Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 6

This should be brought to the arbitrators attentions
Though Mark Nutley has voluntarily walked away from the Climate change articles I think that the latest of what has been happening should be shared. MN has been blocked twice this week which can be seen here at his talk page and here. Both were lifted but the last one is the one that is concerning. There is a discussion going on here. I don't know this administrator at all but this last unblock was done without even talking to administrator Vsmith which I find strange, esp. with the comments made with the unblock about Vsmith who is another administrator I don't know. Rodhullandemu is the administrator who unblocked MN for both of these blocks. NPA & civil are important policies but I don't know if this was a problem with different ways of saying things sounding like it is breaching policy or not. Toddst1 did the block so he could probably give more insight than I can about this. But the second block and unblock is very troubling since it has to do with copyright issues. MN has had major problems in the past and now he is block then unblocked for a copyright violation which if memory serves has happened before in the past. For the unblock to be done so quickly, without first talking to the blocking administrator, MN should not have been unblocked without the unblocking administrator first getting all the information, which means talking to the blocking administrator. Rodhullandemue assumed that Vsmith was involved which Vsmith explained that s/he was still uninvolved. Vsmith has been apparently watching things and knew MN from previous behavior problem. Anyways, because of the seriousness of this I thought the arbitrators should be aware of it. Thanks for reading, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Vsmith has defended WMC and attacked his ideological opponents for about 6 years now. He has the magical power to detect the slightest wrongdoing from global warming skeptics, which isn't surprising since he edits the global warming articles extensively. He's clearly an involved admin in every definition of the word and should be prohibited from acting as an admin in the area or involving people who edit the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but I don't know that that admin is involved in this topic. If this chap is overstepping his remit as an admin then presumably it can be handled. The source cited by Thegoodlocust purports to knowthe religion of all Wikipedians, and says atheists outnumber Christians on English Wikipedia by nearly 2 to 1 which if true,means that most Wikipedians other than me are exceptionally open about their religious beliefs and hardly any Americans ever edit Wikipedia. That's obvious nonsense. --TS 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikichecker is a commonly used tool Tony and I've never heard anyone dispute its edit analyzing abilities, especially with the odd argument that one of the other tools looks at the religion of wikipedian editors. On a side note, for that tool I'd imagine that they are checking userpages for userboxes. There are several reasons why atheists would show up more than you'd expect from the general population: younger people tend to be more atheistic, more educated/intelligent people tend to be atheists and tend to be online more which probably attracts them to wikipedia, and atheists tend to be more militant about their beliefs and therefore more likely to advertise with userboxes. You can't do a straight up comparison between the general population and wikipedia's. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of Wikichecker before and I have no idea how it works. But how can it know my religion or yours or William Connolley's? It clearly purports to dispense information that it cannot conceivably support. If it is used by anybody, ever, on this wiki, to support any statement by anybody, then those people doing that must stop doing it now. --TS 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking with me? I already explained how the religion segment of that site probably works. You aren't making sense here Tony. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not fucking with you. If the site works as you describe it, and I've no reason to doubt that it does, then it knowingly dispenses the most spectacularly unreliable information. You have to understand that this is a third party site that I've never heard of.  It tells me that atheists outnumber Christians on Wikipedia by 2 to 1, so I don't know how I can trust anything else it might say.  Couldn't we use Wikipedia's own database to source the information you want to give?  I think that might be more trustworthy. --TS 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Spectacular unreliable? It simply compiles the information that is available - if someone declares their religion then they are added to the list. As I said, there are many factors for why wikipedia (and the internet in general) is more atheistic like 95% of internet users being under 30 - and younger people are far more likely to be atheists. It is good that you don't take numbers at face value, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but all of these figures have their advantages and disadvantages - there isn't really a more practical way to take of religious pulse of wikipedians. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Both blocks were overturned. One or perhaps both admin s may have been motivated by the climate change battlefield, at least this appears to be the view of some people commenting on the talk page. The first block was clearly not a personal attack, at worst it was slightly incivil, certainly not warranting a block and concensus on AN/I did not support the block. Mark said an editor had a "bee up his arse". The second block for a copyvio was done by an admin who edited the article and was potentially involved. The copyvio has been disputed appeared to have some merit but it did not look deliberate, the text had been altered but not sufficiently so to differentiate the text from the original source per WP:PARAPHRASE. Perhaps the admins are just having a bad day or else or perhaps they block people too quickly in general. Mark is very likely to be topic banned from climate change articles, so I see no benefit in this discussion continuing and probably spiraling out of control. Although he has demonstrated some problems and is not a perfect editor, I see no justification for hounding him off the encyclopedia .-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have struck some text in the above comment and updated the text per discussion on my talk page. -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (ec)
 * I`m a tad disappointed in Crohnie here truth be told, i have asked her on her talk page to actually tell the entire story, not the condensed version which makes me look crap mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, I told you on my talk page that if I was misinformed with this posting that you could come here and tell your side of it which you didn't do, at least not that I've seen (I do have to catch up on the recent comments here though). I would suggest that editors should read our discussion on my talk page for context of the discussion.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyvio issue is relevant here because this is not a first offence - MN was blocked for a week in May for a slew of copyvio problems. The current edit may be more plagiarism than a copyright violation, but even if it's a bit of a grey area, given his past problems MN should shouldn't be dancing anywhere near that line. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And blocked by...wait for it...Vsmith! If someone were to look at that wikipedia search I provided, especially the requests for adminship, it is certainly interesting who consistently shows up at the top of the "support" column - isn't that right Guettarda? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RHaE's unblock of MN is definitely very dodgy, as is his description of Vsmiths conduct as "appalling". Since the article in question isn't a Cl Ch one, the entire business only belongs here due to the participants. Contrary to TGLs assertions, Vsmith isn't "involved" at that article. It isn't clear whether RHaE has been careless or worse; but the lack of talk is suspicious.

RHaE declared, to Vsmith, that "you had become involved in content, as I see it". This is odd, because all Vsmith did on the article was correct a spelling error and another. RHaE knows that, because Vsmith had already pointed it out to him. On that basis, RHaE overturned a block for copyvio, for which MN had previously been blocked. But RHaE made no attempt to discuss this, and still won't answer questions on his talk page. Perhaps he will here instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect he has edited the article well before now. Why not explain instead you constant removal of content from this article? Why do you do it? It is outside your normal range of article edits after all, what possible reason do you have for focusing on this article will? mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So how is that different from reverting an invalid move and then protecting the effected article? Your evidence says that makes an admin involved, yet another admin makes a couple of procedual actions (disregarding Mn's diff above) and then blocks another contributor and you say that they are not involved? Where is the consistency? I also thought you were for outside admins reviewing others sysop actions, but, as ever, only when it accords with your preferred viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @LHVU: The difference is obvious: that the move wasn't invalid. It was in fact perfectly valid; the fact that *you* made the judgement that it was invalid is involvement. You made a very heavy-handed intervention i a content dispute to protect your "side"; please don't try to muddy the waters here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in fact making it clear that your consideration on whether an admin is involved is entirely in respect on whether it is in accordance to "Your sides" (capitalisation intended) preferred viewpoint. Your view on my action in the one instance noted has not even been repeated by the usual chorus (except one). The cloudiness you perceive is formed by your vision, and not by the comments of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was even more obscure than usual. No matter: we disagree on this matter, and that is unsurprising. But I notice that you have carefully avoided the issue in this case, which is: was Vsmith involved. Naturally, I value my opinion, but oddly you seem to value mine more than yours. Please remedy this and do give us *your* opinion. Also, perhaps you could address the issue that RHaE is so blatantly evading, because he has no possible answer: the absence of any attempt to discuss with Vsmithnprior to unblock. Come on, don't be shy, we're all listening William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was commenting only upon your differing interpretations upon "uninvolved" where the circumstances were similar but the viewpoints effected are not - I have not concerned myself with the specifics of RH&E's actions or interactions with Vsmith. As for me being listened to, in the unlikely event that there is more than a very few I am certain