Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of FoFs1

Proposed findings of fact
'''If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Finding of fact" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the finding of fact numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please do not discuss remedies here.''' Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

Recent article ratings and creations

 * Originally titled 'Articles rating prior to all this and new ones that have become?'. Moved here as a request for an extended summary of the topic area and its recent history. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my understanding is that the articles in the area of Climate change were of great pride and great ratings. I don't know the articles myself and I assume others are in the same place as I am so here's a request/question? How about listing all the CC articles that were written as GA or above or presented on the main page that have now gotten demoted or should be since all of this broke out? I think it would also be helpful if all the new articles written in the area of CC be listed, say since the first of the year, esp. BLP's? I think maybe looking at all the articles under dispute now or prior, during this 8 month  period should show clearly what has changed during this time. If someone(s) who is active in this area would be kind enough to put together a list like what I'm suggesting, then maybe everyone can see the activities more clearly, esp. those who do not edit in this area. We can than get a clear view of the editing practices. I mean there are claims of coatrack, BLP vios, and everything under the sun. Wouldn't it be easier to see all of this by having a list of articles, both new and old, to compare? Just a suggestion that may help everyone look easier at what has happened with a listing to make the comparisons. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do any of the ratings value the WP rules and policies as factors? Such as WP:NPOV?  Do they examine editor interaction?  Do they examine any factors other than "This is what we know is correct and WP follows it"?  Collect (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The ones I've seen looked at the articles to see if they contained major errors. The factual accuracy is of course primary in any third-party evaluation of an encyclopedia article on a scientific subject. --TS 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If they followed NPOV, would the quality of the articles be actually diminished? Seems that "factual accuracy" is another phrase for "SPOV"? Collect (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No that's not the case. Other policies and guidelines also have to be followed like undue weight, reliable sources and so on.  That's how articles are built, I know you know this so what am I missing in your question?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether SPOV has any value at all - some editors assert that because SPOV has apparently been followed in some articles that that is the reason the articles get good outside ratings - my point is that a fair outside rating would not require SPOV to dominate - that NPOV is a valid criterion for articles.  Is that sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is this discussion? Is it in the workshop of this case or somewhere else?  Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I didn't watch the evidence or the workshop pages.  I only started watching when this PD was announced as posted.  Thanks for your patents, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) I suggest you read the original requests for arbitration, the evidence pages etc. "SPOV" has been mentioned many times therein, and is repeatedly referred to throughout all of this. My proposed list of princioples also refers to it, and should be easy to find. The arbs have also had to wade through this, and, I trust, recognize the nonnegotiability often affirmed by the committee, and by JW. Collect (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

F2: Nature and extent of dispute
Everything here is true and good, but there is one major point that I believe has been missed. The PD notes that the climate change topic area has become "polarizing and embittered" but does not explore this in sufficient depth. The core problem is that the topic area is entirely dominated by extremist editors. On both sides of the dispute, there are a number of editors who are entirely convinced of their own correctness, entirely unable to see (or admit) any merit in their opponent's viewpoints, entirely prepared to push wikipedia rules and conventions to breaking point and beyond, and entirely prepared to thoughtlessly back each other up. Most of them have become experts in pushing the boundaries just as far as possible, but no further. The end results are long-term campaigns of intimidation waged by both sides that nevertheless are very difficult to prove using contextless diffs. This conflict has been going on for so long and has been of such intensity that it has frightened off nearly all moderate editors. Because this PD fails to recognize that this is the situation, it naturally fails to deal with it. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. There are some editors on all sides who don't reflexively support the bad actors in their own camp and sometimes even criticize them, but there's a large proportion who act in just the way you describe. I think the draft encourages admins working through Arbitration Enforcement to crack down on editors who do step over the line (and a lot of those who don't normally step over the line occasionally do -- sometimes they can't help themselves and sometimes the line is vague, so an admin with a stricter view might catch them). I suspect the draft-writers think this course is the least drama-inducing way to deal with the problem. I think we're going to see constant appeals from AE actions to AN/I and an explosion of drama. I don't know whether that will result in blocks and other sanctions being upheld or reversed or weakened. I don't know whether enough wise admins will be active in this so that their actions will be more likely to be upheld. ArbCom, being the most insulated from the consensus that a partisan faction can help form, should sanction more editors where we've already provided good evidence about their bad behavior and prevent a lot of time-wasting drama that this draft (if implemented) would cause over the next several months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this wording. "Strongly held competing views" implies an equivalence between the consensus driven, reasoned scientific opinion on climate change on one side and the shrill, minority dissent from the denial fringe. There is no such equivalence. This implication is flat out wrong. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

F4: Disputes regarding administrator involvement
The committee made a good start with a proposed finding that there has been a dispute regarding the status of Lar and Stephan Schulz. I see proposed principle 15 and 16 addressing the policy. I see proposed enforcement 2 defining the term "uninvolved". This wording is slightly, but not materially different than the current wording. I do not see a clear position from the committee regarding the dispute. Based upon the proposed definition of uninvolved administrator, should Lar or Stephan or both be considered involved or uninvolved. Without guidance from the committee, I suspect editors on both sides of that dispute will simply reiterate their positions.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is kind of what I was thrusting at in my section above. In my opinion, the lack of any meaningful definition of admin involvement contributed more to the degeneration of the CC community sanction more than any other factor. Requesting clarification on the status of Lar and Stephan is reasonable, as is requesting that a rules lawyer-proof definition of "uninvolved" be handed down. I agree with SPhilbrick that without firm guidelines set, editors on both sides will just dig in their heels and admins will attempt to get away with anything possible against their "opponents" that wouldn't lead to an immediate revocation of the bit. Also agree with Wikidemon below that some judgment about Lar, Stephan, and others is required, even if it's simply an "Admins X, Y, and Z have acted unimpeachably" for the reasons outlined below. —  east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no regard paid to the serious nature of admins involvement in the cc area. Simply a weak wishy washy statement that as I read it allows Lar to continue as uninvolved without stating this and does not allow Stephan Schulz to act as uninvolved despite the equal statement in the arbcom ase. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed decision makes no mention of the Lar RfC in which numerous editors expressed reservations about Lar's conduct. Some parts of the PD can be construed as applying to him, but without specific guidance it is, like much of this PD, simply of no value whatever. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) The Committee mentions the dispute but does not seem to resolve the issue. Is this because the Committee feels that no administrator acted in a way that violates the principle, or is there some other reason why the Committee does not wish to rule on past events here?  It would also be helpful to address the question of when the appearance of involvement (e.g. an ongoing dispute with an editor, a perception of bias against the editor, etc.) suggests that an administrator step aside, even if they feel they have been entirely fair, under the "best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved" provision [emphasis added]. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree this issue needs clarification and the Committee should name names and give better guidelines for determining "involvement" -- it should also be kept in mind that there is a scarcity of admin participation in enforcement in this area, and every admin that has been participating is under a cloud of allegations of being "involved."   If every one is eliminated as being involved because one faction or the other baits an admin's involvement, there will be no one to enforce anything in this topic area.  Minor4th  16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that the committee gave a careful reading to the Workshop and Evidence pages, much less background material like the Lar RfC. (Whether they'll even read the comments here is open to question.) So it's likely not so much failing to address as simply being unaware. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any direct indication that the committee "gave a careful reading" to the 400K/month my talk page gets either. Much of that content is your faction caviling, bemoaning, quibbling, arguing, berating, and baiting me. Occasionally I rise to the bait, but I nevertheless remain uninvolved despite your many efforts, and despite the chilling effect that 8 months of your abuse has had on my enjoyment of this project. I suspect there are not many admins that would put up with you lot for as long as I have. I don't think the committee is unaware of the problems your faction causes. I just think they are unwilling to deal with them unless prodded harder. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Lar just said, especially the description of the longstanding abuse of him on his talk page. Except the unless prodded harder. I'm not sure, but I doubt much said here makes much difference. (I comment here in the off chance that it might.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Lar gave wide latitude on his talk page for people to let off steam and engage in frank discussion? Going from that to asking us to enter his talk page into evidence seems wrong somehow. Lar could have asked people to leave his talk page at any time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're making his invitation look like a blanket approval of anything that was said. Lar doesn't have the power to revoke WP:NPA and other policies. Nor can attacks on Lar on his talk page be entirely excused by an invitation to "let off steam and engage in frank discussion" because there's a reasonable limit to that, although any evidence of personal attacks from that talk page would have to be seen in light of the invitation, and the attacks would have to be pretty egregious. At a time when Lar was getting hit from many editors at once, it's unreasonable to say "Lar could have asked people to leave his talk page at any time." That response of yours, Carcharoth, lacks a certain empathy. Lar is not required to have made the best decisions at all times in order to have been made the victim. Nor is having an open attitude toward talk page comments from people antagonistic to him, or wading into the climate-change swamp as an admin the equivalent of someone victimized at 2 a.m. while trying to buy crack on a street corner known for drug dealing. In other words, avoid blaming the victim and don't give a free pass to the many victimizers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. I think the reality is more complex, to say the least. MastCell Talk 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not what JWB said. We are none of us perfect, and that includes me, so it's certainly not uniform but really, anyone that is looking for factional behavior need look no farther than my talk page. I got piled on, time and time again. Sometimes maybe I had it coming, but many times, I didn't. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw this: I'm not sure about characterizing Lar as a victim and anyone critical of Lar as an aggressor. MastCell, don't caricature what I'm saying. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also welcome a clarification of which admins were, or are, and to what degree, considered involved either by previous content editing of CC related articles or by a relationship with an editor that was beyond that of being involved in an administrative capacity. I would gently remind everyone that a couple of admins who have long been involved in the probation enforcement, but have not been mentioned either in the PD or this talkpage have edited CC articles previously; and whose uninvolvement should be verified. I would further desire a confirmation that accusations of involvement need to be swiftly resolved by uninvolved third parties in good standing, and further aspersions - especially by those who potentially benefit by the withdrawal of a conflicted admin - be dealt with as a matter of enforcement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposal attempts to create a chilling effect -- one dare not criticize an admin's actions for fear of sanction. This is not to say that arbcom wouldn't implement it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong allegations need strong evidence; the chilling effect of claiming bias or involvement upon admins should also not be discounted. Those admins found routinely abusing their flags can be desysopped and blocked, even - even simple incompetence is grounds for removing either the buttons or the admin from the contested area. Editors found to be using unfounded aspersions, particularly in respect of admins who may have acted with them previously, may likewise be sanctioned. As far as evidence is concerned, put up or shut up might be the rule - and accept the findings of a third party. Misunderstandings is fine, competence needs addressing, and abuse of process will result in actions being taken - for all involved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly unclear why the simple case asking for a ruling about StS and Lar hasn't been dealt with explicitly. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not speaking for the Committee, but personally - I see the complaints about Lar and to a lesser degree Stephan Schulz as being less about them being "involved" in the classic sense and more about dissatisfaction with their decisions by certain parties. However, I also know that despite perfectly good intentions, dealing with a contentious area for too long can lead to burnout and cause admins to prejudge cases based on past history.  That's certainly not the fault of the admins who are often hounded and generally treated poorly when trying to work in these areas and likely have good cause for their biases.  The problem could probably be fixed by tossing out all the editors and admins working in the area and getting a whole new group of people involved while the others take a much needed break - obviously, not likely to happen.  So when dealing with an imperfect solution here, perhaps moving things to WP:AE rather than off on it's own board will mean a wider range of admins reviewing situations that come up. Shell   babelfish 11:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Shell, if that's the way you see it, then you really haven't gotten it. Not even kinda. Lar's response to a comment of Dave souza's was to bring up Dave's vote in Lar's Steward reconfirmation. Lar's response to my comment on his mass deletion of unsourced BLPs was to attack me as a member of an "ID and AGW cabal". Lar's constantly seeks to attack and belittle what he calls the "AGW cabal" or "science club" or one of a host of demeaning names. He comments on people's "lack of social skills". It just goes on and on. He characterises just about everything through a filter of "factionalism", and has repeatedly attacks one "side" in the dispute. And, in case you've forgotten, in the RFC on Lar's behaviour in this case a plurality of editors, including most uninvolved editors, endorsed the opinion that Lar was involved. He has a long-standing dispute in which he and a member of one 'faction', as he sees it (Cla68) attempted to smear a group of editors who happen to be in the other 'faction'. And it's not like I'm dredging up ancient history here - my first interaction with Lar in, I don't know, forever, back in January - he brought up that issue. And recently he and Cla68 have raised it again. He also attacked WMC before the case began. Guettarda (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, Lar's civility, or lack thereof, is a problem (which has nothing to do with whether or not he's "involved"). It certainly doesn't help to calm a heated situation, but frankly, he's been attacked in a similar manner and I don't see you taking those people to task.  As for your view that the RfC clearly indicated that Lar was involved, I don't see that at all - in fact, I see a lot of comments about him being uninvolved, that opinions are acceptable in admins and that the RfC was a tool being used by a certain faction in order to remove Lar. Shell   babelfish 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar's civility, or lack thereof, is a problem. That is correct, and it needs to be dealt with by arbcom, if you intend to cool down the battleground atmosphere. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You say, he's been attacked in a similar manner and I don't see you taking those people to task. I respectfully suggest that whether or not Guettarda has come to Lar's defense on previous occasions is totally irrelevant. The significance of his jibe at Dave was that Lar's comment was not in the "heat of battle" but came in response to a remark from Dave that was unprovocative and not directed at Lar. That kind of conduct was, I think, the underlying problem that people had with him in his RfC. I remember once discussing this directly with Lar but it was a while ago and I forget what the forum was. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to take sides here, but as an observation, it doesn't take a plurality of editors to believe someone is involved before their involvement becomes a problem. The bar is higher than that.  Ideally, people subject to an adverse ruling will respect the ruling.  They may not like it, they may even think it was wrong, but for them to calm down and go about their business they should think it was fair rather than a set-up.  If it is a sham in their eyes, it is not unreasonable for them to challenge and defy the ruling, lobby for the the censure or removal of the person making it, and seek out a faction of like-minded others.  If even, say, 25% of all editors looking clearly and sincerely at an administrator's involvement would say that administrator is too close to the situation to be neutral, that 25% lack of legitimacy is enough to undermine the process.  An administrator who is in fact neutral can keep respect through courtesy, staying dignified, honoring formalities, acknowledging if not agreeing with contrary opinions, and avoiding things like threats and scolding.  An administrator whose neutrality is questioned should have the good graces to back down, unless as is often the case the questioning itself is just a ploy to discredit the administrator.  Unfortunately, sometimes the ploy works.  In Wikipedia as in life, sometimes smear campaigns do succeed in discrediting a person to the point where they cannot function in their position.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree absolutely. If an administrator has vocally and repeatedly denounced a number of editors, even going so far as calling them terrorists, then he can hardly be surprised if his impartiality is subsequently called into question. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think the answer to SPhilbrick's question at the top of this thread needs to be spelled out explicitly. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Shell: There is a significant difference between claiming that Lar is involved and claiming that Stephan and Bozmo are - the latter two have significant (almost exclusively in Stephan's case) contributions in the climate change area and have long-term/close relations with major members of the AGW group, while Lar has minimal (zero?) involvement in climate change articles. Additionally, Lar has argued against members of both sides, against people who share his own beliefs and those who don't - this behavior has not been demonstrated in any meaningful manner by some other admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I think the arbitrators should read Lar's talk page. I think a lot of this would be addressed by taking the time to read it.  Lar has requested it as has others.  I just think it would be good to see what everyone is talking about going back to where ever this all got started, Jan.?  Just a suggestion, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

To add one more voice to the throng here, here's one from me: we've got to get something more than this, Arbs. This is the worst admin-fight I've ever seen in large part because we couldn't get any agreement as to who was and wasn't involved, and so those involved just repeated their positions ad infinitum. (I'm pretty sure it honestly did go roughly like this: A: "You are involved, stop using your tools like I've told you to sixteen times." B: "No, I am not. Leave me alone." Futility.) If you fail to give some better guidance about who is and isn't involved here, we're going to be back here in two months tops. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

F5: Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area
FOF #5: "...a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated."

That percentage, especially the latter end, seems very high to me. Could a checkuser please comment on whether it is actually accurate? Most of the accounts blocked in Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive are still blocked, which is why this statement seems iffy.

The statement also doesn't mention a number of accounts that have been blocked recently that are very probably but not definitively sockpuppets of GoRight – TheNeutralityDoctor and Climate surfer 23, among others. Could perhaps a sentence or two be added about those accounts and the acceptable use of open proxies (especially for new and immediately controversial accounts)? NW ( Talk ) 11:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even at the low end of the range, this is an abysmal state of affairs. Just in case it gets missed, 100 good blocks and 20 bad blocks may sound like "merely" a 20% error rate, but it means a single editor has been correctly blocked 100 times, while 20 distinct individuals have been shut out of WP. That's not a 20% error rate, that's a error factor of 20. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your math is in error here. I think you meant to say 80 good blocks. In other words, 1 in 5 blocks is incorrect, but if you look at the larger picture and then out of 100 blocks you'll get 20 editors blocked incorrectly and a 80 sockpuppets run by a few individuals blocked correctly. This is even more pertinent since many of the socks blocked aren't actually being blocked for being disruptive. This kind of matches what I've been reading in the comments at WUWT on this case - many of them have talked about being instantly blocked or reverted but I suspect they don't have the time or inclination to find out why and get the situation rectified. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe NW could also clarify just what he wants ArbCom to include in their proposed decision about these two accounts that he has identified as not definitively belonging to a particular individual. Weakopedia (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the FOF is true, which I doubt, it should be trivial to list a few of the accounts incorrectly blocked. As NW indicates, the accounts remain blocked, which is not consistent with their having been cleared by CU. Unless this finding refers to the largescale range blocks which were once applied. If so, the finding is badly confusing, and needs to be re-written William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many were blocked sans CU. After SPI (where they had been peremptorily blocked by the complainant or others based solely on "the usual), many were not then unblocked, even when no CU occurred on them, or results were "inconclusive."  I would have thought the number was about 20%, but with CUs averring that it may be as high as 40%, I will not gainsay their experience. Even 10% would be unacceptable anywhere else. Collect (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the remedy intended to change anything? The three areas of adjustment are to raise the threshold (fewer false positives, more false negatives), to work harder at being more precise, or to change the methods or criteria for sock investigations.  Simply urging people to do good work while making as few mistakes as possible doesn't offer guidance on how to do so.  Also, I'm not sure the "expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts" statement is correct, or that the "without more" caveat makes it so.  Expressing the same idiosyncratic opinions, and undue attention to the same obscure facts, of a known puppeteer, can be very strong evidence of sockpuppetry. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that Scibaby has been the justification for the practice of reverting and blocking a new user after one or two edits that are not controversial and usually completely neutral? Then threats are made to block any editor who attempts to restore anything remotely similar to the reverted content.  See this series:, ,  and this discussion  Minor4th  16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors who's been involved in policing Scibaby socks, I'd like to make a few observations:

1) Scibaby socks are fairly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. There's a number of obvious signs which I have written up and circulated to a number of people, though obviously I'm not going to spell them out here. Reports and blocks are not being made haphazardly.

