Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 3

Experiments on special test pages?

 * To be moved to "Miscellaneous discussion". Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman explains in his Statement that the fact that the PD doesn't address any of the content issues that fuel the dispute, is problematic. Somehow unreasonable edits have to be reverted, but William having done that with perhaps too much vigor against ZuluPapa5 is seen as ownersip on his part. No mention of the nature of the edits he was reverting is made in the PD.

Now, we can do more with the preseved editing history than just pointing fingers at who we think was wrong. We can e.g. take the Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change page and go back at the time when a problematic exchange between William and ZuluPapa5 started. Copy the content as it existed at that time to a test page. Invite William and ZuluPapa5 to reargue whatever they were arguing for at that time but now under new rules like e.g. William not being allowed to remove ZuluPapa5's comments, with all of us looking on. Then look at the results, if it's not satisfactory, go back again, tweak the rules, and see if we get a better outcome.

Such experiments can be performed on a larger scale. One can copy the state of many climate change articles including the General Sanctions pages as it existed on some previous date and replay the editing and the adminstrative actions under some new regime. I think that only such experiments can show if some set of proposed decisions is really effective. Count Iblis (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do love experiments. Personally though I'd rather write a "skeptics" version of the global warming article to demonstrate just how incredibly superior it would be in every manner (sourcing, NPOV, explanatory power, etc), but this is unlikely to happen. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DO IT. in your userspace.  call it something like TGL fantasy vacation or something so others don't bother it until you get to a point that you want others to look at it.  I'm sure some time spent out of the contentiousness of article space will develop some information/text that would be good in the article.  Don't be to surprized, however, when what you do ends up with a lot of the same sources that are in there now and just written differently.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be against my "non-punitive" topic ban which prevents me from even discussing the topic outside of ArbCom. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So use a text editor and create it locally, on your computer. If Arbcom releases you of your burden you will then be in a position to show it to others. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * do it on your home machine then. when it's ready for others to see, we'll find a way to share it that won't get anyone 'in trouble' with a topic ban.  I'm actually very curious to see what would be in the 'skeptics' version.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a massive undertaking. It would be nice to have some help (which is what the wiki platform allows). Also, if it was accepted then it would be subject to revisionist history like KDP was doing above when he said the "glacier information was immediately accepted" which was clearly an incorrect statement considering how many times they all reverted it out (KDP included). The most likely outcome is that some of the changes would be incorporated to make the articles slightly less ridiculous than they currently are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you either didn't read what i wrote, failed to understand it, or deliberately ignoring it... Either way, may i point out that there is a not very subtle difference between "immediately accepted" and "immediately accepted as a particular edit on a particular article". The first is what i say, and the second is your "interpretation" of what i said. Good luck with your version of the GW article, it will be interesting to see. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd how you keep on repeating things I corrected w/ diffs as proof....oh well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd how you keep on repeating the word "odd" as if it somehow makes your bad faith assumptions look less conspicuous....oh well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quit baiting (odd how often I have to say this). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically, you've been trying to equate this edit (not by any of you) with this edit (by WMC and the rest of you) to say it was "included" before I posted it (obviously wrong) and then over a week after my edit to the IPCC WMC added the info to an extremely low traffic article as an excuse to excise it not only from the IPCC article but from the IPCC AR4 article. The only thing "immediate" has been your mischaracterization of the entire mess. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a final remark, since i think this has transgressed beyond any useful purpose, i care very little about exposure, and very much about presenting things structurally correct. There are lots of things in the sub-articles that could do with more exposure, but which is simply too detailed to be in the higher summary articles. That is what due weight is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a nice sounding generality, but contrary to the history of what happened and the diffs I presented in the other section. As I said earlier, walk the diffs and notice the changing excuses for exclusion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While ArbCom doesn't rule on content disputes, they can look at content editing and say whether it complies with core policies, or not. I believe they ought to be doing more of that, and less counting of reverts and edit wars. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think experiments should be allowed in a separate subpage, or at least a discussion. Brainstorming and experimenting is a great way to find solutions to intractable problems, and we should be able to test them out. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How does this fit into wp:dr? Interesting proposal, Count Iblis. Particularly about WMC quickly reverting reasonable edits in bad faith. Really, I am not interested in reliving the drama in a "low cost" and uncontrolled experimental environment. I believe when folks have less to lose in such simulations, the may behave worst. (For example, I've seen too many flight simulator wrecks, where pilots can pick up bad habits. The simulation process really requires trusted feedback from qualified mentors with disciplined lessons.) Anyway, WMC's disputes have escalated to ArbCom by his own doing. I may have been one, and one of the few to still be here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Zulu Papa 5 is strangely quoting directly from an article that was published in USA Today earlier this morning: "Simulator training flaws tied to airline crashes". I'm not exactly sure why he has quoted from the article to make it sound like his own personal experience.  I don't want to derail from this arbcom case, but this isn't the first time that Zulu Papa 5 has said extremely bizarre things, giving me the impression that this is a role playing game for him.  I could be entirely wrong, but that's the vibe I've been getting from Zulu for some time now. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have written very little here indeed, as my interest is in preserving proper policy and process, but I daresay making personal comments is not a great use of this page when arbs are trying to figure things out :( . Collect (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PD winding down
The drafting arbs are trying very hard to finish sifting through evidence and statements and finish the PD by Sunday. If you have more to say or present, please do so in the next couple days. Thanks to all for their support and inputs.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there going to be any changes to the PD? Unless I've missed something I don't see this as being terribly effective. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. At least both sides can agree on this. (Ah -- so maybe it was a cunning plot by the arbs!) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to ask the drafting arbitrators to review my initial scope questions one more time and determine, if you haven't already, if you believe that the answer is "yes" to any of them. If so, please consider whether all the editors who contributed to that "yes" answer, as documented in the evidence, have been named in the PD findings section.  Also, please take into account whether the behaviors documented on this PD talk page and in the CC articles over the last few weeks have reinforced the evidence of behavior by those editors, including wikilawyering, personal attacks, edit warring, agenda-driven editing, BLP violations, assumptions of bad faith, battleground mentalities, and deletions or blanking of reliably sourced text without good faith attempts at collaboration, compromise, and cooperation.  I'll conclude by adding that I really appreciate the time and attention you all have given to this case. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have more stuff to add.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No involved editor will be completely happy with any decision in a case of this magnitude. I personally think some are treated too harshly and others not harshly enough (or not at all), and all things considered I think I still prefer SirFozzie's scorched earth approach. But I do think the arbs have taken great effort to address the major issues, and I can live with the result. There can always be a new case if unresolved issues remain after this one. ATren (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I encourage all editors who have contributed to this page to re-read your comments and refactor (or summarize) where possible for the sake of brevity, clarity, and civility. Jehochman Talk 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add new proposals in this section - only general comments on the scheduling, scope, handling and timetable of the case, as it winds down, should be made here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is it and there isn't going to be much more in the way of substantive remedies, it wasn't worth the wait. You guys missed the mark. Closing the Workshop a month early was not a good approach at all. This page turned into a workshop anyway. ++Lar: t/c 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been reading all the commentary on this page as is (I hope) reflected in some of my votes and comments so far. In retrospect, we probably should have workshopped the proposed decision rather than posted it straight to the proposed decision page; Lar is right that this page is functioning more-or-less as a workshop anyway, only a bit harder to follow (despite Carcharoth's yeoman efforts). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the point of the one month lockdown? In the post mortem I expect that ill considered decision will be resoundingly criticized by most participants. As I said elsewhere, you didn't stifle discussion. You just forced it to places where your clerks have no remit. Very bad idea, please don't ever do that again. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer to that is that we had no idea it would be anywhere near as long as it became. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that you made a decision without thinking through the consequences and when it became apparent it wasn't working out the way you thought, you didn't see the need to revisit it, instead letting the matter fester for a month? That's how it reads to me, but perhaps there is an alternative explanation? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in rehashing it. Many of us disagreed with closing the workshop, and many of our concerns were realized when they did close it, but there's little that can be done about it now. This page is now de-facto serving as the workshop, so the net effect is not much different. Let's move on. ATren (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What's done is done but it is nevertheless worth noting what a botch it was so that... perhaps... it won't be repeated. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This page started out at a disadvantage, and it's still awfully big, 900kb, which may be too much for some user's computers or connections to handle. Nevertheless, the clerks and Carcharoth have made the best of it.  As a general suggestion, I think we should return to the old format workshop were everybody could add proposals, and the proposals should be sorted by topic rather than by editor.  This would help avoid duplication.  We could innovate by producing versions of the Workshop.  Start with version 1, then pull the best proposals and comments to Version 2 (and close 1). Rinse and repeat until you get a semi-stable product at Version N.  Copy that to the Proposed Decision and start voting immediately.  This would be a way to wash out the noise or heat, while keeping signal or light.  There would also be an incentive for people to make insightful proposals because these could eventually turn into the decision.  Jehochman Talk 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot. The switch from workshop proposals organized around topic to ones organized around editors is one of the less productive changes in AC process, ever. JEH not only argues for switching back, he's come up with a good innovation. The question is who decides what the "best" proposals are, though. Still, worth exploring. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is assuming that other people's proposals are even going to make it to the PD page. Sometimes those deciding the case insist on changing workshop proposals because they can rather than because they should ; not sure why they don't change or add the modified proposal in the workshop first . Then these proposals get discussed on the off-wiki venue even though it isn't often necessary for the reasons for which that system was created . And then it comes back on-wiki somewhere where everyone makes their round of feedback. An analysis is needed on how much feedback is reflected in the actual decision of each case. They vote, then the decision comes out where people again provide feedback, and this may include a number of concerns about the way a particular case was handled (for example, posting on the PD straight away instead of first taking it to the workshop, which was raised in other cases). The question is how many of those arbitrators from a particular batch learn from the feedback, or is it going through one of their ears/eyes and out the other? The community cannot act on this unless we have appropriate candidates in the future - they are rare, and even if they are appointed, such candidates are eventually not available for reasons beyond their control (if not out of frustration with the way the system is 'working' on many levels). Until the community formally binds arbitrators, through policy/procedure, on some of these features (like moving workshop proposals straight to PD), I wonder about the likelihood of change (if any) and should it occur, how long will it last for this time? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Partly deja vu. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