that there is one who is not doing so - since it does not reflect their own valued opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @MN: I removed your copyvio, as explained on the talk page Talk:Echoes_of_Life:_What_Fossil_Molecules_Reveal_about_Earth_History William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh - and your diff is your edit, not Vsmiths. Here is Vsmiths edit - and I encourage everyone to look at it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is late here; I am tired, cold and impoverished. I am currently going through my remaining photos and uploading them to Commons while I am still able to do so. I have no opinion in the climate change disputes, and wasn't even aware of the topic of the article for which Marknutley was blocked for copyvios; all I saw was the edit history of that article, and I came to the opinion that the blocking admin was obviously involved, and I see from above that there is an argument that this is the case. However, I do not intend to get involved further here, because I have no desire to swim through unnecessary treacle with one arm tied behind my back. Rodhull  andemu  22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't an answer, it is an evasion. You have, now, reviewed the edits that Vsmith made - yes? And had time to consider, now, whether your previous hasty judgement was correct - yes? And your considered opinion is? And also - your excuse for not attempting to contact the blocking admin? You haven't even pretended to address that little issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not the slightest intention of being dragged unwillingly into an Arbitration case which has as much to do with my unblock of Marknutley as the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la, and it seems unnecessarily combative of you to push the point; I'd advise you to examine your own motives here before taking this further. I unblocked Marknutley based solely on the article history I saw and nothing else. If you really think otherwise, please provide evidence from your MI5 mindprobe|, or stop making unjustified assumptions. Meanwhile, as I have already said, I have better things to do than share the drama stage with those who will not let it lie. Rodhull  andemu  23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that part of the problem was the fact that discussion began without an explanation as to how the edit was a copyright violation but did include a knock at Mark.  To make matters worse, the dispute lasted only one hour and 17 minutes long before WMC went running to an admin.  Also, I might be mistaken but I think that WP:CP is the proper venue for escalation, but there didn't seem to any attempt to discuss the issue there.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Looking at the article history and article talk page, the article Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History started by Mark Nutley appears to have nothing to do with climate change, how did 3 or 4 climate change editors end up on that article in a content dispute? Is this a sign that even after topic bans are placed on editors that if they go to other article topics personalised battle fields will just migrate?-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  22:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I, for one, will not be badgered or bullied into anything; I'm from Yorkshire. If ArbCom think I should answer, they will let me know. Until then, I'm finished here. Rodhull  andemu  22:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the case here, but WMC has followed my contributions in order to revert me or take the opposite position. It is part of his pattern of bullying behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While the article on the book is not about climate change, it appears the author has written in the past a book about climate change, which may explain things.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow... Anyway, back in early May I noticed an article about a book that appeared interestin - I started a bit of cleanup with 3 edits then noticed a potential copyvio problem and removed it  and after further checkin  then after discovering other CVs on other pages I blocked Marknutly (at 01:42, 5 May 2010 - see his block log) for a week for copyright violations. I had added the page to my watchlist (now at 15,044 pages). Then when an edit removing a possible copyvio - per the edit summary, showed up on my watchlist, I took a look. I found that while not a direct copy/paste vio, it was a very close paraphrase and quite questionable. After looking closer (and correcting 2 spelling errors along the way - guess I'm obsessive) I made the decision to block considering past copyvio problems by the user and the fact that he had immediately reverted the questioned content back in. When content is removed for possible copyvio the issue should be discussed - not reverted back in. I had commented on the talk page while reviewing the issue and blocked Marknuyley for a month for copyright violation second block for copyright violation.(see his block log) The block was undone 37 minutes later with no attempt made to discuss the issue with me either before or after. The lack of discussion or even notification is a violation of common courtesy. This issue is totally unrelated to the topic of climate change and the current arbitration, both of which I have been studiously avoiding per my own sanity. I thank Dave Sousa for letting me know this was under discussion here. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 15k watched pages eh? That must be hell to keep up with and lucky you caught Mark's transgressions in that mess both times. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually from 30 min to an hour to scan for vandalism twice daily. Quite a bit longer if substantial edits have occurred. Most are short stubs and/or obscure articles rarely edited. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Luxury! My illness means that I generally wake up about 3pm local time, and although to some, most of the day has already gone, my watchlist is about 3k, and that is mostly BLPs; which takes at least 30, and up to 60 min, to review properly. After that, I can sit back with coffee until about 6pm at a much slower and more manageable pace. I then head towards my one meal of the day, for which I can budget £1.00, and manage it about 8:30 pm.; occasionally, this might involve a dessert, even if it's only a cheap yogurt. But sugar is a useful energy product, even in limited quantities. But from 9:40 pm to whenever, I do my most useful work, fuelled by a £2.79 bottle of white cider and 20 menthol cigarettes. When those run out, as they now have, I stop, so goodnight. Luxury, I say again. Count your blessings, and please give a thought for those less fortunate than you. Looking forward to Christmas? I'm not; it's just another day to me. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the rant by TGL way up there^: Yes I have made many edits to global warming and related articles - mostly back during the 2005 kerfluffle. I have edited with WMC and argued intensely with him in the past, we both have science backgrounds and an interest in science topics. And likely some of the edits I made way back then I'd likely do differently now ... Wikipedia evolves, the environment is quite different than 4 - 6 years ago. But, more to the point the article in question has no relation to climate change topics. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vsmith you are the 8th most prolific editor of the global warming article (not the talk page). If memory serves and the pattern continues then I suspect most of those edits were reverts, often in sync with the rest of the top 10 most prolific editors of that article. Let's cut the bull, you've shown up at nearly every major arbcom case or RfC involving WMC for 6 years - including the recent ones. You guys have all either nominated or voted adminship for each other and you expect us to buy that you are "uninvolved?" When you say that most of your edits to global warming were back in 2005; I simply don't believe you - show some proof for such an assertion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And where did I say that I was not involved in the global warming article or in the climate change category? That's not what this thread is discussing. What relevance are adminship votes from 05, 06 & 07 to this discussion? And since 2007 I've made maybe 20 or so edits to the global warming article out of the total of 200 or so your tool shows since 2004. Don't know why I bother responding to this irrelevant off topic chatter. Vsmith (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to make it plain that I'm not from Yorkshire, although in my opinion parts of Yorkshire would feature in any discerning deity's plans for elysium. --TS 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec's) I would like to apologize for not informing the editors that I named when I first posted this. I planned on doing so but got called away from my computer and someone else had done it for me.  Please accept my deepest apology for not making it known that I mentioned you.  This apology goes to Vsmith and Rodhullandemu, I am really sorry to have taken you by surprise with my posting of this.  I thought it was important to add here because I knew of the prior problems with MN and sources.  I will try not to do this again in this way.  Again, I'm sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of editors contacted me on my talk page as they felt that I had misinterpretated the situation and they were right, I had misinterpreted the situation. Interested editors can read about it on my talk page. While I still think a mountain was made out of a molehill which I guess is symptomatic of the battleground atmosphere and hostilities I don't like to pass opinion on situations wrongly and leave things hanging. I think all the main parties involved in this latest dispute were at fault, Mark for failing to admit his summary was too close to the original text of the source thus escalating the drama, WMC for being too quick to seek a block and the admin too quick to block. This drama took 3 to tango and was unnecessary in my view. The other block for a personal attack by another admin was unwarranted as it was not a personal attack. These are my views. Sorry for dragging last nights drama back up, just wanted to clarify things.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Literaturegeek, I think that it should be made clear that Marknutley didn't insert 'his summary', he inserted directly copied text in which a few words were replaced. I posted a side-by-side comparison (reproduced below) of Marknutley's edits and the publisher's website on Mark's talk page; at the time I was unaware of the parallel discussion here.


 * As I said on Mark's talk page, making trivial changes – replacing In 1936 with Seventy years ago, fossil with fossilised, presumably with presumed to be – but keeping the exact same sentence without explicitly indicating (with quotation marks) that one is copying another writer's words is emphatically still plagiarism. (This sort of very minor modification probably also means that Mark's text is a derivative work from the original copyrighted text; Mark isn't free to license his derivative contribution under the GFDL, and should clearly indicate the non-free text for that reason as well.)
