want to edit such articles during the case, fine, but don't comment here in parallel and turn it into some kind of performance art or demonstration for the benefit of arbitrators. It is not helpful. Point out examples of editing that have taken place during the case, and do any editing you think is needed, but point out any concerns after such editing has taken place. Don't pre-announce it as some sort of experiment and then use the results here to make your point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the first trial was so unexpectedly successful at showing what it is like to try to edit a CC article that I couldn't resist doing it again after seeing the opposition above and below to Sir Fozzie's and ATren's proposals. If there is no equivalent response to this experiment, then I think that in itself provides evidence for other conclusions to be drawn, besides the fact that you didn't think that either one was helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth: Were they good edits? Supported by sources? Did they improve the article? If so then Cla68 certainly was justified in making them, whatever his motivation. We don't care so much about motive as we do outcome. That it happens that these edits nicely illustrate the problem is something you should be thanking Cla for instead of berating him. What proposals have you put forth to address this issue? ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Give it time. I certainly won't disregard what happened there and earlier, but I want to stop this idea of carrying out "experiments" before it spreads. If everyone did this, there would be chaos. So please, no more experiments. Just normal editing and no editorialising here if you happen to be editing elsewhere. It is very disconcerting for editors not aware of the discussion here to find that someone has been engaging them in an experiment, and it arguably raises ethical concerns if people are deliberately using Wikipedia articles and editors to conduct experiments without the consent of those editors. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting experiment. At a first glance I noticed that Cla68 had added potentially damaging content of one of the most famous emails with some commentary, but without showing the response giving the views of the scientists concerned as reported in the source. Given the damaging BLP issue of this omission, I've added brief coverage of it. I've not checked all of the section, and note that again Cla68 is pushing the use of the questionable The Hockey Stick Illusion but have done nothing about that for now. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How is citing to a published book "pushing" anything, and how is it questionable? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Minor4th, WP:SOURCES requires more than that the book be published, and attempts by Cla and others to use this source for fact rather than the author's fringe opinion have been extensively discussed, as at WP:RSN where he did not get the support of uninvolved editors. The book itself includes blatant misinformation, for example Chapter 1 makes a great deal of the assertion that the IPCC First Assessment Report of 2001 showed a Medieval warm period warmer than today, and claims that scientists then conspired to pretend that it was only regional, but the report itself states that it may not have been global.p. 199. It's easy to be misled by the book, have you read it sceptically? . . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not read the book and don't know what it says. I just wondered what your reason for implying it was unreliable.  Typically when  book goes through the editorial and publishing process, there's a good deal of fact checking because publishing houses are particularly concerned with liability from defamation and so forth.   Unless it's a vanity piece or self published, I think published books are generally considered reliable sources.   It might be necessary to attribute content to the author, and definitely that is the case if it's an expression of an opinion.  I'll look at your link to the RS noticeboard. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree withSirFozzie's proposal. I would equally support the "clean slate" proposal, so long as very strict enforcement follows the wiping of the slate. I think either of these solutions would work quite nicely, and I think it will take something that drastic to bring this topic area in line. Note that I support SF's proposal even though his topic ban would most likely include me. If that's what it takes to support Wikipedia and remedy this 5+ year problem, I'd accept being swept into the topic ban. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wipe the slate clean

 * Similar proposal copied here from elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: "All editors and admins who have been involved in conflicts in this topic area over the last 2 years, whether on the talk pages of relevant articles or the enforcement board or in any user talk page discussion regarding this topic, broadly construed, is indefinitely banned from the topic area from this point forward. The list of editors shall be compiled based solely on an investigation of page histories, with no judgement as to the merit of their participation." ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Based loosely on SirFozzie's statement. ATren (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe ATren and SirFozzie don't realize the importance of having editors around who know what they are talking about because they don't really edit articles here, but having no one with a clue is a surefire way to disaster. We would be left with with no one who knows much of anything on how to make the topic area work, be factually accurate, and expand. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some knowledgeable CC topic regulars, such as Awickert above and Pete Tillman, for example, who as far as I know have behaved in a manner that is generally beyond reproach and could continue improving these articles. As for the rest, and that might include me, tell them to find another topic to edit and to try harder to cooperate, collaborate, compromise while doing so. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (This rationale might be read in conjunction with my one re SirFozzie, and both considered complementary in both cases) This proposal makes no difference between personalities and behaviours, and there is only a couple of instances were personality and behaviour are synonymous. Address the behaviours, robustly sanction inappropriate behaviour, ensure as far as possible that they cannot be repeated, and the majority of personalities will return to modelling appropriate Wikipedia editing behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Three points in response: (1) if you ban everyone, it's not a punitive measure for any individual, but simply an acknowledgement that this is simply too big for individual sanctions, (2) it's clear to me that individual sanctions (as currently proposed) don't go far enough in removing the problematic editors -- I can name 3 or 4 such editors off the top of my head who are not sanctioned at all in the current PD and will continue to disrupt (3) I believe that those who would be unfairly "punished" by this remedy wouldn't look at is as punishment at all -- I think they'd be content that the problematic editors have been removed and they'd have no problem being asked to leave with them, especially if the sanction is clearly worded as not punitive and not indicative of any wrongdoing. I personally would be relieved if I could leave this mess alone, secure in the knowledge that neutral, dispassionate editors can take over without fear of getting trampled on. ATren (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points in response: (1) I would not be satisfied being asked to not edit a topic area that I have been involved in because some other people have questionable behavior. I would be indignant, and actually, pissed enough to make a huge stink over it. It is like when the whole class doesn't get to go out for recess because of the one student who put the whoopee cushion on the teacher's chair. I want to be able to edit climate change and friends, and I am not giving that up. (2) Sadly, "neutral, dispassionate editors" don't come out of nowhere. Even if we leave behind the current bitterness, I don't see how such a topic of controversy