PD winding down
The drafting arbs are trying very hard to finish sifting through evidence and statements and finish the PD by Sunday. If you have more to say or present, please do so in the next couple days. Thanks to all for their support and inputs.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there going to be any changes to the PD? Unless I've missed something I don't see this as being terribly effective. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. At least both sides can agree on this. (Ah -- so maybe it was a cunning plot by the arbs!) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to ask the drafting arbitrators to review my initial scope questions one more time and determine, if you haven't already, if you believe that the answer is "yes" to any of them. If so, please consider whether all the editors who contributed to that "yes" answer, as documented in the evidence, have been named in the PD findings section.  Also, please take into account whether the behaviors documented on this PD talk page and in the CC articles over the last few weeks have reinforced the evidence of behavior by those editors, including wikilawyering, personal attacks, edit warring, agenda-driven editing, BLP violations, assumptions of bad faith, battleground mentalities, and deletions or blanking of reliably sourced text without good faith attempts at collaboration, compromise, and cooperation.  I'll conclude by adding that I really appreciate the time and attention you all have given to this case. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have more stuff to add.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No involved editor will be completely happy with any decision in a case of this magnitude. I personally think some are treated too harshly and others not harshly enough (or not at all), and all things considered I think I still prefer SirFozzie's scorched earth approach. But I do think the arbs have taken great effort to address the major issues, and I can live with the result. There can always be a new case if unresolved issues remain after this one. ATren (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I encourage all editors who have contributed to this page to re-read your comments and refactor (or summarize) where possible for the sake of brevity, clarity, and civility. Jehochman Talk 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add new proposals in this section - only general comments on the scheduling, scope, handling and timetable of the case, as it winds down, should be made here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is it and there isn't going to be much more in the way of substantive remedies, it wasn't worth the wait. You guys missed the mark. Closing the Workshop a month early was not a good approach at all. This page turned into a workshop anyway. ++Lar: t/c 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been reading all the commentary on this page as is (I hope) reflected in some of my votes and comments so far. In retrospect, we probably should have workshopped the proposed decision rather than posted it straight to the proposed decision page; Lar is right that this page is functioning more-or-less as a workshop anyway, only a bit harder to follow (despite Carcharoth's yeoman efforts). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the point of the one month lockdown? In the post mortem I expect that ill considered decision will be resoundingly criticized by most participants. As I said elsewhere, you didn't stifle discussion. You just forced it to places where your clerks have no remit. Very bad idea, please don't ever do that again. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer to that is that we had no idea it would be anywhere near as long as it became. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that you made a decision without thinking through the consequences and when it became apparent it wasn't working out the way you thought, you didn't see the need to revisit it, instead letting the matter fester for a month? That's how it reads to me, but perhaps there is an alternative explanation? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in rehashing it. Many of us disagreed with closing the workshop, and many of our concerns were realized when they did close it, but there's little that can be done about it now. This page is now de-facto serving as the workshop, so the net effect is not much different. Let's move on. ATren (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What's done is done but it is nevertheless worth noting what a botch it was so that... perhaps... it won't be repeated. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This page started out at a disadvantage, and it's still awfully big, 900kb, which may be too much for some user's computers or connections to handle. Nevertheless, the clerks and Carcharoth have made the best of it.  As a general suggestion, I think we should return to the old format workshop were everybody could add proposals, and the proposals should be sorted by topic rather than by editor.  This would help avoid duplication.  We could innovate by producing versions of the Workshop.  Start with version 1, then pull the best proposals and comments to Version 2 (and close 1). Rinse and repeat until you get a semi-stable product at Version N.  Copy that to the Proposed Decision and start voting immediately.  This would be a way to wash out the noise or heat, while keeping signal or light.  There would also be an incentive for people to make insightful proposals because these could eventually turn into the decision.  Jehochman Talk 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot. The switch from workshop proposals organized around topic to ones organized around editors is one of the less productive changes in AC process, ever. JEH not only argues for switching back, he's come up with a good innovation. The question is who decides what the "best" proposals are, though. Still, worth exploring. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is assuming that other people's proposals are even going to make it to the PD page. Sometimes those deciding the case insist on changing workshop proposals because they can rather than because they should ; not sure why they don't change or add the modified proposal in the workshop first . Then these proposals get discussed on the off-wiki venue even though it isn't often necessary for the reasons for which that system was created . And then it comes back on-wiki somewhere where everyone makes their round of feedback. An analysis is needed on how much feedback is reflected in the actual decision of each case. They vote, then the decision comes out where people again provide feedback, and this may include a number of concerns about the way a particular case was handled (for example, posting on the PD straight away instead of first taking it to the workshop, which was raised in other cases). The question is how many of those arbitrators from a particular batch learn from the feedback, or is it going through one of their ears/eyes and out the other? The community cannot act on this unless we have appropriate candidates in the future - they are rare, and even if they are appointed, such candidates are eventually not available for reasons beyond their control (if not out of frustration with the way the system is 'working' on many levels). Until the community formally binds arbitrators, through policy/procedure, on some of these features (like moving workshop proposals straight to PD), I wonder about the likelihood of change (if any) and should it occur, how long will it last for this time? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Partly deja vu. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Types of articles
Final suggestion from me. One can clearly distinguish three types of articles:

1) BLP articles

2) CC articles that are substantially about the controversy like e.g. the article on the CRU hacking incident, global warming controversy, The Soon and Baliunas controversy, the hockey stick controversy etc.

3) CC articles that are substantially about the science like the main global warming, the Greenhouse effect article and the vast number of other articles on the technical aspects of climate science

The PD so far does not distinguish between the two types of CC articles. The editing disputes in recent times (say after 2007) have mainly involved the first kind of CC articles and the BLP articles. There are only a few articles that are on the boundary between the two types of articles, like e.g. the Scientific opinion on climate change article. There are quite a few articles that belong both the first and second catagory.

It is thus possible to implement more selective topic ban. E.g., editors who have made good contributions to the technical science articles but have found themselves in frequent conflicts on the first type of CC articles and BLP articles can be restricted from editing these articles. This would only require a more specific labeling of all the CC articles that are on article probation. Articles that are a bit on the boundary like Scientific opinion on climate change can be put in the second category. Such a labeling would not be controvesial; this can be performed by Admins who have some experience in implementing the General Sanctions regime. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please could you move this to either the "locus" finding discussion, or to the general discussion of the remedies. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to run now, if anyone can move this to the approprate "locus" section and give it the correct label, then that's ok. with me. Count Iblis (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Although edge cases may be hard, I think this is a useful and meaningful distinction. It goes well with something I've been saying for a long time... this topic area is not only (in fact, not primarily) about the science. There are a number of editors that I would be happy to see allowed to work on the pure science articles but who ought to be restricted from the socio/economic/political and BLP articles. I'd urge ArbCom to seriously look at this. ++Lar: t/c 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also put it the other way. There are a number of editors working in the socio/economic/political and BLP articles who should be restricted from working on pure science articles. It doesn't sound like quite such a good idea now, does it? I think trying to restrict people along these lines will be an administrative nightmare. The real problem in this topic has always been with "controversy" articles and BLPs. The latter has a strong set of rules easily policed by administrators, but the former are magnets for complex dramas played out between warring factions that are far more difficult to effectively administer. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have editors who are behaving badly. If we use one bin for all of CC, they need to be banned from all of the CC articles. But if we want to still allow benefit, if we can partition CC into areas, some of which some of our badly behaving editors might still be able to contribute productively... should we do that? It doesn't matter which editors can contribute in which areas, really, that's not the point. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unfortunately it appears that editors you wish to bar from the socio/economic articles all fall on the supporting global warming side. This then appears to be a POV endorsement. What about POVeditors who turn up consistently on articles about sceptic BLPs, blogs and books with the single intention to add positive reports (often written by other sceptics or originating with the sceptic themselves) and then to vent the scientific arguments (coatrack) of those sceptics with no weight or balance (often under the guise of summarizing a book). This is POV pushing that is allowed to go on unchecked but for those editors who you wish to sanction. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is "you" referring to? I agree that the problem is from both "sides". One faction just happens to be more problematic but both are not without issue. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You consistently refer to one "faction" as more problematic and I strongly believe this is where you have ceased to be objective and where you are trying to push an agenda even whilst acting as an "uninvolved" admin. Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting a little off the beaten track a bit here. This thread is supposed to be about classifying articles, not classifying biases. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay but I encourage arbs to fully appreciate the spirit of "involved" and not to make the facile argument that any editor who has ever edited a CC article is involved whilst any editor who has not is not involved. That on my reading is not what involved is about and is a simplistic and incorrect argument and all too easy to implement by those who do not care about admins pushing agendas. Polargeo (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<-The Count has codified something I've been thinking about for some time. (I even visited Category:Climate change and mentally started the allocation). I would make one modification to the definitions—a modification I think is non-controversial. I like BLP and "primarily" science for groups but I would simply define Group 2 as everything else. For example [The Ny-Ålesund Symposium] is a climate change article; it is not a BLP, it is not primarily about the science, but also not about the "controversy", so it is homeless without an modification of the definition (or a fourth group, but that doesn't seem ncessary)