 * If Mark has a history of improper copying, then that is something that admins (and now Arbitrators) who find these sorts of things should be aware of when considering whether or not a block or other restriction might be warranted. Starting from a direct cut-and-paste of a book's introduction or publisher's blurb is never the right way to write a book summary for an encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not a cut and paste, i was reading from the book while typing. Hence my saying it was a WIP. No copyvio was intended and none has occurred, look at the last edits on the article. I honestly can`t believe this is dragging on so much, talk about a witchhunt mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The seventy years ago bit I think is ok but all of the rest was too close to the original and was a copyvio. The fact that some attempt was made to differentiate the text makes me think it was sloppy but done in goodfaith. This looks like a one off that has got way more drama than warranted. He did copy and paste some text back in May but he was a newbie editor, only with us for about 4 months. I doubt this is going to happen again. He is already almost certainly going to get topic banned based on Arb voting records. What more do you feel is necessary? The real concern is why is everything anyone does wrong on these articles always such immense drama to almost everyone? This is the real issue and Mark is not completely immune from this criticism.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more confident assuming that this wouldn't happen again if it hadn't happened before, and if Mark appeared to take his current act of plagiarism more seriously. He still doesn't seem to understand that what he did really was inappropriate copying of someone else's work; it's irrelevant that he did it by retyping with incidental changes rather than by Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.  That the topic seems to be peripherally related to this Arbitration case is moot &mdash; I would be just as concerned if this were another editor with a similar track record.  (And, indeed, I have been involved in cleaning up after – and banning, where necessary – serial plagiarists in other subject areas as well.)  By May 2010, Marknutley had been with us for more than four thousand edits; even if Wikipedia's standards were appreciably different from those of academia, business, or even high school – which they are not – Mark wasn't a rank newbie and shouldn't have been caught by surprise by our policies on plagiarism and copyright.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right there was allegations of one editor following Mark to that article and deleting several of his contributions which were not Copyvio, then an admin blocking too rashly. I tried once understanding all of the facts to criticise everyone fairly without saying he did worse, she did worse etc. What I see is a battleground where one side tries to get the other side sanctioned. To be honest, yes these incidents will concern ArbCom like copyvio but their primary interest is stopping the battleground atmosphere. They want everyone to stop arguing and fighting. Your selective view of the drama on this situation could be interpreted as battleground, so you are attacking yourself as much as Mark. What is needed on these pages is more "yes I did wrong and you did wrong", lets forget about it and get back to building an encyclopedia based on wikipedia policies, like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley has openly admitted that he was "reading from the book while typing." That's an open and shut case of copyright infringement. He should certainly advised never again to copy non-free content into Wikipedia. --TS 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

''He is already almost certainly going to get topic banned based on Arb voting records. What more do you feel is necessary?'' - for people to realise that it is impossible to work with MN. Even now, he won't admit that was a copyvio. Even now, you're basically saying that anyone who argues with him is as guilty as he is. This "a plague on both your houses" stuff is unthinking, and wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted this because misusing sources, copyright violations and so on are serious breaches in policy and academia. I don't care about all the other noise being said here.  The fact is that this was a copyright problem and MN not admitting it shows that this may still be a problem because he still doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong.  In school if you did this kind of thing what do you think your teachers would do about it?  Do you think they would pat you on the head and say don't do it again or do you think you would get a failing grade or worse?  People, forget all the outside stuff being discussed, there have been discussions about this kind of misuse of sources on the very PD talk page and it's not acceptable by anyone, no matter what side you seem to be on.  Stop the this side vs. that side arguments about it and just think about what is shown by TS showing that the two are almost identical.  Add in that MN admits that he was typing it directly from the book and this become a slam dunk, a copyright violation.  Maybe some kind of proposal from the arbitrators is needed about this that goes as far as to say this is not acceptable anywhere in the project.  Common sense should tell us that but from the discussion above maybe it needs to be said.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The text WMC removed a few days ago was short. It was not an unmarked verbatim, but a close paraphrase, and the source was cited. The relevant guideline here is WP:PLAGIARISM, which includes the paragraph, "It can also be useful to perform a direct comparison between cited sources and text within the article, to see if text has been plagiarized, including too-close paraphrasing of the original. Here it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern. Some facts and opinions can only be expressed in so many ways, and still be the same fact, or opinion. A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs. In addition, if the source is not free, check and make sure that any duplicated creative expressions are marked as quotations."
 * I agree that the paraphrase was too close for comfort, and that Mark urgently needs to read WP:Close paraphrasing, but it isn't the egregious deal editors here are making of it -- he made a good-faith, but insufficient effort to reformulate. He is not the only editor to have made such mistakes.
 * The earlier edits removed by Vsmith in May were clear copyvios, and absolutely unacceptable.
 * Mark needs to appreciate that he is still not doing enough to steer clear of copyvio and plagiarism charges. It is better to use an occasional verbatim, and mark it as a quotation using quotation marks, with the source cited, than it is to do a poor job of reformulating. Mark should probably look through his contributions history to tidy up any similar faux pas that may still be slumbering in our articles. -- JN 466  13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here wasn't really the actual edit - it was the response, especially given that MN has had similar problems in the past. We just can't afford this kind of thing - case in point, the Darius Dhlomo issue. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at my talk page where discussion with MN takes place, he says it's still a work in progress which I think he is putting the info into the article then making the changes afterwards which I advice him is not a good idea and that he should work sections first then put them into the article. I got no more responses from him after my comment so I'm not sure if I was correct about my comment.  You can see it at my talk page here. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Guettarda, I didn't understand your comment about the Darius Dhlomo issue until comments were made at my talk page about it and the clean up involved. I think you should have made it clearer about what you were talking about so I have wiki linked the name so others can see what it involves or you can go to my talk page and see the explanation there which I have to admit shocked me. I just thought others here should be aware of this issue to understand how so important it is to stop copyright vios and plagerism as soon as it's seen and not to wait. If you look into this I think you will see the same excuses that are being used here about how the problems started which is not good in my opinion. Clean up for this is need if anyone has the spare time. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Flexible topic bans
This would work as follows. ArbCom puts some editor X under a flexible topic ban for, say, BLP articles. ArbCom appoints Admin Y to be the mentor who implements the flexible topic ban for editor X. Admin Y familiarizes him/her self with the FoF on editor X in this ArbCom case. If editor X wishes to make an edit to some BLP article, the mentor can approve, disapprove, or ask clarification what exactly the editor wants to edit and make a decision based on that. Admin Y could also require editor X stick to a 1RR or 0RR restriction while editing. In case of violations of an agreement, Admin Y is authorized to block editor X.

I think this is a better solution for some editors who are capable of making good contributions to certain topic areas who nevertheless have not behaved well in disputes with editors who have different views regarding climate change. Count Iblis (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mentorship arrangements are very difficult to put together at the best of times (limited pool of admins prepared to undertake such a role). Specifically, it is probably undesirable in this instance because of the likely pressure the mentor would come under to revise calls (ie "you should/shouldn't have let editor X make edits k.l.m" ) and the intense partisan scrutiny that such arrangements would likely attract.  Roger Davies  talk 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger. And more debate and conflicts about the value of the edits of the people being topic banned is not the best way to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the problems, but I think there are solutions here. You can think of ArbCom putting constraints on this system, like the mentor only being authorized to let the editor edit under 0RR. This would solve three problems. First: There obviously wouldn't be much of an issue with other editors objecting to the edits and contacting the mentor about the permission to edit; in case of objections they can revert and that then also ends the editor's involvement in editing there because of the 0RR. Second: Because of this effective veto, the mentor won't give permision to edit in the first place, unless being reverted is unlikely. Third: the factionalist mentality can be better addressed via the discretionary sanctions, I'll explain this at the end of the last paragraph below.


 * There is a limited availablity of mentors, but I think the arrangement I'm proposing here is of a different nature than other mentorship agreements. Also, we're probably only dealing with a few editors for whom this is appropriate. The mentor won't have much work to do. Away from the polemics in the climate change area, there won't be much of a hurry to make an edit, therefore the mentor doesn't need to promptly consider editing requests.