2) I very much doubt that the error rate is as high as 40%. Scibaby socks never use talk pages and never use their own talk pages. They never contest blocks. If there were more errors there would be more contested blocks.

3) People need to remember that checkuser is just one tool for identifying socks. Scibaby is technically proficient at hiding his real IP address. Behavioral evidence is at least as important. If checkuser fails to confirm that a particular account is linked to Scibaby, that does not mean that the user is not Scibaby. Identifying and blocking socks is not a mechanical task - it requires judgement and experience. Editors who have only a few months' experience on Wikipedia and none at all of tackling socks are not in a good position to lecture on this subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It continues . So I have a question here --given the findings of such a high number of false positives, and given the fact that Arb said this is disruptive, but also it's disruptive to have socks running amock, how in the world is anyone supposed to have any guidance and how would something like this be enforced?  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that such socks aren't active on their talk page. You reported me after an argument on my talk page. The process for appeal is too poorly laid out for the average user to understand, I'm sure most of them give up. It took me a month to clear my name after your accusation. Few would go through such a hassle. The entire Scibaby issue is a pure witch hunt and you are the grand inquisitor. As one of the users falsley blocked as a puppet of Scibaby by admin Moreschi after being accused I have to take great offense to some of the statements made by ChrisO and others in defense of that witch hunt. I think that people like ChrisO and those who follow his line of reasoning on alleged Scibaby socks could greatly benifit by reading List_of_fallacies. The idea that because only X people appealed that all the rest were socks is a logical fallacy of the highest order and shouldn't be given any credence by anyone. The appeals process is not easy and not well defined. It took a lot of reading through and I wrote the appeal on my talk page which was the only thing I could find at the time and nothing happened. After a few weeks I had to go off wikipedia to find a better solution and I did. I wrote an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee this was about a month after I had been blocked. Most peoople would have quit. I won my appeal. There is no way as I explained in my appeal that my host showed up as a sock by a checkuser. Carcharoth then posted on my talk page that I hadn't actually been banned as a sock of Scibaby. I never believed him and still don't. His response seemed more backtracking to explain away how I was confirmed by a checkuser. The whole affair left me with a great loss of trust in admin. All and all it took a month and a lot of work to clear my name. Something most casual users would never do. No ChrisO just because they dont appeal doesn't confirm anything. It only confirms that wiki's appeal process is FUBAR for the average user and most casual users and new users which you clearly taget wont go through with it. As for checkusers. Well I'm sure the program works well. But the people doing the check if they are even really doing the check I'm not too sure of.Bigred58 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to the bit where you named me - I posted to your talk page back in December 2009 in response to your appeal that was submitted to ArbCom by e-mail. I should note here that it was me dealing with the appeal, correcting the malformed unblock template on your talk page, and passing your appeal on to a checkuser, that led to your unblocking. In that post to your talk page, I tried to explain that your block was carried out as part of a response to edits made to the Climategate article. Your account had been tagged as a Scibaby sock when you were named at an SPI page, which is why I said the block (which had taken place earlier) was unrelated to the tagging. The block was more a response (incorrect in my view) to the deluge of editing that hit the Climategate article. You are correct that the tagging of an already blocked account (not the block itself) was a misidentification of that account as a Scibaby sock. As far as the atmosphere surrounding the article at the time goes, that can be seen in the response of the blocking administrator (currently inactive) to the message I left him about this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please send me your list of signs for review. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to you, I think. Uninvolved admins, yes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an uninvolved admin, a CU in good standing (not currently active as such) and an CU ombudsman. If I'm not qualified, by your lights, to review that list, I think that says far more about you than it does me. I suggest you reconsider your decision. Who have you sent it to? ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * imo, ChrisO, that is bullshit and a reason that the scibaby person will get more free passes from univolved CU's and others. If you want help controlling the problem, give it to someone you think is an enabler of the problem.  When it gets worse, you can then get lar banned for being scibaby and destroying the project.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Chris, Sorry to pile on, but I find your comment unhelpful. Arbcomm appears entirely unconvinced that Lars is a problem that needs addressing. Time to let this one go. Ronnotel (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add for the sake of clarity that the list is in no way dispositive or intended to guide people. It's something I wrote up for my own use and passed to a couple of others to get their views. As it happens, they had spotted the same indicators that I had. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, could you send me your list? I'd like to compare it to my own. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, you need to just keep your secret list to yourself and not bring it up again if you're not going to share with people in this discussion, and particularly with an uninvolved admin -- anyone can say they have secret evidence about anything, but that is not persuasive. That kind of McCarthyism should not even make its way on to these pages.  And also keep to yourself your snide comments about my experience and whether I'm qualified to comment on this -- I'm commenting and will continue to do so on this issue and any others as I choose.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your experience is highly relevant - in this particular area, you don't have any. You don't know how the process works, you don't know the limitations of checkuser and you don't know how to spot sockpuppets. I'm not saying that disqualifies you from commenting but it does mean that you need to accept that others do have experience that you lack, and you need to be cognisant of that in your comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well then... I suspect that as a sitting CU, since 2007, I have more experience about how CU works, its limitations, and its strengths, than you do. I expect your list to be sent to me via email for my review, or else I expect you to stop mentioning it, and to stop using it. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about everyone stops arguing about this and the list gets sent to ArbCom for review? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did the list get sent to ArbCom? Do I need to use up one of my questions to find out? :) ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I will ask ChrisO to send us the list. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the information is elsewhere, but was the above list received prior to ChrisO's retirement - and should it have not, are those in possession of a copy who may be able to send it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At this writing there are 725 entries in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. If the low end of the quoted 20-40% range is correct then the Checkusers and Arbitrators know of at least 140 incorrectly blocked accounts. Could the CUs please list the 140+ incorrectly blocked accounts? This would both verify the cited figures, and clear the name of those who were incorrectly blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Checkuser evidence is retained by the system for only a limited time (currently 3 months, I believe). Accounts blocked before that time, are likely to be impossible to review either positively or negatively.  I would assume that any statement about the error rate is based on reviewing recent cases only.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that Risker has now put up a "clarification" ''A bit of explanation about the percentages noted above. The higher number (up to 40%) was calculated about a year ago, when Arbcom requested that the AUSC review existing Scibaby blocks, and includes historical information and range blocks. The lower number is the estimate from several checkusers who have carried out Scibaby checks in roughly the past six months, and also includes range blocks. In other words, following an intensive review of practices, the number of false positives was significantly reduced and range blocks were removed or narrowed, resulting in a lower but non-negligible false positive rate. '' (obviously it would be unreasonable to expect R to deign to come here and talk) but that doesn't really answer the questions raised. If essentially all those false positives were from range blocks, and none are from falsely blocked individual accounts, then that puts a rather different interpretation on those values. And this matters, because there are a lot of scibaby apologists in these talk pages who are looking for an excuse to say "oooh look at all those falsely blocked accounts". And yet there is no evidence for a single one having been so blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC, you should understand how these things work by now. Technically anyone caught in a rangeblock is blocked, so they can use the rangeblocks to justify the higher numbers. They haven't given any evidence that the fine contributors listed here have been incorrectly blocked. By constructing the figures in this way they can pretend to care about Scibaby while discouraging admins from acting. Pretty neat, huh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

F6: Edit warring on Climate Change related articles
Very important: William M. Connolley and Marknutley, were involved in seven of eight edit wars. It's the repeated misconduct that shows tougher sanctions are needed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, and decreasing sanctions for those involved in six out of eight (if any), five out of eight (ibid), four out of eight, and three out of eight. Involvement in two out of eight should draw perhaps a warning, and anyone else not already commenting here a link to these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least one of those instances, Mark Nutley was reverting BLP violations and was blocked for edit warring when ChrisO and William Connolley kept reinserting content that violates BLP policy.  NW protected the page and blocked Mark, but not Chris or WMC.  Walk the diffs:  .  Chris edited or reverted in BLP violations 3 times, , and an additional instance with help from WMC ; Mark reverted 3 times, and claimed BLP exemption , , .   This was after there was a rough consensus on the talk page that the source Chris was using was improper in a BLP because it was authored by an adversary of the BLP and originated from a blog post, see talk page:.


 * This is at least one instance that I do not think Mark should be tagged for edit warring, and it's inexplicable why Mark was blocked and Chris was not even warned when Chris had as many reverts and was inserting BLP content against consensus. I believe Chris is as much or more of a problem with the edit warring as any of the two who are actually being sanctioned.  There may be others as LHVU suggested who should be sanctioned in addition.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed material that was sourced to a self-published blog. The unacceptability of such material has been upheld in this proposed arbitration decision. Marknutley repeatedly violated BLP by using blog-sourced content. His use of blogs in BLPs has been highlighted in this proposed decision as disruptive editing. I made no use of any blog or other self-published source as a source in any of the diffs that you posted. That is in full accordance with this proposed decision and existing policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that Mark was the one removing BLP material sourced to a self-published attack site, and you were the one who kept reinserting it.  You repeatedly revert warred to include an attack presentation by John Abraham against the BLP Christopher Monckton and sourced it to John Abrams' self-published slideshow (link omitted for BLP reasons), as seen here:, here: and .   What do you suppose an appropriate sanction should be for your violations?   Interestingly, NW blocked mark and said nothing to you.  Strange. In any event, this incident should not count in Mark's tally. And I think attention should be paid to how many of those edit wars Chris was involved in.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, I think you have a lot to answer for here... you seem to be revising history. You claim Mark violated BLP but in fact the diffs show that you were the one repeatedly violating BLP, and not just innocently, but explicitly against the rough talk page consensus.... Why this distortion? You were trying to push a self published source into a BLP... the article got protected because of your edit warring, and the day it came off protection, it was re-protected, again because of your edit warring. Why exactly is that acceptable behavior? Why is this BLP at the noticeboard so often ? Why are you not being sanctioned for that? Why do you think that gaming the system is appropriate? It is no wonder that some call you an "agenda driven editor". ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please tone down the aggression here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are valid questions. They're blunt, it's true, but they desperately need answering. I stand by them. Perhaps if you all had done your jobs more thoroughly you would have included ChrisO in your findings? ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the questions don't need answering, but the insistent tone is not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The month long delay to get to this watered down PD wasn't helpful either. Them's the breaks I guess. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor4th, you are misrepresenting my edits. Look at . Only two sources are used - two Guardian articles, one of which documents Abraham's work, the other of which documents Monckton's reply. The sources are clearly visible at the end of the relevant sentences. Within the sentences, Abraham's work is linked as an inline link - not a source - and Monckton's reply is also linked as an inline link - again, not a source. I inline-linked both to provide quick links to the competing works that were being documented from reliable sources, so that the reader could click through to either or both. I gave fair and equal treatment to both works but used neither as a source for any statement. Now let's look at the Marknutley edit that I reverted . Here you can see that he is clearly using a self-published blog post by a third party as a source for a statement attributed to a living person. This was very clearly a BLP violation and a violation of Marknutley's own restrictions on sourcing. To reiterate, I inline-linked to two competing works, using neither as a source and relying solely on a major UK newspaper as the source for the statements in question; Marknutley by contrast used a self-published blog post as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you review the talk page you will see that there was in fact no edit-warring going on at the time it was re-protected - see . Even the protecting admin (SirFozzie) did not assert that there was any edit-warring going on. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, you ask "why is it at the BLP noticeboard so often?" - well, perhaps because editors such as myself are making an effort to get wider input into these articles, rather than just drawing on the same few editors all the time. You seem to be under the impression that something has gone horribly wrong if the BLP noticeboard is being used to get feedback. On the contrary, that's what the BLP noticeboard is for. I really don't think this aggressive assumption of bad faith and baseless claims of wrongdoing are helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO -- you're misrepresenting your own edits. Is it your position that self published attack blogs can be used to smear a BLP, so long as they are linked directly within the text of a BLP article rather than using a proper citation and endnote? You can't really be making that argument.

Looking at the talk page is not going to tell you whether there was edit warring going on when it was protected (twice). Look at the page history. Here's what led to the protection the first time:  You first removed content about Monckton's rebuttal and called it a clear BLP violation:, You added a BLP violation as noted directly above, linking the SPS attack: ,  MN reverted the BLP violation: ,  WMC reinserted the BLP violation: , MN reverted the BLP violation: ,  You reinserted the BLP violation, claiming that it was not a BLP violation: , MN reverted the BLP violation again: , the page was full protected by SirFozzie  , and  MN was blocked by NuclearWarfare for edit warring on that page. Mark shouldnt have been blocked -- he was doing what policy tells us to do. You were edit warring to continually reinsert BLP violations. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

F7 to F10 (William M. Connolley)

 * Remedies discussion moved to own section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, WMC uncivil behavior includes engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA personal attacks] (PA), [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT use of Wikipedia as a soapbox and battleground], edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, and abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings and blocks. He has engaged in a long series of disruptive behavior, including biography of living person (BLP) violations, incivility, incorrect interpretation and misuse of source material edit-warring, personal attacks (PA), and attempts to override consensus content decisions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by William M. Connolley

 * Section originally titled "odd", retitled for ease of reference. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with the current PD. A couple of samples (please don't assume that my listing only these in any way indicates that I think the rest is sane) are:


 * why is a BLP vio? Is it a pasto?
 * is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? as BLP vios?
 * The "ownership" stuff is pretty weird too. Why is ownership?

William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why continue to argue? It may be odd; however, acceptance will help you here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that accepting obvious falsehoods is a good idea? Still, at least you have something to say. Everyone else is shuffling their feet and pretending not to notice William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that Preponderance of the evidence demonstrates your disruptive behavior. The PD is objectively verifying this finding, by and among involved and uninvoled folks, and it will be validated by the final decision. Can you accept that you may make good contributions and yet still harm Wikipedia when you harm others? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting two things here: (1) WMC is perfectly right to ask questions like this, and I will aim to answer at some point including what he has said in his statement; (2) ZuluPapa5 should not be making comments like the one he makes above, or the one that I removed recently (his response to WMC's statement). I had intended to place ZuluPapa5's response to WMC's statement here, but am only linking to my removal of them instead, as his comments there (and in some other places) were not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, seems like I must apologize. Tell me, what would be helpful here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that looking at the biographies of living people would be helpful towards judging BLP violations. The few I looked at from 2010 I put a search in for WMC that shows that there are some who agreed and some who disagreed with him but not necessarily that he is in violation unless you listen to those who are involved with WMC or have admitted to having  negative feelings towards him prior to the discussion.  Please see this search page.  It goes back through the years.  I think it's only fair to take a look at what the board has to say about this and also who it was that brought the cases there. Ok,  Carcharoth I stuck myself in possible harms way, we'll see now won't we.  I won't say anymore until I see what I get from making this comment ok?  HTH, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F7: William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

 * WMC's revert parole imposed in 2005 is mentioned in proposed FOF #7. However, no mention of Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, where the revert parole was found to be unnecessary and was revoked, is made. Could that be fixed please? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The two RFCs in FOF #7 are presented in a context that seem like they are evidence of WMC's misconduct, but they actually largely supported WMC's actions. Could that please be clarified? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

F9: William M. Connolley has shown Ownership
The links all refer to the scientific opinion on climate change talk page where there was some negative interacton with ZuluPapa5. This does not show any ownership on the part of William. Ownership on this page would have brought William in conflict with most of the other long term expert editors on climate science articles. There is no evidence for such a conflict.

I see some parallels between ZuluPapa5's behavior and the way Brews Ohare has behaved. If you keep on raising the same type of arguments you will exhaust the patience of some editors. Suppose that there were no other problems on the CC pages apart from ZuluPapa5's involvement and that he would have been handled in a less heavy handed way (i.e. without William removing his talk age comments). Then that would have meant that he would have had to be dealt via the Adminstative channels, ultimately ending in an ArbCom case. This is simply because there are no rules on Wikipedia that make statements like: "you can't start yet another thread about subject X". In practice this means that if you don't decide to stop yourself, you will be stopped, sooner or later. In case of ZuluPapa5 it was sooner, in case of Brews it was later (via a topic ban after a lengthy ArbCom case). Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about the diff selection. Some of the diffs are troubling - in particular, the removal of others' talk-page comments. On the other hand, difficulty working with ZuluPapa5 and GoRight is not equivalent to "unwillingness to work in a consensus environment." MastCell Talk 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * imo, editing the talk page comments of others is such a huge breach of good discussion and working towards consensus that I would almost not mind a site ban for it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not hold discussions with an editor who regularly refactors the comments of others, which includes inserting his own views into other editors' statements. Since WMC and I do not have much in the way of overlap, it isn't a problem, but it's pointless to try and discuss something with someone who will not simply answer your statement in a separate paragraph. It's infuriating, regardless of whether it is on a user talk page, a wiikipedia talk page, or an article talk page.  Horologium  (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget here that by consensus of the local editors since 2007, it was allowed to remove or archive talk page comments. This was not according to the normal wiki-rules, but then the situation on the global warming related pages was also not quite normal. This was primarily to deal wih the many IP comments who would e.g. write that Global Warming thery was debunked. Such comments were then archived while a reference to the Global Warming FAQ was given.