The main value in this exercise is that quite a number of comments in this discussion relate to SPOV, sourcing of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed, proper weighting of minority views and related issues. I am not suggesting that these issues only apply to one of the groups (obviously, weighting of minority views is everywhere an issue), but that how we address those issues may be different for the three groups. To take the obvious example, science articles should exhibit a strong (though not exclusive) preference for peer-reviewed sources, while BLPs needed have that same emphasis. If the attribution to group could be done, it would be interesting to do an analysis of the editing histories. My cursory review of the list of CC articles tentatively concludes that there are rather more pure science articles than I had realized, but my guess is that we will find substantially more edit-warring in the other two groups. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add a fourth category, those CC articles that are tangentially or directly connected to CC, but are neither about the science nor the controversy per se. This would include items such as articles on books, on skepticism, and similar subjects.  For example, an article on skepticism or denialism is not technically about the science, nor is it about the controversy.  Nor, for that matter, is an article about a book normally directly connected with either.  Otherwise, I agree with the basic idea and proposal.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with CI; this is an important distinction that has not been adequately drawn by the PD (I tried to refer to this in my evidence but perhaps not very clearly) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree that this distinction could be usefully drawn with regard to some of the sanctions proposed in the PD. I would like to add a note of caution, though, following the discussion under above: The impression should not be given that some non-science CC articles would then be allowed to drift into an 'alternate reality' in which the effects of the laws of physics, as ascertained by mainstream scientists, don't still apply. --Nigelj (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Useful distinction. I would love to see editors with a good science background but a deplorable BLP track record able to continue contributing to the science articles. -- JN 466  16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO
I lost my internet connection yesterday and only have a few minutes this morning free. I wrote this yesterday but didn't get a chance to post it because of my connection problem. It appears as if some of my concern has been addressed, but not fully:

''The way that it's currently written, it seems to be arguing for sanctions against ChrisO for conduct related to the Kosovo, Macedonia 2 and Scientology topic spaces. There's only one very brief mention of ChrisO's conduct on the CC topic space. Here's my suggested FoF.'' Hopefully, this makes sense and the FoF can be (possibly) be expanded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It also only mentions sanctions based on NPA (or at least that is how it read yesterday).  NPA is the least of the ChrisO problems.  The edit warring and BLP violations, the tendentious editing and intentional insertion of improper sources to push a POV are the bigger issues.  I think the proposed remedy was banning from BLP's but the finding does not mention his BLP violations in the CC area. That needs to be addressed.  Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would find sanctions based on the Macedonia case regrettable. The substantive resolution of that case included consensus that the movement to call the Republic of Macedonia FYROM was undesirable, the creation of an abuse filter to discourage it, and the banning of several of its more persistent advocates - "and they've none of them been missed". ChrisO opposed this clique a little too strongly; he has already been desysopped for it, as part of the case. Double jeopardy, especially for opposing partisan movements which are of no benefit to the encyclopedia, is neither justice nor expedience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a participant in the Macedonia case, I also think that the dynamic there was somewhat different, and some of the sanctions applied in that case don't work well here. In particular, the naming issue was an overarching portion of that conflict, and ChrisO substantially wrote WP:Naming Conflict, which was at the time Wikipedia's guideline on naming conflicts, one that was in fact a guideline for over four years. (It was later merged into Article titles). Note that a related group of proposed sanctions would have topic-banned ChrisO from Macedonia-related articles; all were soundly rejected. Topic banning the author of the guideline on naming conflicts over a topic in which a naming conflict was the central issue was stupid, and the arbitrators apparently recognized that, at least. I disagree with ChrisO on a number of issues (especially his flexible interpretation of BLP), but not in ARBMAC2. His only misjudgement there was the timing of the article move, because of the incipient arbitration request, which was about a week away from being filed.  Horologium  (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the references to some of the prior cases in the proposed finding of fact should be rephrased, but at present I do not think it necessary to address the issue because I find the entire finding unnecessary in light of ChrisO's retirement from the project. (See next thread below.) Should my colleagues disagree with my position in that respect and desire to pass a finding, I will revisit this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and Innovative Way to Avoid Being Sanctioned by ArbCom?
According to this vote,, all an editor has to do to avoid being sanctioned by ArbCom is to simply announce their retirement from the project. After all, why sanction an editor if they say they're never going to edit Wikipedia again? Well, what happens if MN, TGL and WMC also announce their retirement? Does that mean they escape sanctioning, too? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I've said before, some of these people have a pattern of "retiring" when sanctions are being considered against them. I think anyone who retires under such circumstances should have that retirement made permanent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) @AQFN: I think you're overgeneralizing. I'm fairly certain that in the past arbcom has sanctioned users who had announced their retirement, or said something like "the following applies when/if they return" (someone who remembers can fill in the details of the case(s) where this was done). Note NYB specifically said in this instance there was no need to issue such conditional sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I perceive no need to do so in this instance. Please explain why you think there's no need to sanction Chris. That's the heart of the matter. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chris leaving, but if that's really the nub of it, please explain how that can be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the position of NYB. In general, ArbCom should review the evidence and take whatever actions are dictated by the evidence and policy—the status of the party in question should be irrelevant. While one can imagine some exceptions - if the retirement occurred early in the evidence gathering stage and the party did not have an opportunity to rebut evidence, if there are open questions which can only be resolved by the party in question, or if the remedies require the involvement of the party, but there's no indication that any such exception applies in this instance. Excluding ChrisO simply because he chose to retire creates a potentially bad precedent.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have considered this input, as I am considering all the input we are receiving on this page, but stand by my votes on the proposals relating to ChrisO.

The purpose of findings and remedies in arbitration cases is to solve problems. When we make a finding against an editor and impose sanctions, we are seeking to prevent is to avoid future problems with that individual's editing. We are not imposing punishment for punishment's own sake. Thus, when the editor has credibly stated that he or she will no longer be editing, then depending on the circumstances, findings and remedies against the editor may no longer serve a useful purpose. In each such case, we must decide whether to pass the proposals anyway or to drop them. This is by no means the first time that such a situation has arisen.

Factors to be considered in deciding how to proceed in the face of an editor's announced retirement may include the evident sincerity of the retirement, whether the editor could pose a threat if the matter is not pursued to a conclusion, and what effect not passing the findings and remedies might have on other parties to the case. In this instance, consideration of these factors leads me to conclude, with little hesitation, that further proceedings against ChrisO are not necessary. ChrisO is not alleged by any of the commenters to have a history of claiming to be retiring so as to avoid sanctions, and then returning when the coast is clear. There is strong reason to believe that his invocation of the right to vanish is sincerely intended. This is not a case involving allegations of sockpuppetry, so that sanctions against the main account would be needed to govern editing by another account. Nor does ChrisO hold any special userrights that he could misuse if he were suddenly to return after the case is closed; since the Macedonia 2 case he is no longer an administrator, so we need not consider whether to desysop him. He is not leaving in the face of a proposal to ban him from the project, but simply to topic-ban him from a particular area. Should he later return to editing and return to the climate change topic area, we would retain jurisdiction to quickly pass any necessary motion restricting his editing in the area.

Contrary to the comment by SPhilbrick, I do not believe that my position creates a dangerous precedent. The established precedent here is that we consider each of these situations on its own merits.

ChrisO, for all his mistakes and sharp edges (including those that led to the proposals against him in this case), was a dedicated editor and administrator for a number of years. I also am sorry that has left us after years of participation under these circumstances, and I think it unnecessary to fire a parting shot of official criticism in his direction in the immediate wake of his departure.