 * If e.g. William were topic banned this way, think of William filing a request to edit some very technical article on some aspect of climate science. Clearly, approval can wait a week. Now, suppose that some editors can't put their WMC-obsession aside, follow William and revert him on that technical article. Obviously, applying the discretionary sanctions would then be in order. It is, of course, not likely that this will happen, so it may be a way for people get rid of their factionalist mentality. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has any such revert of a highly technical nature occurred in the past by any "obsessed" editor? Is this a matter of clapping hands to keep elephants away?   Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. But if this issue is moot, that's another argument why a mentoring agreement of this sort would not cause trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Something for everyone to read
I'd like to point out this editorial from PLoS Computational Biology Journal, published yesterday, entitled "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia". While the journal is specifically targeting academic writers, those ten rules apply equally to every other editor in the site. Risker (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So... does that mean anyone not editing per those 10 rules is not really a scientist? Or everyone editing to those rules is? Will you please stop hitting me? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It means that the most horrible, wicked thing has been done by Wikipedia to Polargeo, and we all just stood by and watched. This is not acceptable. Experts must not be traduced. --TS 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean "Editors must not be traduced", Tony; it's just as unacceptable for traduction to happen to anyone else. I'm mystified, however, how one could think that *anything* that happens on Wikipedia is "the most horrible, wicked thing", although a defamatory edit into a person's BLP with the intention of causing harm would be pretty horrible. Otherwise, I can come up with at least fifty more horrible, wicked things, and it's only been nine minutes since your edit. Risker (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree. Polargeo seemed to take every statement very personally, and therefore was upset by the continual challenges this topic area has had especially recently.  It is to bad Polargeo felt unable to continue, but it is not the death of article progress.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert.  Now try not to let it happen again. --TS 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. Risker (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that as an academic on Wikipedia you get to deal with a neverending stream of Randys from Boise. This is a systematic problem that needs tackling. The fact that this case has been brought and that this page alone is god-knows-how-long shows just how urgent it is. In a university we have student assistants, secretaries &c to screen out the nutjobs, just because our time is too precious to take every last man serious who walks in, claiming to prove that P!=NP. Ignore this advice at your peril. 74.65.111.74 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've spent a few decades as a tenured professor who had my share of Randys as students. Wikipedia doesn't write for the National Academy; we write for the public. Anyone who is unwilling to try to reach consensus with all comers, well, Citizendium is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good principle that can be devilish to practice. How do we reach consensus with someone who insists that the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons or that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources, and absolutely insists on standing their ground? Some editors continually preach "compromise," presumably leading to articles stating that only one side in the war used skeleton mercenaries, or that half of the CO2 rise is from natural sources. The issue is not as simple as some would like for it to appear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For me (and I edit pages where that happens quite a bit), that hasn't been as difficult as you make it sound. When someone comes along, or a lot of someones come along, who believe nonsense, patiently being civil and sticking to source policies works in the long run—it's less a matter of reaching consensus with only the nut-jobs, than reaching consensus with a broader population of involved editors. But what is very problematic in my experience is when long-established editors, ones with lots of FAs and maybe even administrators, are hostile to science or scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that, SBHB. However, something that keeps being glossed over is the fact that probably 3/4 of the articles in this topic area are not really about the science itself. They're about the people, about economics, about what Committee A's report said, or what Country C's policy is. Those aren't really science articles, and so scientific accuracy shouldn't normally be a major factor in them, other than to ensure that the sources used are appropriate to the subject of the article and do indeed say what is attributed to them. If, for example, the statement "Environmentalist Joe Blow said xxx is the real cause of yyy",  then the issue to be discussed is whether or not "Real Newspaper" really says that in the article, whether or not it's a reliable source for quoting Joe Blow, and possibly whether or not Joe Blow is notable enough to (a) have an article or (b) have his quotes included. Arguing over whether or not Joe Blow's statements are scientifically correct is where a lot of people get themselves in to trouble, because that's not particularly relevant except in what the reliable sources have to say about it. Risker (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede the point. After all WP:COATRACK is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * I don't think Risker means what you seem to think she means here. This is not an excuse to create coatracks, but it means that we don't get to exclude quotes from newspapers because they are not scientific journals.  Horologium  (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to add my two cents, to say that the above comment is probably the most important comment in this entire proceeding. 100% right. you don't get to exclude newspaper articles just because they're not scientific journal articles. in fact, you don't get to exclude anything, just because it is not a particular thing. the people who keep deleting others' contributions with zero discussion, have consistently done just that, claiming that they alone have the right to decide what is acceptable. quite simply, they do not, and they are totally wrong. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Horologium, I think you've got me right. Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles. Arguing about whether or not any opinions on science in those articles is "scientifically sound", and including those arguments in the article by using sources that do not directly discuss the subject of the article, is what makes a coatrack. Now, maybe it's just me, but I suspect if those with scientific expertise were to focus their "is it good science" arguments to the pages that really are focused on the science, they'd probably find this entire topic area to be much less stressful. It has to be exhausting to continue the same arguments page after page after page, especially when it's unrelated to the actual content of the page. Risker (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to assume that you simply don't recognize the tone of your last two sentences and that it isn't deliberate. Presuming to tell others how they must feel is deeply patronizing. I'll take that as my cue to exit stage right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like people don't realise that scholarly sources exist for topics that aren't science. Arguments keep popping up along the lines of "use peer reviewed sources for science, but not for the stuff that's not science". My social norms are those of science, and yet even I can see that scholarly study and peer review are not solely the purview of the sciences. High quality sources are more useful that crappy sources. That's not discipline specific. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker, are you really saying that factual accuracy isn't important, that it's OK to mislead readers if we're reporting on a source that misleads readers? Your argument here seems to be in direct conflict with your votes on proposed principles 9-11 (and the policies underlying those principles). Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles is simply a red herring. If a newspaper article gets it wrong, we don't use it as a source (at least not without explaining how it got the facts wrong). That's true in science articles. It's true in economics articles. It's especially true in biographies. We hold biographies to an especially high standard because of the potential damage that inaccurate reporting can have on a person's reputation. And yet, you're arguing that factual accuracy matters less in a biography than in a science article? I'm sorry Risker, but you couldn't be more wrong. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Perhaps this is the real heart of the problem: a failure to understand each other. Guettarda, if Reference A quotes Person B as saying "I believe the evidence shows C", then the only thing to argue about is whether or not Reference A got the quote right. There's no place for arguing about what the evidence really shows, because it is irrelevant to Person B's quote. If you can find Reference D that specifically says "Person B got it wrong" (and yes, it needs to say "Person B") then Reference D has a place in the article as long as Reference A (the actual quote) is in the article. At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article. I'd give one of the examples I'm aware of where a person has made a public, quoted statement about climate change that is completely non-notable, but given the behaviour I've seen in this topic area, I'm too concerned that the next edit war would be to try and put it in to that BLP. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Editorial decisions are not made in a vacuum. The scientific accuracy of quotes made can weigh on the whether quotes are deemed worthy of inclusion or are just serving as a coatrack. In terms of the reliability of the source, Risker, you're right that the only standard for the reliability is whether the quote is accurate. But relevance is measured not against reliability but rather editorial purpose and "encyclopedicity". Yesterday, I removed a paragraph-long quote from an article about a skeptic that I'm sure was an accurate quote made by the skeptic. It didn't belong in the article because it was cherry-picked from literally thousands of verifiable quotes to state something that was dramatically opposed to scientific reality AND it was not noticed by third-party sources. It was the classic coatrack and the editor who added it I'm sure would have hid behind the argument you're making if he hadn't left the topic area. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And, with respect, SA, you were wrong to remove that paragraph. WP is not censored, and that means that it will include views you consider wrong, or indeed offensive. This was her biography, and if she is notable enough to have one, our readers have a right to read what she says in RS publications (even if uncontradicted in other reliable sources). Of course, our readers also have the right to have accurate information in the article on the e-mail controversy she was commenting on. The findings we report there, arrived at by far more qualified people than her, differ quite sharply from her assessment. We leave it to our readers to make up their minds.
 * Speaking more generally, I note that even now, more than three months into this arbitration, the relevant editors aiming to present the mainstream view in Wikipedia still don't seem to realise how much goodwill they have lost within the community by their BLP editing and sourcing practices. I am for privileging scientific sources where they are available. I generally take a dim view of press sources. I think the Global warming article is a fine FA. But I am dismayed that no one so far here has put their hand up and said "Sorry!" about their BLP editing. Until and unless that happens, I would recommend casting a wider net for BLP topic bans, to encompass any editors who are clearly unrepentant about their BLP editing style. And I would add that this editing style, which seems to be motivated by fear, is self-defeating. No one who wants to get the scientific consensus across clearly to our readers should support it, because it puts the on-Wikipedia proponents of the mainstream consensus in a very poor light indeed.