 * One can of course criticize such an initiative by the editors, but it did work. Certainly if you compare this to the situation after mid 2009 when the sceptics wanted to overturn the old rules and wanted the usual Wiki-rules to be strictly enforced, things spiralled out of control with the General Sanctions and the constant Enforcement Requests. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I said nothing about removing or archiving comments. I am speaking specifically of the behavior for which WMC was blocked--wherein he inserted his own comments into another editor's statements, which is several degrees more hostile than simply removing or archiving someone else's comments. Further, we're not discussing IP nonsense; we are talking about an admin posting a warning, or named editors discussing editing of an article. I have a good deal of leniency on user talk pages, but that is taking it too far, and my tolerance only extends to user talk pages. Were he to archive or delete one of my comments on an article talk page or a project talk page, I'd revert him, characterizing his edit as vandalism. Of course, I have well over ten thousand edits and four years of editing history, which is not the same as some random IP spewing BS.  Horologium  (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC correctly newer editors who have edit warred their comments back into talk pages have either been warned for 3rr or blocked - despite claiming vandalism when WMC and KDP delete them.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) As I am not a physicist I have no interest whatsoever in the speed of light but I have noticed a repeated tendency by several editors to use Brews name as a comparison to insult to other editors. Brews apparently edits using his real name, and the internet is a potentially permanent archive of content; this should be kept in mind. I just think it is grossly inappropriate and a form of bullying to be besmearching him publicly all over wikipedia as several editors appear to be doing, using his name as some sort of insult. I am sorry but that is how I feel. I almost spoke out about this when I saw his name being dragged into an RfC which he had nothing to do with.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No insult is meant to anyone. I've defended Brews on several occasions, while recognizing that his editing style sometimes causes problems. But the fact of the matter is that ArbCom has just decided to ban Brews again from all physics topics because of his editing style, particularly the way he argues on talk pages. So, ArbCom is very familiar with his case. They also know that Brews is a retired engineering professor and they regret very much that he is unable to contribute to those topics he would be qualified to conribute to. But then what do we make of ZuluPapa5 when he argues over and over again about e.g. the IPCC? Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is ok, I understand where you are coming from, I don't mean to single you out as others misuse Brews name and I would have said the same to them. Infact to be fair, now that I think of it, I have compared other editors before so perhaps I am being hypocritical, although they did not edit using their real names but still I shouldn't have done that, so I can't be casting that first stone. :) I understand how frustrating controversial articles can be as well, so easy to make mistakes. If you feel an editor is violating editorial norms, policies or guidelines and want to submit evidence, then cite relevant policies, guidelines etc that they are violating and describe their problematic conduct with diffs to admins, I think is the way to go, rather than comparison to other uninvolved editors.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Coren's oppose: While I agree with the result, I think Coren's argument is either sloppily formulated or shows a misunderstanding of the situation. Coren writes "it's clear that WMC is behaving in a way consistent with someone who feels he protects the articles against a specific point of view". There are two potential problems here - the assumption that the so-called "sceptics" have one point of view, and the assumption that WMC acts only against that (assumed) POV. Both of these assumptions are wrong. "Sceptic" beliefs that people have tried to push into the articles range from "there is no greenhouse effect (it violates the second law of thermodynamics)" over "there is no increase in CO2", "the increase in CO2 is not anthropogenic" to "there is no warming" and "the warming is natural". While some "sceptics" manage to hold several contradictory of these beliefs at the same time, that does not make them into one point of view. And, on the other side, we also had real alarmists trying to push the runaway greenhouse effect turning Earth into Venus and hurricanes that wipe out the accumulated GDP since the time of the pharaos into the articles. The mainstream scientific opinion is not one side of the debate, it's the middle of the road, with fringers on both sides. So-called "sceptic" fringers are more active on Wikipedia, but not alone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

F10: William M. Connolley BLP violations
Emphasis added: ''1.I see little reason for us to delve into the minutiae of content here. Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)'' Kiril, you make it sound like there are no obvious BLP violations. That is simply, demonstrably false. Understand this: Nobody, but nobody involved in this case has ever made this point, and it is utterly unbelievable. It does not take a whole lot of time digging into the sources to determine that he violated BLP, significantly, on multiple occasions. In this months-long ArbCom case in which so many editors have put in so many hours of work, you owe us more than that. I'd estimate that at most it would take you a couple of hours, more probably an hour, possibly even less. Do your job. Your statement is an insult. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a real problem with Kirill's interpretation here. He is unwilling to look at the differences which were already laid out for him (in excruciating detail) in several of the evidence sections, but it goes far beyond that. While, , , and are not BLP violations, they are deliberate attempts to delegitimize AGW skeptics; conversely, he had no objections to  and  these two edits, which were equally non-systematic additions of the ISI highly cited link for Phil Jones (climatologist). The only difference is that the first four are BLPs for "skeptics", and the last is a BLP for someone who endorses the AGW hypothesis. I didn't present these as evidence (partly because the evidence page was closed long before the PD was posted, and partly because they are not clear BLP violations, only NPOV violations), but Kirill's dismissal of the evidence against WMC for egregious BLP violations needs to be rethought. It's simply unconscionable to ignore WMC's animus towards scientists who don't hew to his particular views on climate change.  Horologium  (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is another "tiny" difference - isn't there? The "sceptic" edits where in March 2008 while the Jones edit was in March 2010 - it is quite possible to change your mind in the span of 2 years ! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. If ArbCom is not willing to look at an editor that repeatedly commits BLP violations, praising pro-AGW bios and slamming skeptics, this entire process is useless.  An arbitrator that won't take the time to look at the evidence is not worthy of being on the committee.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me simplify it for you, Kiril: Simple BLP violations (although the set of diffs in the PD page, overall, presents WMC in a quite lengthy campaign to disparage Fred Singer in various ways -- definitely ArbCom-worthy material):
 * Here we have WMC adding self-published information to the Christopher Monckton article. There's a discussion elsewhere on the PD talk page about it, but you've read that. It isn't rocket science to conclude that what the professor published was self-published.
 * More self-published stuff, and this one's a douzy, Kirill. To the Michael Fumento article, he added this little gem : Titled Fumento Follies V. This computer scientist who blogs about areas outside his expertise (check the "About" page on this blog) writes, Yes, he's back! Over at his website Fumento has posted Hate Mail, Volume 32, which contains his creatively edited version of our exchange. [...] It's another case of self-published, unreliable sourcing added to a BLP. Simple, yes?
 * And here's another self-published source added to a BLP, Fred Singer. ;
 * And here's a self-published source added to the Timothy F. Ball BLP back in '07. Here's what the BLP page looked like on that date (the part about self-published sources is in boldface).
 * And again, same article, same BLP problem, same passage (note the previous edit [] -- the editor noted that the source was a blog)
 * And here we have WMC joining others to keep in another self-published piece in the Fred Singer BLP. The source, a self-published blog (RealClimate) states:  S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change earlier this year
 * Not rocket science, Kirill. Not rocket science. You yourself said when you voted on Proposed Remedy 10 that it's just standard policy that blogs should not be used for BLPs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC) -- corrections made -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom cannot enforce BLP policy, there shouldnt be a BLP policy. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I really do hope that someone will scrutinize those links, since the Singer one isn't a BLP item (expert clause), the Fumento one is from before the BLP policy existed, the Tim Ball item isn't to a blog (but to court documents), ... Do remember that all blogs aren't created equal, and that BLP is about the person not about what kind article it occurs in. Not to mention that these "violations" span a period of 6 years, with no indication as to whether they are establishing a pattern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And you should know by now that (1) the "expert clause" does not apply to controversial info in BLPs, (2) court documents are primary sources and also forbidden by BLP, and (3) the diffs above all document content that is controversial and personal, so they are "about the person". KDP, did you ever actually read WP:BLP? You've been making these claims for years and I keep correcting you, yet you keep making them. ATren (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we disagree on your (1), unfortunately this is not something that ArbCom will take a stand on.. Lets just say its a grey zone - some agree with you, others disagree (see later) - As for (2) do please tell me where this is disallowed in WP:BLP at that date (were talking old BLP here). (3) Nope - sorry, there is a difference between what you consider controversial, and what is controversial - its a discussion of a published work - not of the person. No one btw. is more disappointed that ArbCom is unwilling to address the disagreement we have on BLP - it was my only focus in this particular case to get this determined, please see my preliminary questions which are almost entirely about that issue. (nb: And yes i've read and reread BLP every single time that this has surfaced (as you well know). The disagreement is actually rather simple, so it should have been something that ArbCom could have taken up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KDP, RealClimate or any other self-published blog cannot be used to add information, especially negative, pejorative, or impeaching, to a BLP unless it's the BLP of the person who is actually doing the talking in the reference. There is no grey zone.  You aren't arguing the opposite, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except of course that RealClimate wasn't used to add information about BLP (which is information about a person ), it was used to reference purely scientific critique of a published work by Singer: The NIPCC report. As before: BLP is about persons and personal information, this isn't (and wasn't). This btw. was (as i've said a lot of times before) something that i had high hopes that this case could have clarified (no matter what way it would've turned). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the RealClimate reference fails on two counts, it was used to criticize a BLP subject (criticized his work) and because a self-published source shouldn't be used when it has no direct link to the subject itself. So, WMC violated BLP and V with that edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it fails on none of these. But let me try to explain my position here: If the content section on the NIPCC was split out from the Singer biography, then the RC link would both be relevant and very much within due weight. But here is the conundrum: There is no difference between BLP as interpreted on a "regular article" and BLP as interpreted on a biographical article. We have two logical conclusions then: Either blogs are never allowed, on all articles, no matter whether they are following our SPS guidelines, or blogs are acceptable within all articles where the information is not "personal" (about the person). I follow the latter, but could be convinced about the former (but then policy has to change). The major trouble is when biographical articles contain information that isn't biographical in nature, such as the NIPCC information in Singers bio. It is not biographical articles that is special - but whether the information is about a person. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (After E/C)(regarding point 2) It's right there in the old version that you linked, in the section "Presumption in favor of privacy/well-known public figures" (section 4.1): Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. Section 4.2 (for less public figures) is even more restrictive, and definitely would not include primary sources.  Horologium  (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that too - and i also read that at the time. Did you notice that the suit was referenced to a secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not quite. The suit was discussed in the piece that was linked (and not removed by the IP editor), but it didn't go into the detail of the court documents. The court documents should not have been used; what was not discussed by the piece you linked should have been left out. If that guts the argument that was being constructed against him, too bad. It is not relevant that you (and obviously WMC) can't stand Ball; Wikipedia is not a vehicle to discredit people with whom you have a disagreement (political, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise). That's we have blogs like Tim Lambert's.  Horologium  (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You assume rather a lot of bad faith here ("that you (and obviously WMC) can't stand Ball") - i can only speak for myself, and i have no such feelings towards Ball. The basis here is that the information was relevant (secondary source to show), factual, and reliably sourced, and not presented with undue weight towards any side of that particular controversy (all sides presented equally), see also the large amount of discussion about this on the talk-page of that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I offered my alternate proposal 10.1 to try to reach consensus without the need to parse each individual diff (and indeed, it looks like it may reach consensus among the committee, which was my point, though not on this talkpage). I will review the input here in more detail when I am back at my desk (I will be offline for several hours now for some Labor Day related activities). In the interim, I will say that while Kirill can speak for himself, I don't think the drafter of the Committee's Badlydrawnjeff and Footnoted quotes decisions needs to be lectured on the importance of the BLP policy, even if there is sharp disagreement as to how to phrase findings regarding it in a particular decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

F 10.1 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons
The main difference between this alternate proposal and the original F 10 is that it refrains from saying the utterly obvious fact that William M. Connolley has, in fact, violated WP:BLP on numerous occasions, as the list I've posted just above makes abundantly clear. Secondarily, it leaves out the long list of diffs showing a selection of his BLP violations. Why on earth are arbitrators not convinced that he violated WP:BLP over and over? I'm asking arbitrators to explain their reasoning. This is a fine spot to do it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it refrains from saying it, it just takes a circuitous route around the bush. I am generally not fond of calling spades "regolith displacement devices" myself, hence I also support 10. There is a measure of pragmatism in ArbCom decision making; sometimes consensus of the Committee will form around a wording or remedy that few (if any) individual arbitrators would have supported in isolation, but where the alternative would have been so divided as to all fail.  This is a case of "It's better to succeed at a fairly good decision than fail at the perfect one".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, one of the biggest problems here was the frequent use of blog sources; this finding doesn't address that at all, implying that the problems were exclusively editorial in nature. ATren (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The misuse of blog as sources is covered by remedy 10. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, and I understand your pragmatism in voting for both. My concerns are really directed at some of the other arbs, who support the watered down version but explicitly avoid the one where blog sourcing is made explicit. Blog sourcing has been one of the biggest issues here. ATren (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, I was looking for a less abstract, more concrete explanation of the reasoning. I think baldly stating that he violated WP:BLP is better. I may have started discussion on this too soon, because now that I look down the PD page at Remedy 4 ("William M. Connolley topic banned (BLP)") I'm a lot less concerned. If you topic ban him, then you send the right message whether or not you baldly state that he violated BLP. I'm hoping that ArbCom not only sanctions individual editors to prevent certain edits, but that it also make it clear to other editors and administrators considering sanctions in the future that certain behavior needs to be strongly discouraged. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Coren's point that 10.1 does indeed imply that WMC has violated the BLP policy, albeit in a less blunt manner; the main difference, in my view, is that 10.1 asserts this as a general point, without specifically asserting that each particular edit is an actionable BLP violation. My problem with finding 10 is that the examples are, in a number of cases, not particularly obvious ones. Consider, for example, edits like this one or this one.  While they may indeed be violations of the NPOV policy, or the COI guideline, or the BLP policy, I would argue that they are not blatant and obvious violations (by which I mean that an editor who has no knowledge of the subject matter or the editors involved cannot simply look at the edits themselves and unequivocally determine that they violate the policy).  And if we must delve into examining the underlying content in order to determine whether an edit violates policy, does that not implicitly make that determination a ruling on content, which we strive to avoid? Having said that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do agree that a version of finding 10 could be constructed using only obvious violations of the policy, to avoid the necessity to consider the content matter; however, given that 10.1 justifies the associated remedy just as well, I'm not convinced it's particularly necessary to do so at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

F11: Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

 * Space left for comments on the actual finding. Comments on the remedy moved to its own section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's and Kiril's comments very obviously do not address the main point of the proposed finding: Polargeo has made personal attacks. The finding simply states it. The finding simply provides simple diffs that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not "that Polargeo has been unhelpfully uncivil" as Brad states, but that he was actively, severely, repeatedly violating Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Brad, that statement of yours is an awful misrepresentation of the clear evidence. It's the same with Kiril's statement: this is borderline for an arbitration finding. It's a selection of a broader pattern of personal attacks that's in the evidence and linked to elsewhere on this page. The finding also states that Polargeo was disruptive. That, too, is proven by simple, obvious, direct diffs right in the finding. If NYB needs more evidence of that to meet his standard of long-term interference with the proper functioning of our processes then we can include Polargeo's repeated insertion of comments in the "uninvolved administrators" section of WP:GSCCRE, and his vandalism to my article (and why shouldn't we define a content page as part of our "processes" since it's the ultimate end result of them) -- which gives us several examples extending over months (anyone want diffs here?). If the disruption part of the finding is the only problem, NYB and Kiril have the option of proposing an alternate finding on the personal attacks alone. Or is Wikipedia now a free-fire zone in which I'm just as entitled to make disparaging comments about the spouses of NYB and Kiril, go to their talk pages with aggressive comments and continue commenting after they tell me politely not to do so, file obviously unserious complaints on dispute-resolution pages, repeatedly (as in time after time after time after time) insult them and other editors by disparaging their integrity outside of dispute resolution? Newyorkbrad's and Kiril's comments are an insult to the people who Polargeo insulted and distracted, and Polargeo shows every sign of continuing that behavior. "Tsk tsk" is a preposterous reaction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Redacted some comments -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to consider an alternate proposal; I said so, and I think it's obvious from the fact that there are paragraphs I haven't voted on yet that I am still working through the individual-user findings in this case. Please provide me with a link to the evidence concerning what you describe as "[Polargeo's] vandalism to [your] article." In the interim, personal attacks on my spouse are unwelcome, and would be even more so if I were married. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)personal attacks on my spouse are unwelcome, and would be even more so if I were married Now thats the spirit! Diffs incoming. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs: Horologium, just below, has the link discussing Polargeo's edit to the article I started. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of ArbCom's gauge for how much disruption is worthy of an ArbCom sanction, but his personal attacks on me fit in with other behavior against me, and the same can be said about his behavior against Lar (disrupting the WP:GSCCRE page was a way of trying to make Lar look bad and of annoying Lar), so it makes some sense to include all the diffs together (personal attacks and other misbehavior) whether or not you want to call it disruption. And of course there's already a diff on the PD page about Polargeo attacking others. If you look lower down on this page, at R6: Polargeo admonished, you find more of his personal attacks against me. There are also some elsewhere on this page, and when I find them I'll tack on links just below this comment. What concerns me about those attacks is that they continued right into this page, even when he knew ArbCom's eyes would be on him. That speaks to whether or not he'll continue this kind of behavior in the future. He also seems to think my strong criticisms about him attacking me are themselves personal attacks, and it troubles me that he can't seem to distinguish personal attacks from criticism. Please also consider how appropriate it is for this individual to continue being an administrator when he shows this kind of behavior and lack of understanding. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Diffs: I'll add to this list today and tomorrow, all are from after this case started and don't overlap with any other evidence; unless noted otherwise, all are violations of WP:NPA, attacking me (it's understandable that someone being criticized here is going to be upset and might make a few personal attacks; but Polargeo's go on and on and are a significant part of his reaction whenever he's criticized or when others call for enforcement of policy against him):
 * Aug 24: his grudge against me (related )
 * Aug 24 (attacking LHvU): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=380697464
 * Aug 24 (attacking Lar):
 * Aug 24, Shel issues Polargeo a "final warning" on "borderline" personal attacks (Polargeo's response ) -- note that the attacks continued
 * Aug 31:
 * Aug 31: (maybe WP:NPA or maybe just WP:CIV):
 * Aug 31: -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sept 1:
 * Sept 1:
 * Sept 1 (against me and others):
 * ''Note: At 14:38, Sept 1, he made his last edit of the day on the thread he'd started on me (in which the last three personal attacks appear), on 15:15 he nominated the article I'd started, "Dago dazzler" for deletion . I think he's got every right to nominate an article for deletion when he sincerely thinks it shouldn't be deleted, and I'm reluctant to accuse him of doing this to hurt me because I've been wrongly accused of causing disruption for nominating an article for deletion. But I didn't nominate something for AfD between personal attacks. I'm not sure I trust my judgment on this one. Draw your own conclusion.
 * Sept 2 (ascribing bad motives to me):
 * Sept 2 (attack on Lar):
 * Sept 2 (against ATren and me): (this very diff will probably end up listed in his next attempt to get me sanctioned -- correct, specifically for: throwing as much mud as they can scrape up to defeat anyone they disagree with; Polargeo later added this to the comment, which was not an attack )
 * Sept 2 (accusing me of acting out of revenge in complaining that Scjessey, among other things, had called me an "asshole"):
 * Sept 2:
 * Sept 2:
 * Sept 2:
 * Sept 6 (attacking motives of both Horologium and me):
 * Sept 6 (accusing me of "harassment" or perhaps only of advocating "harassment"):
 * Sept 6 (this one is not a personal attack, but it seems to indicate Polargeo doesn't or refuses to understand what a personal attack is, even though he's an administrator):
 * Sept 6: and  -- In addition to my other evidence against Polargeo, here are 13 more personal attacks; these additions bring this list to 19. Almost all of them on this page, right under ArbCom's nose. Should I go back in time before Aug. 24? Do I really need to? Shell told Polargeo to quit it on Aug. 24, warning Polargeo that it wouldn't be tolerated. Yet it was tolerated. Some of these continued even after a finding about Polargeo was posted on the PD page. At some point, arbitrators, you've got to come to the conclusion that an editor who produces this volume of personal attacks (each and every damn one of them violates a specific part of WP:NPA) and continues to do so after being told not to and after sanctions have been proposed against him, will simply not respond to warnings. It's a policy. He's violating it massively enough to make it worth an ArbCom ruling. And frankly, it's a wee bit difficult for me to do anything about it other than complain to you when it happens on an ArbCom page -- I mean, which admin who isn't an arb or clerk is going to intrude here to discipline someone doing something right under your noses? Enforce policy. If there is some reason not to do so, please explain why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Brad, I think the vandalism charge was addressed on this page, in the first archive (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 1). One of the edits Polargeo made looks very much like vandalism, considering that it left the lede of the article an ungrammatical wreck. Polargeo's claim of removing unsourced statements doesn't wash, since the lede does not need to be sourced, if the rest of the article provides sources. More concerning is the likelihood that Polargeo was doing some stalking, since that article had been created the previous day by JWB, and the only edits to it had been by JWB and a bot, and the article had not been edited for four hours previously.
 * I don't think that even that rather unpleasant and unnecessary attack by Polargeo raises his level of disruption to a sanctionable level (although it comes close), but the personal attacks and unhelpful attitude need to be addressed. However, one might also note that Polargeo has already agreed to Kirill's suggestion of backing away from this topic voluntarily, rather than under sanctions, and that might be justification for letting the whole matter drop in regards to Polargeo. (Last sentence struck, as I misread one of the sections at the bottom of this page.) Horologium  (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @JWB It is not good practice to delete your talkpage comments after other users have responded to them it makes everything disjointed, you should simply strike them. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said before JWB and Horologium seem to have both presented evidence against me based originally on a single interaction with themselves. JWB then diff mined to find anything he could on me and most of this was then not backed up by other editors. This sort of stuff should not even be at arbcom as part of a grand CC case. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My "evidence" (yes, I recognize it was quite thin, as was made clear in my presentation) was based upon a single interaction with you, but your contributions during this arbitration have been more than sufficient to reinforce my initial views.  Horologium  (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem. You entered during a situation where JWB was asking for my head and there was extreme pressure and you started judging. Every time I have legitimately questioned an editor's good faith it has been thrown back at me as a personal attack. This is not what WP:personal attack is for. If we cannot legitimately question an editor's motives at an RfC/U or arbcase then this project has gone the wrong way. If you think any particular statement of mine is a PA then please challenge me on it and I will provide a host of diffs which back up my statement. Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. My interaction with you at the RFC predates this arbitration. I had not looked at the workshop page when I submitted my evidence (I just checked the dates to confirm that JWB had already made his workshop proposals when I posted my evidence; I had no idea), but my evidence has nothing to do with JWB's evidence and workshop proposals. I didn't submit any proposals of my own because a single interaction doesn't rise to the level of proposing sanctions on another user for me; other editors have different standards.  Horologium  (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Polargeo (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo, I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating now: My discussion with you at the RfC didn't offend me, and it had nothing to do with me drawing up complaints against you. I was offended by your repeated attacks against Lar. After I complained about you, you attacked me, and that also offended me. You have no reason to assume any other motive. Even on ArbCom pages, you shouldn't ascribe bad motives to people without pointing to evidence or being prepared to do so. That's what personal attacks are. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have consistently shown that you quickly take offense at the slightest criticism and immediately post the diff tagging it onto your case against me. This has nothing to do with CC and everything to do with gaming. That is not a personal attack but an observation of your behaviour. Personal attack is gamed mercilessly across wikipedia and rarely used in the spirit in which it was written. Polargeo (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has [...] everything to do with gaming. It's called "playing by the rules", and it's an alternative to attacking you back. I'm actually about as annoyed with ArbCom members and clerks who don't give you clear warnings when they first catch you violating WP:NPA policy on these pages and then don't follow through with sanctions, including blocks, when you go back to attacking me. ArbCom members should be embarassed for not keeping order on their own pages, right under their noses. You appear to be incorrigible, since you attack even on the dispute resolution page where I go to complain about your attacks, I document that, because continued personal attacks are relevant when ArbCom members consider your conduct and what to do about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

