Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion

Use of this page
This page is to be used to discuss the proposed decision after it has moved to the voting stage. Any other discussion should take place on the general discussion page that has been set up for that purpose. Please do not post on this page until the proposed decision has been posted and is being voted on. For discussion that took place on this page previously, please see the archive of this talk page, and if you wish to continue a discussion that was previously taking place here or elsewhere, please do so at this page instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Updated here. 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Preparations for discussions
As work is continuing apace on the proposed decision, I have raised the question of making preparations for discussing the proposed decision. Please see here and here. As stated above, please do not post here, as this page is for discussing the proposed decision while it is being voted on. This post is an exception to that, as it is a notification post directing people to the discussion location. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking of the case
Posting a note here to point out that the case clerk (Amorymeltzer) is away this week. Dougweller has volunteered to clerk the case for the coming week (but is not available today), and AGK has also offered to help out when Amorymeltzer is back. The other available clerks have been asked to help out as needed. Hopefully there won't be anything that needs doing as regards keeping discussion orderly, but if there are problems, please post to the clerks' noticeboard or e-mail the clerks mailing list (address should be at WP:AC/C). I'll be setting up this page later in the day for comments on the proposed decision. Please don't post here in response to this, but direct questions to the general discussion page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Volume of commentary
Noting here that I'm following all the edits made to this page, but the high volume of edits (at least for the first few days) makes it more sensible to wait a day or two and then start commenting and responding to some of the points being made. Please also see what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Focus of discussion
Please try not to go off-topic. Discussion focused on the actual wording and diffs in the proposed decision, and alternative proposals, and constructive criticism of what should be omitted or added, will be far more helpful than more of the arguing and back-and-forth disagreements seen at earlier stages of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion proposed
I don't think it's reasonable to expect contributors to constructively discuss 49 different proposals at once. Nor is it reasonable or plausible for arbiters to read through an unstructured discussion. Thus, I would strongly suggest that the clerk creates a topic structure reflecting the proposed decision below (plus a general section), so that proposals can be discussed one by one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much, so maybe some grouping? But StS is right, one giant pile won't work. ++Lar: t/c06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar and Stephan. Here's an idea for clearer organization: We could organize by the subsection on the Proposed Decision page, as I've done below, for the most part, by following the numbering of the Proposed Decision table of contents, with these exceptions: When we're talking about the people NewYorkbrad/Arbcom are proposing to sanction, we group those sections (findings of fact and proposed remedies) together, and do likewise with the sections specifically about administrators (all of those on the Proposed Decision page already have "Administrators" as the first word in the section title). Beyond that, since we'll want to go outside that order in some discussions that just won't fit in these topics, just add new discussions to the bottom. I think this is intuitive and simple, and even easier to see the organization rather than to describe it as I've just done. Since I've commented so much below (in part in order to show how the organization works), I'll refrain for a while. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you came up with a pretty good scheme and propose it be continued. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A rather logical proposal but the scrolling (not to mention server demand) will become off-putting even with direct linkage to sections.
 * 49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much...
 * A discussion page for each section that might ultimately be overkill (highly doubtful) is addressible and easily corrected after the fact. Structure it now before it becomes the leviathan task of structuring it later. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One other consideration. A page dedicated to each individual section can be "watched". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General
I've been following the discussions here since they started, and the volume and spread of discussion is starting to get a bit overwhelming. It may be best to have a brief time-out to re-emphasise the need to focus on discussion of the proposed decision itself, rather than the more general discussions that are starting to dominate this page. There are also some off-topic threads, and threads where people are rehashing arguments from the evidence and workshop phases, that need to be shut down or refocused before they distract too much from the purpose of this page. I've put this section here for now, as this is where most people will see it, but once some discussion has taken place, this section should be moved up to the "meta and preliminaries" section (along with the other meta notes on the discussion). On a more general note, the clerks and arbs can try and keep discussion focused, but the main effort to organise the page in a way that makes it easy for arbs to follow and focus on what they need to read, has to come from those posting here. It is in the best interests of case participants to keep this page manageable and readable, and you are the ones best placed to do that. For starters, I suggest trying to unify similar topics under the same headings and making a distinction between comments on the actual proposed decision, and suggestions for completely new additions to the proposed decision. Some summaries of what has been discussed so far may also help, though summaries might be best done on a separate page and linked to from here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved this to the bottom hoping people might actually take notice of it and take action. I'd prefer people contributing here to follow Carcharoth's suggestions. For a start, how about adding to section headings 'OT' and 'New suggestions for PD' where appropriate? Maybe hat some OT if it seems finished? I can see where there can be some merging (with subheadings) of sections also. And some summaries - you all do want to avoid TLDR don't you? On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you are an Arb, I would gently put to you - so you might disseminate it among your colleagues - that a reason why there is the "volume and width" in the discussion on these pages is that hardly anyone thinks that the PD as written has covered the dispute sufficiently, nor made suggestions that are going to finally resolve this matter. My understanding is that ArbCom are not constrained to limit themselves to the topics, issues, and parties presented in an accepted Request, but I should suggest that it does not fulfill its function where there is genuine concern that the breadth of a problem is not being recognised. As previously, when the evidence section was closed down, the non-Arb participants do not know what the ArbCom consider germane and that which is pertinent. It is a bit rich to request that some material is in excess of what ArbCom require where there is no indication of where the line is being drawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume this is aimed at Carcharoth, but it's under my comment. Carcharoth has said, up at the top of the discussion part of this page, "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions". I presume you've missed that. Archiving and hatting, marking of sections as OT, etc are all intended to allow full discussion while at the same time making it easier for arbitrators and others to read and digest the material.  There is a 500 word limit for statements, but I don't think people are seeing that as a problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What Doug said is correct. I would also point people to what was said here by Ncmvocalist: "as of the report date [23/08/2010], there were about 2680 words in statements while there was 17,236 words in unstructured discussion. As of this timestamp [26/08/2010], the figure for statements has less than doubled to >4000 words while the figure for discussion has more than tripled to >60,000 words." That is clearly unsustainable, so there has to be either a deadline by when to submit comments (this will force people to comment on the important bits), and/or a limit to the volume of contributions from any one individual (that isn't so much of a problem here). Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving approach
As the page was ridiculously large I archived practically every section that had not received any new comments in the past 48 hours. Any section containing anything timestamped on or after 25th August should still be there.

The page is still ridiculously large, sadly, but I feel a little bit better. --TS 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably should have left that to a clerk, since we have two. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we should do that but it would help if contributors suggested when it should be done. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion within statements
Speaking of page organization... The header of the "Statements" section clearly says No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Would it be possible for one of the clerks to please hive off the extended discussion following Mongo's statement and move it to an appropriate place, presumably somewhere under the "Discussion" header? Others of us may want to make statements, and the material in its present form (a) sets a bad precedent and (b) is a long interruption that will obscure any statements that follow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Shell  babelfish 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recollect correctly (which, admittedly, I might not, given the amount of activity!), the removed comments began as part of a properly threaded discussion lower in this talk, but got moved up to an individual "statement" section later. Out of fairness to the editors who made some of those comments, it might be appropriate to restore them somewhere below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have made the orginal post in the statements section but I had placed it at the bottom of the talkpage as a new section...it was archived...however, I prefer it now as it stands as I have nothing to add and don't want to create a meltdown again...--MONGO 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying that my original request was for the discussion to be relocated and not for it to be removed altogether, but in the end it's whatever the arbs think best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of those who commented, I was happy when it was archived, so speaking only for myself, I'm happy leaving them in the ether.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've copied my reply to my userspace and I added a small comment in my own statement section, giving a link to that text on my userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page too large
This page is too large. It's hosting the original statements, and a bunch of concurrent discussions. Could somebody please break it up? I'm not sure whether arbitrators are paying much attention. Perhaps people are just lengthening the page by repeating the same old arguments to no effect. If so, they ought to conserve electrons. Jehochman Talk 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The statements are not the original statements. They are new statements (analogous to the request statements), intended to allow people more formal (word-limited) statements that can consist of summaries of people's thoughts on this matter. I agree that the normal discussion section is getting out of control, and we are looking at ways to bring this under control. If the page continues to grow without limit, we will likely close it temporarily to allow a summary to be written, but we would prefer the case participants to be able to manage and organise this discussion page themselves, with the assistance and guidance of arbitrators and clerks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point, a couple of sections above. You need to be more actively engaged in the discussion here, at least to the extent of responding to substantive issues raised with the PD itself, instead of sitting back and bemoaning the amount of material presented. More active engagement will lessen, not increase, the volume. For example, what changes, if any, have you contemplated making to the PD so far? ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think anything a user wishes to say as a priority regarding the PD can be put in the word-limited statement as Carcharoth suggests and these should certainly be studied by all arbs. Many UK PhD theses are limited to 40 000 words and often candidates assume the external examiners read only about 50% of these words. We simply cannot and should not expect arbs to follow the lot so if there is something burning you wish to mention about the PD this should go into your statement. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this issue was raised the page has grown to over a megabyte! I think that means it's something like 200,000 words. Anyone dropping in from Mars (or returning after a brief break) would find it almost unmanageable. I have no ready solution as I don't think discussion should be cut off or redirected, but it is a problem. Ironically, I think that most discussion is on-topic. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the PD process is almost over, I can't imagine it getting that much larger. Some hatting might help, although this won't reduce the gross tonnage. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring
I've moved all discussion of aspects of the existing proposed decision under the relevant structured discussion sections. I've also created some new sections for discussion of, say, admin involvement, and moved related discussion under those headings. --TS 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt well intended, but you really should leave such things to the clerks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, also archiving, hatting, and any other sort of thing. TS: you're not a clerk. Please leave this sort of activity to the clerks. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We're all mandated to hat and to add and alter topic headings. On clerking and archiving, see this comment by me on arbitration clerk Doug Weller's talk page. --TS 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Archiving is best left to the clerks and arbitrators, but organising the existing page structure is needed and Tony did a good job of it. I am going to go over the page in the next few hours and see what else can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Subpages
This page is still ridiculously large and it's currently growing at the rate of 100kb per day, nearly all of that in the discussion section. I suggest that the clerks should split off the entire discussion into one or more subpages. I don't know what others feel, but my comfort zone is somewhere near 150kb. 300kb might be a good compromise between comfort and the need to keep things together.