 * People who feel threatened by dissent make the strength of their own position appear weaker than it is. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. 97% of the people who have any expertise in the matter agree on it. All we need to do is to get that across, and we do. As the saying goes, "Dogs will bark, but the caravan moves on." There is no need to waste time telling the dogs to be quiet. (I am not likening anyone to dogs here, just using the language of the simile.) It is far more profitable to spend that time working together to make the coverage of the scientific consensus even better, clearer, easier to read, easier to understand, better sourced. -- JN 466  12:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
Ludicrous. Unless a third-party has noticed this quote and commented, or it's uniquely suited to illustrate a point that is central to her biography, it's not at all relevant to our encyclopedia any more than the literally thousands of other quotes we could have chosen. Should we also include her directions for making a bottle rocket in her biography ? Of course not. We are entrusted to make editorial decisions for the encyclopedia. WP:BLP is not a green-light to produce an indiscriminate collection of quotes. WP:V is a standard for inclusion: not exclusion. We will continue to exclude irrelevant points or cherry-picked coatracks because that's our role as encyclopedia editors. People who don't understand that shouldn't really be editing, IMHO.ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To bring this back to the proposed decision, Due Weight applies to biographical articles too. It is not by itself a BLP violation to restore due weight to a biography, nor to remove unreferenced or badly referenced peacock terms. Cardamon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bookmarked, thanks Risker. Rule 1 - mehh. I've seen sooo many good IP contributions to science/biomed articles, I just read the changes without pre-judgement. Now if you want to build your name then of course register an account. Rule 2 - correct as far as learning the pillars but lacking in the exhortation to not spew them out ad nauseam as TLA's and instead to support your proposed changes with bottom-up reasoning. It all looks like pretty sound advice and I hope to deploy the link in future. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite good. I assume most regulars here have experience with someone in another venue "explaining" Wikipedia. Some are atrocious, some are decent, but even in the better ones, it is easy to find fault. Knowing this community, I'm sure some can find some fault with some of the points, but only at the margins. While it was specifically targeted at academics, I plan to save it as a useful link. Good advice for most new editors.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good article.  Back to basics, something many of us seem to forget from time to time.  I see Hipocrite is back -- welcome back Hipocrite. Minor4th  01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While it's not a bad introduction (and not surprising, assuming that Magnus Manske is our Magnus Manske) I'm not sure what this has to offer existing editors. It's sort of like saying "there's an edit button on each page' - surely, for anyone editing here for a while, it's as obvious as sunrise. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious, maybe. Easy to forget, definitely; that some only pay lip service to some of the ideas in that article -- absolutely. Reminds me of "The Gods of the Copybook Headings". The second paragraphs of Rules 8 & 9 seem especially worth reviewing: Expertise gives you no privileges; mainsream science is only a part of the beliefs that we cover. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. The issue is how we cover MSS when non-MSS beliefs come into conflict with it, which is, as far as I can tell, a 24/7 problem, which is why we need to rely on the best sources we can find. Guettarda happens to be right on this particular issue, but what she may or may not understand, is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not place any value on accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So we demand that experts play by our rules, which is fair. The problem is that it's a one-way street - even when experts play by our rules, their expertise is accorded basically zero value by the community. I can name a number of editors with real-world expertise who never trumpet it, who keep a low profile, and who plug away civilly, citing sources and improving content. In some cases, the only indication of their real-world expertise is the quality of their contributions. These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. I agree that experts should not demand any special privileges, but it pains me to see how little respect the community returns to those experts who contribute constructively here. Most experts are skilled in communicating their subject matter to laypeople, but that's not the skill set you need here. You need to be able to calmly explain your subject matter to a seemingly endless stream of editors who are deeply and personally vested in an opposing viewpoint. That's why I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas ("controversial" in this case being defined as areas in which a committed Internet-using contingent opposes the current understanding of a topic, not areas which are genuinely scientifically controversial - those are generally surprisingly calm). MastCell Talk 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. And that's true for us all, as I've been saying, ad nauseum for years. I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas. Again, this applies to anybody. Its a systemic problem at Wikipedia, and it doesn't look like it can be fixed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree MastCell, I am not saying this to annoy you and I hope you don't take it that way. :) Experts do get help, but they have to ask for it to receive it. If an expert posts for help on noticeboards such as WP:FRINGE or WP:MED etc they usually get several people who will come to their aid if they are dealing with a problematic editor or editors. A large chunk of the climate change disputes were to do with BLPs and political scandal or lack of scandal, rather than on disputes over what the peer reviewed literature says. One of the main reasons that drew me to recommend that ArbCom take this case was the BLP violations, which had little to do with expertise or science but rather looked like agenda driven editing. I couldn't help but wonder if some of the editors involved were trying to disparage BLPs with the hope that journalists would be influenced by what is written in wikipedia articles, i.e. political campaigning, righting a great wrong etc. I must say on BLP articles overall, it was the "sceptical" editors who were the least problematic, although I did see a couple of BLP articles where the sceptical editors were causing the most problems. Anyway regardless of motives, subjects in BLP articles are real life people, with feelings and families and friends and the community consensus is that BLP policy need to be respected. I am not alone in my concerns; from following comments by uninvolved editors on noticeboards and during the case itself the BLP issue is what has the community most concerned as well as the constant uncivil environment. The community will turn against people regardless of their academic credentials if they do not respect WP:BLP and other policies. I really see people trying to right great wrongs on both sides (sceptical and alarmist) of the various climate change disputes. What is needed, and I hope ArbCom case will achieve this, is an editing environment where people are going to fairly represent what the peer reviewed literature is currently saying, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and where editors will respect WP:BLP.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, things like WP:MED and the fringe theories noticeboard are some of the few things that give me hope that this project is not inevitably doomed to collapse under the weight of its own prominence, which is like a porch light to every mosquito with an axe to grind. I'm very proud of the work that WP:MED does, even though I have a fairly small role in it, and I think that project sets an excellent example of how to be supportive and respectful of experts who make an effort to understand how this place works. But I'm also not under any illusions about how WP:MED, or any such endeavor, would fare if it were subjected to relentless blogosphere-fomented agenda-driven editing, backed by partisan op-eds in major newspapers, heavy funding for contrarian viewpoints, and extensive sockpuppetry. MastCell Talk 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we are not in as much disagreement as I thought. My comment on experts getting help from other noticeboards and projects was a generalised comment, not just limited to climate change. The climate change, topic area is a different kettle of fish, it is long gone beyond the usual solutions unfortunately and sadly fairly or unfairly quite draconian measures are required. Anyway for better or for worse we will soon see what impact this ArbCom case has on the topic area. I have hope that despite the necessary, tears and upset the case will cause to some people affected by the case, ArbCom can contribute to an improvement to the topic area.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight and barely notable views
This brings up a crucial area of dispute, and one where principles should be clarified in the decision. As the PLoS article item 9 states, "When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held." We've seen BLPs and articles on books being used to present fringe views in isolation from the scientific consensus, when the fringe view of the book or person hasn't attracted mainstream rebuttal in a reliable source. Risker's comment above at 06:22, 2 October 2010, proposes "At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article." The problem arises when proponents of political views provide reliably sourced notability to the fringe scientific views, but there's a lack of well sourced scientific opinion on the topic. As seen with the Tim Ball article, mere promotion of fringe views can be seen as sufficient notability. The idea of keeping disputes out of biographies has merit, so that properly sourced balance can be shown without giving undue weight or "equal validity" to fringe views. A similar problem arises with books like The Hockey Stick Illusion. Clarification of how to deal with this tension between syn and weight will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We present fringe views in articles on their proponents. If there are mainstream comments on these fringe views, we present these, too, and every effort should be made to find some. But if there aren't any suitable mainstream RS rebutting the fringe view, then that is just how the cookie crumbles. Where fringe views comment on science topics, these will be wikilinked, and we'll then have to rely on our article on the science topic to communicate to the reader just how far removed from the mainstream the fringe view is. -- JN 466  13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your approach is to ignore WP:WEIGHT and, where applicable, WP:FRINGE in articles on proponents of tiny minority or fringe views, in cases where these minority views have not attracted mainstream attention with particular reference to that proponent. Misleading readers who don't follow links to other articles is not NPOV, and makes such articles particularly prone to coatracking promotion of the fringe views. A similar problem arises with fringe complaints about proponents of mainstream views, these should not be given undue weight in BLPs. If that's how the cookie crumbles, then disputes are likely to continue. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If readers can't be botherd to read linked artciels thats not our fault. We are not misleading them, far from it we are offering them the information they are just not accepting the offer. I would also say that is an applaing and condesending attitude to people who use Wiki. Moreover I find the blatnat interlectual black mail (gives us what we want or we will take our expertise with us) frustating and quite frankly offensive. It sws a battle ground mentality wholey out of keepiing with the priciples that wiki is supposed to be about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Nothing there about "a link to an article covering the majority view will suffice", which seems to be your proposal. Probably better to remove fringe promotion coatracked onto BLPs, keeping it in linked articles about the fringe topic. Each article should be clear in itself without having to follow links to other articles for explanation, that's basic good writing. Slatersteven, it's not the topic of this subsection but I'll note that Wikipedia has always valued expert contributions which comply with policies, making life difficult for expert editors damages article content and damages the primary aim of Wikipedia. Everyone should comply with the five pillars. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, the example I had in mind was what ScienceApologist deleted here. She said it, she said it in a reliable source -- Australian Broadcasting Corporation -- and if those are the views she holds, our readers have a right to know. If a notable politician/book states, in print, the belief that early humans cohabited with dinosaurs, then we don't delete it from the biography/the article on the book because it is a fringe view. We may delete it for other reasons, but not for that one. -- JN 466  18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good example, as that's Nova presenting an inaccurate attack on living persons: if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the article on the linked controversy in the context of other views. However, as SA notes, this was being used as a coatrack. Her views on this don't appear to be particularly notable or significant – she's not a topic expert. She does clearly have fringe views on the science of climate change, and the article shows these views without being clear that they're minority views, so improvement needed. . dave souza, talk 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, we have thousands of BLPs mentioning the personal views of the BLP subjects. I might agree that in this BLP her views on climate change formed perhaps an excessively large part of the article overall. However, I reject the view that we must not cover a BLP subject's fringe views in their biography, or that we have to flit from BLP to BLP to "correct" BLP subjects' erroneous views with the mainstream scientific viewpoint. These are biographies: they are about people, including their views, some of which may be smart, and some of which may be misguided. We don't start arguing with them in their biographies. -- JN 466  19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, you should really work to build consensus to change our sourcing policy. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have more work to do there than me. If Chap X says, I believe God made the Earth on Friday the 22nd of July 4352 BC, you don't go and cite Darwin to refute him, or even worse, cite the blog of a geologist who can't stand Chap X. -- JN 466  19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If Chap X is a creationist who has verifiably written or said tens of thousands of words and in a one thousand word biography you cite a one hundred work paragraph about his comments about a bunch of emails written by the NCSE, you better believe "coatrack" is going to be called and unless there is verifiably notice of that particular paragraph or sentiment, the editorially-sound decision is probably going to be to excise it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's also coatracking. We can't dedicate 1/4 of an article to something someone said that's pretty peripheral to their career. Read the article as it was before SA deleted that para and you'd think that the most notable thing Nova did was open on the email issue. When, in fact, that only reason anyone cares about her opinion is because she is known (to some extent) as a science writer. But you see this with every "climate skeptic" - their articles are basically used to promote a fringe view. Some people (Tim Ball, PZ Myers) are primarily known for their views (though you could also argue that Myers is notable in the way he has used blogging to present those views), and much less for their professional achievements. For others, like Nova or Judith Curry, their primary notability is for their professional achievements, and their opining is less notable, but subject to much more buz in the blogosphere. So dedicating such a large chunk of their bio to a topic like that is unbalancing, and creates a distorted view of them. And creates problems both of WP:WEIGHT and, in the case of living people, WP:BLP. (Note that this is not the same as people like Singer and Seitz, where substantial scholarly coverage has been dedicated to their "contrarian" positions. This is something that's supported by "a [as in one] reliable source".) Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. I have already conceded that perhaps too large a part of her bio was about her climate change views. When I looked at the diff, it was less apparent. -- JN 466  19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)However, sometimes a very minor part of an individuals career may be that on which their notability hangs - my non science example is A. E. Housman, a contemporary authority on writers of antiquity and in a couple of cases still the major source - and who published in his lifetime two fairly slim volumes of poetry. Regardless of the mans academic achievements and standing, the person is best recognised as the author of A Shropshire Lad, and Last Poems. It is not always undue to concentrate on one or two minor aspects of a persons entire output, because it is what is notable (via reliable third party sources) that determines the presentation of the article on a subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, LHvU. Reliable third party sources, and indeed Vaughan Williams, testify to the notability of Housman's poetry. No third party source seems to have commented on Nova's fringe views about mainstream scientists whose emails she misinterprets, so her comments cannot be said to be significant to her bio – at most, they might be cited in the article on the topic as an example of fringe views. Having them in her bio is purely a coatrack to show these views divorced from mainstream views on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If she is a science reporter then surley her views on a scientific matter are notable? Its whats shes paid to talk about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Her views could potentially be significant to the scientific matter topic, in which case they might appear in the article on the scientific topic, where they would be given due weight in the context of other views on the subject. However, we'd need a secondary source to show that the views are significant to herself. Cherrypicking her views on another topic is both coatracking to present that topic without mainstream context, and original research in choosing which parts of her output are significant to her bio. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary source that refers to her article in The Drum, which the deleted quote was taken from: . Other secondary sources referring to her climate change activism: (which also puts her Internet activism in context, in relation to the scientific consensus), . The majority of news references to her refer to her views on climate change. -- JN  466  14:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing specific there about the subject of the section that was removed, the first gives her a passing mention in an article about journalistic standards at ABC, the others seem to be opinion pieces in The Australian and other promoters of fringe views, including blogs, putting the viewpoint that she expresses views on climate change. That's more than covered in the current bio, independent third party sources would be better. For weight, we should have a source noting the mainstream view of any content in her bio, or it becomes a coatrack and a POV fork. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a source discussing the mainstream view in the context of her views then fine. However it would generally be inappropriate to note the mainstream view based on unrelated reliable sources which don't concern her or her views Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nil Einne here. -- JN 466  17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why showing her fringe views of a topic automatically becomes a coatrack POV fork in the absence of a mainstream source that specifically mentions her views, unless there's a generic a statement making it clear that hers are minority views in terms of science, as suggested above by Risker. Which means that the best way to deal with it may be a brief statement that she disagrees with mainstream views shown at [link]. Unless the arbiters set a principle for such cases, these arguments will continue. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that these arguments will continue. I don't think we really disagree that much at heart though -- it is just a question of weighting. To me, in a BLP, it matters more that we describe the person, including their views. I see that as a description of the person, not the things they are talking about. So if we mention in a BLP that someone believes in UFOs, or ancient astronaut theories, or that homosexuals are of the devil, I don't see the need to add that the mainstream consensus is that there aren't any UFOs, or ancient astronauts, etc., unless reliable sources have bothered to comment. With more notable commentators (I mean the BLP subjects), such sources will always be available; even with Nova one of the articles I found would provide enough material to locate her in relation to the scientific mainstream. But where BLP subjects' views haven't elicited third-party comment, I am happy to leave them unanswered, as otherwise we as Wikipedians are inserting ourselves, starting a debate in a BLP that has not taken place in reliable sources.
 * None of what I have said here should be read to apply to BLP subjects' self-published sources. In other words, if the BLP subject writes something uncomplimentary about another living person in a self-published source, then we should not normally reproduce it, per WP:SPS. In Nova's case though, her article was reliably published, which makes it fair game for inclusion. And yes, you can then still have a talk page discussion about whether it is due weight or not to include it. -- JN 466  20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused here by what's were discussing. But I think I largely agree with Jayen466. Note in particular if someone's views are primarily coming self published sources then this isn't a good thing either even if these aren't concerning living people. These should be kept to a minimum if used at all. It's very easy to cherry pick things someone once said somewhere to make them look stupid and this is a constant problem on BLPs.
 * Now if their views have received significant coverage in other reliable sources it's not generally our place to exclude them simply because some may feel the reliable source failed to make it clear their views are in a minority. It can actually be a problem with particularly notable people too even when we do restrict ourselves to things covered in other sources that it's easy to cherry pick things to make them look bad so I'm not suggesting every single thing they've ever said that has been covered belongs in the article. However the primary considerations should be things like how much coverage did these receive, particularly long after they were said if that's possible, are these relevant to their notability etc, not whether there has been sufficient comparison to the mainstream.