Needless to say, my colleagues on the committee may have different views; we will see what they think of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. We apply this reasoning, subject to circumstances, whenever an editor decides to leave the project.  The Committee has always used its discretion in a parsimonious manner, formulating remedies in a forward-looking manner.  It's up to the arbitrators currently considering this case to decide whether the findings and remedies pertaining to a departed editor serve any useful purpose.  --TS 03:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NYB, (1) your statement that in sanctioning an editor you're not punishing him (what we seeking to prevent is to avoid future problems with that individual's editing) is contradicted when you say later in your statement, I think it unnecessary to fire a parting shot of official criticism in his direction in the immediate wake of his departure. If the purpose of sanctioning really, truly is not to punish, then it isn't a "parting shot", either, but still an attempt to avoid future problems if that editor comes back. (2) You (and Risker, below) see only two possibilities here: ChrisO was sincere when he resigned and won't come back or alternatively, that he was insincere and planned to return. But there's at least one other obvious possibility: He may change his mind. A lot of people get angry and announce they'll leave and then return, and there doesn't have to be anything insincere about it. (I think this is especially true when someone leaves when they're upset -- the mood passes, eventually, but the desire to edit remains; it's not hard to see that ChrisO may have been upset.) You aren't insulting ChrisO by acting as if it's possible that he'll be back. If he does come back within the proposed period of the six-month CC topic ban or the one-year BLP-editing ban, then ArbCom will face a decision on how to vote -- but the committee will be faced with that decision perhaps months after this case closes, when the circumstances of the case won't be as fresh in anybody's mind. It's better to make your decision one way or the other now, not later. If he returns and, yet again, gets in some kind of trouble that causes him to go before ArbCom or ANI or anywhere else, it would be better to say "ArbCom sanctioned him in that Climate Change case" or "ArbCom decided not to sanction him" rather than "ArbCom would have sanctioned him" because that last statement will inevitably be disputed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a significant and notable difference between a user who has a history of regularly sticking "retired" tags on their userpage and one who takes the step of invoking the right to vanish. While I will take time to sleep on my final decision with respect to sanctions involving ChrisO, I believe that he was fully cognizant of the meaning of vanishing, and that he has taken this action in the traditional internet understanding that it means he is not coming back. Risker (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It would seem the point is moot with respect to remedies against ChrisO since he has exercised the right to vanish, and his username has been deactivated and changed to a vanished user number.  At least it's my understanding that there is no longer a "ChrisO" account that can log in or edit.   The findings with regard to the prior cases are probably irrelevant for the same reasons.   However, it might be helpful to make findings of fact in this case just as a manner of providing further guidance to the editors still involved -- but the only existing proposed finding that would be relevant is a finding that ChrisO has been uncivil -- there should be a finding about edit warring, sourcing and BLP violations if there's going to be any finding at all.  <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> 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the arbitrators go ahead and vote on findings for ChrisO but then table any discussion of remedies for ChrisO indefinitely. Remember, it's not just ChrisO's feelings involved here, but also the feelings of his victims, videlicet, the BLP subjects whose articles he abused, the WP editors he belittled, insulted, and patronized, and any others who observed his behavior and wondered why Wikipedia's administrators weren't doing anything about it. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaving the project may equate to probation or Suspended sentence waiting for return. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides here. My main thought is that we do not do Damnatio memoriae, ((well, except via the Magic 8 Ball.. *grins*)). Despite the various sanctions against him, I think ChrisO was quite indeed a net positive to the project, and if he wishes to return, I would encourage it. Rather than putting something official in the record as a possible deterrent to his return, I would think that the proper thing to do here is not decide that part of the case. If he returns and If his editing becomes problematic again, it is a simple matter at that point to put sanctions in. I think, quite honestly, that the odds of that are low. But we'll see. 08:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there are important issues here and I'm probably being way too blunt on a side point but NYB I think that attempts to reassure people by pointing out that Arbocmm can "quickly pass any necessary motion" are more likely to have the opposite effect. 92.39.206.238 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the wider issue, you probably need to decouple discussion on what the policy should be in general with regard to editors who retire in these circumstances from this particular case. One further thought on NYB's reasoning though - it does read to me like a return to the sort of thinking that had editing of BLPs as a less serious issue than major world shaking wikipedia internal politic stuff like who can block whom. It isn't. BLPs matter more than admin bits every time and I thought wikipedia had matured to the point where at least the arbitrators got that. 92.39.206.238 (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Editors who consistently and unrepentedly attack BLP subjects should not be tolerated to any degree. Cla68 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With thanks for your input, I don't really need to be reminded of the importance of the BLP policy. I've not only been writing about it on-wiki for three and one-half years (beginning with Requests for comment/Doc glasgow), but I've blogged about it off-site and given a major speech about it a conference (see links on my userpage). I am not, however, convinced that it is necessary or helpful to promote respect for that important policy by sanctioning someone who isn't here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NYB, the BLP violations I've observed related to this case are some of the worst I've ever seen from established editors in my four years of participating in Wikipedia. I'm angry that there would be any consideration give to any of the editors involved in these violations.  WP's administration needs to send a message that as part of taking the BLP rules seriously, as you've obviously been doing with your appreciated advocacy on the issue, editors who abuse BLPs will be firmly invited to take up a new hobby.  Yes, I'm advocating bans from editing Wikipedia altogether.  Although ChrisO and WMC were among the worst offenders, they weren't the only ones. At the end of the evidence phase, I asked, I think three times, if you all wished to extend the evidentiary period so that I could add more evidence of BLP abuses, but I received no answer.  So, I assume that means that you all have enough evidence to take action on the offending parties.  Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, I shall put it another way; ArbCom famously does not make precedent, but its actions are minutely reviewed and considered (which is why I have made efforts in some matters to lessen the language used), and if it is noted that retirement/RTV is a method by which an identity's good standing can be protected (ChrisO is not the only person whose account can be quite easily linked to an RL individual) and findings/sanctions suspended, then the preventative aspect of being held to account is deprecated. I recognise that ChrisO has no record of socking or abusing accounts, but he does have an unfortunate history of policy violation in several subject areas and those sanctions and comments remain linked to his editing account . What makes this ArbCom so different, other than he retires in the course of it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Risker and Newyorkbrad, why do you trust ChrisO, given what I've shown here. I can't imagine a good explanation for this that doesn't impeach his honesty. The priority here is protecting the encyclopedia from further disruption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the concerns expressed by some here: retirements are not always permanent, and even though the language of right to vanish retirement indicates permanence, it also seems to allow vanished users to return ("Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.") I think there should be a finding that remedies for ChrisO were made moot because he permanently retired ("vanished") during the case, but if he returns in the next year, those remedies would be revisited by the committee. ATren (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A failure of nerve. ArbCom should pass the findings (elaborated to cover all the issues, not just one) and remedies regarding ChrisO. If they then wish to put them in abeyance, they should do so. But saying he's gone so we don't need to acknowledge the damage he did is just that, a failure of nerve (at least by those speaking out in favor of doing nothing... perhaps the members of ArbCom so far silent have more courage). For shame. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. One could conclude that it takes considerable nerve to stand up to a group's insistent demands for a pound of flesh. MastCell Talk 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A pound of flesh? Have you skimmed through the RfE archives? I'd say that WMC et all have filed at least as many requests as the other side - and that's not even counting other methods of vanishing the opposition (e.g. "Scibaby"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell: It's not a pound of flesh I'm after. ChrisO has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia across multiple topic spaces.  My proposed sanctions are to prevent further disruption should ChrisO return.  I note that even Jimbo has said that ChrisO is earning a reputation as an activist editor.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was an activist editor. He was an activist for neutrality and verifiability in numerous nationalist disputes all over Wikipedia. His departure is a loss for Wikipedia, whatever faults he may have had in the CC area aside. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed in the block log, Vanished user 03 was blocked today with an edit summary "Vanished users don't need to edit."  Vanished user 03 is what ChrisO's name was changed to -- does this block indicate that he was trying to edit today as a vanished user?  How does one pull up his contribution history?<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> 02:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't mean that.
 * The contributions should migrate to his new username; if they haven't, there must be a technical glitch or slowness with the rename program (perhaps due to the quantity of his edits). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To all: Please note that there are new proposals on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which you appear to be opposing, for no good reason I can see. Your desire to sweep it all under the rug does you no credit. Acknowledge the serious problems, sanction, then put the sanctions in abeyance. This is what has been done in the past when the problems truly are serious. Why the failure of nerve? We waited a month for you to wimp out? You could have done that a month ago and saved us all a lot of bother. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has certainly made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but this should not cloud our awareness of the gaping chasm between honest dissent and disloyal subversion. In a faith-based system such as this, even a single attempt to subvert due process is enough to undo an eternity of honest effort. Such an act deals a swift and terrible blow to a body's trust and it cannot - it must not be tolerated if the body's integrity is to be restored. The tragedy of his departure is not in what the project may have lost. It is in the betrayal of process he has so blatantly exhibited. It is in the complete forfeiture of integrity accumulated through so much time and effort, and while it is worthy of our pity, it is not worthy of our forgiveness. Nor does it warrant dismissing the judgment of his actions on the grounds that he opted to vanish rather than face being held accountable for them. Even in doing that he has managed to manipulate and disrupt the process here. --K10wnsta (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter
I notice that also added a 'Retired' banner to his talk page during this case, after participating here. --Nigelj (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal
I know it is extremely late in the game, and I doubt the Committee will make a finding about this, but I still want to point out that User:Verbal does not edit in the CC topic area except to show up from time to time to edit war. In each instance I've seen, Verbal enters an ongoing revert war and adds one revert to the WMC/ChrisO side to protect them from crossing the 3RR threshold. I was reminded of this by noting The Gore Effect was protected today for edit warring, and Verbal was a part of that. I know he was part of at least one other listed edit war in the PD. I will go look for diffs. This might go to the "blocs of editors" acting in concert. <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> 16:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples:


 * 1) Lawrence Solomon:,
 * 2) List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming:,
 * 3) The Gore Effect: ,,
 * 4) Anthony Watts (blogger):, , ,
 * 5) Fred Singer:
 * 6) Robert Watson (scientist):
 * 7) Hockey stick controversy: ,