F12: Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

 * Section originally titled "TGL Defense". Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm just going to go at it, if I miss anything then feel free to ask (preferably arbs only so this section doesn't become a mess too).

1) Barack Obama topic ban: Yep, I was topic banned from the articles and I've stayed away long after my topic ban expired. I think that is to my credit. As for the ban itself, I definitely reacted poorly to being immediately accused of sockpuppetry and the changing guidelines for content inclusion based on what what being said and trolled those people a bit.

2) Edit warring: Yep, I have edit warred a bit in the topic area (not much though esp. when compared to others) and IIRC after I received a 1rr restriction for it, along with Mark and WMC, I promised to myself to stopped edit warring completely in the area. Again, I think this shows my willingness to correct my behavior.

3) Agenda-driven editing: This one makes no sense to me. Yes I have an opinion, but no it doesn't drive me. My edits don't generally support this notion. Hell, I even told Jenochman that he shouldn't topic ban WMC in the manner that he did - a blind partisan would not have done that.

4) Global Warming topic ban: To describe this as a contentious ban is an understatement. 2over0's habit of targeting one side of the debate with unilateral sanctions and flimsy evidence is legendary. In his "evidence" he gives as an example that I used the term "AGW adovocate" - this certainly seems to be a neutral term - certainly not deliberately offensive like the "denier" term which is constantly thrown around. In fact, most of the diffs are quite mild when looked at, often the result of baiting (which is never sanctioned of course and so it continues). Hell, in an RfE request I said i could provide more examples of tagteaming by WMC/KDP and he used that as evidence against me - it is ridiculous. And yes, IIRC there were some examples of genuinely poor behavior on my part, I'm certainly not perfect, but I find it odd that one such example was from something I'd already said I wouldn't do again.

Ironically enough this topic ban proves how many of the charges against me are clearly incorrect. If I was really such an agenda-driven editor then I would've immediately gone to ANI or the enforcement board to get it overturned. What would WMC or several others have done if Lar had plopped a dozen diffs on their talk page and topic banned them for 6 months?

It would not have been pretty.

As with the Barack Obama topic ban I intend to stay out of this mess once this is all over and go back to the articles I'd started editing before I got into this set of articles (plants). There is however one article I want to write in the climate change area, a science article that the experts have somehow missed for nearly a decade, but that is basically it.

Also, as of right now, my proposal to get rid of my topic ban extension has met with unanimous and bipartisan support in the editor (not admin) section with 10 editors from both sides directly supporting the proposal to get rid of the topic ban extension. Again, if I was really as horrible as the occasional bad-tempered diff on my part portrays then I doubt there would be such support.

5) Diffs in the proposal: They are certainly not "representative" in my opinion. They happen to be the worst things in my history. I'll note that this is in contrast to the examples on WMC's page which are pretty light compared to the evidence available where he posted on his talk page a document containing the telephone number and address of a BLP subject he'd just been topic banned from while not only implying that he was committing tax fraud but also linking to his own blog where he said he was insane.

a) This diff is labelled as "PA, Soapboxing." Okay, this is ridiculous - what is the PA? That I said in response to,


 * "One (Murdoch owned) source? Please remember why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)"


 * "Yes Dave, you've made it clear how you feel about "tories" (is that the plural form?), but honestly, it doesn't really matter what you think of who owns certain news outlets." (me)

Well, Dave had a habit of constantly bringing up the "Torygraph" or various other colorful "tory-isms." It is a habit WMC shared as well. This is pretty weak if this is considered a PA compared to, I don't know, someone calling multiple admins stupid after getting unblocked and then going to the admin that blocked him to poke at him with a friend.

As for soapboxing, no not really, the worst thing is that I called a specific mistake of the IPCC's a "PR tool" since it had been constantly repeated by several individuals. In fact, the newspaper I linked in there shows one of the guys involved said, "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will [influence] policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." He was talking about the use of non-peer reviewed literature being included in the IPCC report to influence politicians - calling that a "PR tool" is hardly soapboxing.

b) Labeled as soapboxing.

I guess it is sort of soapboxing, pretty mild, as an atheist though I was a bit annoyed at being compared with both creationists and flat earthers. Perhaps the person baiting me with that comment should be sanctioned as well? The topic area is full of such little things.

c) Yep a poor reaction on my part, but not typical - the same can't be said of others in the area. The "allegations of criminal conduct" were pretty well-known though and should probably have been mentioned in the article if there was an appropriate source (I can't recall if I provided one). Again, when compared to the words others have made on their own talk pages this, while bad, isn't nearly as bad as calling someone "stupid and malicious" - I suppose that's a judgment call though.

d) Labeled as a PA.

Yep, I smacked Hipocrite, a proven sockpuppeteer, back for accusing me of running a blog that tells people to sock. It is a flat out lie and he knew it. Ban the people doing the baiting - not the people reacting to it.

e) Labeled as soapboxing.

Ok, first off, yes I did soapbox a bit during the Arbitration process (far more than I ever did when editing articles in the area), perhaps this was due to a bit of intellectual blueballs from the topic ban, but it was also because I wanted to show that skeptics aren't anti-science religious Nazi's like we've been portrayed.

In this specific instance, I let myself get sucked into a debate about global warming when I really just wanted to counter WMC's point, which was that the articles shouldn't be dumbed down, when, in fact, they clearly are dumbed down to stay on message.

d) Labeled as a PA.

Harsh, but certainly not overly so and clearly supported by the facts.

e) Labeled as a PA.

Who am I attacking? Ratel? He was banned for sockpuppetry and is probably still socking the area.

I certainly was stating an uncomfortable fact though, that "Scibaby" can be identified after only a single edit on behavioral evidence, but when socks look like someone else (in this case WMC) that too is also blamed on skeptics.

Is this statement really that ridiculous considering how they've basically been bragging on WMC's talk page about the vandalism on the PD page?

f) Labeled as proof that I'm trying to push my agenda.

In it I say that I think NPOV will favor my side? This is so damning? It isn't like I'm trying to invent new policies (e.g. SPOV) or alter existing ones to favor my personal POV. This is really weak tea here.

g) Labeled that I'm trying to push my agenda?

No, obviously not, a bit of soapboxing due to my tendency to ramble on though.

h) Labeled as proof of trying to push my agenda.

No, this is again me responding to soapboxing with soapboxing. In this case WMC is trying to push the convenient bogeyman myths about skeptics, which, in his words were, "they have no theory of their own; all they know is they disagree with the science." Again, such mischaracterizations, while helpful to propagate for his side, are angering for those on my side. The best way I could think of countering such inflammatory nonsense was to demonstrate that yes, skeptics do have their own science-based thoughts on the subject.

Double jeopardy issues aside I don't think the case was made for a 6 month ban from wikipedia, especially since I'm staying out of this crap and going back almost exclusively to work on botany articles if my topic ban is overturned. Do some skeptics have to be banned for some reason? It seems to me that this will only encourage those on the opposite side if they can get two skeptics banned for every one of them - baiting is already rampant, and this will simply encourage it. In my case I'm clearly not the main problem, I haven't edited in the area for 6-7 months and in that time the problems certainly didn't disappear and nor did they just show up when I first started editing in the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that you plan to focus on botany articles, I would support replacing the six-month siteban with a long-term topic ban from climate-related articles. In the end it's up to the arbs, of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support no site ban and no topic ban at all, reduce the topic ban to time served and issue a warning to be careful going forward. This is a far more coherent defense than previously presented by TGL. ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TGL, I recently asked you a question about some of your comments, which you declined to answer, so I am trying again. You recently wrote that:
 * "Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses."

To me, this suggests a disturbing disdain for the integrity of the academic community as a whole, implying that that studies published by reputable peer-reviewed journals are regularly rigged to find pre-determined results. You have also written, on the subject of the membership of the National Academy of Science that:
 * "Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it."

This comment was made in the context of suggesting that Mastcell does not understand the distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, and implied the same was true of the NAS membership. The NAS is the elite body of US scientists, and to suggest that they would not know the difference between hypothesis and theory, or that they are credulous fools unable to analyse results or information sources for themselves is disrespectful and shows a highly distorted picture of the scientific and academic communities. Now, my question is this: in light of your comments, how am I or any other neutral editor supposed to assume that you are editing neutrally on scientific topics and not pushing an agenda? EdChem (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I or any other neutral editor" ... assumes facts not in evidence. We all like to think we are neutral. Some of us are. But more importantly TGL is not the real problem here by any means and the sanctions placed on him were disproportionate. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He may not be the "real" problem here, but the examples above demonstrate a tendency to think in extremes, and this black and white thinking is shared by most of the climate change deniers. The "vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" nonsense is the foundation for almost every article on Conservapedia, and I suggest this is not a coincidence. Recently, Conservapedia went so far as to claim that the theory of relativity was a liberal plot.  There's a limit to how much nonsense should be allowed.  If someone wants to claim that the world is flat, then fine, civil discourse allows us to take them by the hand and conceptually walk them in a straight line until we're back where we started, disproving their theory.  We can do this on virtually every issue.  It only becomes a problem when such an editor is unwilling to change their beliefs after being shown otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, a big part of the problem here is editors who treat all deviations from "consensus science" like flat earth. It's absurd to imply that the scientific consensus in support of AGW theories is as black-and-white as flat-vs-round. But science editors continue to use such analogies everywhere, and it gives the appearance of dogmatic, "my-way-or-the-highway" thinking. AGW is supported by consensus, but round-earth is as close as we get to scientific fact, and when you treat consensus science exactly the same as scientific fact, you turn science into ideology. Fundamentally, that is what many of us object to here, how the some "science editors" are as dogmatic in their approach as ideologically-driven religious/ethnic/political partisans. ATren (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Atren, a huge part of the problem is editors who fervently believe that a few ambiguous emails showing only minor misconduct, as determined by five inquiries, makes 97% of scientists in the field hoaxers to be disbelieved, with all credence being given to half a dozen contrarian scientists and a large number of bloggers. It's a genuine cultural phenomenon and we should cover it, but we shouldn't give it undue weight in showing what the science is. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about something. TGL, one of your arguments against a ban is that you want to be free to edit botany articles. That's a good thing, and I endorsed modification of the PD in your favor on that basis.

You are not now under a general siteban so that you have been free to contribute in non-climate topics such as botany. Yet in the past four months you have made precisely seven (7) edits to article space, precisely zero (0) of which have been related to botany. If you are interested in editing botany articles, why have you not done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TGL can answer for themselves but, sometimes if one feels wronged enough, one doesn't want a project to benefit from one's contributions in any way until things are improved. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, does one feel wronged enough to withdraw the benefit of one's contributions, and confine one's action to soapboxing? Seems a rather odd argument, but guess it could explain tendentious and disruptive persistence. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Emotions are not exactly rational. My motivation for article contribution since that topic ban is about zero since 2over0 topic banned me. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been driven away from article editing or completely from wikipedia. This is why I've said that I will start editing again if the topic ban is lifted since I'd feel better about contributing again.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TGL, looking at the diff you cite above at a), you did seem to be making the thread a bit personal, but I'm inclined to agree that it's not a personal attack. You did seem to be soapboxing a bit on the basis of a rather questionable source, one later forced to issue a retraction on a related story. So, agree it's not a personal attack. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who submitted evidence involving Thegoodlocust, and proposed a siteban, one of the deciding factors was not only the total lack of positive contributions in the history, but the apparent lack of interest in anything besides partisan argumentation going forward. When Thegoodlocust requested a reversal of his topic-ban extension at the enforcement board, I asked a simple question about what sort of activity we could expect if the ban were lifted. I found the answer rather unsatisfactory, brought the subject up again in this thread, and it still doesn't seem to be answered. I get that Thegoodlocust thinks 2/0 is horribly biased, and that he has technical arguments about specific diffs, but that seems like focusing on a few trees and missing the forest. Even with the help of sympathetic, experienced Wikipedians, Thegoodlocust is still unable to articulate any real interest in contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia. The near-totality of his appeal is based on disputing technical aspects and criteria of the sanctions, but that misses the point. Sometimes this project just isn't a good fit for what someone brings to the table or wants to accomplish, and I think we're at that point here. MastCell Talk 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the reasons I didn't answer you in that case (and EdChem above) is that I wanted to avoid a horrible argumentative mess. This seems to be unavoidable in this section now since apparently everyone has questions for me. Regarding why I didn't answer you, I didn't feel it was germane to the discussion on the scope of CC sanctions and wanted to keep things focused. At his request though I emailed NW and answered his questions privately in a similar manner to what I've said above but in more detail about the articles I want to write. As I said above, I'm going to stay out of anything controversial at this point and since I've never had problems in other scientific articles like in the botany area then this seems like a good place. Anyway people see what they want to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@EdChem: My first college degree was in psychology (and I took it for several years in high school as well) and as with everyone this experience colors my outlook on life. Regarding scientific studies I always read them very carefully to determine how well they were set up, where they could have gone wrong and how the results could've been misinterpreted. This is what I do, sometimes I even email scientists (usually in health oriented studies) and talk to them about my concerns. My "skepticism" is not something reserved only for global warming but for everything I read and everything I hear. This is simply who I am. Recognizing that academia has a specific culture and how this may affect results through well-documented psychological principals is just a demonstration of my inherent skepticism.

And no, I don't have a great deal of respect for what 10% of any group thinks. 10% of the US probably thinks Elvis is still alive. 10% of Mensa probably believes in alien abduction. The credentials of a small section of a population is not convincing to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas: No, I don't think in extremes. I first think in possibilities and then I think of the likely possibility. I think you are reading far too much into that or it didn't sound like I wanted it to. And yes, I refer to liberal groups as liberal and conservative groups as conservative, is there a problem with this? I also refer to academia as atheistic due to the high numbers of atheists in academia - is this wrong? Anyway according to this Pew poll:


 * Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

When I say that most people in academia and the media are liberal I'm not talking out of my ass - I'm just stating the facts as I know them. If this was on an article talk page then this may be a problem, but like the vast majority of people here this is the kind of thing that gets said on friendly talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now can we please not go off on any more tangents like I requested at the very beginning? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It may come as a shock to you, but most of the world's scientists are not Americans. Your statistics have no bearing on the affiliation of scientists outside the US, which has the local peculiarity of having only two main parties, one of which is rabidly anti-intellectual and anti-science (so why should any scientist support it?). These conditions do not apply elsewhere, where there is usually a cross-party consensus in favour of science. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This kind of response is exactly why I didn't want to begin engaging other people. This is irrelevant (and misleading). If you want to talk about something like this then go to my talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This is now the third time I've asked to stay on topic and not get distracted by irrelevances. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The nonsense I was talking about refers to your argument not the data showing political affiliation. You said: "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant.". You have all but said that climate change science should not be trusted because some scientists are liberal/democrat/atheist/chocolate cake eaters/puppy owners/barefoot on beaches during sunsets walkers/believers in the theory that Cobb was still dreaming/find Snooki attractive with both eyes slightly squinting, etc.  Because of all this, the science as a whole cannot be trusted. Did I miss anything? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed cat owners. Speaking as someone who think the statement "the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal" is true, (but doesn't find it alarming) and as someone who puts a lot of faith in science, my observation is that the statement doesn't create any particular mistrust in science (no more than all good skeptics should have), but it does mean I watch carefully when the discussion switches from "what is the science?" to "what should policymakers do?" There's a lot on hand-wringing in this discussion about poor science, but I really don't think that's where the main debate is. The main debate is what public policy should be followed, and IMO, many proposals are not well-grounded in solid cost benefit analysis.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that is the standard reply, but it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Scientists and the media are generally centrist, and anything left of right is classified as liberal by the anti-science fringe.  Public policy discussions are systematically derailed by repeated attacks on the underlying science, and these attacks are led by celebrities, writers, politicians, and religious figures, all of whom are not scientists.  On the rare occasion that an actual scientist does show up, it is revealed that they represent a special interest, not the public interest. Since Nixon, public policy has been shaped by denying, altering, and misrepresenting science in favor of political expediency, and when I was a child in high school, we were actually taught to accept this as the gold standard, which is frightening. The history of science under Reagan and the Bush years (father and son) needs no explanation.  Simply search for "politicization of science" and you'll have enough to read for the next decade.  The key to all of this is an objective media that informs the public and gives them accurate (the very word that keeps getting removed from every source policy and guideline) information.  The role of science is to provide and present this accurate knowledge  that can be disseminated to the public and used to make good policy decisions.  This process cannot work when the media twists the data, and when politicians use the media to promote their policies based on distorted science.  This warped and broken process threatens the very fabric and foundations of democracy and civilized society. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. I'll wikilink confirmation bias and groupthink so you can better understand my position. I think you are reading far too much into what I said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the sense that instead of contributing to an encyclopedia, you are helping to further the goals of the American culture war. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this collapsed discussion also illustrates the problems in the topic area. Despite my best efforts to disengage and keep the discussion focused I'm met with a lot of soapboxing and baiting (esp. towards the end). I don't mind there being a prohibition on soapboxing, but letting one side run rampant with it is not the way to do things.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this best illustrates the problem. 7.79% of your 2,324 contributions have been to articles, with the majority of them consisting of contentious edits to Barack Obama and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Facebook is that way... Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can either choose not to correct you and let the mischaracterizations stand or I can look like a whacko in defending myself. It is a catch-22. In this case my lack of articles edits is explained - I've severely cut back on editing due to my feelings on the topic ban and largely haven't edited articles for 7 months because of it. Your assertion that my edits to the IPCC and Barack Obama article were contentiousness is largely false. The IPCC edits, last time I checked remained in the article because they were correct and well-sourced - the "bruhaha" over them was simply due to the nature of the facts. Also, last time I checked about a third of my article edits were to science based articles outside of climate change - again, mostly in the area of botany. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9 edits to Morning glory, 7 edits to Equisetum, 3 edits to Arbutus, 2 edits to Holodiscus discolor, 1 edit to Salvia divinorum and maybe one or two others. How about helping bring Amaranthus brownii to at least good article status? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "science articles mostly in the botany area," not solely botany (still more than the IPCC article edits though as you can tell). Of course, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove other than the fact that every time I get sucked into one of these conversations my ratio of article to non-article space goes down. I got sucked into a huge number of these things when adding what should've been simple info into the IPCC article. Since you insist on going down this route though, show me some of my contentious IPCC article edits - perhaps I can be enlightened that way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I thought this was Wikipedia, where editors collaborate to improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That didn't seem to be a substantive response to what TGL requested. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response was necessary. "Contentious edits" is accurate, and supported by his own comments.  And, I didn't receive a substantive response to my request for assistance with an article.  What kind of assurance do we have that TGL is going to work on actual articles?  As a test example, I asked for help with one and was completely ignored.  The edit history is clear: 2,324 contributions and almost no article work. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Viriditas, while we may be able to work with each other on something like botany I have no interest in Hawaiian plants. Typically I only care about plants in the pacific northwest or ones with entheogenic properties. Anyway I've already said what I'm going to do, you can choose not to believe me if you like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I see some action rather than promises in this regard? Which specific article are you going to work on?  I recommended Amaranthus brownii because it was close to complete, and all the relevant sources were linked for research purposes. So please, share with me the name of the article you plan on improving. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I privately told NW what articles I would like to create and work on. I have no intention of telling anyone else. Honestly, this line of questioning is pointless. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Lar Regarding this edit. With TGLs experience and knowledge of how controversial this was he certainly should have obtained consensus before making such extreme criticisms of the IPCC based on one newspaper story. Also whatever the rights and wrongs of this addition to the IPCC article he repeatedly edit warred against multiple editors to keep his addition in. Now I know all of these editors with all of their multiple reasons are the “faction” to you so maybe he was right and deserves your support against the evil faction, I actually am not judging the content but were the edits contentious? Certainly they were. I hope this is a substantive response to TGL Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Polargeo, I do recall someone being upset that I used the word "glaring," but I then pointed out to them that it was a direct quote from the glaciologist in charge of that section of the report. Keep in mind that this was in the criticism section. As you can see though, especially in the later section as the story evolved w/ more sources available, it was impeccably sourced. Did some people not want well-sourced criticism in the IPCC article? Absolutely. It had been a common meme that the IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature, when, in fact, it used pamphlets from greenpeace and other poor sources to make some of its more alarming (and inaccurate) claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ThegoodLocust has been banned from this topic for some time; however, without him the disruptions continue. I suspect extending a ban on this editor will have little effect on the overall disruption in the climate change area. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

F13: Marknutley disruptive behavior

 * Remedy discussion moved to own section. Repetition of text of finding removed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this? The first diff was my first edit on WP and i`m surprised that is being used here. The second diff is used as a bad sourcing issue? Rajendra K. Pachauri It`s to The Telegraph not a bad source. Third diff, Keith Briffa yes one of those sources is bad but the second is the Herald Sun not a bad source. The fourth Meg Whitman was a straight revert while on RC patrol i did not actually insert that content. Of all the BLP sourcing presented here only 2 are actually bad, and one of those was from my first ever edit. The POV Fork I did not think so, nor did the editors who knew i was working on it. An accusation of editing against consensus Erm, no. Only one editor at that time was against the use of these quotes to balance the insertion of this  The assumption of bad faith  Well i suppose this  was a good faith edit then?

So i`d like to know whom actually put this evidence together? mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter who put it together. what matters is getting the diff's corrected/removed.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rocksanddirt, whom do i ask to get them corrected/removed? mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * well...posting it here is a good start. at the top there is a note about the arbiters who were drafting the first bit of the proposed decision, and it appears that the actual posting was by newyorkbrad.  So, I might also drop a note on the talk pages of those editors with your concerns.  Additionally, LituratureGeek has summarized the problems with some of the diffs, and that will help also.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, i think LiteratureGeek has made a far better case of it than i could have :) So thanks to you both mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Risker who posted it, but Newyorkbrad who placed some of the first preliminary votes. I don't know who drafted it though.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the past couple of months a number of editors have assumed that the long delay has been caused by Risker and Rlevse working to win Newyorkbrad over to their desired outcome, so that the drafting arbs could present a united front. The fact that Risker posted the decision and NYB immediately cast votes in favor of parts of it gives credence to that assumption. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's laughably wrong, but more to the point, such speculation is not helpful. I appreciate you withdrawing the comment you made earlier (the one WMC asked you to withdraw), but trying to get inside the minds of arbitrators isn't really that helpful. We need space to discuss things, without people feverishly speculating as to what is going on behind those closed doors. And even more to the point, this type of speculation does nothing to help finalise the proposed decision, nor bring the case to a conclusion. You might want to see the point I made at the top of the page about keeping discussion focused on constructive criticism and comments on the proposed decision, rather than trying to wind up arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say that is the case I accept it; please consider my comment withdrawn, and please accept my apologies to you and your colleagues. I do think it's worth pointing out that this same conclusion was reached independently by a number of editors. The point is that when people are kept in the dark (or think they are being kept in the dark) for a long time they will eventually begin to speculate as to what is going on. That's just human nature; psychologists tell us that people don't like uncertainty or feeling that they have no control over or information about their circumstances. If Arbcom were to take this into account in future complex cases (perhaps arranging for a liaison to keep the participants informed?) it might help to forestall such speculation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the apology, which I hope the other arbitrators will read among all the other text here. I agree that communication could have been better in this case. I will suggest the idea of a case liaison for future cases. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While you are apologizing can you please strike out, "The PD is exactly as many of the Cabal members expected -- it's well known that Risker and Rlevse despise you, and the long delay was because they had to win over Brad to get sufficiently humiliating sanctions." from WMC's talk page? Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, conspiracy theories about the "ruling class" of wikipedia! Alas the proposed decision was passed soon after a motion to close the race and intelligence case so the delay was most likely due to the race and intelligence case, get one case out of the way before moving on to the next one. :) There is no conspiracy I think.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying, that casting aspersions on the motivations of the arbitrators does not count as constructive criticism. If you disagree with their opinions, then please discuss the opinion, not the arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley POV fork: Diff doesn't seem to support allegation
I was working on some of my proposals when I happened to stumble upon this in the proposed decision about Marknutley: " (POV fork)". I thought this was a bit strange because I don't recall Marknutley creating any POV forks. Anyway, I looked at the article, and while it certainly seems like POV fork, there's something I don't understand. Marknutley did not create this article. In fact, the article was created by Theblog on July 8, 2007, at least 2 years before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. Is this the right diff? If so, is ArbCom saying that editing someone else's POV fork is an actionable offense? If so, WMC and KDP edited the article well before Marknutley joined Wikipedia. In fact, I've edited the article myself. On February 15, 2010, I deleted a blank line and a moved a period. Is this the right diff or am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @AQFK It looks like you may have been confused by the redirect. MarkNutley appears to have created the article Criticism of the IPCC which is now a redirect to the article created in 2007. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed extension of finding

 * Retitled and moved as this relates to finding 13. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is practically a case study in what has gone wrong with this topic area.

The protection for Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley expired today. It had been protected by SirFozzie, theoretically until the conclusion of the case - but protection has expired before the case has concluded. Minor4th has declared on the talk page that he wants to make radical changes to the article unilaterally, without prior discussion or consensus. I, by contrast, have urged editors to discuss issues first and obtain consensus for major changes, , and I have posted a request for input on some material that I feel should be removed - if there is consensus to do so. For my pains I have been attacked by both Minor4th and Marknutley. And now we find Marknutley deleting reliably sourced commentary from a columnist in the UK Guardian, with the comment: remove monbiots comments on science what does a Zoologist know of climate science. 

Read that edit summary by Marknutley again: remove monbiots comments on science what does a Zoologist know of climate science

He's not even pretending to follow Wikipedia policy any more. It seems that he's decided that if he's going to be banned he might as well get as much disruptive editing in as he can before the axe falls. Whatever else this Arbcom decision does, it needs to stop this kind of blatantly abusive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say I was going to make radical changes to the article unilaterally -- I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations. I also did not attack ChrisO in the least bit.  And incidentally, after ChrisO reverted mark nutley, I have since removed that content again since it is an editorial smearing the BLP and is only one of many BLP violations in this article.   I have asked BLP editors at the noticeboard to please take a look and help edit with "new" eyes.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC


 * Interesting, so when you say The Hockey Stick Illusion publishd by Stacey International a highly reputable publisher written by Andrew Montford who has a BSc in chemistry is not a reliable source for matters relating to science what you mean is you don`t like him? Monbiot is ok for matters of science but not Montford? Is this what your saying here? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A BSc in chemistry? Words fail me. --TS 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me old fashioned tony but it does make one slightly more capable of commenting on science than a degree in zoology don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, let me spell this out for you: your personal opinion on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in WP:V. You have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. Your edit is a shockingly bad example of completely overt POV-pushing. We do not need that kind of behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris let me spell this out for you, your personal opinions on the qualifications of a source do not override the criteria set out in wp:v you have no business whatsoever removing material published in a major newspaper solely because you dislike the author. Your edits are shockingly bad mark nutley (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, do you know what zoology is? Do you not realize that it is science, just as much as chemistry is? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, a first degree doesn't make anyone more qualified to comment on science, no matter what the subject. I wouldn't want to compare the two subjects, frankly, but the notion that chemistry is more "scientific" than zoology doesn't seem a very sensible stance.


 * Getting back to the main question, it seems that Monbiot was commenting on the commentary by an Professor John Abraham on lectures given by Monckton. Monckton has posed as an expert on climate science but his claims have been widely debunked. If our biography does not mention that then we have failed the reader. --TS 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to link to a reliable source with such debunking. Not an unpublished hatchet job.Bigred58 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say I wanted to make radical changes unilaterally.  I said I was going to remove blatant BLP violations and explained exactly what that includes per policy.  I also posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard asking outside BLP editors to please look at the article and help edit, paying particular attention to removing blatant BLP violations.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And Mark, you do realise that the calumnies against Pachauri have been withdrawn with apologies by the Telegraph? TS 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also did not attack Chris.  That's really absurd.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it withdrawn at the time of this revert? No? Thne your argument is pointless mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We knew at the time that they were unreliable. This was discussed.  We do not blindly include any old tripe just because a newspaper has printed it. --TS 23:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your POV is showing tony, tell me. What is the difference between one old tripe and another then? wp:v you see. There is no difference between my removal of content and chris0`s other than monbiot is not qualified to comment on matters of science mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By your criteria we would have to delete most journalistic sources as well, as the vast majority of journalistic commentary on any specific issue is by people who do not have qualifications in the fields on which they are writing. Tony is no doubt referring to the two Telegraph writers' long-standing reputation for false reporting, which has now cost their paper upwards of £100,000. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That`s not my criteria it is yours. And as we are on the subject of not removing stuff expalain this mark nutley (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They haven't been withdrawn. It's a legalistic non-apology:
 * Dr Pachauri - Apology
 * On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused. Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting rather off-topic, but I should point out that the story was indeed withdrawn - it has been deleted from the Telegraph website and news archives - and the paper has paid over £100,000 in costs. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Further off-topic discussion

 * Thank you for doing that. I have refrained from commenting on the PD findings against individual editors until now, but this incident is, to my mind, a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the editing environment here. Editors need to have at least some minimal respect for basic content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since ChrisO makes some accusations against Minor4th, Minor4th's response shouldn't be included in this collapsed section. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[moving my comment to the section that is not marked "off-topic"] <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: last month, when WMC and ChrisO tried to force a highly critical unpublished presentation into Monckton, it was Marknutley who stood up to them and alerted others. ATren (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And got blocked for it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of the bias that is present.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

F15: User:Lar and User:Jehochman wheel war
Is that a wheelwar? It was certainly a revert war between two admins, without discussion, but it did not involve use of flags. The closing of CC/AE/RE has never been really codified - when it was a unilateral admin action, if noted, it just got filed by the individual, and when it became the consensus model it was done either by the admin who enacted sanctions or logged the restrictions, or by another - usually an admin - who noted what the consensus was and if any actions were taken. At worse there was a misunderstanding between two admins about what the practice was, and conducted via edit summary rather than talkpages. It is hard to admonish them, because it is impossible to define what procedure either violated if any. It isn't, either, as if it was part of a pattern between the two - regardless of the robust discussions the two have over many matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Furthermore, this incident happened 6 months ago, and was resolved between Lar and myself at the time.(Last two lines of this discussion) I don't see the value in rehashing it now. For what it's worth, my original close may have been hasty, as Lar suggested, so I waited about 22 hours before closing a second time.  I purposefully waiting for outside input and consensus building.  A very large number of editors placed comments during that time.
 * My second close noted, "Closed, no sanction by default, due to lack of consensus and inability of this page to consider an editor's entire history. Try WP:RFC or WP:RFAR instead" in the hat section, and "further discussion has not yielded a consensus to sanction, refer to next level of WP:DR process" in the edit summary.   In the prior edit I also explained, "This page has become useless. It is time to request arbitration. Rather than edit warring and disrupting the GW pages, the parties are now engaged in strategies to bait and sanction each other. It is time for a thorough review of everybody's behavior. Enforcement should not be arbitrary based on which admin responds to the complaint. Lar, you wanted to sanction. I did not. The default should be no sanction. No other admin has come forward suggesting to place a sanction, and by now any short term sanction would be punitive. This short noticeboard thread cannot fairly evaluate the long contribution history of WMC. If he is persistently incivil, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR are much more appropriate venues to address the problem, and establish consensus. " This was not wheel warring by any stretch of the imagination.
 * In my explanation to Lar, I said, "After you reopened the first time, I waited for multiple additional comments to be added to the thread. These further reinforced the consensus that WMC did not need to be sanctioned. Thus, I closed the thread a second time. It is not edit warring to wait for further comments and then take action based on a strengthening consensus. It is stressful for a user to be put in the stocks. We don't leave people in that state needlessly while we have a discussion about how best to refactor rude remarks in general. The thread should have remained closed, and you could have forked off the productive discussion about refactoring methods to an appropriate talk page." Jehochman Talk 20:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As LHvU and JEH, except it wasn't even an edit war without discussion, there was plenty of discussion between us at the time. I think Rlevse just wanted to find something to wag his finger at me about. I suggest instead that the finger wagging relate to the fact that after 8 months of unremitting harassment by WMC's faction, I do let myself get baited into speaking sharply from time to time, instead of this non-issue. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While Lar and I have had good faith disagreements about how to proceed with some matters, we remain collegial and there is absolutely no danger of us wheel warring. This proposal would only feed ammunition to those who want to undermine the work of admins who volunteer to enforce general sanctions (or arbitration sanctions) in difficult areas. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wheel war or revert war, it was certainly bad form on both your parts. It may not have involved the use of flags but they were admin actions as far as I'm concerned. I'll change it to revert war though. And Lar if you I'm going looking for things to "wag my finger" about at people in this or any case you're WAY off the mark.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it was a revert war because there was intervening discussion. Moreover, we resolved matters by ourselves at the time.  ArbCom should show a little restraint and deference.  If users work out their disagreements by themselves, just leave it alone! Opening up long ago resolved issues can stoke new disputes, which does not benefit anybody. ArbCom only needs to rule on active disputes. Lar and I already agreed not to repeat that situation.  Lo and behold, six months later we haven't. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall arguing somewhere that it was a wheel war because it involved admin privileges, whether or not it involved use of technical tools. Take your lumps, guys. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy. If some other admin undoes my action, I don't in general get too sussed about it, especially if there is discussion. My default good faith assumption is that other admins feel the same way. JEH did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. many hours later, after much more discussion, (resetting any "counters") JEH again did something, I undid it, we talked. Not wheel warring and not edit warring. Neither of us at this remove thinks it is. That ought to tell you all something. ArbCom needs to focus on far more important matters than this, and putting this in highlights all the larger stuff they let slide. I have no problem with taking lumps for things I did wrong. This wasn't one of them. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been closely watching this discussion, and I'm inclined to agree with Less, Jeh, and Lar. Looking at all of the diffs, it looks like a revert war where Lar and Jeh did not at first discuss it with each other, and then they did discuss it with each other. The initial lack of discussion is, I agree, not good, but it strikes me as being out of proportion to much of the other history cited in the PD. More importantly, it is raised in the absence of any clarification about "involvement", which many editors in this talk have been asking the Committee to address better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman on this -- including this as a finding and an admonishment will only undermine the tenuous enforcement efficacy admins have in this area. This finding is ill-advised and an overreaction by Arb IMO. This series of reverts was accompanied by a great deal of discussion, and the admins have worked it out between themselves and do not seem likely to repeat this type of episode, so no admonishment or finding is necessary and in fact would cause more harm. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Minor4th's observations about possible harm to future enforcement are very well-taken. Now that further additions have been made to the PD, it seems all the more the case to me that this part is relatively unhelpful, particularly in comparison to what is in F17. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Rlevse


Rlevse, would you please answer the following questions about your behavior:


 * 1) You, a sitting arbitrator, proposed a sanction against me that is not supported by the person who posted the evidence.  As a minor player in the CC dispute, I had not been following the case closely and was completely unaware of that evidence and had not given my side of the story.  Nevertheless, you jumped to a conclusion without getting any input from me.   Was that proper behavior by you?  Going forward will you listen to both sides of a story before making judgments?
 * 2) The "evidence" you cited includes exactly one revert made by me.  I believe that in the entire history of ArbCom, nobody has ever been sanctioned for edit warring based upon a single incident containing only one revert by them, and nobody has every been sanctioned for wheel warring unless they have used administrator access.   Do you believe the one revert, made after at least 17 hours of intervening discussion and dozens of comments in an attempt to form consensus, constitutes either wheel warring or edit warring?
 * 3) After making your proposal, you failed to notify me so that I could respond.  I only found out about your proposal by lucky chance.  I was out camping last week and with slightly different timing could easily have missed the entire thing and never had any chance to comment before voting started.   You didn't notify User:2over0 either.  Only later when Carcharoth noticed what was going on, a clerk was directed to contacted 2over0 by email.   Going forward will you make sure people are aware when you start a discussion about them?