and angst is going to collect nothing but saints. Awickert (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) There are plenty of topics to edit. Being asked to stay away from one topic for the good of the project is something we all should be willing to do. (2) I estimate that I've seen comments by at least a dozen good editors to the effect of "Oh, climate change? There's no way I'm wading into that mess". The fact is that the current group of editors (all sides) has created a toxic environment that has driven good editors away, and I believe removal of the whole lot will draw those good editors back. ATren (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. I will edit anything I choose, thank you very much. Staying away from one topic "for the good of the project" may be easy for you, but that's because you by default don't much edit articles in any topic. And I don't think that removing everyone in a single topic area is good for the project, because of the loss of the knowledge base, so in my mind it is not me being selfish (because I disagree with the premise). I will not, under any circumstances, accept this as a viable solution. I, and many others, have edited climate change articles by adding information, fighting vandalism, and trying to make them better and more comprehensive. Furthermore, parts of my profession are related to climate. I will not edit in an environment where I can't write about climate when I come across it in the course of improving articles. If this is implemented, I'm afraid that you and I will have to slug this out through any and every appeal process that WP has. Never have I seen anyone be topic-banned for doing nothing wrong. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to worry. Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is. The best thing you can do with "proposals" such as this is simply to ignore them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that you are right and this will never pass. But I still worry that it will. Ah, well. At very least, I have made my line in the sand obvious. So I suppose that it is time to step back, since I don't think I will have anything new to say. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Boris: "Arbcom is smart enough to see something like this for what it is." - what exactly is it that you think they will see? ATren (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clean slate accompanied by very strict enforcement following wiping the slate. I would equally support SirFozzie's scorched earth proposal. I think either of these solutions would work well, and I think it will take something this drastic to bring this topic area in line <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Same goes for you as for ATren. I won't accept a ruling that prevents me from making improvements to WP, and especially not from someone who spends very little time actually writing articles. You may be a very nice person (so nothing personal), but I'm sorry, I don't like to be told I can't do something that I feel that I have the privilege to do, and especially not if I feel that I have something good to offer. Awickert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Like Boris said, Arb is going to ignore this anyway.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 06:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am calm, mental health is a big check. But I will not be calm if ArbComm implements this, and I feel very strongly about this. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What an awesome way to create massive disruption؟ Topic ban hundreds or thousands of editors and try to keep track of who can edit where, all the while arguing about which articles are included, and which aren't. You could reduce unemployment significantly by hiring enough clerks to keep track of this and provide evenhanded enforcement؟ Jehochman Talk 04:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This, of course, rewards the socks (what do they lose? Another throwaway account) and removes everybody who has build valuable expertise in the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which socks? The real socks or the 20-40% of falsely accused socks? You know, the ones that ArbCom said were inappropriately blocked when they weren't socks, but the activist crowd cried "Scibaby" on their first edit?  Or the activist socks that no one will check-user?   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is bigger than individuals. New blood may be exactly what is needed.  It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out.  The proposal accomplishes that and only deals with editors who have been involved in conflicts, so it is a rational approach to fix the problem in this area. (per clerk comment, who advised that this is not really an appropriate place to !vote, I have removed my !vote - I do like the idea for the reasons stated in my original comment and I do still support the proposal.)   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not supported by findings of fact. Asking folks to expand and extend their voluntary restrictions might help.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is supported by findings, such as the inappropriate accusations of socking, the bloc editing, etc.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These incidents are specifically attributable to certain editors, which might warrant a case. Why should all be sanctioned now? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all are being sanctioned, just those that have been involved in conflicts.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, then you have not read this section of the discussion. You reference the main one, which is why ZP5 and you have your wires crossed. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to GregJackP's original statement: you incorrect "It is clear that those who have been in the this area, including all of those opposing the proposal, have not been able to play nicely with the other children, so maybe everyone should get a time out." I seem to be one of its strongest opponents, and have never been "in trouble" here. I don't think that I am alone. Please be careful with mass accusations. Awickert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of proposal might work for political subjects, but not for scientific issues such as this. It would irreparably harm the quality of these articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Because "scientists" are exempt? If they want to be treated as experts, treated differently from any other editor, they need to go to Sanger's project or Britannica.  "Scientists" shouldn't get a pass on COI, like WMC has on Climategate.  He is directly involved, being mentioned in a number of the e-mails, being a former employee of the CRU, etc, but he is allowed to edit the article in complete violation of WP:COI.  If they have been involved in a conflict, they shouldn't expect special treatment.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Because this proposal would remove the editors who have been most responsible for the CC articles being first-rate and scientifically valid. Those editors are not you and not me. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite diffs
Not be a stickler, but I was reviewing the diffs cited in the proposed finding that Hipocrite has edit-warred here. Of the 6 diffs provided, two are actually edits by William Connolley, not Hipocrite. A third one of the diffs shows Hipocrite reverting an edit by, later blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. Whether Hipocrite should be penalized for reverting an editor who later turned out to be an abusive sockpuppet is up to the Arbs. In any case, I'd like to ask that the Arbs remove the diffs from William Connolley - which I assume was just a copy-paste error - and either replace these with diffs of edits actually made by Hipocrite or perhaps reconsider the finding. MastCell Talk 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I *am* responsible for all the evil in the universe, didn't you know? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah. Sorry, editing error on my part - I'll go back and fix that :( Shell   babelfish 09:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. To the clerks, feel free to remove or hat this section - it's served its purpose, and this page is long enough already. MastCell Talk 16:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)