These are all reverts that were part of a larger revert war, most of which included WMC, and all of them took place since July 8 when the evidence closed. What's troubling about these reverts is Verbal was not otherwise engaged in editing the subject articles -- he only showed up to revert in support of the warmist bloc, usually without any discussion on the talk page. <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> 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this would be sanctionable behavior, if repeated, under the new sanctions regime. But I'm not holding my breath. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice given: <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> 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I told JWB when he asked me about diffs regarding Scjessey, there is a good chunk of editors like this and it is hard to point out just one for it. As Lar's recently updated statement suggests, part of this behavior is due to patterning their actions on other editors like WMC and KDP - and encouraged by the fact that they have never faced sanctions for gaming the system. As I said before, at an enforcement request when I pointed out such behavior (tagteaming to avoid breaking 3rr), that statement was used as evidence by 2over0 to topic ban me - poor behavior on their part (incivility/edit warring) more often than not leads to their "enemies" getting the boot. If ArbCom doesn't solve this problem after being given all the information necessary then I'll be back in a few years and ask for a nice bottle of wine from every one that regrets their votes (as I will from a few editors as well). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If we were to get down to explicitly sanctioning very occasional participants in edit warring such as Verbal, then there are a lot of other editors, including some here calling for explicit sanctions against Verbal, who could be more justifiably sanctioned. We already have a proposed finding, with one arbitrator vote, recording Cla68 as a participant in 5 of the named edit wars, and ATren as a participant in 4. Perhaps it might make more sense to let the discretionary sanctions regime take effect and either modify behavior or exclude disruptive editors. --TS 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal had 4 too, see, and unlike mine, none of Verbal's has any reasonable claim of BLP exemption. Also, Cla68 and I have both indicated our willingness to be removed from this topic area if they similarly removed all participants in any war, so in a sense I agree with you here -- let's wipe the slate clean. ATren (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @TS- You're totally missing the point. ATren and Cla edit the articles and are participating in discussions on talk pages and enforcing policy.   Verbal does drive by reverts in support of a particular bloc without any discussion and without otherwise being engaged in this topic area, and it's suspiciously at the moment when a particular editor has reached his revert limit.  <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> 17:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to remark that most of those who have engaged in edit warring and are facing possible sanctions have done so while engaging in discussions. It's a bit late to hope that we can ramp back to imposing conditional exemptions, and only discuss sanctions on those edit warriors who failed to discuss.