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rlevse, please just answer the three questions I posed, and then we'll be done once and for all. If you have answered before you should be able to copy and paste, or post diffs.  In reviewing the record I do not find proper answers to my questions, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place Jehochman Talk 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest not reopening old disputes in the context of CC. For instance, I have no intention of asking if your accusations against me are part of the same pattern as your accusations during the Randy in Boise incident.  Let's not go there.  We should all focus on CC matters, and leave old skeletons dead and buried.  Stuff that isn't already in evidence ought not be brought up at this late stage. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to have reached a deadlock. I guess we'll just have to move on to other issues. Thank you for your time. Jehochman Talk 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Response by Rlevse
 * I've already answered this on your talk page, yet you brought it up again on talk page and then here. John Barber's response below is on the mark. The only thing not covered before, as Martin mentioned, is that behavior in prior cases can be used in current cases to show a pattern of conduct. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by others
 * ArbCom's responsibilities are to rule where it thinks it will help the project and to give people a chance to respond before ruling. That remit does not include a minimum number of edits by a sanctioned party (in fact, there must be examples where one edit has resulted in an ArbCom sanction). There is no right an editor has to be notified or to respond before even a draft proposal of a sanction is posted. I think if ArbCom imposed a sanction without giving an editor a chance to respond, that would be horrible, but Jehochman is complaining that a draft proposal was posted without prior warning. This is ridiculous. Jehochman should feel lucky that Arbcom The All-Merciful isn't sanctioning him for what I think Jehochman should be sanctioned for. He's getting a slight knuckle-rapping and howling like his leg is being amputated without anesthesia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear on terminology. Draft proposals are the ones in the Workshop.  The Proposed Decision is what's voted on.  Arbitrators should not be posting a decision for votes before hearing what the affected parties have to say for themselves.  It is wrong, absolutely wrong, for an arbitrator to make up their mind about an issue after hearing only one side of the story.  They are not being impartial when they do that. This is a sore subject from a two prior cases I was involved in (Hoffman and Durova), and there were undertakings by ArbCom that they would not repeat past mistakes.  I intend to hold them to their commitments. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As of now, Rlevse hasn't even voted on sanctioning you. I think it would probably be better form not to post a proposal, even for findings of fact, without first asking the liable parties to comment, but as long as Rlevse continues to keep an open mind, it's not a big deal. This case has been a bit strange because the Workshop page was closed, but the page is still called "Proposed decision" and it's a draft until it's voted on. I don't see a great wrong in this situation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an unreasonable position. I hope you are right. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe investigations and disciplinary actions do require feedback from the accused for some semblance of due process in answering specific charges with fair hearing. Here and now must be the opportunity to answer the charges brought by the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop stage is too nebulous, seems like editors have an opportunity to discuss the PD (as a specific charge with evidence) here. I was disappointed to have my PD questions to accused parties be cut off or redirected to the General Discussion pages.  Something is just not right if the accused can not be cross examined in fair hearing after the charges are made clear by the PD.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rlevse. I don't disagree with you but please answer for yourself. What you say seems to indicate that you accept JohnWBarber's statement word for word and that is not a good place to be for a drafting arbiter. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, since my evidence submission is apparently at the root of this issue: I think the incident in question showed poor judgment by both Lar and Jehochman. I personally don't think that sanctions against them are warranted, because as far as I know these were isolated incidents for both of them, and they have long records of solid adminship in counterbalance. That said, their actions set a poor example for editors in the area, which I think contributed to the overall charlie-foxtrot into which things have devolved. A major aspect of this case is the need for admins (and experienced non-admins) to model good behavior, and so I submitted this incident as an example of where things went awry. If I personally thought admonishments or sanctions were in order, I would have proposed them during the workshop phase. That said, I'm not on ArbCom. I submitted evidence which illustrated the key aspects of this case as I see them. ArbCom can decide to ignore that evidence, to accept my presentation of it, or to take it further than I did. That's their prerogative. I agree with Jehochman that in an ideal world, the admins in question would be formally notified of the proposal to admonish them, but I also think the Arbs are doing their best with an intractable situation and probably deserve more slack than they've been cut thus far. MastCell Talk 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think MastCell's statement is very reasonable (quite in character). I am willing to cut the arbitrators slack if they are willing to cut me slack.  Jehochman Talk 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell's take, but would add to you (Jehochman) that I think some of your past actions have trimmed your slack with the committee (or at least some members), more than you might have realized. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be. Jehochman Talk 17:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

F16: Lar RfC/U
As written, this appears to be innuendo. The actual RfC/U did not achieve consensus that there was anything requiring arbitration. Either there needs to be some sort of conclusion about there being a problem, or the section does not add anything to the rest of the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC did not come to a consensus in anything; that it exampled some polarisations of opinion is the best that might be said for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. I really do not think we want to set up a precedent where the simple fact that an RfC/U has taken place is regarded by ArbCom as incriminating evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not innuendo. A substantial number of editors felt that Lar's behavior was problematic. The arbitrators would be remiss if they ignored these very serious concerns. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not the place to re-argue the RfC/U, so I won't. I trust that the Arbitrators can evaluate the RfC/U for themselves. What does concern me is that whatever the decision here says, should reflect the facts of the RfC/U, and not derive some sort of implied conclusion from simply saying that the RfC/U occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice they did the same to WMC (see my statement). So if they strike the one for Lar, they should strike the ones for WMC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed it somewhere, there is not a separate section just about the RfC/Us on WMC, and where they are discussed, there is discussion of what they meant, not just an isolated statement that they happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But a correction to what I just said: I take your point that those other RfCs also did not lead to conclusions supporting arbitration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think close study of the *entire* RFC/U is warranted. Not just some of it, all of it. While there were some editors that had concerns, and I've tried to take those concerns on board, the "have a cupcake" section got a lot of endorsement too. The editors engaging in factional behavior tend to want to discount the fact that a fair number of editors realize they were engaging in factional behavior. Discount their views and the numbers come out rather differently. Which just shows you can do all sorts of interesting things with numbers. Including zero (the number of editors who endorsed the original complaint from WMC and Polargeo... that's a pretty significant number). ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While there were some editors that had concerns, and I've tried to take those concerns on board... Sorry but I don't buy this for a moment. You said after the RfC that it was a "farce." You did not moderate your behavior one iota. You stuck like glue to your oft-repeated view that there were "cabals," despite the evidence to the contrary that indeed nobody had endorsed the complaint. When I pointed that out to you in the talk page, you said, "Alternatively, they're not stupid, and cross endorsing each others outside views, mixed in with the innocent bystanders who didn't know better and were drawn in, might have been viewed as a more effective tactic than being the only endorses in a view that was way over the top." You then said to me, "You're probably one of the innocent bystanders though if it's any consolation." As if I am supposed to be happy that you chose to be only mildly contemptuous. See . ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer sure you're an innocent bystander, given how you cavort on WMC's page . Others characterized the RfC as a farce, and that view was actually pretty widely endorsed. Just not by the editors who act in factional and disruptive ways. Not everyone buys the line that there aren't factions, regardless of how often you repeat it! Some people know there are. That includes at least whichever Arb drafted Principle 4, even if ArbCom hasn't yet had the intestinal fortitude to build on that principle with some findings and remedies. You might want to reconsider who you hang out with. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the second time you've mentioned my posts on the WMC talk page, both times inappropriately and gratuitously, now referring to them as "cavorting," as if I'm hanging out at a whorehouse. See your earlier post and MastCell's response. Here's one of my "cavorts":


 * "I wandered back after a few days off-wiki, and I find a nuclear war going on in at least three theaters of operation. I'm annoyed at WMC for behaving this way, and am in no mood to defend him at this time. I wonder whether he did it deliberately, so that he could be blocked for a trivial reason and thereby preempt a possible arbcom action. Bottom line: he should be unblocked. Excessive, uneecessary, and also with a whiff of irregularity as it was done by an arbcom member with a history concerning WMC, and who recused. It would be better for all, except possibly WMC, if he lifted the block and let arbcom decide. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=379993967


 * It seems pretty obvious that you feel such hostility to WMC that you feel that my posts, even the one I quote above, constitute giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You draw the wrong conclusion. WMC's talk page is a hostile, unwelcoming place, by and large... unless you're pretty closely aligned with him. That you can criticize him is commendable, but that he tolerates your posts suggests that you are far from unbiased. Has nothing to do with any purported "hostility" on my part. You've also failed to address the major point I made, that you can deny the existence of factions as much as you want, but that doesn't fool all the people. As I say, you might want to reconsider who you hang out with. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to reconsider who you hang out with. Why? As for his talk page, it may be an unwelcoming place for you, but that's because it's perfectly obvious that you can't stand him. I think my explanation is valid, and is yet more evidence of your unfitness to act as an administrator in this area. As for factions, I agree with SPhilbrick's view expressed below, at 12:37, 24 August 2010, and the replies beneath. I think that "faction" is overused in the discourse on the CC talk pages, and that you are the worst offender by far. It's clear, since you are behaving this way in an arbitration page, that you aren't going to moderate your behavior, or back off from the CC pages, unless compelled to do so by arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got a lot of users on my watchlist including some from this case. I can think of some from the top of my head that I have chatted with; users Lar, WMC, 2/0, Boris, ATren, Jehochman, Minor4th and others I'm sure. What difference does this make? I think that this part of the conversation should be hatted or moved as not being important to the discussion of this PD, which includes mine. Just thought it should be known, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

F17: Lar comments, actions, and mindset
Lar, I have a set of questions related to this finding that I'd like to see answered here. They are broadly similar to the ones I've posed to Stephan Schulz below. (1) What steps do you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor? (2) Do you have any comments to make on the diffs presented in this finding? (3) Do you think administrators should have the trust of the editors in areas they are helping to administrate? As I said when asking Stephan these questions, could I ask that others please not answer for Lar. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I am aware of this request and will answer shortly, when I've had a chance to compose my thoughts. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My answers:
 * 1) What steps do you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor?


 * First, I don't have all these articles on my watch list. I become aware of issues either when they are brought to the enforcement page, or (less often) when I am contacted about them either on my talk, or via off-wiki request. I don't edit in the CC area at all, so any actions I take are as an administrator or at most as a disinterested commentator, hence there technically are no steps I need to take to decide whether to act as an editor or administrator.


 * So then, the question is better posed as "when would I recuse from acting as an administrator if something comes to my attention?" and the answer would be that I examine the article and the parties involved in whatever dispute or issue came to my attention to see if I have a COI about the topic itself, or if there are participants who I have a direct personal conflict with. I factor out participants who have been solely the focus of previous administrative action (as that is not a disqualifier from acting), and I factor out participants who may have shown animus to me, but to whom I feel no animus myself. I then (unfortunately) do a bit of a political evaluation, "will my taking action tend be incorrectly overturned?" or what have you. If any parties remain I won't act.


 * Finally, I've been finding lately that my actions are increasingly constrained by that last factor, as there seems to be a great unjustified hue and cry if I take any action whatever. So I tend to restrict myself to commenting and seeking consensus, I've placed a total of one block... the other enforcement actions were notifications of bans or restrictions. LMK if that's not the question you wanted answered.


 * While on this topic, uninvolved admins, whether me or someone else, will be hamstrung without stronger decisions out of ArbCom. Admins need to be able to act forcefully without being torn down at AN/I by a howling mob egged on by partisan and factional behavior of those allied with the misbehavers.


 * 2) Do you have any comments to make on the diffs presented in this finding? 


 * Technical note: here appears to be at least one dup, or there was last I checked. Also, I don't see why the links are to the secure wiki instead of the regular one, it makes them harder to decode. But those are nits.


 * More importantly, in general the diffs seem to be cherry picked and are somewhat out of context, I think... In fact I will go farther, The diffs are representative of nothing much important. It sometimes is necessary that one uses a stern tone, or to be curt and even harsh with disruptive editors at times (similar to a parent imposing restrictions on a child).  If admins are required to speak in flowery, sugarcoated language when they are delivering stern warnings about misconduct, they will never be taken seriously (not that they are anyway, it seems).


 * I speak to disruptive editors in a stern manner, it's true. It's not like I call them names (old fruit, septic, etc.) or any such thing (except wacko, one time, but that was a case where I was echoing back someone else's words, and I really thought it would be received in the jocular manner it was offered... remember, I bear no animus so I was surprised to find it borne to me)


 * I have never denied that there are those active in this area that are capable of baiting me into saying things I regret later, or claimed any special perfection. We are none of us perfect. But the arbcom decision ought to be directed at those who cause trouble by their actions in the topic area primarily, I think, not those who are doing their best to evenhandedly ensure that the topic area runs smoothly. I said this about the proposed sanction of 2/0 but it bears repeating here.


 * 3) Do you think administrators should have the trust of the editors in areas they are helping to administrate?


 * It is helpful but not necessary. If it were absolutely necessary, it would be too easily gameable. What is more important is to have the trust of editors who are NOT active in the area and who have not acted in factional ways in the past. The lady who writes me parking tickets doesn't specifically need my trust in order to do so, nor does the fellow who picks up my wastebasket. (those being somewhat analogous to adminship, especially the last one) Society in general needs to trust them, and I need to trust the general mechanisms. But not the individuals.


 * More specifically, in this area the admins taking action will be accused of bias by someone, so I don't think it is possible to have the trust of all the editors in the area. After all, people don't like being restricted to rules that they are trying to break. The disruptive editors in this area are not going to trust anyone who enforces policy, period. So, no, it's not only not necessary to have the trust of editors you're imposing sanctions against or warning ...it's perhaps not even a possibility if we are talking about those who are disruptive and who engage in factional behavior and who are the source of the major problems here.


 * An example to clarify... Marknutley... we know he means well, but also has some issues. If you review his comments when he's been sanctioned by me or (some) other admins, you'll find that he does trust me (or some other admins) and does understand that the sanction was imposed because he erred, not because the admins are biased. Contrast that with WMC's comment the last time I imposed a sanction... he called me "stupid and malicious". He even hurled insults at BozMo as well, when BozMo blocked him.


 * ArbCom should to look at the opinions of editors who have not had to be regularly warned and who have not been violating rules, I do enjoy their trust because they have no reason to fear me or be cross with me for simply doing what I was asked to do -- enforce policy on Wikipedia. I note that 2/0 and especially Bozmo were rarely, if ever, parties to the questioning of my involvement and continued interacting with me in the uninvolved admins section of the enforcement area.


 * Hope that helps. If not please ask again. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two of the diffs presented are the same, currently the first (link 109) and fifth (link 113). Several of them are also from the same conversations, and would probably be better presented together. Chronological order (numbering is for current order): third link (111), eleventh link (119), first/fifth link (109/113), tenth link (118), sixth link (114), second link (110), fourth link (112), seventh link (115), ninth link (117), eighth link (116). 2over0 public (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A recent example of "comments, actions, and mindset": "Seems to me that WMC participated in writing a paper that points out that some folk get alarmed and now wants to back away from that by refactoring what the paper said but the source doesn't support that, nor do the secondary sources. GregJackP did nothing wrong here except go up against the wrong people." ScottyBerg (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that really looks weird coming from Lar. I mean, we all make allowances for other editors who may not be bright enough to realise they're misreading the facts, but Lar is known to be a very, very bright guy. --TS 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He feels very strongly about it. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

F18: Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions

 * Moved here from general discussion section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Redwood National Park. Skimming over the PD page page, I saw my name mentioned. I'd like to point out that I have performed very few admin actions on CC articles, and, as far as I can know, no contentious ones. In particular, I have only blocked CU confirmed socks. I'd urge the committee to check in detail if any of my admin actions is problematic, and if not, if and why I should stop doing them. N.B.: What has been contentious has been my participation in the admin discussion at the probation enforcement board (which, however, followed the letter of the rules and was, if I say so, neutral, constructive and valuable ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so what actions have you taken to disable (in particular WMC) incivility? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ZuluPapa5, that would be best covered in a general discussion section covering WMC's incivility, not specific admins. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The point here is that your extensive editing in this topic area makes it difficult (or easier, YMMV) to judge involvement. Whenever an admin arrives at an article, they have to make a choice between acting as an administrator or an editor. If they are unsure about acting as an administrator, they need to either ask another administrator to deal with it, or articulate why they are taking administrative actions, and also address any concerns raised. Stephan, I know you are on holiday, but if you get the chance, could I ask you to say what steps you take when looking at a climate change article, to decide whether you will act as an administrator or an editor. Second question is why you followed the letter, rather than the spirit of the rules at the probation enforcement board? Last question: when you realised your participation in the admin sections was controversial, why did you continue to participate there? I'll ask Lar the same questions, and could I ask that others please not answer for Stephan. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think the premise is correct. Admins can act as both editors and admins as long as their administrative actions are not influenced by their editorial stance. This is in analogy with e.g. WP:COI. As an example, I would have no problem to use rollback or semi-protection to protect an article I edit against simple vandalism. WP:NOT applies. But to answer your first question in the sense it was probably asked: When I have a personal interest in the outcome of a discussion/edit war, because I have a strong opinion, I usually articulate this in my role as an editor. As an example, I've created and significantly contributed to Talk:Global warming/FAQ in order to avoid repetitive good-faith discussions of the same topics. I use admin tools only in cases where I have no strong personal opinion, or in cases where their use is clearly governed by policy and precedent (block of CU-confirmed socks, deletion of articles after AfD, ...). As for your second question, I think I followed both letter and spirit in this case. But the letter is clear, while opinions on the spirit are far more diffuse. I believe the section is there to collect input from all admins with insight into the situation, to have an informed discussion, and to come to a consensus decision. This interpretation is apparently not shared by Lar, who is the primary complainant. To answer your third question, I did not, for long. I did it for as long a I did because mere contentiousness is not a sufficient reason not to contribute - if that were the case, we would have neither editors nor admins in many areas. And, to be honest, I was (and am) pissed off by Lar waltzing in with an ego the size of a grand piano, a prejudiced view of the situation, and a grossly unfair and counterproductive master-plan to fix a problem he does not even begin to understand. I thought (and think) he needs to be balanced by someone with experience in the domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording of this FOF is problematic. Stephan Schulz has made very few admin actions this calendar year. I would suggest rewording the FOF to:

"User:Stephan Schulz heavily edits the Climate Change articles. In the past, he has also carried out admin actions within the topic area.[Log entries of him taking action against non-vandals/sockpuppets and the like, which I assume exist]. He has also attempted to comment as an uninvolved administrator on the general sanctions enforcement board.[diffs]"

<b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

F21 A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct
Roger Davies, regarding the second alleged BLP violation, here -- how is that a BLP violation? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. I said it was inappropriate.  Roger Davies  talk 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies: That doesn't even make any sense. The article is about the Climategate scandal.  It's supposed cover the allegations.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Inappropriate" seems a little insignificant for an ArbCom finding. How does that differ from violating a policy? Why include either of the two BLP findings as inappropriate? More generally -- and this is addressed also to Shell and Coren -- not that I necessarily disagree with the tactic, but what is the reason for delving down into what are normally considered minor breaches of policy that (I think) would usually receive warnings? I mean, what do you hope to accomplish? If the bar is set as low as "inappropriate", I suppose the result will be that everyone involved will eventually get swept into the case, but as I said before, that makes Wikipedia effectively a trap for anyone involving themselves in any long-term controversial topic on the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia tempts and frustrates with the promise that anyone can edit and deludes editors into thinking that policy will be enforced, the encyclopedia doesn't enforce policy for months or years, then ArbCom swoops in and sanctions on the basis of not even a violation of policy, but inappropriate conduct involving the policy. Ninety-nine percent of the editors who edit pages connected to controversies would be swept up in the trap, and the other one percent would not be the best editors. I'm not actually saying I disagree with the tactic, but I don't know why you're casting these big, fine nets. Why are you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP doesn't even apply since the University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. But even if it were a person, it's still reliably sourced to three different articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources talk about the unit as a distinct legal/corporate entity: the comment applies this to the people involved (some of whom are identifed in the article).  Roger Davies  talk 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger, an allegation that authorities comment on, and in which they say no prosecution will take place because of a statute-of-limitation type issue, is fair game for any BLP, let alone an article about the controversy in which the law violations are a prominent feature. I suggest you take some time and rethink this. Also, you've recently commented in the Rd232 section that you didn't see a pattern of conduct. The same problem presents itself here, regarding BLP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP: "The policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must comply with the other content policies."    The diff in question is an edit about the UAE -- a university employing 2,500 staff -- you cannot violate BLP policy with respect to a large university.     What is going on here?   And, yes, please do take another look at the proposed finding about Rd232 because there are some wide disrepancies in the way that policy is being applied and stretched by the Arbs.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's normally true but in this instance the commentary weren't talking about the UAE as a whole but a small unit within it, to which BLP probably does apply.  Roger Davies  talk 04:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

←(after edit conflicts) - "The article is about the Climategate scandal." - Actually, it was about the theft of some documents and the manufactured controversy that subsequently arose. There was no "scandal" to speak of. Nor was the word used by reliable sources. It is perhaps terminology like this that ratcheted up the rhetoric at that particular article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From The Guardian on July 7. So what are the issues raised? [...] The emails show the scientists [...] appeared to work to block requests filed under Freedom of Information law and even suggested deleting information to prevent it being released." Going by what the sources say, and this is only one among many, the possibility of a violation of FOIA law was part of the controversy. This  is what The Guardian published the day before AQFK's January 28 edit. It's a little hard for AQFK to be promoting a "battleground atmosphere" in that article by adding to the lead a straightforward reflection of what was in newspapers like The Guardian at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People seem to be trying to excuse the use of words like 'criminals' here. Here are some reminders: The ICO wrote, "The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information." Before any conviction (which would not be a criminal law matter anyway) it would have been necessary to show that (a) some information was deleted and (b) this was done to defeat FOI disclosure (rather than as a routine matter or as part of commercial copyright terms). Sure an email talks about deleting stuff, but further investigations have shown that nothing was ever actually deleted in this way by its sender or by any of its few recipients (afaik). The sender and recipients of the email are easily ascertained. That is why sensible commentators have used moderate language, and so should we. --Nigelj (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats very interesting - but none of the two definitions fit here - do they? No evidence of crime committed, and no conviction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, more than just interesting. The diff in question stated: Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late Lead paragraph from The Guardian coverage from the day before the edit: The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act. [...] Smith said no action could be taken against the university because the specific request they had looked at happened in May 2008, well outside the six-month limit for such prosecutions under the act. That article remains on the Guardian website without a correction. Following the sources is not the stuff ArbCom findings are built on. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: I'm glad to see that you seem to be conceding that this wasn't a BLP violation. This is good. However, you're claiming that I made "inappropriate allegations". I did not make any allegation at all in this diff. I simply reported back what BBC News, The Guardian and The Telegraph said. You seem to be confusing personal opinion with writing in a disinterested tone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me rephrase that. I did not make the allegation.  The Information Commissioner's Office made the allegation which was then covered by secondary, reliable sources.  All I did was report what the sources said in a disinterested tone.  You seem to be confusing personal opinion with the opinion of the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, you decided to cite this in the lead section of an article. It was a sign of poor judgement on a BLP issue. It's not really sensible to blame the source for this. I think it's possible that you're dwelling exclusively on this and failing to see the bigger picture. Coupled with your insistence that it's okay to say that the CRU scientists are criminals, which they are not, this is worrying. --TS 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony Sidaway: There was nothing wrong with that edit and I'd be happy to bring this up at the BLP Noticeboard. I'll respond to the latter point once Roger Davies has had an opportunity to explain why it's "inappropriate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we've been through this a few times already. The noticeboards are useful for basic stuff, but when we're examining how a person approaches editing they're not going to be much use. I'm sure the other arbitrators all have opinions on this, so perhaps trying so strenuously to examine his opinion isn't the best use of our time. Why do I, for instance, find your attitude to editing on the subject a little disturbing?  I'm not Roger. --TS 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you tell me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the dictionary definition of crime:
 * "an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law".
 * This is the dictionary definition of criminal:
 * "1: one who has committed a crime 2: a person who has been convicted of a crime".
 * Did not all the three RS, the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, state the Commissioner's view that there had been a breach of freedom of information law that was, by its nature, prosecutable and punishable, but could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired? -- JN 466  22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayen466, have you looked at the full statement made by Graham Smith that the sources are reporting? What does it say? Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't, and would indeed be grateful if you could point me to it. For present purposes, however, I maintain that what we need to look at is whether AQFK's comments and conclusions drawn from reading the Guardian, BBC and Telegraph reports were reasonable, and conclusions of the sort that any editor who had read these sources might draw. -- JN 466  00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But, AQFK's additions to the lead were drawn from a summary of the article, an article written by a consensus of interested editors. He made them without pointing to a specific source or adding a citation, and avoided having to deal with that pesky consensus thing. What does the current article say?  Is this edit still preserved?  Why or why not? Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now (re-)read the Times article, which says, "A spokesman for the ICO said: 'The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.' Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine. ... In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: 'The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.' He added: 'The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.'" -- JN 466  01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the spokesman? Is it the same person as Graham Smith?  Can you confirm they are the same person?  I could not.  They apparently were misquoted, as the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report says that there may have been a breach.  It does not confirm that a breach occurred. According to the latest report, dated September 2010, "Handling of the Freedom of Information requests was found to be inadequate, but it was concluded that the responsibility lies primarily with the university administration, not individual research units such as CRU."  AQFK's disputed and controversial addition to the lead section, which was not a summary of the article as he claimed, stated "Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late."  Well, according to the most recent investigation "the people involved" are not responsible. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to look at AQFK's talk page statement in the temporal context in which it was made, do we not? AQFK made his talk page comment on 28 January, the day all these news reports appeared. The Times stated on that day, bluntly, "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. ... The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late. ...The stolen e-mails ... showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. Given this backdrop of news reporting, I do not find it just to condemn AQFK for the talk page comment he made on that day, given the information before him at the time. Whether or not the findings changed later on (a point I am not clear about at this time) should not enter our considerations, as it would be unfair to expect AQFK to know the future. This relates just to the talk page statement whose diff was included in the FoF proposed by Roger. -- JN 466  01:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Grahm Smith of the ICO refers to errors "frequently made in press reports" on p.30 of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report. Careful Wikipedia editors know all about these errors published during current events, and follow Recentism whenever possible, paying especially close attention to damaging claims in regards to WP:BLPs.  AQFK had been participating on the talk page for quite some time before this edit, and was well aware and acquainted with the danger of using sources carelessly.  That still does not explain his edit to the lead section, which contrary to his claim, did not summarize the body of the article.  How do you explain his edit to the lead?  As far as I can tell, AQFK put his own POV above that of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, go to the diff in question, scroll down to the bottom of the "Timeline" section. It's there in the last paragraph. Not that it matters. I don't care how small-bore this ArbCom decision is going to get, it is never going to sanction AQFK for violating WP:LEAD, a style guideline. And as a matter of fact, it isn't even prohibited to have information only in the lead and not the rest of the article. So: This horse has officially been beaten to death, every which way it possibly can be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is there, but the content is not. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the edit in question, is it not? It does not claim to summarise the article content (although content on the commissioner's statement had been added a couple of hours prior). AQFK's edit summary was, "Added IOC ruling to lede." The hidden comment in the lede ("... this summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article ...") was there before his edit, and does not seem to have been introduced by AQFK. So all he said was, "Added IOC ruling to lede." This was breaking news on the day, and what AQFK added to the lead adequately summarised what the Times, BBC, Guardian and Telegraph were reporting that day. His wording does in fact seem to owe more to the Times, which appears to have broken the story first (according to the Telegraph, the statement by Smith that all four sources are quoting was made to the Times). So we have an editor who, on a day when all quality UK media covered this as a major breaking news item, added this piece of news, which had just been added to the body of the article, to the lead, adequately reflecting the sources. This is something that editors do here every day. I am not saying that there may not be lessons here for editors, including AQFK, but it is not something worth sanctioning AQFK for, and it is not a BLP violation in my view, given the variety of quality media all covering this in pretty much the same terms AQFK used in his edit. -- JN 466  02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What we have seen so far, is evidence for AQFK's "inappropriate" statements on the talk page, and his disputed edit citing newspaper sources claiming the ICO said the CRU broke the law. The facts show that after these claims were subsequently corrected in the 31 March 2010 Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry, AQFK continued to tendentiously maintain that the scientists broke the law, and his argument continued to focus on the lead section material, even as late as 30 June 2010, six months after the initial edit above.  After all of this time, and the subsequent comments from the ICO and investigations correcting the errors made in the original news reports, AQFK was still arguing that "".  This was after the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee reported: "We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight...The Deputy Information Commissioner's letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.[130] As, however, UEA pointed out, no investigation has been carried out...There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. " AQFK maintained that this statement by the ICO proved that the UEA violated the FOIA.  When corrected by many editors, AQFK failed to acknowledge the error of his position:  ChrisO explained the problem to AQFK, saying, "The statement "there was evidence that a breach may have occurred" is not equivalent to "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid".  Again, AQFK refused to recognize the difference, and responded with, "It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act but there won't be prosecutions because the statute of limitations had passed. So, they were not vindicated of all charges. Just like I said."  ChrisO again corrected AQFK, saying, "No, that's not what it says. It says there was "evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred." The word "may" is critically important here. They did not make any determination that a violation had occurred. When you say "there's evidence that they violated the FOI Act", that's wrong."  Finally, on July 1, 2010, AQFK gives away the game: "...the editors who control this article won't allow us to write in a editorially neutral point of view so  Ten minutes later, AQFK has a change of heart, and modifies his comment.  This shows that we have direct evidence of tendentious editing over BLP material and a clear and unambiguous admission of battlefield conduct occurring six months after the initial problematic edit.  This was not a one time event as AQFK and JohnWBarber maintain, but a regular, daily occurrence lasting half a year. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, there are so many things wrong with Viriditas' post, I'm not even sure where to begin. Viriditas is confusing and conflating issues of little relevance to what I am saying. But let me try to get down to the heart of the matter.  The "errors" that Viriditas is talking about are whether the ICO issued a statement or a formal statement, whether this was really a statement or a decision, and whether this was an investigation or a thorough investigation.  Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the ICO looked into allegations and found that that the UAE did not follow FOIA but did not pursue the matter further because the 6 month statute of limitations had expired.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors and nitpicking.  Also, yet again Viriditas is claiming that the UAE is a person and is attempting to apply BLP where it doesn't apply.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFN, I have three questions for you. One: On 27 February 2010, you deleted  content about the Information Commissioner's Office and the FOI claims, and the UEA's Submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee.  Could you explain why you deleted the opinion of the UEA defending their position, leaving only allegations of FOI violations against them, allegations that were not accurately covered by the media?  At the time, you claimed in the edit summary that you were deleting the content showing the UEA's position on the matter  "Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV".  Can you explain how those two things support your edits here?  Two: Could you please give me a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether you are still maintaining the position that "FOA violations were found to be valid"?  If the answer is yes, could you please provide the evidence that supports your position?  And, if the answer is no, could you explain what made you change your mind?  Three: Could you also take a moment to answer the question I asked you below, namely, why on 23 July 2010, on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, you said "I wasn't around here in November 2009", when in fact, you were?  Again, thanks for any light you can shed on these three questions. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom isn't going to rule on content issues, but it looks like an NPOV violation, giving undue weight to a position sourced mostly to primary sources. Again, IMHO, primary sources should be used with caution, especially for contentious material, because they are easy to misuse.  If it were up to me, I'd rip most, if not all, primary source out of that article and only cite secondary, reliable sources.
 * You are confusing an editor's opinion with the opinions of the sources. The ICO - which is the body responsible for FOIA - looked into the allegations and said that the UEA failed to follow the FOIA.  To the best of my knowledge, the ICO has not retracted their opinion.
 * Yet again, your argument focuses on irrelevant details and misses the big picture. What I was saying was that I wasn't around when that discussion took place.  Since I didn't start editing the article until the end of November, I assumed that it must have occurred before I discovered the article.  In any case, I checked the talk page archives and I don't even see a discussion about this image.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about content, AQFN, this is about your battlefield conduct and mistreatment of BLP material. In regards to what you call a NPOV violation, you unilaterally decided to remove the material without discussion, and you had the nerve to write "see forthcoming discussion on talk page" in your edit summary.  That is incredibly disruptive, especially so on a page that was already on article probation.  Not good, AQFN.  Again, you repeat the same claims about the ICO.  You say they said that "the UEA failed to follow the FOIA."  Could you show me where they said that, AQFN?  I'm looking at a copy of the ICO Press Office statement from Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner.  He said: "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation."  That's it.  Where do you get the "UEA failed to follow the FOIA" part from? Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: You seem mad at me for what the ICO said.  I'm sorry, but that's not my concern.  I'm not here to right great wrongs or engage in advocacy.  My goal here as a Wikipedia editor is to, as best I can, report back what reliable sources are saying about an article's subject matter.  Yes, I take our WP:NPOV policy seriously, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.  Also, I'm not going to squabble over minor verbiage issues in informal talk page discussions.  And please stop wrapping your arguments in our BLP policy.  The UEA is not a person.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFN, the evidence shows that you haven't used reliable sources correctly or carefully, nor have you attempted to fix the mistakes you introduced into articles. You have claimed that "FOA violations were found to be valid", and now you claim that the "UEA failed to follow the FOIA".  Could you please show me where you got that information from?  That's not in the statement released from the ICO Press Office.  Your diffs show a pattern of battlefield editing, disruption on the talk page, and a disregard for article probation.  Your deliberate removal of defensive claims from the UEA and your purposeful placement of poorly sourced negative claims against the UEA (which turned out to be erroneous) is not classified as NPOV, it's called POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: Are you seriously going to argue that there's substantive difference between "failed to follow" and "violations"? I'm sorry, but I am not engaging in petty arguments regarding informal comments on talk page discussions.  The sources for my edit have already been provided for you umpteen times.  Here they are again.  To the best of my knowledge, the ICO has not retracted their opinion that the UAE failed to follow FOIA but will not pursue the matter further because the statute of limitations has expired.  Please, if you have a problem with the ICO, take it up with them, not me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK, I'm not going to argue with you about the differences in words, we go with what the most current sources say, paying special attention to errors and mistakes. The links you post above are quite telling: A BBC article from Jan 28, 2010, a Guardian article from Jan 27, 2010, and a Telegraph article from Jan 28, 2010.  AQFK, since January, there have been at least three major reports and findings published: the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Science Assessment Panel, and the Independent Climate Change Email Review.  There have also been many retractions, apologies, and further publications since January.  Are you going to honestly say here, on this arbcom case, that old, sensationalistic media reports from the time of the initial incident, are still current and accurate?  This error of yours has been pointed out many times on the CRU talk page, but here you are, engaging in the same tendentious behavior for everyone to see in the light of day.  Please understand, knowledge changes, it does not stay the same, especially when it's reported in sensationalistic news reports prone to error.  When the news media originally reported on the Balloon boy hoax, for example, they said that a six-year-old boy floated away on a helium balloon.  However, we now know it is a hoax.  Would you, AQFK, go back and cite those old, initial reports today, and claim that is what happened, even though we know now, today, that it did not?  This is a serious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, as the talk page shows this has been explained to you several times. Viriditas (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: You are misrepresenting the other reports. Not one of them exonerated the UEA.  Let me sum up all four as they relate to this discussion:
 * The ICO - which is the ruling authority regarding FOIA violations - said that the UEA failed to follow FOIA but will not pursue the matter further because the statute of limitations has expired.
 * The review conducted by Penn State only examined the conduct of Michael Mann, not the UEA.
 * The report issued by HoC said they found evidence of FOIA violations, but left it unresolved because a more thorough investigation was required.
 * The investigation conducted by UEA itself, also failed to exonerate the UEA. It said that there was evidence that e-mails might have been deleted to prevent them from being released by FOIA requests and that they didn't respond to FOIA requests properly but blamed the university management.
 * That is a current and accurate portrayal of the situation.  Yes, I will stand before ArbCom and say that those news articles are essentially correct.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of key importance here is that no body or investigation found the UEA guilty of anything. Even the ICO statement was irrelevant because they were unable to conduct of proper investigation due to the statute of limitations being passed. ICO officials believed the Freedom of Information Act had not been properly followed by the UEA scientists, but there was no pronouncment of guilt because there couldn't be. Sources made that clear at the time. That means that any suggestion of criminal acts or criminality in general would be a serious violation of WP:BLP. You cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal act and it has been described as such in reliable sources. At most, you could say the UEA had a "whiff on impropriety" where FOIA procedure was concerned, but that's as far as you could reasonably go without violating Wikipedia's most sacred rule. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. The worst sources repeatedly claimed, over and over again, for weeks, that because a FOIA violation might have occurred, climate science as a whole was debunked.  This of course, makes no sense, but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles.  If they could somehow show that the hacked, private e-mails, which were unlawfully released to the public, contained some kind of impropriety, any kind, this could be twisted and framed in such a way as to attack the entire scientific dataset on climate change.  And, that is exactly what they tried to do.  If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please provide some diffs that support these claims?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is the very exemplification of a battleground mentality: And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. [...] but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles. [...] If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. What needs to stop, Viriditas, is censoring facts from articles because The Other Side might happen to get a boost from those facts. When a fact is important enough, it should stay in the article no matter what side benefits. That's called NPOV. I realize that it's a motivation that conflicts with partisan efforts to promote The Truth, but those partisan efforts are not supposed to prevail over the idea that whatever is most important to say in a neutral magazine article should be in that article if we can possibly fit it in. Such as, for instance, the fact that possible violations of FOIA were some of the biggest concerns journalists and government officials and others had with the Climategate matter. David Frum, Walter Russell Mead, George Monbiot and others who believe in AGW also stated that the were very concerned about the behavior of the scientists, including whether or not they violated FOIA law. There is no reason why concern about that would only be among skeptics and those who deny global warming. Your statement at 02:30 is more of a battleground-promoting act than nearly all of what AQFK is accused of. Roger, other arbitrators, are you reading this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I've noted, observed, and documented the "battlefield" tactics of AQFK and other editors like him, who continue to make erroneous claims about climate change-related BLP's and organizations to push their POV. I've provided enough diffs showing this to be the case.  When AQFK and others like him repeatedly claim that "FOA violations were found to be valid", over and over again, for six months, even after such claims have been refuted, we have a serious problem.  And he's not alone, John.  We see throughout this case, willful, deliberate misrepresentation of sources to push a POV.  I fully accept your right to refuse to recognize these facts, John.  However, documenting this bad behavior does not equate to "battleground mentality".  When you have AQFK openly stating "I choose battles I have a reasonable shot at", and rallying the troops for war against the infidels, it becomes obvious that something needs to be done.  Please don't attack the messenger. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: None of what you said is true, or even accurately describes the dispute. Again, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a place to engage in WP:ADVOCACY.  Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you find to be personally true, AQFK, looking at the diffs shows you engaging in battlefield behavior for six months on climate change related articles and advocating for the use of poor sources supporting climate change denial and unsupported attacks on scientists. Describing your edits and your time here as furthering and supporting "anti-science propaganda" appears to be an accurate reading of the problem.  You are welcome to describe it differently. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: But you haven't provided any diffs to support your allegations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, you said above, at 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC), ''ChrisO explained the problem to AQFK, saying, "The statement "there was evidence that a breach may have occurred" is not equivalent to "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid".[20] Again, AQFK refused to recognize the difference, and responded with, "It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act but there won't be prosecutions because the statute of limitations had passed. So, they were not vindicated of all charges. Just like I said."[21] ChrisO again corrected AQFK, saying, "No, that's not what it says. It says there was "evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred." The word "may" is critically important here. They did not make any determination that a violation had occurred. When you say "there's evidence that they violated the FOI Act", that's wrong."''