Perhaps there should be two separate discussion subpages, one for discussion of the existing draft decision and one for the proposal of additional clauses. --TS 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps we can maintain a table of contents on this page with links to the other pages, so that you can still have an overview of all discussions on a single page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Subpages, unless done carefully, are harder to keep track of if you are trying to follow the entire set of discussions. I would ask that no-one create subpages unilaterally. I am going to be going through this page today to try and make it a bit more ordered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another set of comments on subpages. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about some well organized subpages to reduce the size of this monstrosity and avoid the need for hatting and archiving? Minor4th  04:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We could call these pages the Workshop, and maybe create a separate subpage for each editor's proposals. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We considered workshopping (I was actually initially in favour of this) but overall opinion among arbitrators that commented was to go straight to a proposed decision and see what comments that got. My approach in future would be to actually set a schedule to work through each broad section of the decision, to refine it, and then move on to the next broad section. It takes longer, but is more orderly and easier to follow, and avoids a deluge of comment on everything all at once. Incidentally, this section is in the wrong place and I'm going to move it up to the right place. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * End copied section. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on arbitrator talk page

 * As this is a meta-discussion about discussion location, am moving it to the section at the top of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion concerning an aspect of this PD is underway on an arbitrator's talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#Omission I don't think that it's appropriate for aggrieved parties to bring their concerns directly to the arbitrator, and commence a lengthy discussion away from the rest of us, for the purpose of swaying an arbitrator to withdraw/modify his proposals. This discussion should be moved back here, and I ask the clerk (or whomever) to please caution people to start all PD-related discussions here. Rlevse just happened to be on my watch list. If there are any other "side discussions" they should be disclosed and moved here. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have questions specifically for Rlevse. Rather than generating lots of noise and heat, I wanted to address Rlevse directly, and would appreciate of other editors would let me have a conversation with my colleague.  One bit of the conversation is relevant to a wide audience, so I have cross posted it below for discussion.  Thank you.Jehochman Talk 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For Jehochman and Lar to propose alterations to a PD involving themselves directly to an arbiter is wrong, was wrong and should be done here rather than the arbiter's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is more or less useless. The volume of comments here is such that things are lost and un-noticed.  I posted my concerns here, and have heard no responses from arbitrators whatsoever.  This leads me to believe that they are not even reading my remarks. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's unfair and a bit high-handed for an editor, particularly an administrator, to say "this page is useless" and commence a side discussion with one arbitrator for the purpose of swaying him to change/delete a proposal. As I said on his talk page, I think you have an arguable case. You are alienating people who might otherwise side with you, and you are acting unfairly to editors who may not agree with your position. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check some of the other arbitrators' talk pages such as User talk:Carcharoth and User talk:Newyorkbrad, I think you'll find other conversations. This is not atypical at all. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple situation: you've commenced what has morphed into a lengthy, multi-section discussion in which your pushing for changes favorable to you. It belongs here. If that's happening elsewhere, that needs to stop as well. Lack of transparency is a major problem with the way arbcom operates. Let's not make it worse, OK? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked, and Cacharoth's and Newyorkbrad's talk pages don't have anything even remotely resembling the discussion you've commenced on Rlevse's page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rlevse is wise enough to stop or relocate a conversation that doesn't belong on his talk page. Why don't you give him a chance to respond. And could you please be a little less combative? Jehochman Talk 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how more gentle I could be in pointing out that you've started a discussion in the wrong forum. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Jehochman, stop the tangential debate and use this page like everyone else is. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to move the discussion, which includes other people's comments not just mine. It's up to Rlevse or a clerk to do that if they feel it would be appropriate. I just want my concerns to be addressed.  I don't care where that happens. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could everybody just shut the hell up? Enough already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All in all, and with due consideration involving the advantages and disadvantages of User Short Brigade Harvester Boris' reasonable suggestion, I endorse it wholeheartedly and without reservation, and, not to extend my remarks any more than necessary, propose that, with regard to this particular thread, we implement Comrade Boris' superlative proposal without any further delay so as not to lengthen this already lengthy, languid page any longer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussing and drafting new proposals

 * Again, this is a meta discussion about the correct approach to discussing new evidence and proposals, rather than discussing the proposals themselves. Am retitling this and moving it to the meta section at the top of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinated attempts to get editors included in the PD running on talkpages
I wish to highlight some jockying going on to get an editor mentioned in the PD. JohnWBarber calls certain editors to help him with evidence, ,. Two of them then respond on his talkpage to help him collect the evidence and put his case together (see User talk:JohnWBarber) ((NB page at this stage on making this comment)). This just feels wrong to me. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was anyone not already involved in the basic issue CANVASSED?  Or is this an aside? Collect (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were the one most interested in "confluences" or "blocs" of editors but maybe you are not interested when they are on your side. Anyway there are confluences or factions coordinating to try and influence the PD. Please do not try to steer the subject to CANVASS, that is a complete strawman. Polargeo (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was posing a question about the nature of the problem. I feel strongly about what CANVASS is, and is not.  I did not see that you were asserting this as a matter of some sort of evidence of a bloc of some sort. Collect (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try and highlight what I feel is wrong. This is a group of editors combing through the diffs of an editor they disagree with and desperately trying to put a case against him, please read the talkpage I linked to. They are generally looking for any instance he has been rude to them as their main evidence. It really feels like Norwegian folklore. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you are objecting to editors openly asking for help in collecting diffs? If so, why not just say it here like, "So-and-so has asked other editors on their talk pages to help him collect diffs for this ArbCom case.  I object to this."  Then, leave it like that.  If the arbitrators or clerk agree with you, I imagine they'll say something like, "So-and-so, please don't openly ask other editors to help you collect diffs."  If the arbs remain silent, then I suggest getting back to writing articles and not worrying too much more about it. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need arbs or clerks to agree with anything Cla. I am just giving them a heads up on the way certain groups of editors have approached this process. This is very similar to when ATren was giving you diffs to post in your statement on the Lar RfC/U, I notice ATren has also been asked for diffs here. Seems to be a tactic of if together we can somehow dig up and throw enough mud maybe it will stick to our opponent and hence we will win those content battles that we cannot win through rational argument. No real consideration of the quality or cohesiveness of the mud though. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then Polargeo, how about this: in another thread on this page we have ChrisO admitting he's shared a "list" of factors that will help identify Scibaby, which he has shared with several editors privately and admitted to doing so. Where is your objection to that? What we're doing is diff collection (something which is pretty much uncontroversial and non-judgemental since anyone can evaluate the diffs for themselves); what they're doing is some kind of McCarthyesque back room dealing to determine which editors to ban from the project! The fact that you object so strongly here, without a word there, speaks volumes. ATren (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had nothing to do with Scibaby socks so why I should have commented about something that has nothing to do with me I don't know. Group diff collecting with a goal to get users whose edits you disagree with sanctioned in a sort of lets dig up as much mud as we possibly can and then present it all out of context is in my opinion one of the most dishonest and underhand things I have seen in the CC area. Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, if it was me instead of JWB, I would have posted a message on my own talk page rather than other editors' talk pages. But I'm not sure it would have mattered much (at least for me) as my response would have been the same.  BTW, it's misleading to say that a group of editors are currently trying to comb through the diffs.  TGL declined his request as did I.  Instead, I referred him to the evidence I collected and posted on July 6th and I am content to leave it at that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted, but TGL did also give some pointers to assist JWB and you still gave him advice on tayloring the evidence so it still does look bad to me. Polargeo (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did find his presentation confusing and suggested he add years to the months and days. Obviously, I should be hung, drawn and quartered.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the target of this collusion, I can tell you that I am not at all bothered by it. I've seen the diffs and they're really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel and hope that they can frame them in such a way as to make them appear worse than they are. They're also having to deal with the awkward fact that I have not participated in the topic at all since signing-up for voluntary restriction to show my good intentions. With comments like "I think we might have a real good opportunity to help ArbCom consider another editor here", their scheme is sure to be frowned-upon by Committee members. Let them have their fun. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Scjessey: There is no "they". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by the strategy meeting taking place of JWB's talk page, I'd have to say you're wrong about that. I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo, how did you and WMC collect the diffs for the RfC you posted on Lar? If you coordinated your efforts somehow, then what exactly is your objection here?  Cla68 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a terrible lack of good faith. You still do not accept that I had no communication with WMC on that whatsoever and it was entirely my own work based on my observation of Lar's behaviour, I had no idea WMC was going to be the first to endorse it. This just goes to highlight how honest independent editors are being accused of being a cabal/bloc/collective etc. by those who really do act with cohesion and collusion to achieve their goals. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo, if you had asked WMC to help you with collecting the diffs, either by email or on his WP talk page, are you sure that you would have been doing something wrong? Cla68 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think asking for diffs is fundamentally wrong but I do think trying to stitch up a long term editor by several editors who oppose that editor searching through the editors' history to uncover every bit of mud they can find is behaviour which crosses a line. Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Were you going to seek out and complain about all CC related instances of that behavior? ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lar, firstly this case applies to the PD so unlike other cases is actually appropriate here on this talkpage. If you are referring to yourself I never tried get you banned or called for you to hand in your bit. I have simply tried to get you to stop acting as an admin in situations where I thought it was conterproductive and I have independently presented diffs in open forums such as the RfC/U not coordinated diff collection on my own talkpage. On a wider note yes you are right this sort of nonsense needs to be stopped no matter who does it. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You link to three posts to three pages, where only one person seems to have responded with "I don't know, I'm probably not the person to ask..." followed by some vague handwaving to the existing evidence page. You, on the other hand, post to Scjessey's talk page "You are in deep poo poo! JWB, AQFK and TGL are excitedly rubbing their hands together in preparation for a feeding frenzy on your soft bits, which based on my own experience I happen to think highlights the true nastiness of editors who are superficially civil."  Then come here and go one about collusion and blocs.  A bloc of one editor who canvassed some others, and one who went, "meh."