 * I suggest also that this talk of blocs might not be sensible at this point. The problem is a failure of collegial editing, for which the edit warring was a major precipitating factor.  As it happens I think the discretionary sanctions are likely to provide all the encouragement those involved will need. But I could be persuaded otherwise if partisanship continues even under the noses of arbitrators. --TS 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I believe some of the edit wars in which I was a party involved sourced text which I had added and which was subsequently reverted in its entirety without discussion, such as you did here, 11 minutes after I had added it. Yes, reverting someone's addition of sourced text to an article without even attempting discussion on the talk page isn't very collegial. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think a distinction should be made between reverts that are enforcing policy and reverts that are tendentiously violating policy.  The Arbs do not seem to be making that distinction, however.  <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> 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to examine the behavior dispassionately, and that means we have to stop taking sides and engaging in casuistry. I absolutely accept that I've failed in collegial editing. This doesn't detract from the truth of my observation. --TS 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While the first two sentences are very true, and very good advice, they don't address Minor4ths point. Not all transgressions are equally serious. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Cla, yeah those were the circumstances of my edit wars as well. Notably none of my edits were subverting the science articles with "fringe anti-science denialism" - the excuses for the behavior don't align with observed fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're making a case against Verbal, you might want to prune those diffs and remove those that clearly fail to substantiate your request. For example, appears to show Verbal reverting a banned sockpuppeteer.  shows Verbal removing an egregiously poor edit which clearly violates content policy (and BLP, for that matter). In both instances, his edits appear to be well within standard and even encouraged practices. MastCell Talk 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldnt encourage reversions of new users whose edits actually improve the article and restore NPOV by removing inflammatory language, such as in the first diff you cited.  Banned sockpuppeteer?   The user has three edits, none of which are controversial in the slightest.  This is the problem -- if there's any attempt to improve the articles so that they don't read like alarmist propaganda, the user's reverted and blocked as a scibaby sock without any evidence whatsoever.   I cannot believe you are supportive of this practice and are even encouraging its continued use.  On the second one, Verbal jumped in the middle of a revert war started by Connolley - she reverted GregJackP after he had discussed his edits on the talk page, added additional sources and reworked the content.  I believe it was eventually modified because it was SYNTH, but it is not a blatant BLP violation and Verbal shouldnt have been doing drive by reverts in the middle of an edit war without making a comment on the talk page or engaging in some type of discussion and participation on the talk page.  <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> 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No: Banned sockpuppeteer?  The user has three edits is wrong. The user, Scibaby, has many many edits, and is banned. Verbals revert was correct. Scibaby has also been instrumental in several of the recent non-edit-wars-leading-to-article-protects that we've seen William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have incontrovertible evidence that the user in question is actually Scibaby? Aside from your dislike for their edits, I mean? ... I didn't think so, so you're the "wrong" one here. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are blocked as Scibaby, which is good enough to be going on with. If you feel any reason to challenge that block, you should do so rather than just casting aspersions here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking as Scibaby is what, 80% correct? 90%? 95%? Good enough for hand grenades perhaps but not for making definitive statements. You're the one casting unwarranted aspersions. As per usual. If I didn't like you as a person, it'd be really hard to take, how much trash you talk. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence at all that the user was a sock, and its edits were improving the article by removing inflammatory language -- if improving an article is what is considered evidence of sockpuppetry, we have a real problem here. <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> 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the "socks" are actually doing (I suspect some are actually socking because they were previously incorrectly banned as Scibaby); what matters is that they can be added to the ginormous Scibaby list and their edits characterized as "fringe anti-science creationism" - this is a great justification for atrocious behavior on the part of the anti-heroes who protect us from the Scibaby menace. I mean, Batman seems like a prick, but he gets the bad guys right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbal's reverts give every appearance of a drive by edit warrior called in somehow (or exceedingly observant of their watch list, but that's less credible given the data) when someone's RR bolt was shot and a boost was needed. That's what the reverts LOOK like. There may be some other explanation possible but I don't see a credible one on offer. AGF but don't be a damfool about it. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is so funny, in the light of your requests for "inconntrovertible proof" just above, now you're flinging out allegations based on no evidence at all William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the diffs. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, maybe you might spend some time reading AGF before you next cite it, because your shot at me earlier on this page felt to me like you weren't willing to extend any good faith when I asked TGL a question. EdChem (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've been extending much good faith, come to think of it. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * EdChem, welcome to my world. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen to some of you, for shame. A lot of you need to start reading basic policies again to refresh your memories about things like talk about the edit not the editor, sound familiar?  Here you all are, at of all place arbitration and you behave like this?  What's wrong with this picture! This section and a few more up shows how deep the lines in the sand is drawn.  I have to say I'm glad I don't have any of these articles on my watchlist.  It was bad enough to see it on pages I watch, but it needs to stop now.  All of you are grown ups, at least I am assuming you are, so start acting like it, NOW! An administrator made a comment like this similar to me and others which I am now sharing though not his/her exact words the meaning is close enough for the point to be made.  I'm totally sad by this, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gone, and never called me mother
So Rlevese has disappeared in a puff of smoke. It would be interesting to know why. And presumably the list of active arbs should be updated (incidentally it took me ages to find it; shouldn't it be on the main case page, rather than here?). Assuming R is gone, that leaves 7 active. I don't know how that fits in with For this case, there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 3 who are recused, so 5 support votes are a majority. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision - have we lost another one along the way somehow? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Updating is on my list of things to do. Sorry, but I also have RL things to do, but I'll interrupt those to sort out this. I'm not sure why it says 9 active. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret means of IDing Scibaby
Were the secret criteria to identify all those hundreds of editors as Scibaby ever disclosed to the committee? With the source no t w "retired", I do not feel the issue thus becomes moot. Collect (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor I. Aside, did you mean "now retired" or "not retired" ? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked the same question a few days back in the section relating to Scibaby socks - I supposed it got missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has come down pretty heavily in favor of Scibaby, going so far as to use rangeblocks to inflate the false-positive rate. Given that, it would be ill advised to entrust them with Scibaby's identifying characteristics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is inflating the false positive rate? That's rich. Thanks for the evidence of why you're part of the problem here. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this thread have any value whatsoever, besides being used to attack each other? I recommend some swift hattery. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has a great deal. It highlights the open question about ChrisO's "secret means", and further it nicely highlights your bloc's scorched earth methods... anything but actually answer the question at hand. Hat the section starting with SBHB's unwarranted slurs, perhaps, but not the whole thing. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points of issue here. Firstly, "ChrisO's 'secret means'" is, as I understand it, something that is shared by several editors (including administrators) who monitor Scibaby's activities. Without the assistance of these individuals, huge chunks of science-related Wikipedia articles would be in a terrible state. Anyone who hangs out at WP:ANI should be familiar with the magnitude of the Scibaby problem. Secondly, exactly what do you mean by "your bloc"? Are you suggesting I am part of some cabal? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * huge chunks of science-related Wikipedia articles would be in a terrible state -- ah, but you're assuming that would be a bad thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be a bad thing. But it doesn't follow that identifying editors as Scibaby (who actually are not) correlates to ensuring that they would not be. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely a compendium of identifying characteristics would allow them to refine the criteria by which they measure the ratio of false positive results? I also suppose that your comments are in regard to WP:COMPETENCE rather than WP:AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always worked to the understanding that WP:COMPETENCE is a subset of AGF... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating the original question seems merited... DID ChrisO send his secret stuff to ArbCom? When? If not, why not? The first two questions perhaps someone from ArbCom can answer for us. The last one... who knows. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The second part of my question was; do other people have a copy of it, and would they please forward it to ArbCom if ChrisO didn't? The query regarding not sending would also apply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod. Do we know who ChrisO sent them to? Does anyone? SBHB perhaps knows? ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether his list of scibaby features were sent to ArbCom - but iirc they had earlier been sent to User:Deskana. And i have at least a version of it from Jul 24. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope that ArbCom will be making a request of either Deskana or you before this case ends. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we received an email from ChrisO that detailed the things he believes are hallmarks of Scibaby's socks. Shell  babelfish 08:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not tell us what they are? Sounds more like general stuff rather than any actual tool at this point.  Key words used by Scibaby? Use of single word edits? Special words in summaries? Time of day?  Astrological signs?  At this pint, I think it is only "single word edits by a new user which we disagree with, even if they are, on their face, reasonable edits."   A far cry from being "evidence" in such a case.  Collect (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there really IS a Scibaby, although he's not quite the bogeyman painted by some. And to the extent that there is validity in ChrisO's tells, we don't want them generally publicized. I object to his refusal to share them with any CU that asks for them (and I repeat my request to see them) but I do not object to the refusal to share them with all and sundry. That would be inappropriate. CUs are chosen for their discretion. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good - I am hopeful it will be of benefit to balance the insight of someone with detailed experience of the modus operandi of a sockmaster against the technical knowhow and general familiarity of weeding out likely socks from false positives, and thus ensure maximum effectiveness in combating Scibaby while allowing unrelated ip's to edit the articles. Perhaps a previously uninvolved CU might be invited to take on the handling of Scibaby reports for a period while a determination on the effectiveness of using the metric provided by ChrisO is being made (the CU workload, once the new appointees are bedded in, may slacken in the coming month or so)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps a previously uninvolved CU might be invited to take on the handling of Scibaby reports for a period while ..." - this has already happened. User:Deskana was completely uninvolved, had no previous experience with Scibaby, and has taken up the task of doing CU's on the cases. This happened not because of suspicions of misguided CU's - but because the number of active CU's is abysmally small, and that cases were starting to lag several weeks behind - which (imho) is significantly more unfair towards a false positive! This is the reason that Deskana got the list from ChrisO in July. I haven't formalized my personal list, so i only sent on some basic pointers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
Apparently, ArbCom can't be bothered to read the evidence that we all spent so much time putting together: "Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a section for this, above (F10), and made just about the same point with just about the same degree of shock. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What he means is, he doesn't trust a lot of the diffs that Rlevese / Risker threw in. Hardly surprising, when so many of the edit war diffs turn out to be nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then he can take the short amount of time it would take to verify several of them. I congratulate you on Kiril's statements exonerating you in so many ways. No doubt you will consider this encouragement to continue much of your previously disputed behavior if the committee agrees with Kiril. Plus, you won't have some editors around if the committee follows Kiril and topic bans some of the editors. And I'm sure that like me, other editors are tired of complaining about you, so a number will be discouraged and go away. Perhaps you can add back that language about belief in extraterrestrials to the Fred Singer article. The possibilities really are endless. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) -- redacting -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite the previous identified BLP issues. Seems like the quoted commenter wants this to be an extended content dispute. Throwing out the BLP issue when there is a preponderance of likelihood for BLP issues, is denial. The kind of denial that avoids helping Wikipedia with a duty to protect BLPs from slanderous contributors. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My first thought also was the Kirill didn't read any of the evidence.  Astonishing.  His votes also appear to cut along ideological lines, and that is troubling.   I don't know how one can favor sanctions for mark nutley and TGL and none for William M. Connolley or ChrisO -- I'm not as familiar with Polargeo or Stephan Schulz, so  I can't speak to those. <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> 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect he found a few troubling pieces of evidence an applied a bias excuse to throw out the issues. Evidence should simply be accepted, ignored or dismissed ... the accepted evidence is what is most meaningful, the rest is a distraction. Taking the distraction further, just increases the drama. Decisions should be made on accepted evidence and findings of fact, of which WMC is culpable for BLP issue. Dismissing the issue for a few questionable pieces of evidence is a clear indicator of bias. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any ArbCom member that is not willing to read the evidence should 1) abstain, 2) retire/go inactive, or 3) be impeached/removed.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please try to assume good faith and stop guessing/questioning the arbitrators when they aren't even done with this case yet. They are still discussing a lot of things and no one knows how any of this is going to shake out in the end.  I noticed that a bunch of you have taken going directly to arbitrator's talk page to continue your reasonings about what should be done in this case, might I suggest you give them all some breathing room?  Being an arbitrator is a hard job that not everyone can do so show some patients please.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"...asked"? Re Kirills proposed remedies
Requests have been tried, appeals made for moderation made, suggestions to withdraw raised, and yet we are here at ArbCom - because the previous Probation enforcement failed to deter the worse excesses even under threat and use of sanctions and restrictions, and the enforcement process itself became subject to partisan quarreling. Asking advocates to temper their convictions is pointless, because the requestee may reply, "No." Only by requiring parties, under threat of sanction and restriction if they do not comply, to cease their involvement will admins at AE have the basis to enact the remedies. It should not be said that all named parties would say no, but it is certain that those who would are those whose actions are have lead us to this place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have any of the parties whom Kiril currently proposes to ask to absent themselves from the subject ever been asked to do so before, say under the probation? Bear in mind that if they carry on editing and this causes problems, under the proposed discretionary sanctions regime they could be sanctioned directly by any uninvolved admin. --TS 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent themselves from the entire climate change area? No. All of the named parties have been asked to stay away from certain area's, articles, editors, and suchlike; some have, for the most part, and some needed logged "official" warnings or specific restrictions, and some of those were were later sanctioned for violating the warnings or restrictions. Such methods of diminishing disruption were attempted in the early days, but were soon recognised as obsolete in some instances. My point is that polite appeals at ArbCom to the better nature of editors involved as parties to a case appears not to recognise that those initial attempts at reducing disruption failed along with all the other methods of dispute resolution. Like law in RL, the citizenry are not requested to not indulge in criminal activity they are told not to; it is just assumed that the majority do not intend to but the language makes plain that it will not be tolerated. The wording used by Kirill suggests that noncompliance is an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence that every editor named in those remedies understands the likely consequences of pressing the issue. I would prefer to let everyone walk away from this with their dignity intact; but that doesn't mean that the requests cannot become binding sanctions, should there be a need to go that route. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that the editors named understand the likely consequences, which is why I prefer a more resolute wording to assist the admins at AE in enforcing them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hopeful it won't come to that. It would be best for everyone if people would just accept our polite requests without the need for anything substantially more unpleasant. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Kiril, it's substantially unpleasant to be attacked and substantially more unpleasant to be attacked repeatedly. It's even more unpleasant when complaints about that aren't resolved and more unpleasant still when ArbCom, which can address those complaints, refuses to do so. To one degree or another, one could say much the same about the other misbehavior you politely decline to recognize. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they understand the likely consequences quite well - no consequences. Those have been the consistent consequences applied every single time and surprisingly they've had no effect. Fast forward 6-8 months and they'll get another "suggestion" and the new "skeptics" on the block (Greg and Minor4th) will be indefinitely topic banned or blocked. Rinse and repeat. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)the likely consequences of pressing the issue. They've been pressing the issue for many months. They show no sign -- I repeat, no sign -- that they recognize their behavior was bad. I repeat: no sign. If ArbCom can't admit to much of their bad behavior, why would you expect Arbitration Enforcement to be tougher than you? You can't even give Arbitration Enforcement enough findings to make their job any easier. It's more likely almost certain that on several points these editors will claim exoneration. If ArbCom passes your proposals on this, these editors will treat ArbCom as spineless and the result will be predictable: continued bad behavior, fighting every AE sanction with appeals to AN and AN/I. It will be worse than before because you've provided plenty of reason for editors concerned about personal attacks and disruption and BLP violations to throw up their hands and leave in disgust. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why the remedies do not require anyone to admit that their behavior was bad—merely to absent themselves from the area, for the greater good of the project and so forth. Whatever their faults, the editors named in these remedies have long and illustrious histories of service to Wikipedia; they deserve, in my view, an opportunity to walk away from this "voluntarily".
 * This doesn't mean, of course, that there will be no further consequences if the requests are ignored, or that such an opportunity will be offered a second time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to clarify "a second time". It seems inconsistent with the numberless warnings on those editors' talk pages. Twentieth time? Art LaPella (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They've had the "opportunity" to walk away at all times. By voting not even to find many of the facts proven in the selected diffs, you've undercut Abitration Enforcement and lengthened the dispute immeasurably. You've refused to see significant behavior violations in numerous cases, so why should AE? Your praise for "long and illustrious histories" of editors would be more credible if you didn't ignore long and ignoble histories of bad behavior from those same editors. And none of this explains your treatment of Polargeo. You're suggesting requests, not topic bans. They have the option of staying and they no doubt will stay. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's all true, you still want Kirill on your side, right? Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I want him to do his job well, and when he doesn't I critique the result. I don't look on it as a question of "sides". Once an arb proposes or votes, it's a question of how close to the bull's eye they get. I actually have very little hope that arbs, once they've spoken, will change their minds. Kirill is so wrong that I don't expect him to come close to the bull's eye. I want other arbs to aim better and hope they'll see where Kirill is wrong. I expect they won't, and I expect to wash my hands of this whole mess.a -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) -- Redacting: Clearly I underestimated Kirill. I shouldn't have written the redacted lines. I apologize. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