 * As Jayen466 has said, it's also usually unnecessary to give undue emphasis to how their views are not in the mainstream, ultimately we have to give the reader a bit of credit an expect them to understand that in an article on a person, it isn't going to go in to depth about how their views compare to the mainstream. It may of course be appropriate to mention in some cases although I think the general coverage of the article would often be sufficient, it's not necessary to explain how every single one of their views aren't mainstream if it's clear their views are generally not in the mainstream.
 * In any case, I find it hard to believe this is really going to be much of a problem in the climate change area. Most coverage tends to be along the lines of how a climate change sceptic says the mainstream is wrong or whatever.
 * There is IMHO a bigger problem with people with fringe or pseudoscientific views in areas unrelated to climate change where no one has really paid much attention to whatever this person is saying but it happened to get picked up by some reliable source without much commentary and where it's obscure enough that it will be difficult for the reader to understand how their views fit in to the mainstream even if we had articles (which we probably don't).
 * P.S. I perhaps should emphasise since I'm not sure if my earlier point was clear enough that if another source hasn't said someone's view is not mainstream for us to say their view isn't mainstream as shown in article wikilink would almost definitely be a case of WP:Syn and is extremely bad practice in a WP:BLP.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The specific example being cited was being used to replicate a person's fringe views without any third party source or analysis. The article thus became a platform for repetition of fringe views without the context required by weight. As stated at the top, Risker suggested a reasonable approach to such issues. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this question is something on which the Committee has demonstrated its competence and wisdom in the past. In view of the amount of confusion here, would the arbitrators think it worthwhile to adopt Risker's suggestion and refine it into a principle in this case? The issue of minor biographies being used to propagate disputed material is one on which many editors have expressed concern. --TS 11:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to describe a person's views in encyclopedic detail without resorting to coatracks and quote mines. Not every opinion a person offers is necessarily relevant to their biography. These are pretty standard editorial discussion points. No one is arguing that we should somehow prevent readers from knowing the notable positions of notable persons. It is reasonable, however, to sometimes drastically edit or even cull commentary that lack prominence with respect to the biographical subject. I've been sensing a lot in these discussions about BLPs a sort of knee-jerk response on the part of some editors who argue that removing verified prose or quotes is somehow automatically a violation of Wikipedia standards. This attitude is extremely unhelpful. The meat and potatoes of this collaboration is working out how best to summarize, paraphrase, strategically quote, and encyclopedicly cover topics. If the attitude shifts to one of, "you can't remove anything that is verifiable" we cease becoming a collaborative encyclopedia and instead become an arbitrary open source data dump. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and with Nil Einne's point above about cherry-picking. I am just concerned that it seems we are basing our selection of which quotes to expunge on whether a BLP subject's view is fringe or mainstream. That should really not feature in our deliberations. -- JN 466  12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon, the demarcation of a biographical subject's views has to be a consideration sometimes. WP:FRINGE shares interstitial space with WP:UNDUE and WP:GNG. To that end, it is entirely appropriate to consider the content of the comment when deciding how to handle it. I'm not saying we censor fringe views preferentially or punitively. All I'm saying is that when a fringe advocate takes it upon themselves to make full-throated advocacy of a certain idea and is used in the media as a strawman stand-in for an opinion that is absent among experts, Wikipedia shouldn't be including significant amounts of their unilluminated commentary. Paraphrasing, judicious quoting, and sourced analysis is far more useful and encyclopedic than a long quote with dozens of factual claims of dubious significance. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms I do agree what was removed was problematic. Firstly it's not so much a science issue here. But it is a BLP one to some extent as although she didn't refer to anyone by name the people she is referring to is clear to anyone familiar with the case and is a small number of people. Second it's rather long and out of proportion to the article as a whole. Finally and the biggest problem here is there's little evidence of the notability of her views. Her views are taken direct from her opinion piece. While  does mention the story, it doesn't really mention her views at all and not what we were quoting. (It also wasn't used as a source at the time.) In other words, there's no real reason why we should quote what we did instead of "The House of Commons committee was surely supposed to be protecting the citizens......." or anything else she said in that piece.
 * In other words this specific issue actually had BLP issues both ways.
 * In case there is any confusion here I should clarify here that when I said we need coverage of someones views in reliable secondary sources, I meant just that. I didn't mean their views were in opinion piece or whatever, even if that piece happens to be published in a reliable secondary source. From my POV, when several sources are covering someones views it's often appropriate for us to as well. Even more so if these sources are primarily covering these views as opposed to just quoting a bunch of different views from different people (or from that person), which would usually imply these specific views on have achieved a high amount of prominence for whatever reason. Most of the time, this coverage will include some criticism of these views as well, in fact that's often the reason someones views receive so much prominence and it will usually be appropriate to include this criticism (although how much is usually a tricky issue). Of course this doesn't mean we quote everything someone has said that's been covered, that clearly doesn't work for say Barack Obama or Ann Coulter. Or even Bowe Bergdahl (these was plenty of coverage of the tape released after he was captured, as I argued in the talk page we could probably include the whole tape).
 * Anyway I'm starting to repeat myself and think I've explained myself well enough and this is somewhat getting off topic anyway so I'll leave it at that.
 * I'll just make one final comment on the general issue and perhaps my most important point and message to arbcom. If arbcom is seriously considering proposing that we analyse a persons views and even if no source says their views aren't mainstream, if we feel they aren't, we note it and refer them to the article on the mainstream view this would cause grave concern to me as I've already expressed and I think other BLP editors. I would suggest instead great guidance on when to include views. It would IMO be far better to exclude someone's views then an ORry mention they aren't mainstream without sources.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made valid points here. I like your idea of not quoting RS-published opinion pieces in the author's BLPs, unless the views expressed have actually been discussed by third-party RS; it fits with the particular scenario we are dealing with here. You're quite right about the OR-ish, cherry-picking aspect of it, which is not unlike a Wikipedian picking primary source quotes from a writer's output according to their own preferences/pet hates. On the other hand, I am not sure this idea would fly if we brought it up, say, on the WP:IRS talk page. What do you think? We could give it a try. -- JN 466  17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse / Cla
Worth noting: William M. Connolley (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Rlevse has withdrawn all of his votes on this case, and has not participated in any discussions about it since having done so, it's not, really. Risker (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if he hadn't withdrawn, giving out a barnstar is hardly evidence of bias. Jehochman Talk 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to talk about actions that give the perception of bias, I think ArbCom as a whole appointing Lar's wingman as an Oversighter during the case while there were proposals for sanctions and the PD had not begun to be published was far worse than handing out a barnstar. It certainly suggested that ArbCom had little intention to do anything about Lar's approach to "uninvolved" status.  As an outsider, it is demoralising to see that an admin can comment on content issues, admin with a stated agenda, taunt editors and comment uncivily, and nothing substantial is done and his wingman gets a promotion in the fact of very substantial opposition at the disregarded election.  ArbCom, this is a prime example of acting in a way that invites criticism and which damages your reputation.  EdChem (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-issue I think even considering Risker's comment, as Rlevse has given out those barnstars to Guettarda, Collect, MONGO, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, myself, The Wordsmith, Jehochman, LessHeardvanU, Dragons flight, Lar and MastCell, all of whom have had varying levels of involvement with this case. All that Rlevse's daily barnstar is him recognizing someone's good work; that does not mean that he is incapable of voting for their sanction. Though a single prior positive experience might of course lead someone to vote against a sanction, by that logic we would likely have to disqualify a good portion of arbitrators in every case involving administrators or experienced users. EdChem, I believe that your concerns about LHvU's appointment as an overisghter is unfounded and that you should have contacted ArbCom far prior (when indeed they were inviting public comment on these matters) if you wished to complain about his appointment. Indeed, as ArbCom is not considering even a finding of fact in this case, I think it is fair to say that they have not seen any behavior that would necessitate not appointing LHvU as an oversighter. NW ( Talk ) 15:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I should point out that Lar remains on the functionary mailing lists, even though he is not currently exercising CU privileges given his ombudsman duties, during this case also. I am so aware, of course, because I am on the same mailing lists. And his "wingman". Naturally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NW, I did express a view in the discussion at WT:ACN that the LHvU evidence should be considered before ArbCom put him forward. That view was ignored.  As were the election results.  Indeed, if LHvU respected community perspectives he would not have stood in the appointment phase that replaced the election.  You fail to notice that at the time the appointment was made, all we had was the workshop and no PD, so ArbCom formally was considering whether to make a finding.  