 * When, in all of this, have you ever had good faith? How are we to think you might even recognize it? Your attacks have become more poisonous and more toxic the longer this goes on.  You need to step back. 76.184.207.202 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have exactly no good faith left with some of these editors and I request anyone read the representation on JWB's talkpage rather than the partial and selective representation by his defenders such as yourself here. By the way can you please sign your comments with your real username rather than just using an IP please. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't read a partial or selective representation...I read the links you posted. I'm also not defending him, I'm not addressing his behavior at all.  You're the one I'm worried about.  You're the one I've seen carrying personal animosity toward several editors that goes way past any possible concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia.  You're the one I'm honestly scared to login for, because I don't want you obsessing over me. 76.184.207.202 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting me and attempting to cast me as some demon figure. Why are you scared of me? Who have I ever tried to obtain sanctions on or block in the CC area? Exactly nobody. I am trying to stand up against the hipocritical. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo: Who are you accusing of being hypocritical? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not you. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This section is good for some laughs, but no more. WP:CANVASS doesn't apply: consensus among people not on ArbCom doesn't matter and my messages were not meant to affect it anyway. I went to editors who I thought might already have diffs I was looking for (or know where to find them), and the diffs I was pointed to on the evidence page (which I'd forgotten about) were very helpful. Any accusations of nefarious conduct or intent are simply assuming bad faith (and potential additions to my evidence). I did nothing more than ask people to do what they can be assumed to be doing here anyway -- looking at Scjessey's edits. Nothing said was an attack on someone and it was all done in conjunction with this ongoing case. Within 24 hours (I'm hoping much, much less time than that), I'll post something here. Anyone whose seen my talk page will get a very good idea of what's coming and, if they want, prepare counterarguments. I imagine it's not fun for Scjessey to be reading about this, but I'd argue that it's better than seeing it all, suddenly, on this page, so I don't think I've been cruel to him. Some editors here have indicated they find what I did distasteful, but I haven't seen an explanation why. Certainly nothing was said that would have been worse than what's on this page. Now, really, this has wasted a lot of space on this page. Let's discuss the case here, not discuss discussing the case. Ugh. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, I really couldn't care less what you do. By all means go diff-diving if that's your thing, but I'm confident you will be wasting your time. I can see from some of your talk page discourse that you are already trying to figure out a way to frame my contribs in the worst possible light, which I'm pretty sure won't be impressing members of the Committee. Anyway, I look forward to your Big Reveal with great anticipation! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the IP editor should use his/her account to make postings. I was fearful of editing this page myself, which can be confirmed by an arbitrator. I don't think you have anything to fear from Polargeo or anyone else.  That being said with what you have said about this editor he and everyone else has the right to know who is talking here.  So please sign your posts with your account and remove the IP signatures.  I would think on a page like this that signing with your real account would be mandatory, if it's not than maybe it should be. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well...I sort of agree, and sort of don't. Based on the penchent of participants to lump people's comments into a 'factional response' format and either listen or not based on who it is, this IP response might be the only way to get some editors to actually read the comments.  I do think that Polargo is over reacting to some review others are doing of editor participation, the committee seems less interested in specific sanctions except against the worst offenders.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I find myself agreeing with you on some things Polargeo and then you go and pull a stunt like this. I realize the evidence against skeptics is incredibly flimsy and sparse when compared with the evidence about the "science" editors, but adding more misrepresented and overblown evidence to the pile just shows how weak the case is on your side. Other than that I really don't have much to say, others have pointed out how incredibly wrong this is, and anyone with doubts can go and look at the diffs and wonder what you were thinking in even bringing this here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and when you said this highlights the "true nastiness of editors who are superficially civil" were you referring to all three of the people you named in that post? Who exactly of the three editors that you named are "truly nasty" and "superficially civil?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see in the subject header you also refereed to us as the "unholy trinity" - and yet you are calling the three of us "superficially civil?" Unbelievable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And on Scjessey's page you said, "Yes I saw that username change. On another note why do we have to deal with and be polite to "users" like this? Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)." That statement echoes diffs I put in my evidence page from other members in this case - showing the micro-culture of how you guys don't feel you need to be even "superficially civil." TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Query on soliciting editors from non-Climate Change related pages
I posited that such canvassing as on totally unrelated article pages will not aid the committee make any decision whatever. Does anyone feel such unrelated solicitation of input helps here? Collect (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention canvassing. See the section in WP:CANVASS on "Inappropriate notification," which lists "notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" and "posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions." Then ponder these messages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I, as I have made clear, am concerned that policies and procedures on WP be adhered to. Collect (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Polargeo and Collect have valid points. While new proposals are welcomed, please don't spread discussion or drafting of them to other pages. Please use the case pages to present and discuss new proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
You should explain why you think that. It certainly isn't obvious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, what I see here is groups of people trying to gather new evidence which has the potential to escalate out of control. We are open to new proposals, but they should be based on what is already in evidence, or limited to what people are prepared to find themselves from recent activity since the evidence pages closed. What we don't want is opposing groups working to bring out a whole raft of new proposals (half of which the arbitrators will not use). That is what happens on the workshop page. What we want here is limited, carefully done proposals. It is not meant to be a free-for-all with everyone joining in to provide a diff here and a diff there. I know you might not be happy with this reply, but the case is winding down now. Trying to crowdsource last-minute proposals won't help, so please accept that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't accept that at all. Your characterization of what's on my talk page is wide off the mark. What I was doing was asking for ideas so that I can refine my own proposal and that's just what I did. My proposal is better for it because I included the most telling examples I could get, some of which I hadn't noticed before. Getting the best evidence possible can only be good for the process. The idea of making proposals on other editors was brought up and the two of us who discussed that agreed there wasn't much point to it. Much of the evidence against Scjessey is from edits that occurred late in this case and, as you know, the Workshop page is closed. I did the right thing. I could have done it by email, but I could feel this case winding down and I wasn't going to rely on Wikipedia's creaky email-confirmation system -- and I didn't think the matter would cause any disruption. What we don't want is opposing groups working to bring out a whole raft of new proposals If Scjessey or anyone else commits a whole new raft of behavior-policy violations related to CC, a new raft of proposals is what you're gonna get, like it or not, and that's what you should get. And as for limited, carefully done proposals, some of the best evidence presentation I've ever seen in an ArbCom case (admittedly with my little experience) occurred above in the "free for all" regarding ChrisO. It convinced me that asking other editors for information would be a good idea and I was right. Incidentally, I hadn't seen Boris' WP:CANVASS comment. Of course I wasn't notifying anyone of a discussion, which kinda defeats his point. I think you should be more concerned about editors in CC-enforcement-related discussions calling other editors "assholes". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Carcharoth A question if you don't mind? You say near the end that "the case is winding down" (For clarity, partial comment made near the end of your comment.) so should comments here be stopped because the PD is written and there will be no more changes, just votes?  If it would be more proper to have put this on my talk page or yours, feel free to do so but please put it on mine so I see it easier.  Thanks in advance for clarifying this for me, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Applying WP:FRINGE
Minority viewpoints are by Wikipedia definition fringe viewpoints. I've yet to see a counter-example. WP:FRINGE is written to be intentionally broad. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but who decides it it is in fact a minority viewpoint? I see a lot of sceptics in the MSM these days, perhaps not as minority as some would have you believe? mark nutley (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who decides are reliable sources. It is generally agreed that the mainstream media is not a reliable source when it comes to issues decided by scientific consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics are not decided by public vote, but you're right that the fact of this real-world coverage should be covered in Wikipedia articles. But it should be covered for what it is, as reported by authoritative mainstream texts. --Nigelj (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter rubbish SO, but quite indicative of your side's mindset - declare the other side fringe so you can marginalize and mistreat them. Is atheism "fringe" too since it is a minority viewpoint? Is brane theory "fringe?" Quit abusing wikipolicy to justify "fringe" behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm flabergasted that you seem to be arguing that AGW is not the authoratative mainstream. I'm not sure but it appears that you're arguing that anti-AGW is not fringe. Please clarify. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your surprise is unsurprising. Some parts of the AGW theory are indeed "authoritative mainstream," (e.g. CO2's properties regarding IR), but other parts are only as "authoritative mainstream" as long-term repetition from a vocal minority affects the perception of reality (e.g. computer models, paleoclimatological reconstructions). Of course, what I said had nothing to do with that, I was talking about how minority doesn't automatically equate to fringe - an equation some find necessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The global warming denialist camp is marginalized in the relevant academic field quite aside from the historionics going on at Wikipedia. As to whether that qualifies as a "mistreatment", well, WP:RGW. "Atheism", writ large, is a pretty sweeping topic. The general consensus of reliable sources dealing with, for example, history is that there is no evidence for a theistic component to history. Thus what's been termed "practical atheism" by religious polemicists is not a proper "fringe view" according to our definition. However, there are a vanishingly small number of atheist theologians (though there are some). In the context of theology, atheism absolutely is a fringe viewpoint. In the context of climate science, global warming denialism is a fringe viewpoint. In the context of the Republican party, it certainly is not a fringe viewpoint (nor is, arguably, creationism). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, there are many papers which WMC et all have decided are "denialist" are therefore unfit for wikipedia. I'm rather curious if Phil Jones of Climategate fame will now be regarded as a skeptic since his latest paper is giving greater credence to the oceanic cycles that I and others have demonstrated are a far better predictor of global temps than CO2 levels. Activists make both poor scientists and wikipedia editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a wide variety of papers published all the time. Some are great and some are totally worthless. In general, careful analysis and consideration needs to be made before determining whether a particular paper is reliable or not and how exactly it should be discussed in Wikipedia articles (if at all). The vast majority of WMC's commentary on the subject of climate science at Wikipedia has been of this sort and there is considerable evidence collected that those opposing his involvement have had an extremely poor understanding of the data and science behind much of the most meaningful content found in sources and ultimately in the article space of Wikipedia. Undeniably, the best references rely on recognized experts to do the careful work of separating chaff from the wheat, but lacking a credible expert verification policy here at Wikipedia, we rely instead on the judgment of third-party reliable sources that have commented on the particular papers, authors, and subject material. I find it disturbing indeed that you are crowing about what you have "demonstrated". Phil Jones demonstrates his ideas in the journals where such demonstrations belong. If you'd like to advocate for your understanding, please do it in those contexts and not at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wall of text translation = WMC et all get to determine which science is "worthless" and which isn't. That is precisely my point and precisely the problem. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal. Then we can discuss whether it is worthy for inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, such work has already been published; it simply hasn't been published by WMC's friends and colleagues and/or it contradicts their agenda, which is the one and only reason such research isn't "worthy" for inclusion in wikipedia - and it will never be "worthy" as long as their stranglehold continues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to me. But here's what it seems that you're saying. Scientist are conspiring to warp our perception of reality. Some of those scientists have infiltrated Wikipedia and are carrying on their conspiracy here! Have I got the jest of it? Do you have a theory as to their motivation? Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course that's how you read it - that is the meme that your group keeps on propagating. I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think there is a "conspiracy." This is mostly a case of mass hysteria caused by groupthink/confirmation bias combined with a healthy serving of the Dunning–Kruger effect and an activist mindset. It really is rather fascinating from a psychological perspective, but in the long run this will really hurt science and science education. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like you would like Wikipedia to right the great wrongs that this activist groupthinking self-confirming ignorant bunch of scientists is doing to science and science education. Is that about right? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed "writing great wrongs" is the hallmark of the activist mindset. Unlike some here I have no illusions that I've saving the world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not me, it's them? Okay. I suppose that's why the climate science textbooks all agree with the editors you are opposing? That's why many of the editors you are opposing have been published in peer-reviewed journals and you have not? Got it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The "stranglehold", as you put it, is a classic one that exists in WP:MAINSTREAM reference works. You may think it unfair that the stranglehold exists in academia and that Wikipedia is reflecting that stranglehold, but that's what we're supposed to do. From what I can see, what you are calling "WMC's friends and colleagues" are the scientists who have done the hard work reflected in the scientific consensus that exists about climate change and its causes. The published works of these people will be determining most of the scientific content about climate change on Wikipedia and their detractors will be marginalized. If you don't like that, Wikipedia will be a very unpleasant environment for you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, when I say "friends and colleagues" I mean precisely that - not some generic "climate scientist." I believe this is pretty much been shown to be the case. Notwithstanding your essay quoting, my point stands and stands ignored - science that is opposed to the activist mindset is not welcome in the global warming articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC statements. A "generic" one you would choose at random would be statistically likely then to not be engaged in "opposing" the "activist mindset". WP:WEIGHT is not an essay. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "vast majority" depends on what questions you ask, who you ask and who is doing the asking. Has the earth warmed since 1900? Very likely - and much of that early warming was due to the sun becoming more active after the Little Ice Age. Does CO2 cause warming? Again, very likely, but how much, and more importantly how much from the theoretical and unobserved positive feedback effects? As I said, it depends on what you ask - properly questioned I'm sure I'd come off as a 100% supporter of the IPCC's (Michael Mann's) theories. There are many many factors involved in such things, but rather irrelevant - we can either allow all papers a chance to be in wikipedia, or continue the one-sided self-promoting positive feedback loop as it currently is, which convinces people through incomplete knowledge that AGW is the received truth and all contradictory scientific evidence is "fringe." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW Good Locust, I don't think that I've ever edited any climate change related article. Your assertion that I'm part of any group related to climate change or scientist is false. From the opinions that you've expressed, I think that you should probably stay away from editing any climate change related articles. It doesn't appear to me that you're capable of editing without reflecting your own fringe POV. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Asserting Michael Mann=IPCC as you are doing is the stuff of conspiracy theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it appears most of your 907 edits over 3 years are to the "Derek Smart" talk page (whoever that could possibly be) and related pages. As for editing the climate change articles, nope I not going to edit them at all, perhaps in a few years when wikipedia realizes how incredibly wrong they've been to coddle certain personalities, but even then I'm not sure if I want the hassle of appealing an indefinite topic ban when I'm sure some people will say I have a COI since I "lived" the history of the climate change articles. As for editing without reflecting my "fringe" POV, you may or may not have noticed, but there has been no evidence submitted that I edited the climate change articles to insert fringe material - some of us are capable of editing in a NPOV manner even when we have strong opinions on a subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the abstract of that paper, and an editorial on it here, to keep things real since it's been mentioned out of context. --Nigelj (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SA: That's not true. Our article on the Fermi paradox lists 17 explanations.  So you're saying that one is a majority viewpoint and the other 16 are all fringe?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know what your antecedent is and I fail to see the parallel between global warming and the Fermi paradox. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SA: The antecedent is "I've yet to see a counter-example." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the proposed resolutions to the Fermi paradox are taken seriously enough in academic circles to be considered anything but WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Indeed, the general attitude of scientists, even those heavily involved in SETI, regarding this question is simply, "Don't have any idea." ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) There are two things. Fringe ideas, and minority ideas.  Both of these fall into our article guidelines dealing with undue weight.  Fringe ideas are the ones that really need extraordinarily solid sourcing to be included, minority scientific viewpoints...not so much.  I disagree with SA that they should be treated identically, though there are similarities in how they should be treated.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said they should be treated identically. I just said they're covered by WP:FRINGE according to the definitions provided at that guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to cause a ruckus here SA but did`nt you get into the poop over you reading of fringe? mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not my understanding of why and how I got "into the poop". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me this is partly an issue of semantics. It's true from my reading that Fringe theories covers things that might not be called Fringe science in normal discourse. The way to handle each case would generally need to be considered on its merits and the guideline itself somewhat makes it clear that they aren't the same and we need to be careful how we word things in the article. As SBBH has pointed out, as with most things it's somewhat of a continuum, there is clearly no hard and fast line. Mentioning they are covered by the guideline is okay but I would be careful about calling everything covered fringe science or fringe, in general in wikipedia discussions since it's the kind of thing that may cause unnecessary offense and ill-feeling leading to unproductive discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of what I've read about this is skeptical. Therefore the overtly anti-skeptical DeutscheBank report is interesting. But there isn't much reason to read Wikipedia articles that pretend the skeptics don't exist, no matter how many Wikipedia acronyms may support them. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If i'm not mistaken, every single one of the sceptical views presented in the DB document is present and discussed in the CC topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, if you go looking for them. Art LaPella (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes? What would be the alternative? We can't include these into the top-level articles - since there it would be WP:UNDUE. We can't do a "debunking"/"common myth" article, since that is not what Wikipedia is about. Most of these can be found via Global warming controversy though - or directly on the articles that concern the sub-topic itself - for instance you will find the Medieval Warm Period claim in the Medieval Warm Period article, the solar variation claim in the Solar variation article and so forth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikilawyering answer is that UNDUE refers to "reliable sources", which in turn mentions "mainstream publications", which you have debated over and over. The simpler answer to "What would be the alternative" is the evolution article, whose last section is mostly about creationism. Art LaPella (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the Global warming? We mention several (fx. solar variation) of the sceptical positions on it, arguably significantly more than any other comparable encyclopedia. The lede to global warming contains a paragraph directly addressing the sceptical position (which is more than the evolution article does). In fact if you sum up the amount of cover of scepticism in Global warming then you end up with as much or more than the coverage in the evolution article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have previously defended the Global warming article, finding other articles of the type I had in mind has been much harder than I thought it would be. So I need to back off. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The actions of people external to Wikipedia are manifestly irrelevant to our task as encyclopedia editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) What I wrote was an opinion about the words you wrote. In my opinion, you're stepping over the line from misplaced worries about a conflict-of-interest to out-and-out conspiracy mongering. That's my opinion, mind you. The words are there for all to read. They'll make their own judgment. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be correct to describe someone like Richard Lindzen as a fringe figure? I doubt it; according to our biography, the man is "an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology". Or David Deming? Fringe, within Wikipedia, is equated to pseudoscience. This is different from significant minority opinion -- where, according to WP:NPOV policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'." The press gives this minority opinion considerable notability, and (arguably) stronger representation in its overall coverage than it enjoys in scientific discourse, but this fact in itself is something that we need to cover, and communicate to the reader. So, no, a significant minority opinion is not by definition a fringe, or pseudoscience, opinion. -- JN 466  03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to climate change, yes, it would be appropriate to characterise Lindzen's views that way. For that matter, when it came to Vitamin C, it was appropriate to characterise Pauling's views as fringe. Prominence in one area does not always translate very well into other areas. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would depend on what views of Lindzen's that you are talking about. Lindzen's research/papers go from mainstream to tiny minority (Iris hypothesis). His views on the science as expressed in various Op-ed's is fringe when speaking academically, and probably tiny minority if we're speaking about the political sphere, and minority if we're talking within the public opinion sphere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He is an MIT professor, not an Erich von Däniken, who is a fringe "archaeologist", and pseudoscientist. Same with Hans von Storch, another skeptic -- these are professors of meteorology at reputable universities, and they are a part of academic discourse. Can we agree that that is not what Wikipedia calls "fringe"? -- JN  466  04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone compared him to Erich von Däniken? (otherwise id suggest that this is a strawman) But to get back on track - if you can find a scientific paper by Lindzen that is argued to be pseudoscience - then i would be very very surprised! There is a difference between scientific discourse (where Lindzen at the very least is minority to mainstream) and public discourse (where his views are minorty to fringe). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "He is an MIT professor" - and that means that we should discard expert opinion in favour on that basis? Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes - that still doesn't make his views about Vitamin C mainstream, not even for the time in which he was making them. Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He is an MIT professor of meteorology, so he has academic expertise and a scientific publication history in this specific field (as has von Storch, for example). This means that their views, where they differ from the mainstream, represent a minority opinion within the scientific discourse which deserves coverage in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, rather than a fringe opinion that stands outside the scientific process and can be omitted altogether in articles on the science. Could we agree to that? -- JN  466  05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you seem to be going on a strawman here. Lets see if we can capture it: Has any of Lindzen's scientific views been considered fringe? Is his scientific views ignored? (btw. von Storch is pretty much mainstream on everything so a rather bad comparison). Very tiny minority views are in the fringe category though, --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; his scientific views have been demonized as fringe, because you guys have demonized my views as fringe, which are largely similar to Lindzen's. Here is a fantastic paper of his which echoes many of the things I've been saying throughout this arbitration: the greenhouse effect is oversimplified to sell it to the public, the models are hypothetical, exaggerated and unreliable, and that natural factors aren't properly being factored by the IPCC (Mann). These views are articulated in his published paper; they are not allowed in wikipedia. If they were to be allowed then they would certainly be put in the most marginal spot possible with much hemming and hawing about how he is wrong. As I've said all along - some views are simply not welcome in the current climate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your views do not match Lindzen's.(example: ). Mann is not equal to the IPCC, nor does the IPCC reflect Mann's opinions [confusion of cause and effect] (which is another example of you diverting from Lindzen). The paper that you link to is a political/social science paper, in a rather fringy journal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First off I never said my views were exactly the same as Lindzen's. My tongue-in-cheek reference to the IPCC's views being equal to Mann's is essentially due to the self-promoting behavior he exhibited as lead author - extensively quoting his own work while ignoring or marginalizing work that contradicted his own. I believe one of the criticisms of the IPCC in that latest internal review was that lead authors shouldn't be acting like that since it is a COI (As above, so below...). Finally, and I really mean this, thank you so much for proving my point with your dismissal of Lindzen's paper - you people get to decide which views are scientific, "fringy" and whether or not they deserve inclusion in wikipedia. That's the rub of the matter; you deny it is the case, but then you demonstrate it for all to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Try not to do "tongue in cheek" statements. As for the scientific part of the paper, most of it is already in our articles. Lindzen's Iris hypothesis has its own article, and is mentioned in global dimming, Physical impacts of climate change and others. Various estimates of climate sensitivity is, obviously enough, in climate sensitivity. Other parts are in Attribution of climate change, Ocean acidification etc. Lindzen's view presented in the paper is tiny minority, and it is amply presented throughout the climate change topic space. [and try not to go to far - i haven't dismissed his paper] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Kim, Lindzen's strong criticism of the IPCC and AGW gymnastics is not well represented when it is even mentioned at all. Yes, Lindzen is occasionally mentioned in some articles, but it is pretty clear that your group is not neutral enough to represent his views (which you have called fringe) in a fair way. Readers would be better served by reading that paper that I linked rather than our simplistically-written global warming article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Energy and Environment is pretty fringey (not ISI listed), with real-world issues over its peer-review (for example, Pielke Jr. regrets publishing there). It's not wikipedia editors who orchestrated that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't read the climategate emails; several of them deal with marginalizing specific journals, papers or people that are skeptical of global warming. In this case, all you have to do is look who wrote the article to understand that it may not be giving a fair view. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you leave the conspiracy theories at the front-door please? Every single official inquiry into the claims you make, has dismissed them. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what so we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." -Michael Mann (WMC's friend) to Phil Jones . See no evil, hear no evil, whitewash all evil? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but do you think that there is anything underhanded in boycotting a journal, that demonstratively published badly peer-reviewed papers? (this was the reason that half the staff left that journal). Since you appear not to be trying to discuss the Arb case - but instead are trying to promote your own POV of the subject-area (from which you are topic-banned). I will stop responsing to you, since this isn't getting any further. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol nice spin Kim. Boycotts are public not privately coordinated efforts to marginalize a journal because it publishes papers opposed to your ideology. Gee, and those people who "quit" the journal, I don't suppose they'd be the ones that Mann was telling his friends to talk to? Naaawww.... TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing above somewhat deals with what I was saying earlier. You can call Richard Lindzen whatever you want, preferably not anything since it isn't relevant. Some of his views are covered by WP:Fringe theories, again they may not all be considered fringe in normal discourse. The fact that his views are covered by the guideline doesn't necessarily mean we completely ignore them in science articles, the guideline it self says so. However we have to be careful not to give them undue weight. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bingo! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is little risk of giving Lindzen's views due weight much less "undue" weight. As for SA's assertion that outside actions of individuals are irrelevant that is usually the case, but there are always exceptions - when you have two close friends; one coordinating the reputational destruction of journals ideologically opposed to them in the scientific world and the other friend working hard (with others but in this case obviously not coordinated) to make sure that same ideology is marginalized and misrepresented then those actions should be considered both for their COI implications and also along the lines of that old maxim, "a man is known by the company he keeps." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The so-called coordinated "reputational destruction" of peer-reviewed journals by two "close friends" somehow involving Wikipedia is, in my opinion, first-rate conspiracy-theorizing that is on par with some of the claims made by people who edited electronic voice phenomenon. You aren't the first person to claim that there was a conspiracy involving Wikipedia to discredit a pet theory, and you'll hardly be the last . ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was clearly not what I said - why is it that you guys always misread what people say and insert "conspiracy?" Is it because you want to make everyone else look like kooks? I'd suggest you reread what I said, but it is pretty clear no matter what I say it'll get misread with charges of "conspiracy." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What I obviously said was that when someone emails their buds to marginalize a journal because they don't like that they are willing to publish papers skeptical of AGW then the deeply close friend/colleague of that person has a COI and serious "association" problems - esp. when covering that person and related scandals. I've quoted one of his damn emails for crying out loud. Is this a conspiracy of reality? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is eerily similar to the Discovery Institute's claims regarding the Sternberg peer review controversy. This is the same group who also claimed that Wikipedia was guilty of "coordinating" to censor their pet ideas: . ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SA, the emails are for all to see, I've shown a portion of them. You keep on trying to associate my side with other unrelated topics to try and distract from the facts. This reminds me of that old adage, "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, then argue the law; if neither are on your side then slander the opposition." You are being quite transparent here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one claiming a coordination on the part of evil scientists, not I. If you think I'm slandering you somehow, feel free to hire a lawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to arbitrators: on WP:NPOV

 * Was: Request to arbitrators: Principle / finding / remedy / clarification / whatever on WP:NPOV

WP:NPOV says ''In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view.'' Based on this, some editors have inserted references to the majority view in articles about books or films that argue a minority view on climate change. Others have objected that the article isn't about a minority view per se, but is about a film or book about the minority view. Accordingly they have deleted such references to the majority view (see here for a current example).