'William M. Connolley (et al) asked to disengage...To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, William M. Connolley is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Wikipedia. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.'..."not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing" Huh?...then why have them disengage? In other words, leave the area of dispute or else...but if you do so voluntarily, then we won't ban you from them. Great...I sure am glad I managed to not get banned when dealing with the less than sane that stalk the 9/11 related articles...maybe my work in very divergent areas allowed me a safe zone to go to when the water got too shark infested.--MONGO 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC's vested interests can do no wrong. He's being given immunity from enforcement on his disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kirill I noticed many "not necessary" in your decisions. What would be a sufficient Dispute Resolution step after ArbCom?  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fill out standard arbitration complaint form, put in envelope, and address it to the name of the hospital where you were born. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that help? Are your being disruptive here? Please voluntary disengage. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very puzzling thread. When we were all discussing (and some of us actioning) voluntary absenteeism there was no dissent. Now that one single arbitrator has drafted a similar proposal, to be made official by arbcom's imprimatur, it suddenly becomes a problem. If it wasn't a problem a few weeks ago, why is it a problem now? --TS 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an interim step to bring calm while waiting for ArbCom to do something useful. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem? No, I wouldn't call it a problem so much as typical, tried and true, CC "problem-solving" - ban the skeptics and vaguely warn the real trouble-makers while apologizing for even warning them. The fact that the PD omitted the worst offenses on the non-skeptic side was the first clue to how this would play out.


 * Every single non-skeptic gets a warning and the two skeptics get indefinite topic bans? I've edit warred far less, been more civil, soapboxed less, obeyed BLP regs better and used far better sourcing than any of the people getting "warnings." This is clearly not an evidence-based decision. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We tend to be less punitive to those that follow the scientific majority than those that don't since those that don't are oftentimes trying to add fringe science that makes the articles in this website look like they were written by drunken sailors.--MONGO 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with your theory "MONGO" - I haven't added or tried to add any "fringe science" to the articles. You people keep on asserting these things but you never show any proof (obviously you don't have to because evidence is clearly irrelevant) - perhaps Hipocrite could help you find some proof? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't know I had a theory...it isn't officially published. Anyway, "TheGoodLocust"...it is easier to get along with experts if one doesn't spend all their time on Wikipedia repeatedly underminning their good faith efforts to keep innuendo and propaganda at bay.--MONGO 00:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not all that puzzling - a few weeks ago there was no proposed decision and any offers to disengage were based on the idea that eventually an arbcom decision would supercede all of that. It was never the way that people signing up to disengage thought they were signing up for good and that if enough of them signed up then arbcom could call it a day and drop the case. There was always the assumption that there was a decision coming, and that they would unengage if they weren't banned by then. Did you really expect everyone who signed up to voluntarily and temporarily step back from editing the affected area would just stay there? That was never their intention. Yet it is what Kirill is proposing, that we all agree to disagree but to do it civilly and knock this case on the head. Which would make all this the biggest waste of time in history, not to mention the time yet to be wasted as each participant edges their way slowly back in and needs further knuckle rappings. Cheers Kirill, it looks like you really thought this one through. Weakopedia (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that it is because the voluntary absenteeism was that, voluntary. This is the place where the hard and binding decisions are made, where lines are drawn, editors blocked or banned, and such decisions made that can only be overturned by appeal to this body (or Jimbo, although that is now deprecated). The language of suggestion and compromise was appropriate for the voluntary process - and note that there were exceptions included with some agreeing parties statements - but here there should be intent and firmness. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely. After a dispute is so exacerbated that is comes to ArbCom, it should be dealt with firmly, hopefully once and for all. These remedies merely push the issue until the first person asked to avoid the issue doesn't, as Lar points out. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (after E/C with Lar) Because that was a temporary resolution, until the arbitrators formed their decision. It wasn't intended to be a long-term solution to the atmosphere surrounding the topic.
 * Additionally, I find it highly unlikely that all of the named parties will adhere to the "suggestion" that they refrain from editing.
 * Kirill's proposals are useless, and possibly counterproductive.  Horologium  (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kirill: The most common complaint from multiple viewpoints is that the PD does too little. Now, you come along and propose that it does even less.  We're moving backwards, not forwards.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WTF?? <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> 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to my WTF?? comment: this is absurd and insulting to those of us who have spent so much time and attention bringing evidence and explaining the problems.   A suggestion that disruptive step away from the topic area is tantamount to an engraved invitation to continue disruptive editing, but even more importantly -- Kirill's votes are conspicuously biased in favor of the AGW bloc and against the "skeptic" bloc.  There is simply no way that a neutral evaluation can lead to the conclusion that marknutley and TheGoodLocust have engaged in wrongdoing sufficient for a indefinite topic ban, but William M. Connolley and ChrisO are not even given mere suggestions that are "not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing."   No recommendation for sanctions against any AGW editors at all -- but 2 indef topic bans against editors who were far, far less disruptive than WMC and ChrisO.  (I don't know much about Polargeo or Stephan Schulz, so can't speak about them.  Also, advising Lar to step away is totally uninformed since he doesn't edit in the topic area and never has.  The bias in these votes is alarming and brings into question whether Kirill should recuse or be disqualified from this case.  <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> 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a 0RR restriction combined with a "make your point only once on the talk page"-restriction would be more than enough. This has almost exactly the same effect as walking away, as far as conflict reduction is concerned, but it has the advantage that the editors can continue to edit. So, the technical articles on climate science can continue to be improved. Arguably, the attention will be focussed more on that area as no more time is wasted on disputes by the (voluntarily) restricted editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no scenario under which WMC's wretched behavior and flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy should be rewarded by eliminating two ideological "adversaries" to indefinite topic bans while WMC gets a suggestion that we all know will do nothing to restrain him. Blocks, restrictions, desysopping, more restrictions, more blocks have not restrained him -- let's just be real here and quit pretending that any of us believe that he'll stop editing this topic.   What rationale can there possibly be for indef topic ban for nutley and TGL and no sanction at all for Connolley?   It is insulting and infuriating.  <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> 00:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@LHVU: All of the named parties have been asked to stay away from certain area's, articles, editors, and suchlike;  - they have? By whom and in what situation have I been asked to do this? I'm not aware of any such request, though my memory is, of course, less perfect than the data base. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You were asked to stay away from the uninvolved administrators section of Enforcement Requests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirill's proposals and votes are quite ill-advised (not to mention contradictory), and I sincerely hope the other arbs ignore them. ATren (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me advance something to see if I see something you guys don't. (this is based solely on the reading of arbitrators votes here..). I think my fellow Arbitrators were trying to see who was willing to disengage voluntarily as a way to reduce drama. It allowed the saving face fig leaf of not formally placing sanctions on the users involved, but also removing editors who have shown intent to disrupt. This kind of thing happens all the time... (offered the chance to resign to avoid being fired). The rejection from all sides means that in this case, face cannot be saved, and harsher actions are necessary (as seen by the switch of several arbitrators from opposes to supports on the requisite topic bans..


 * Also, while I temporarily have control of the bully pulpit.. I suggest that copious amounts of WP:TEA be consumed in the near future by editors here. Yes, this case has taken a long time to handle. This should come as no surprise. There's a reason that is the case. Most arbitration cases have a limited topic area, or limited amount of users. That certainly is not the case here. Or for another example, in a lot of arbitration cases, the Committee hears the evidence of the parties, and have to weigh them accordingly to balance the scales appropriately with regards to findings and remedies. Tricky, but not time consuming. Here, the Committee has so many parties, that finding the right balance is infinitely tricky. Not only that, but even if the Committee finds that magic formula to balance out all the remedies to enable positive action in this sphere going forward, soon enough parties are adding more weight to the scale and throwing it all out of whack again (the constant editing wars that have plagued this case. Last time I looked, we're about to hit double digits on that counter).


 * That's why I posted my statement about a half-megabyte or so ago that the best way I saw to move forward was to remove ALL the edit-warriors and current administrators from the WP:BATTLEFIELD. It's certainly the simplest. Rather then continually trying to re-balance the scales to be equitable to all parties (who can't seem to keep their thumb off the scales), it's fairly easy to balance a zeroed-out scale. Remove all the weights, and see if a new crop of editors would return us to a harmonious environment. It may not be the fairest of methods (setting the bar at two edit-wars treats an editor who gets sucked into a dispute differently from some who was basically involved in EVERY dispute noted during this Arbitration case).. but it is certainly the surest.


 * Hopefully, this is food for thought for some folks. I apologize if I've rambled on a bit too much, but I hope I've adequately explained myself here. SirFozzie (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * SF: if this is just about editors saving face, why was it not extended to MN and TGL? I've asked Kirill for clarification on this; specifically, what diffs inspired him to split along those lines, and his response was that he got a ["general impression" that "MN and TGL would not partake of an opportunity to walk away quietly." I have never seen MN take a well-considered sanction badly, and TGL accepted his lengthy topic ban even though others have gotten away with far worse. Contrast this to WMC, who has refused most requests to voluntarily disengage and who has insulted every single admin who sanctioned him (SirFathead ring a bell?). So it's more about the inconsistencies and outright contradictions in Kirill's stance that is alarming to many here -- his stance simply does not mesh with the evidence and even his votes themselves don't mesh with each other (i.e. voting for BLP principles and findings but then explicitly exonerating those who egregiously violated them in the remedies). Though I do agree that the reaction on this page and elsewhere is a bit over the top. BTW, I agree that your proposed solution remains superior to all others. [[User:ATren|ATren]] (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a hard enough time trying to ascribe motives to the Committee as a group, to try to do so with individual arbitrators is an exercise in folly *grins*.. However, I will say this in general. There are parties in this case who would voluntarily depart the topic area if everyone else agreed to do the same (and if the agreement was honored in letter and spirit), and there are parties in this case who would not agree to do so even under such conditions. That's one thought.