Anyone who watches ArbCom has seen actions taken without apparently considering what appears appropriate, which I believe is unwise on their part. The handling of the "uninvolved" issue by ArbCom has, to date, been terrible and I think WMC is alluding here to part of the reason why - a lack of genuine objectivity.  I am genuinely amazed that ArbCom doesn't apparently recognise Lar's gaming of WP:UNINVOLVED and how it made the climate change area worse, and LHvU playing wingman didn't help.  EdChem (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, I agree with you that Arbcom has failed to adequately address the "involved arbitrator" issue and/or Lar's behavior. However, I don't understand your "wingman" description of LHVU. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotty, do you mean "inolved arbitrator" or "involved administrator"? On the "wingman", see the post below.  EdChem (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant "involved adminstrator." Not my first switched-word goof. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool... I just thought it should be clarified. :) EdChem (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to note here that WikiProject Military History is quite large and has been successful in producing quality content. Quite a few of the editors under discussion here and quite a few Arbitrators are (senior) members. There is nothing wrong with this association. This can lead to perceptions of bias, because most of the editors under discussion here who are members, are on the side of the sceptics (ChrisO being the exception that proves the rule). Nothing surprising here, because sceptics tend to have more of an interest in non-scientific topics and Military History being so large, will attract editors with that background. Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While I can be as paranoid as anyone when it comes to arbcomm kremlinology, this is no big deal. See User_talk:Guettarda, which, if memory serves me, was a day or two after he withdrew from the case. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I take particular exception to the characterization of LessHeard VanU as anybody's wing man. To the best of my knowledge the sole reason for his engagement in the probation and his comments on subsequent controversies is because I invited him to handle a problem in the probation. He and Lar seldom express an opinion with which I generally agree, but that is no reason to doubt their commitment to Wikipedia. If he sometimes agrees with Lar, that may be evidence that Lar can be very persuasive and often addresses valid or at least arguable points (although of course I think he's wrong most of the time). Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also puzzled by that "wing man" description. Both may agree on substance, but their style and method of communication is totally different. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "wingman", it is my impression that LHvU has often appeared to support Lar in GS/CC/RE requests. Looking at Archive 10 shows several examples.  However, I recognise that the term may be taken as offensive and may imply collusion, which I did not intend.  Consequently, I will discontinue using it and state publicly to LHvU that it was not my intention to imply he was doing anything underhand, rather that his actions were having the effect of facilitating the problem of Lar "owning" the area.  EdChem (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but the issue pertaining to Lar had been somewhat narrowed to battlefield conduct, labeling, and other behavior that inflamed rather than calmed tensions in the area, and which showed bias. I don't think it's useful to open up a hornet's nest that diverts attention from that primary issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No issues on my part - I disagree with the facts, but don't begrudge someone else's impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well WMC, I find it really interesting that you brought this up here since it was already discussed on your talk page - it was brought up by Petri Krohn and refuted by Atren less than a month ago. Presumably you are well aware of this since you are very meticulous about deleting content on your talk page that you disagree with. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was even less sane than your usual: how could something that occurred today have been discussed a month ago? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For these and for other flagrantly unhelpful comments, both Thegoodlocust and William M. Connolley are banned from this and the other case pages for 3 days. AGK   00:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I can see that there is any evidence that Rlevse gives out the the award he does for anything other than to show his appreciation for an editor's article work.--MONGO 23:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but when one has created over 40 articles, made nearly 10,000 contributions including a GA, deleted nearly 1000 pages and blocked several spam/abusive accounts with little criticism of ones article contributions or admin actions and one has never been given a barnstar one wonders whether one has been sucking the right members doing the right things. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on who you work with, a lot of people consider a "thank you" or a "good call" to be an appropriate reward, or consider barnstars to be too ostenatious, for example. I tend to appreciate them, as tangible (well, about as tangible as Wiki-work gets) "rewards". I tend to agree that being a (editor/administrator/checkuser/oversight/arbitrator, pick one or more) is a largely thankless job, "Contributing to the sum of human knowledge" is a lofty goal, but it's.. let's just say it's something that waxes and wanes at times. :) SirFozzie (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I didn't give a monkey's arse to barnstars until I was put in remedy 3 of this arbcase and then I began wondering if anything I had done mattered or if everything boiled down to a couple of invcivil comments in wikipedia namespace. Olap the Ogre (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something but there seem to be like 15 27 refs in the part about you. These only cover 2 comments? Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Context. I belive that my comments about Lar and JohnWBarber can be easily backed up by diffs. Please feel free to quiz me on any of my comments and I will reply. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not an arbitrator nor do I have any wish to be one, I have to decline. I do admit I trust the arbitrators more then I trust someone's judgement of their own contributions (and yes as difficult as it would be that should include mine if it ever comes to it), particularly since from glancing at the comments, I can see why they are likely to be problematic in a charged situation, regardless of whether your view of Lar and JohnWBarber is accurate (and I did see more then two).
 * Also I think it's been established in this discussion that quite a few people who have received barnstars, including Cla68 who's barnstar started this, are part of the proposed decision. This suggests to me that whether or not one's good work has received a barnstar doesn't change whether arbitrators choose to sanction based on the evidence they see of the not so good work, which I would say is a good thing. In other words while people appreciate good work, and it may go some way in reducing the willingness to sanction editors for poor behaviour, ultimately a line will be drawn somewhere.
 * I haven't BTW seen any disagreement that you've done plenty of good work, which is why it is unfortunate to see you are leaving. Now you may disagree that your behaviour in the other instances that arbcom has specifically addressed was poor, that's obviously your right, but I don't think it helps this case (or for that matter you) at all to suggest it was only two comments.
 * Anyway I won't comment on this further here since I do understand it's necessary to keep commentary in this page down. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your summary. If a topic ban for a few comments over an immense case is the way we are going then I do not wish to be a part of wikipedia anymore, as you know I have already given up the mop. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A few comments on what is a rather surreal section, even for this case.
 * (1) Look at the wording and listing at User:Rlevse/Today/Archive. Rlevse has been continuing a system started by User:Phaedriel, so trying to read anything more into these barnstars is frankly bizarre (for the record, I was given one on 26 December 2008).
 * (2) I'm more concerned that people really are not taking on board the "casting aspersions" principle in this case. The brief and cryptic comment by WMC that started this section is a classic example of casting aspersions, as is the "wingman" comment by EdChem. While these may be isolated incidents, if either of these users routinely make speculative comments like this, they should consider why they do that and whether making such comments does more harm than good.
 * (3) To explain further, in EdChem's case, I am (as an arbitrator) more aware than maybe some of the current case participants are of a history of him (EdChem) being critical (sometimes long after the case in question) of ArbCom decisions and actions (e.g. the Hoffman case and the Randy in Boise suppression incident - in both those cases I disagree strongly with his views on the matters). I'm also aware of a history of him (EdChem) arriving at discussions and changing the topic of that discussion to some criticism of a past ArbCom action (in this case, coming into a thread about Rlevse and Cla68 and changing the subject to Lar and LessHeard vanU). If EdChem wants to raise such concerns, he should either do so separately, or at the time, and should not attempt to change the topic of existing discussions, or use existing ArbCom cases as a means to criticise past decisions and actions.
 * (4) Regarding the CU/OS appointments, as far as I can see, EdChem failed to submit any specific objections - the most I can find is his general comment at WT:AC/N on 12:20, 19 July 2010, which he should have re-submitted to ArbCom when the list of candidates was published in August, but as far as I can tell he did not. This particularly galls me because I spent a lot of time gathering all the comments that were received from the community, and would have included EdChem's comments if he had submitted them at the time we were calling for comments.
 * To be clear, those who follow more than one arbitration case (as EdChem has done) often provide cogent and valid criticisms of the overall arbitration system (as well as, IMO, getting it wrong sometimes as well), but there is a time and place for such criticism, and jumping into a thread like this is neither the right time nor the right place. And while I am aware that WMC has been banned from the case pages, I think he should be allowed the opportunity to retract his comment that started this (in a similar fashion to how EdChem has clarified his initial comments with his 16:56, 2 October 2010 comment). From where I'm sitting, WMC's initial post in this section looks like an attempt to distract from the real issues in this case, and given the length of my reply here, he has been at least partially successful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)