The arbitrators already have passed principles relating to neutrality, coverage of science, and the like, so could they please expand on these just a bit and clarify the boundaries of WP:NPOV with regard to films, books, etc.? I suspect that most of us would appreciate the guidance and could live with whatever the decision happens to be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68's edit is an improvement in terms of WP:NPOV, and fixes a clear case of WP:SYN. That the programme argues against scientific consensus is evident from its reception, which is summarised in the lead. The lead already refers to "the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide", and summarises scientists' criticisms, which are covered in full in the article itself. -- JN 466  02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but I'm requesting a general statement about the boundaries of WP:NPOV rather than an evaluation of one specific edit (or article). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that the arbitrators would support the idea that violations of WP:SYN are not allowed to ensure that we inform our readers that an article's topic may be a minority view or idea. Swindle isn't the only article where that has happened   Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In my view, this is something where editors often go too far in playing the role of independent de-bunker, rather than informing readers about the reliable source coverage of such works, in a way that does not accord with the simple meaning of a "Neutral Point of View" (or indeed our other policies). If critics of a film point out that it makes discredited or minority claims, then that is something we should cover, while attributing those views to the critics who make them. The amount of criticism we present should reflect the weight of opinion.  What seems to happen instead is that editors insert statements about majority opinion which may or may not directly address what the author said; it simply comes down to one editor's opinion.  Frankly, some editors also seem to feel the need to note that views are minority views over and over, every time something is considered a minority review, rather than waiting and presenting a coherent response to the work as a whole.  In the example you show it seems to involve editors wanting to clarify for the reader that this is a minority view book, in the first sentence.  I think that discredits Wikipedia; we should not be interrupting the very first sentence of an article to inform the reader that the thesis of this book, as we perceive it, is not widely held.  I'm not sure if it's something where ArbCom can help, however. Mackan79 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- JN 466  02:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see why editors would be concerned about articles like The Great Global Warming Swindle, which are about books and so forth that are clearly intended to advance a fringe point of view. I'm not sure how this can be addressed. The dangers of such articles is that they can become coatracks to either promote or attack the point of view of the book, blog or whatever that is the subject. I do think that such articles need to make clear that the subject of the article advances a fringe point of view, so as to not mislead the reader. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This the nub of the issue; if a WP editor were to make such a statement then it would be seen as WP taking a stance, unless it is from a review of the book, which is against NPOV. Even placing such a quoted reference in the lead is problematic, unless that reference is the primary source which establishes the notability of the subject. If the author describes the book as either skeptic, denialist or whatever, then they can be quoted in the lead. The point is, without the third party source, Wikipedia editors may not infer (or state) what viewpoint the subject holds and whether it is mainstream or otherwise for the subject matter. That is policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think that's a problem, since most of the works we're talking about go out of their way to challenge the status quo and, in cases such as the Global Warming Swindle, to vilify an entire field of science and its practitioners. It isn't difficult to find support for the statement that they're advocating fringe points of view--indeed the authors usually regard this as the main selling point of the work. --TS 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, but not what it appears that ScottyBerg was saying in his last sentence. Due care in article writing should find the references which denote the character of the subject, not WP editorialising. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that editors should engage in OR. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something I raised in relation to barely notable fringe topics like The Hockey Stick Illusion, which can attract eulogies in nominally reliable sources such as the mass media, while still without any mainstream reliable sources. Fortunately the situation there has been improving, but during the interim period Wikipedia can get used to present an unquestioned fringe view of the topic the book covers, in clear breach of NPOV. A question of whether patience should mean tolerance of misinformation. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book has an amazon sales rank of 31,967. That makes it more than "barely notable". NPOV means that we reflect published opinion in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. I don't see any good reason to suppress positive reviews. I am equally sure not all reviews were positive. The thing to do is to say who liked it and who didn't, and leave it to the reader to make up their minds as to what that means. We don't make up the readers' minds for them. -- JN 466  21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's silly. How does an Amazon sales rank translate to reliability? The author is a retired accountant with absolutely no knowledge of the science. All he has, it seems, are opinions fashionable with those who are opposed to science. At best, we could use his book as a primary source for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance.--TS 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time it was evidently a struggle to find reviews at all, the article was padded out with passing mentions and one glowing but uninformative report in the intelligent design house magazine, Discovery News. We don't mislead readers into thinking that fringe publications have mainstream acceptance or "equal validity" just because they've been ignored by the mainstream – or at least we shouldn't. . . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think I said that an Amazon sales rank translates into reliability, justifying using the book as a source, then you are gravely mistaken, Tony. It was the notability of the book that was being questioned. And actually, despite the high amazon sales rank, I concede that there are fewer mainstream sources about it than I had expected to find, so I shouldn't have brought up the rank. I thought it had made more of a splash in the media. -- JN 466  00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside: Mackan writes we should not be interrupting the very first sentence of an article I'm not so sure it's really an interruption. WP:MOSBEGIN supports the idea that context may be put into a first paragraph. I think a good case can be made that when the subject is a nonfiction work about a controversy it's important enough for the reader to know from the first paragraph that the documentary POV is in the minority. It's a question for the article talk page, though, not here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Boris' point about NPOV policy extending into (nonfiction) creative works that are essentially about controversies (such as the documentary film in the example and books about controversies) is a very good one (to a degree, so is Mackan's, although lesser-known works sometimes get more coverage from fringe or minority sources, skewing the critical reaction -- in those cases, we should emphasize the reviews that reflect majority opinion when referring to how the work covers the controversy). But I don't think WP:NPOV as currently written covers this situation, and I don't think that ArbCom should step into that. We should change WP:NPOV. If anyone wants to try, tell me and I'll show up on the talk page to support that kind of change. In Boris' example, it's no big deal whether or not the first sentence mentions that the documentary reflects a minority or fringe opinion. (Personally, I think waiting until the fourth paragraph of a four-paragraph lead to say it's a minority-opinion documentary is wrong, and I'd switch the order of the third and fourth paragraphs, but again, it's no big deal.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way this by Tony Sidaway is a clear violation of WP's BLP policy. Tony states that the author of the book has, "absolutely no knowledge of the science" and that the book gives opinions "fashionable with those who are opposed to science."  Tony adds that the book could be used "as a primary source for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance."  Obviously, there are several problems with Tony's statement beyond it being an outright violation of BLP:
 * 1. Does Tony even have a copy of the book?  He doesn't appear to.
 * 2. Tony implies by his statement that he (Tony) knows the science, but that this clown who wrote the book doesn't.  The problem is, this guy wrote a book but Tony hasn't (as far as I know).  Tony, however, is a semi-anonyomous Wikipedia editor who, as evidence I presented above on this page shows, edits with an agenda.  Apparently, this gives Tony license to decide which book authors "absolutely" know the science and which don't, as Tony does know the science.
 * 3. Who is "opposed" to science?  I don't know anyone who is "opposed" to science.  To blanket accuse people whose views you don't agree with as "opposed to science" is classic ad hominem.  In fact, I've never seen a better example of such an ad hominem attack given by anyone in my four and a half years of editing Wikipedia.
 * 4. The book contains opinions by a wide variety of scientists and others, such as Hans von Storch.  Von Storch is one of many scientists who have criticized the hockey team's research, to varying degrees.  I didn't realize that von Storch and those others were "opposed to science," but I guess you, Tony, know better than I do.