 * The other is, and forgive my bluntness here.. there are varying levels of culpability here. The active members of the Committee may be willing to offer the saving face alternative to people with lower levels of culpability, or to those who have improved the encyclopedia in various ways.. while not being as willing to those whose "body of work", so to speak are more actively tied up in this case (IE, here less time, so more of their history is edit-warring, disruption and ABF).


 * While I, personally *again, speaking as a recused arbitrator* would have had offered the fig leaf to people not on the list, and possibly denied the face saving measure to people on this list (that I feel are exceptionally culpable in this case), that's me, only. Also, I think it's really a theoretical exercise to discuss who is or isn't offered such, as one and all have spoken against this, not the least of which the parties directly. SirFozzie (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from the topic area
I'm sorry if I am repeating anything further up the page but this whole idea of withdrawing from the topic area is not well considered. Stephan Schulz and I (Polargeo) have no issues with editing articles. The whole issue with me seems to have been decided to be my civility on arbcase talkpages and RfC/U talkpages (ie my civility when this was already in a heated dispute) with StephanSchulz it was a question of his involvement as a frequent CC editor and with Lar his attitude and actions whilst acting as uninvolved. The idea that any of us are actually causing the heated environment on the CC pages themselves that would require a topic ban is frankly silly. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's right about this.<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> 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Modification of future editing behavior
NYB commented on Kirill's proposal, asking if editors don't agree with withdrawing from the topic area, what modification they are willing to make to their editing behavior. I think what I wrote earlier in this thread about a voluntary 0RR restriction could be acceptable. BLP articles and articles on organizations like e.g. the IPCC that are not primarly about the science, are the places where the editing disputes happen.

I can see William agreeing to disengage from editing disputes, rather than from editing the CC area (the latter would amount to a voluntary permanent site ban for him, as he mostly edits CC articles). The details of the restriction could be that on articles that are not primarily about the science (which are not primarily based on peer reviewed sources), William sticks to a 0RR restriction and only makes two comments per issue on the talk page.

E.g., consider the recent dispute on the IPCC page. Under the proposed 0RR restriction, William could not have reverted Cla68's edit about the comment by Pielke. All William could have done, would be to write a comment on the talk page why he feels this is unwarranted and that if Pielke's comment can be included, the comment on RealClimate can also be included. William can then make one other comment, so what he will do is leave for a while, let other editors continue the debate on that issue, without him being involved. Then William returns a few days later, looks at all the reactions and gives his final comments on the issue.

This is a good way of immunizing yourself from getting involved in disputes and yet allows you to make contributions to controversial areas. It forces you to think carefully about comments, as the goal is to persuade other editors. In edit wars, what you typically see is that editors revert and then justify their reversion on the talk page, which amounts to making a statement like "I'm right, you're wrong and I'll keep reverting to my version because of that".

Taking your "right" to revert out of the equation helps to make talk page discussions less polarized. But limiting talk page discussions is an additional restriction that is necessary, because you may tend to argue for longer in a vain attempt to convice people of your point of view. What I've learned to do on Wikipedia is limit talk page exchanges by sticking to the three comments rule: Make your point once, reply to give clarification if necessary, and perhaps again if the clarification is not well understood. If your original point still doesn't come accross at all, this is very likely due to some entrenched disagreement. More talk can then start to fan a dispute, so you have to think hard if you really want to continue the discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record
For the record, if Kirill's sanctions are the only sanctions that pass, I will be happy to abide by them. Just as long as all the other folk named in them do as well, broadly construed (that includes not responding to commentary on talk pages and user talk pages with anything other than "I choose not to make any substantive response whatever" or words to that effect). Once the first one of the others doesn't, all bets are off. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way I may start a pool, haven't decided. 5 bucks a pick on who breaks it first and how many days (hours?) in... any takers? ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be a suicide pact or MAD? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say above, I think more of a chance to save face, more then what you guys suggest. SirFozzie (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So as I read this. To save face, StephanSchulz withdraws from the main area of his editing on wikipedia when he is a generally constructive editor in the area and nobody is seriously calling for him to be banned from editing CC articles anyway and Lar agrees to withdraw even though he doesn't edit in the area because he can take a few people with him, nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to Kirill's proposal, but to Lar's conditional (i.e. implausible) acceptance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "implausible"?? As in you expect that at least one other person will break their commitment at some point? Since the four other folk currently on the list are WMC, ChrisO, Polargeo and you... well maybe you're right. But you're not assuming good faith about your fellow bloc members, are you? Can't say as I blame you, but it's rather a shocking admission. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Time wasted?

 * If Kirill's 'sanctions' are passed, then this entire case was a complete waste of time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Kirill should be disqualified from participation in this case for voting with bias along clear ideological lines -- the underlying problem this case is supposed to cure. <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> 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ... he should seriously reconsider changing them. Possible a voluntary disengage (abstention) on his part would set the example for us. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's give Kirill a chance to explain why he can't be bothered to read the evidence. I note that on their talk page, they state they are an administrator open to recall.  Not sure how that applies to ArbCom members.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill is saying that this is a content issue. I thought ArbCom has ruled against BLP issues in the past?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. Don't go there. Much as I disagree with the PD, that is not a way forward.  Horologium  (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's calm the rhetoric down, shall we? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see rhetoric, I see a statement of fact ("waste of time") and disillusionment over Kirill's statements that he can't be bothered to read the evidence.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider that perhaps people might see evidence differently than yourself, especially if you are an uninvolved party. Rather than seeing Kirill's statement as he couldn't be bothered to read the evidence, have you considered that he may instead feel it is not ArbCom's place to analyze a set of individual diffs so closely looking for borderline calls? Calls for desysopping, removal from the case, and even removal from ArbCom (Kirill is a reelected Arbitrators – no mean feat by itself – and even so received one of the highest supports at the last election!) should be entirely out of the question. Horologium and Tony Sidaway say it much more concisely than I. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please extend good faith to Kirill's approach. As arbitrators, we occasionally propose an entirely different way forward from a conflict, in the hopes of finding a better mousetrap in complicated problems.  Some proposals may end up being rejected, or tweaked beyond recognition, or may end up being the Holy Grail; but that doesn't mean they should not be put forward and proposed because they might not get traction.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you come out of inactivity? (I see you voting) Glad to see it. As to your point, I'm willing to extend good faith to Kirill's approach. I just already know how poorly it will work. Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt. I really can't imagine what he's thinking, and he hasn't articulated it well at all. Voting against most all the findings? Seems to suggest unwillingness to wake up and smell the coffee. ++Lar: t/c 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a content issue...if the doubters and skeptics get Connolley banned then they win and Wikipedia loses. So WMC isn't the sweetest guy on the block...least he's trying to keep fringe science from eroding the CC articles...once they get a foothold, they'll want the whole ballgame...information is power. However, I do see what Kirill is saying with his PD's...walk away and save face...not a bad option, but truly no different than a topic ban.--MONGO 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MONGO, it's not a content issue. If only it were that easy. It's a behavior issue. But the worst behaved work hard to try to make those without enough time or interest to dig in deeply think it's a content issue. You've fallen prey to their line, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Connolley and I have had truly minimal interaction...I don't even edit CC pages, much less watchlist them. But if you tell the experts to saw off because they aren't sweet enough or don't want inroads of fringe science and innuendo into articles that are supposed to be part of a project hoping to provide a reliable witness, then it does become a content issue.--MONGO 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty amazingly incorrect statement of my position, which is merely that no one gets a free pass, we all have to abide by the principles and mechanisms of the project. You should spend some time reading some of the talk pages (say, those diffs introduced in evidence and the edits around them) to see how bad the problem is. Then you'd be one up on some of the arbs, who apparently can't be bothered. One wonders what they were doing for that month long whatever it was... ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MONGO: Please stop framing this as a two-sided issue. The reality is far more complicated than that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MONGO, if WMC is bias (non-denier and non-skeptic), how can Wikipedia win? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By sticking to the evidence....WMC is hardly an alarmist...I know a few alarmists.--MONGO 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC is bias? Like, not just biased, but he is the very concept of bias itself? There's an interesting twist to this case. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to move along
Could the arbitrators just vote and get this over with. You're not going to make everybody happy. Anybody who deserved sanction, but did not receive one, will be taken care of at WP:AE, most likely sooner rather than later. Jehochman Talk 01:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why didn't WP:AE "take care" of the editors before this ArbCom case? These issues have been to many dispute forums and even had a special General Sanction, they will continue as long as the actors continue. If ArbCom can't act then, I guess it will fall back onto the community and maybe back to ArbCom again. Along the way, additional editors and admin will be disciplined to protect the Vested interest of a single WMC.  Jimbo should just sell Wikipedia to WMC, that would be easier for all. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Zulu Papa 5 * Would you please refactor your last sentence?  That is not at all a proper statement to be making.  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)