However, your own post from 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) quotes the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee saying, in paragraph 93, This (also repeated in paragraph 11 of the document's "Conclusions and recommendations" section, p. 48) is closer to what AQFK was saying ("It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act") than to what ChrisO was saying ("No, that's not what it says."). The difference is in the words "prima facie". If I had been ChrisO, I would have said, "Well, yes, it says there is prima facie evidence that they broke the FOIA. Which means in the opinion of the HoC committee, it looks, on the face of it, like they did break it." And I sympathise with AQFK's view that the development of the lead shown here is not necessarily reflective of "It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000", or the conclusions expressed in paragraph 104 of the House of Commons document, Was the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee document the most recent word on the matter in June 2010? -- JN 466  12:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ''"It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
 * "We cannot reach a firm conclusion on the basis of the evidence we took but we must put on record our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle FOIA requests. Further, we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the nondisclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited."
 * I think the most recent report/analysis was published by Deutsche Bank on September 8, 2010. I highly recommend taking the time to read the report.  It is well written and highly informative, and covers all the relevant issues. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have been after the events we were discussing here. But the Oxburgh report (on the unit's scientific work) and the Muir Russell report (on the e-mail controversy) had been out in June, after the HoC Committee report. Both expressed their confidence in the validity of the UEA's scientific work, but the Muir Russell report did criticise the scientists for being "unhelpful and defensive" in response to reasonable requests for information, finding that '"emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Scientists also failed to appreciate the risk their lack of transparency posed to the university and "indeed to the credibility of UK climate science".' That's not reflected in the lead edits AQFK complained about. -- JN  466  13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake -- the Muir Russell report appeared a few days later, in early July. -- JN 466  13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt a banking institution qualifies as a reliable source, but there's only one sentence about the UEA violating the freedom of information act and it's only about the UEA's investigation. In any case, it agrees what I already I said: The UEA's own investigation said that there was evidence that e-mails were deleted to prevent them from being released by FOIA requests.  They also said they didn't respond to FOIA requests properly but blamed the university management. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deutsche Bank published a white paper authored by scientists at The Earth Institute and the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. The paper received coverage in the media.  Is a white paper written by scientists at Columbia University a reliable secondary source?  The source "lists 12 common claims used to argue against global warming and refutes each of them, pointing readers to corroborating sources".  Can you show me a single source you've cited that uses corroborating sources?  That's a significant aspect of reliability.  I don't think you can, as the sources you rely on are composed entirely of hearsay, rumor, and erroneous opinion based on zero corroborating evidence.  Your favorite sources like The Daily Telegraph are not more reliable than the opinions of scientists at leading institutions, and papers like The Daily Telegraph have been seriously criticized for years in scholarly journals for their promotion of climate change denial.  In fact, AQFK, the sources you cite are contributing to false information in the encyclopedia, which according to the DB report, is "mistakenly shaping public attitudes on climate."  According to Reuters, this kind of misinformation has cost the U.S. economy foreign investment, due to the "U.S. government's inability to pass climate change and alternative energy incentive programs".  As a result, Deutsche Bank has decided "to look to Western Europe and China to place its green investment dollars." Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ... there was evidence that e-mails might have been deleted ... -- JN 466  00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. In fact, that's what I said here.  I usually take more time tweaking my verbiage in article space than talk space.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you've been erroneously claiming for six months that "FOA violations were found to be valid" There were no violations.  When asked if you understood this the other day on this arbcom case, you maintained that there were violations, and you cited old, outdated, erroneous sources from January in your defense.  I don't think you have shown any understanding as to how we use sources or how information changes over time based on subsequent reporting and findings, and your unhealthy obsession with the non-existent FOIA violations shows undue weight out of proportion with the evidence at hand.  You are POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: Your claim that the sources are out of date is false.  Review after review has found evidence that the UEA violated the FOIA.  In fact, even UEA's own investigation said that.  Maybe your own personal opinion is that the FOIA violations are "non-existent", but we don't rely on editor's personal opinions for article content.  Instead, we base article content on reliable sources and report back what they say in a disinterested tone.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Neither exoneration nor finding of guilt", as Dave Souza says below. Your repeated insistence that the scientists are considered "criminals" who have "violated the FOIA" when there is no such evidence, demonstrates that you should not be allowed to edit climate science-related articles. You've been engaging in tendentious, battlefield editing on this subject for six months now, and it is beyond clear that you are personally invested in the article.  Because of your admitted bias and inability to work to resolve conflicts and disputes, please voluntarily withdraw from all climate science articles. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, the major point I'm trying to make here is that Viriditas is portraying these reports as having exonerated the UEA when that's clearly not the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done nothing of the kind. The point you're trying to make is that you feel that your job, your mission on Wikipedia, is to prosecute the scientists (whom you refer to as "criminals") for their non-existent crimes, using the worst sources you can possibly find. Your argument is the same as climate deniers like Christopher Monckton.  The facts are clear.  You've made 1442 edits to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy and you've been instrumental in continuing disputes instead of resolving them.  Tell me, AQFK, why is there still a POV tag on the article?  Please explain that for us. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Sorry to take so long to respond everyone, real life intervened. As I mentioned above, my concern here focused narrowly on a single point: the sources talk about legal action against the unit itself (separate legal entity) but the article personalises it by referring to prosecution of individuals. At the time of writing the FoF, this appeared to be unsupported by the sources, However, from reading JN466's cogent analysis, I see that The Times covered this precise point and, on closer review, the Daily Telegraph specifically refers to "the people involved" as well. In the circumstances, fairest and best is to remove the diff. However, it remains inappropriate to sensationalise/polarise the matter by describing the individuals involved as "criminals" when the expression doesn't appear in any of the sources. Roger Davies talk 04:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, thank you for removing the diff in question. The other BLP-related diff is this, introduced this way "has helped contribute to the battleground atmosphere by [...] by making an inappropriate remark in discussions about biographies of living people". In that diff, AQFK says (both in the edit summary and on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page: Wow...so the criminals are going to get off on a legal technicality. The link to WP:BLP seems to hint that this is a BLP violation (although it's frustrating to try to figure out just what role you're asserting BLP plays in this since what you're directly stating is that it's a WP:BATTLE violation). I completely object to that. If a crime has been committed, as the sources state, there must be at least one criminal to go along with it. AQFK does not directly identify who the criminals are. This was done on a talk page, and while it's still prohibited to violate BLP on a talk page, there's no doubt that this further minimizes the harm. Finally, the matter is a public issue and it's absolutely understandable that someone would think a six-month statute-of-limitation is rather ridiculous and an outrage (whether or not you agree that it is). So expressing frustration is understandable, as anyone who approaches this in a fairminded way will concede. I think this comment does contribute to a battleground mentality on the pages, but I consider it minimal for these reasons:
 * It's not a comment directed at any Wikipedia editors. It doesn't disparage fellow editors even indirectly (as would a comment attacking all believers in anthropogenic global warming)
 * It's a comment about subject matter. Editors need to be able to discuss and debate subject matter freely. The edit as a whole is clearly intended to try to figure out what should and should not be included in the article. The statement Roger objects to may be a little bit of WP:SOAP-boxing (not much), but it also seems meant to try to help figure out whether certain information belongs in the article.
 * I argued near the beginning of this case that WP:BATTLEGROUND is an important issue (so is WP:DISRUPT), and this comment did contribute to the bad atmosphere a bit. But the problem here is that it contributed so little that ArbCom would need a very large number of similar comments to show AQFK's behavior is worth criticizing. Minor contributors to the battleground atmosphere should be included in the ArbCom case, but AQFK's behavior is beneath minor -- it's minimal. It should be understandable that an editor who has participated in this extremely contentious topic area since at least late November will become frustrated. In all that time, what's been brought up is this minor WP:BATTLE violation, one civility violation and another minor civility violation. That's it. Not bad for about 11 months of participation, and not worth an ArbCom finding. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * John, are you requesting more diffs showing that AQFK's behavior is worth criticizing? You mean behavior that contributes to a battleground atmosphere, such as personal attacks like this?  Or what about the time AQFK put on his battle gear and gave this battle cry, rallying the troops? And, who could forget the time he compared long term contributors with SPA sock puppets? John, you may want to have a look at the archives.  There are dozens of diffs from AQFK showing assumptions of bad faith and accusations against his fellow editors, a refusal to listen to or compromise with those same editors, and massive amounts of wikilawyering, all of which contributes to a battle ground mentality.  Perhaps, I should spend the next week, adding diffs? Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an incredible double standard being pursued here by JohnWBarber. His characterization of AQFK's "beneath minor" transgressions contrasts markedly with his characterization of similar edits I have made. His vigorous defense of individuals that share his POV and vigorous offense of individuals that do not share his POV should be noted by arbitrators, because it is contributing to the battleground atmosphere on this very page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the solution to concerns about double standards is to compare the evidence at various spots on the PD page as well as with evidence arbitrators on this page have said is not worthy of inclusion. That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm sure others are doing it, so I'm sure ArbCom members will do it before the final decision is made. I'll leave it to others to compare your conduct with AQFK's. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be all well and good, but for the fact you've already compared my conduct with AQFK's by going to extraordinary lengths to portray my conduct negatively while downplaying AQFK's. Since we've had very little interaction in this topic, I can only assume your dedicated onslaught is motivated by a personal dislike of me or your perception of my point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To all: I plan on posting an official statement soon, but I'm waiting because there are 3 diffs which require further explanation. However, I will say that the issues here are stale.  I was still a relative newbie when I started editing this topic-space last year and because of my inexperience, I did not know that words like "cabal" had negative connotations.  I've since learned to avoid using these types of words.  In short, I began correcting my behavior around December/January of this year.  That's why all these diffs are so old.  Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement.  I welcome feedback and constructive criticism.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then how do you explain all the diffs showing edit warring as late as June on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and possibly even more recently? That's battleground behavior. One thing I'm confused about.  Somewhat recently, on  23:39, 23 July 2010, you made this comment, saying you weren't around in November 2009.  Can you explain?  As far as I can tell, your first edit to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy was at 00:42, 24 November 2009 and your first edit to the article was two hours later, at 02:12, 24 November 2009. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: The Review [by Muir Russell's panel] found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR. -- page 93 of "The Independent Climate Change Emails Review" (the Muir Russell report), released in July. No exoneration. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the UEA has been improving procedures to meet findings of failings under section 50 of the act which requires public bodies to make changes set out by the ICO, but no finding seems to have been issued under section 77 of the act, the section subject to criminal prosecution. Neither exoneration nor finding of guilt. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This report seems to clarify your clarification., particularly the sixth paragraph (The Information Commissioner's Office told Channel 4 News that the requests made to Dr Jones's unit for data "were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.") and the last two (including this statement from the UEA: "The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the act., and this statement that the Muir report would look into Section 77 compliance: "Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an independent review of the issues surrounding what has become known as 'climategate' and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. And this statement referring to an ICO investigation: During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information.). It isn't surprising that law enforcement officials wouldn't further investigate a crime where the statute of limitations had passed. It also isn't surprising that an official investigation of some sort would look into the matter. If the ICO misspoke on January 28 and AQFK later reflected what they said, who can blame him? This organization (Web page dated Jan 29) seems like it might be a credible authority on Section 77 and the six-month time limit on prosecutions. Section 77, the part with criminal penalties, has been referred to as part of this controversy from very early on, and the issue has always been that the six-month window for prosecution had passed. Channel 4's lead: The Information Commissioner has said that the University of East Anglia, which is at the centre of the 'climategate' row, broke the law when its scientists refused to hand over raw data requested under the Freedom of Information Act. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, no reliable sources and no officials ever referred to the UEA scientists as "criminals" at any time. Only a conviction of a criminal act can lead to a legitimate use of the term "criminal". Even "alleged criminals" would be a BLP violation. I am not even aware of the individual or individuals responsible for the significantly more serious crimes of hacking and data theft being referred to as "criminals". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK's alleged incivility / promoting-battleground-mentalitydiffs
A total of six comments are cited that were "incivil or promoted a battleground mentality":
 * In this diff AQFK said: Gwen, you've been told ~7 times now (I believe that this is number 8) that this is an opinion piece. Please stop wasting our time. He obviously didn't get what Gwen Gale was saying. If I didn't get it, I'd be as frustrated as AQFK appears to have been. I don't see the incivility or battleground behavior, however, just frustration and some curtness.
 * The second one . OK. Fair enough. It promoted a battleground mentality.
 * The third one expresses frustration with editors. I experienced the same frustration and left the article he was talking about several days before this comment was made. The discussion on his talk page is similar to about a thousand discussions on the talk pages of other editors involved in this case. I see frustration expressed, but I don't see anything that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think an explanation is in order.
 * The fourth diff Again, I fail to see any vio of WP:BATTLEGROUND. He states that he and others need to take disputes to proper content-resolution or dispute-resolution venues on Wikipedia. It's what he's supposed to do if he feels something wrong is being done. It's an option we're all supposed to have.
 * The fifth diff If every editor here actually followed Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy I would agree with you. However, the past 3 months have shown that discussion with both of the two warring factions is, for the most part, completely pointless. Mildly battleground behavior.
 * Sixth and final diff A simple request, accompanied by seven diffs of edit warring, asking at WP:GSCCRE that an admin "lock down" the article. I don't see how this is an example of comments that were incivil or promoted a battleground mentality.
 * In short, the case for AFQK making comments that were incivil or promoted a battleground mentality is unproven except for the second and fifth diff, and the fifth only mildly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm baffled by that last diff. Maybe it was a copy and paste error?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Chilling effect: Community-wide findings require community-wide discussion
We have roughly 40,000 editors and over 3 million articles, many of which contain some BLP material. I'm concerned that this FoF, if passed, has community-wide repercussions. If ArbCom rules that editors can be sanctioned even when following our WP:BLP policy, this might have a chilling effect across the project. If passed, any editor can be dragged before ArbCom for making good faith edits that followed WP:BLP. If you make a valid and good faith edit about Barry Bonds and steroids? You can be dragged before ArbCom. Make a valid and good faith edit about George W. Bush and weapons of mass destruction? You can be dragged before ArbCom. Make a valid and good faith edit about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski? You can be dragged before ArbCom. If ArbCom is actually serious about this FoF, then I think that a ruling of this magnitude requires community-wide discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax. They'll never pass it. We over-discussed it on this page. Famous last words. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
The first 4 diffs all relate to a single incident that happened over the course of a half a day. Yes, it's true that I edit-warred on a 1RR article over what I thought at the time was a BLP violation. In retrospect, I was naive and took the BLP policy too literally. As a result, I was blocked for 24 hours. I kicked and screamed a bit on my talk page, but I learned my lesson and have never repeated the offense.

It's also true that when I first started editing this topic space, I said things that were less than ideal. At the time, I was still somewhat of a newbie and did not understand the nuances of which comments were acceptable and which ones weren't. In fact, I'm still learning. To be honest, an experienced editor should have taken me aside and helped explain this to me. In any case, I changed the tone of my comments around January of this year, and continue to make improvements as I continue to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better.

I'd also like to point out that this improvement spans not just the CC topic space, but across Wikipedia. As evidence, I would like to point ArbCom to the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article.

As evidence of improved conduct, I want to point out the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article. An IP posts a message saying that the 9/11 was a false flag operation. Rather than attacking the IP, I thanked them for their comments and patiently tried to explain our policies on neutrality, reliability, and WP:FRINGE.  When another editor used insulting language "utter morons", I politely reminded the editor of our policies on being welcoming and civil.  The editor admitted his mistake, "''Alas, you're right. My bad''". The IP even thanked me.  I then make a few edits on the FAQ regarding the importance of being civil.

The full discussion can be seen in its entirety here.

 It's true that I once used the word "criminals" on an article talk page. But this is not a BLP violation. The University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. According to our article, the UEA has a staff of 2,966 people. Not a single person is mentioned anywhere in my comment or even the entire discussion. In any case, this comment was a one-time incident. I have never repeated the remark.

My point being is that I am not the same editor that I was around December/January and that I continue to look for ways in which to improve my conduct.

This one is baffling. I notified the admins of an edit war and asked them to protect the page which NuclearWarefare eventually did. I'm not sure what I did wrong. I wasn't a participant in the dispute, nor was I assessing blame. I simply used an admin board to notify admins of a problem.

In short, with the exception of this diff, - which I don't understand what I did wrong - any issues with my conduct have already been corrected and there is no evidence of any continuing pattern of misconduct that warrants this FoF in an Arbitration Case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)