 * 5. The "point of view of ignorance?"  So, Tony, anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant?  Do you really feel that that is a helpful attitude to have in a controversial subject when cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are what needs to take place?  In fact, I think that your attitude may get in the way of progress on content discussions.  What do you think?  Do you think that any bloc of editors who think this way might, as a group, also cause problems in a controversial topic area?  Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I submit Cla's above comment as a prime example of baiting and pointless grandstanding, and a good (or rather bad) example of his tendency to rely on wikilawyering and misusing BLP as a cudgel instead of constructive dialogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or was Cla68 responding to Tony's baiting? Is it baiting when you bite back? I dunno. Let's just call it all a tangent, but if Cla68 wants to, he can add this to the proposed Fof for Tony Sidaway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked the idea so much, I added a "baiting" section to the proposed Fof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think I'm being baited here, and for that reason I will once more absent myself from this case page. The arbitrators and clerks know that I can be reached on my public email address, tonysidaway@gmail.com . I absent myself for two reasons: I have contributed nothing of much worth for several days now, and discussion of my comments is becoming a distraction. I would like to make a comment on the anonymous user Cla68's claim that I am "semi-anonymous" but that would not be a nice thing to say.  I am not anonymous in any way at all. --TS 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)I returned after two days --TS 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, there are, of course a number of people out there that I disagree with, including politicians, commentators, sports figures, etc, but I would never come on Wikipedia and say that they "know nothing" about a subject that they have commented on, that they represent some faction of people who are "opposed to science" or whatever or that their views could be used to illustrate "ignorance." For one reason, I wouldn't say this because it's a BLP violation.  For another, I have no authority to say this on Wikipedia, as we're not supposed to take sides here, and why would I presume that I know more than they do?  If I did say something like that, I should expect to be called on it for the reasons I've listed above.  If we start making comments like that on-wiki about the authors of reliable sources that we might or might not use in articles, then I think we've definitely strayed into advocacy for one side over another. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Asserts facts not in evidence", and indeed wrong. An RS is not a RS because it's printed on paper and sold on Amazon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68 does seem to have "strayed into advocacy for one side over another" in persistently promoting the validity and usefulness for facts of Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. Tony's comment is a bit hyperbolic – Montford has some surface knowledge of the scientific papers, but apparently lacks or disguises any deep understanding of the science. His book promotes a point of view of ignorance, but that doesn't show that he's ignorant himself. For example, on pages 24–25, Montford presents a schematic diagram from the 1990 IPCC report as showing "the scientific understanding of the time". The graph shows Medieval temperatures dipping below modern levels around 1330, but Montford says "it suggested that past temperatures had been warmer than today in a long period lasting from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries." Is he not very good at reading graphs, or has he failed to read the IPCC report page 202 which discusses this regional "exceptionally warm" period "about AD 950-1250"? Or is he setting up the reader for the exciting revelation on page 33 that in the 1998 "Hockey Stick" graph showing only temperatures back to 1400, "The Medieval Warm Period had completely vanished.", as though the graph could show a period before the graph starts. It may read like "a compulsive detective story", as one review stated, but it's not a viable source of factual information. Cla68 plays the "Does Tony even have a copy of the book?" card, but doesn't seem to have read the book carefully himself. This discussion exemplifies the difficulties of dealing with undue promotion of fringe views on Wikipedia. . dave souza, talk 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While we continue to describe scientific research, its conclusions and its summaries as a 'belief' system, and editing as if you 'believe' in mainstream science as a POV or an agenda, then we're going to get nowhere. P9 Encyclopedic coverage of science seems quite clear to me and has lots of support votes. The problems are, am I misunderstanding it or are several other people here, with their talk of the 'house POV' etc? If it says what I think it says, does it lack the teeth and corollaries that would make a lot of this endless discussion redundant? At the moment, the goals of anybody whose aim is merely to Teach the Controversy - to maintain the FUD that nothing is certain in climate science - appear to be well served by the structures in place. --Nigelj (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you about the value of "Encyclopedic coverage of science." To me it is typical of arbcom's failure to come to grips with the problems in the CC pages, its timidity, and its tendency to issue vague, Delphic generalities that are divorced from the reality of the CC pages. This principle does absolutely nothing to address the recurrent problems that arise with books and blogs that advance fringe positions. Totally nada. It's almost as if arbcom doesn't want to offend anyone, so it is straining to produce a decision that sanctions a few people but otherwise doesn't rock the boat. Arbcom has similarly failed to address the pressing issue of content disputes being imported into enforcement pages, though in that case it can be forgiven because there was nothing, I think, in the Workshop on that problem. But it has arisen recently, right on this page, and can be addressed. I've asked Lar to address his "house POV" remark and I'd like to see what, if anything, he has to say to elaborate on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been on the back of my mind now for the last few weeks about whether CC skepticism is a fringe or a minority viewpoint. I haven't quite decided, but right now I'm leaning towards minority, especially when WP:FRINGE cites examples such as perpetual motion devices, astrology and conspiracy theories of fringe theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not a clear boundary. Some of the contrarian views are fringe and some are small-minority. This raises an important point in that there's not a single, coherent minority view but a broad range of views, many of which are mutually contradictory. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:UNDUE "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points." The hard part, to me, is what makes an article "specifically about a minority viewpoint", relative to this area.  Does an article about a book qualify?  Does an article about a specific person with a specific view qualify?  From the Jimbo quote in that section, I think the significant minority bullet applies to the skeptic view as a whole, but some of the specific views are more FRINGE-y than others.  The harder part is that this can change based on the focus of an article.  What the public thinks vs what science things can really change which skeptic views are more fringe, but in no case should any of them, or all of them as a whole, be considered anything more than minority views.  I think that if any article presents a skeptic view, it must also cover the specific aspect of the majority view it contradicts, clearly point out it is a minority view and how they differ.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrap it up
Could we be finished now, please? Jehochman Talk 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree...and propose that the best thing to do is eliminate the individualized sanctions and simply pass a discretionary sanctions case. ANY violations by any parties mentioned here and then of any parties not mentioned after receiving one explicit warning should lead to a topic ban for 90 days...next violation 1 year and a third, an indefinite topic ban. Any violation noticed would need to be posted so all administrators can see it at either AN/I or the Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard. Set something like that in concrete and trim the fat out of these proposed decisions and we'd all be better off.--MONGO 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms.  However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment.  After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By "volatile", I mean "subject to flare-ups" rather than continuously problematic. You've talked about imported political disputes before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. The only imported disputes I am aware of are personal or ideological, not political. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to what the Committee in its draft finding 2 calls the "Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area [which] have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Wikipedia, give to this topic area." It's rather similar to evolution in the respect that the science is well established (overwhelmingly so in the case of evolution, but the basics of global warming are also very well supported) but there are all kinds of weak challenges to the science that can only be explained by the political implications various people apply to the science. The same kind of conspiracy theories recur as in critiques of evolution, the same allegations of fakery, and the same kind of agendas are alleged, despite the exceptional scientific support for both. --TS 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you mean. Yes. Agreed. Hard to know how to avoid that. Ill-informed politicians wield considerable power and generate considerable media coverage, and Wikipedia relies on media coverage for sourcing. Scientists have to work hard to get coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines.  People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And the problem was magnified a lack of true reporting coupled with an abundance of opinion in the months immediately following the data theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Important point I think, wikipedia is not a "Reader's Digest" of mainstream newspaper articles when it comes to scientific topics. There are some that still do not yet fully appreciate the importance of this statement. If the reader falls into this category then I suggest that you read this principle which will be approved in this case, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision Bill Huffman (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest pointing such editors to WP:WEIGHT, and in some case WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly understandable that everyone would love to see this finally draw to an end. But wrapping it up should not be a euphemism for punting. I think that some (not all) of the editors who responded after Jehochman's opening post have been engaging in an echo chamber of "let's not sanction anyone now". Just give everyone a pat on the head, and say next time we're going to get serious. I'm not trying to convince the editors who commented, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that it would be a failure of nerve to do so, a failure to really prevent further disruption, and a big let-down to the larger editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with that sentiment. Let my comments above not be understood to be supportive of the notion that there should not be strong sanctions directed at individuals in this case. --TS 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh...this arbcam case has been a tit-for-tat...don't think for a minute I can't see that there haven't been infractions, some somewhat egregious even, but if we had a discretionary sanction case and really enforced it, I bet named parties would alter their game plan. I know this worked at the 9/11 arbcom case...the POV pushers were all sanctioned or simply stopped editing for a year, allowing several related articles the peace needed to get them to FA status...including one that had been a complete battlefield. That case made the wacky cease and desist so I think the sane that work on CC articles would probably conform if they knew they be topic banned for anywhere from 90 days to indefintitely...set that in stone, enforce it immediately and watch things calm down.--MONGO 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. As long as the sanctions are enforced in a fair manner. If they are used as another means to defend the house POV against all comers, they will not solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on that? What is the "house POV" in the global warming articles? I see a lot of articles, some on secondary subjects, and a lot of noisy editing. Please explain your comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) - Certainly egregious violations that harm the project should attract sanction, but many of the proposed statements (such as the one noted by Bill Huffman) should go a long way toward informing editors of how the topic is best tackled. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) There are about half a dozen more FOFs to follow. Shell has limited connectivity at the moment but as soon as she's back in the saddle we'll get them posted. Then, the remedies need looking at but that shouldn't take too long. So overall, things are probably winding down. Roger Davies talk 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As of this post..."This page is 385 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance."...--MONGO 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what is being stated above. I also find the comment by MONGO an interesting idea too.  I remember the constant AN/i discussions about the 911 articles and how things disappeared for the most part after the case closed from that board.  So maybe his/her suggestion should be taken as an idea on handling things.  As I said above in an earlier statement today, I also am seeing a lot of the problems being generated by the facts that on one side of the issue is a pretty constant set of editors that are under the limelight right now being up against the other side that the editors change and expand quite frequently.  I'm not sure why this one side has more and different editors on it's side unless it has to do with what the editors here on this talk page and also the arbs have made mention on the PD about outside blogs influencing this.  If that is the case then maybe the editors who are known to be brought from the outside, the spas of this case, need to be dealt with.  We can't allow editors to come in from the outside knowingly to raise havoc like this to our article work. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Mongo's idea is interesting. However, I'm not familiar with that case so I'm not sure if the dynamics there are the same as here. I also agree with your general assessment of the situation. There's been a lot of talk of "COI" on the part of one editor, but your suggestion that some of the editors may be SPAs motivated by outside blogs is interesting, and would explain some of the behavior we've seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MONGO's suggestion has merit, though the 9/11 situation was a bit different in that it was reality v. nutters not scientific inquirey v. head in the sand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly, waiting for voting on the proposed decision is turning into even more of a joke than waiting for the proposed decision itself. Before we hit the six month mark for this case, might it be quicker to just hold new arb elections and find some who are available? Weakopedia (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Many apologies for the horrible timing of my computer problems (touched off by nothing more than a 30 minute thunderstorm no less). Things are still up in the air, but I do have solid access to email and a few IMs due to owning a smartphone. If you think there's something I've overlooked because of my limited access for the past week or so, please drop me a brief pointer in the right direction. Shell  babelfish 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about your computer troubles been there and it's no fun at all. Are you able to keep up with this talk page?  Also are you able to follow difs that are here?  Where are you with things using your phone, to give an idea of what you maybe missing if you can would be appeciated?  Down near the bottom of this page are some important things to consider also the conversation above with John Barber above.  Thanks in advance, feel free to email me if you feel the need, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question of my own....
Why not place all the embattled articles under Full Protection?--*Kat* (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because not all editors are the problem, and just about everybody wants to fix the broken bone rather than saw off the limb and stick it in formaldehyde. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a wiki. --TS 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * too many of the articles already have some kind of protection. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who decides which of the wrong versions gets full protection, who decides when it gets changed and who decides when protection is no longer needed? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the question, isn't it? My idea is that all the embattled articles be given full protection. Then, y'all would have to hash it out on the talk page and come to an honest to God consensus before having any revisions inserted.  This would require you to make compromises about what goes in and what stays out.   The end result, I think, would be an article that really is neutral. One where minority views are neither suppressed or given undue weight.--*Kat* (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is very good reasoning. I would support this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent reasoning, I think you've cracked the whole problem of how to enforce the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Let's fully protect evolution and not allow any edits unless "due weight" is given to creationism. What can possibly go wrong? --TS 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice display of sarcasm, Thanks for making it clear that the problom is ot a one sided attitude or some evil, off wiki conspriacy but is in an attmpet by both sides to ensure that only their version of the truth is the on ewe allow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As a non-sarcasm response, the concern is that the version would be 'locked' in an unacceptably wrong version which could be filibustered to maintain, regardless of its merits. As long as the current versions supporters maintain an appearance of no consensus to change then the ones who want to change it are rendered powerless.  The argument then would shift to bickering over wether the admin who invoked consensus and made the change was actually acting neutrally or partisanly leading to the same arguments that we have already concerning admins 'involvedness'.  Essentially the argument would adapt to the new editing enviroment without being solved. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely there are some dedicated admins who don't give a darn about climate change [who could moderate the discussion] out there. What about TWOFR? .  Furthermore the revisions don't have to take place on the day concenses is achieved.  It could work on a schedule.  Once a week or once every other day if the article is hot and there is new stuff coming on regularly. As to your first point: If a truly non-biased editor agrees that an article unacceptably POV, then the admin in charge could revert it back to a more acceptable version before putting the full protection on.--*Kat* (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kat, that's an interesting idea. It would be gamed by having minorities of editors dig in their heels to prevent consensus, but that can happen now. It would stop the edit warring, but also make it much more difficult to make uncontroversial changes that would benefit the articles (they're not always well-written and uncontroversial changes are almost always most of the edits in article space, I think). I don't think there are enough uninvolved admins with enough interest and time to do the editing once consensus is achieved on the page. In the grand scheme of things, in terms of workload, it's easier to sanction some editors and encourage future sanctions for future violations. I think I was too dismissive of your original post on this -- sorry about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. However, I respectfully disagree.   What happened to AGF?  Furthermore just like one person can't make a concensus, so too can one person not block concensus.  If you are simply unable to achieve concensus over a non-controversial edit, the question should be, "Is this really important enough to go into an encyclopedia article." As to your final point, that's a lazy excuse.  It may be easier but that doesn't make it better. Besides, just because you don't have the time doesn't mean others don't.--*Kat* (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that full protection with changes only added after an admin agrees on consensus is actually the opposite of AGF. It also flies in the face of WP:OWN since you would be essentially setting in stone that specific admins OWN specific articles and no one can change it without their say-so.  We'd also have to change the tagline for wikipedia to 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit after an admin says its ok', Though WP is already headed in that direction anyway with BLP's and flagged revisions.  I'm also interested in your statement above of 'truly non-biased editor'.  Did you have specific criteria for 'truly non-biased' that people will agree on? Will the admins that have the right to edit through protection be vetted for impartiality before or after they make their changes?  And who will be doing that vetting?  What if a bunch of people think an admin, like oh say, Lar is involved and a bunch of others think he isn't?  Who decides then?  How many edits through protection can an admin make to an article before he is concidered involved?  Seeings as he's editing the article and all. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "truly non-biased editor': I'm thinking maybe select someone at random from those editors who are 1) currently active, 2) have more than 1500 non-minor edits 3) in good standing (no blocks) and 4) have never even touched a climate change article. A database query could give you a list.  You can select four or five or more and ask them what they think. Yes, I can think of all sorts of "but what if" problems with this, but chances are they won't happen. Tell someone that you will trust them and they will--more often than not--live up to that trust.--*Kat* (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we use the same algorithm for "truly non-biased editor" to decide on important issues in the editing of, say, hippocampus? A specialist spends part of his weekend typing up a sourced addendum to the section on schizophrenia, Randy in Boise thinks it conflicts with his beliefs and reverts saying the specialist is a plant from AMA. Captain Spaulding, your chosen non-biased editor, pops in and says "sure, looks like a conflict." So the article is fully protected for weeks because some random guy disagreed with a neurologist and a bloke who had no connection with the subject said there was obviously a disagreement. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to stop editing an article just because some person disagrees with some other person about an issue. Most of the time the objection by Randy is brushed aside because it has no credibility. And that is a good thing. --TS 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TS, quit repeating things that clearly aren't true. It is inflammatory (to me anyway) to characterize someone as something they are not and misleading to everyone else. If this was really the case then you guys would've presented evidence of it. That has not been the case. The best thing you guys can say is that WMC said the paper he co-authored shouldn't have been used as a source to demonstrate global cooling alarmism - in other words, hot sauce added to weak tea to disguise the argument's lack of substance. To your general argument, "specialists" or "experts" can be activists just as easily as anyone else (more so in my opinion). A case in point, the guy in charge of the NASA surface temperature record (which shows higher temperatures than the satellite record) has just been arrested for a second time due to his environmental protesting activities. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what I'm doing. There are no real people in the Captain Spaulding scenario, only the algorithm proposed above is real.  The stuff about WMC (Dr. Connolley?) is not germane to the subject as far as I can tell. I agree that specialists are activists within their field.  What of it? --TS 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I've misunderstood your argument then it is only because it sounds identical to the arguments we've heard so many times before throughout the arbitration. Are you now telling me that it isn't a zebra I see but a white horse with black stripes painted on it? As for your final point, no, "specialists" are not necessarily activists, but academia often produces such behavior from insecure middle-aged teachers trying to bed idealistically naive young students. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TS you are taking my suggestion and "algorithm" and applying it a totally different scenario. I would never suggest that we use Full Protection and outside intervention to settle a two bit edit war like the one you described above.  In fact I wouldn't have suggested that it be used on a major edit war like the one that brought the editors of ADHD to ArbCom.  Or even to the Eastern European wars.  I mean for this solution to be applied to the realm of climate change.  Nothing more, nothing less, nowhere else.--*Kat* (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we're agreed that such a regimen would not benefit hippocampus, ADHD, or topics in Eastern Europe. Could you explain why you think it would benefit climate change?  What is the problem with permitting normal editing of articles in the topic, many of which do not have any history of serious edit warring? If an edit war starts, editors can be sanctioned and an article can be protected until consensus is achieved.  Why is this not applicable in this topic, in your view? --TS 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what TS is getting at is the matter of precedence. With arbcom being viewed as a sort-of Supreme Court of WP then it is only natural that the admins will take their direction to heart.  Specific to this case is the idea that Discretionary Sanctions became standard operating procedure for Arbcom, so some admins got together and applied Discretionary Sanctions to this area without arbcom.  Regardless of the result, they were not wrong to do so.  So if this full protection idea gets arbcom seal of approval, it is neither unthinkable nor unreasonable to believe that admins will concider it one of the tools in their belt to stop edit wars.  How such things are implemented is a genuine concern.


 * You (Kat) note above that anyone can think of *what if* problems until the cows come home for any issue. I respond by saying that I have been trying to keep my 'what ifs' as being applicable to THIS case.  The idea of a large argument about admins being involved was specifically germane to this case (hence my namedropping of Lar) and would have to be answered immediately and not as part of some possible outcome.  I'm just saying that I'm not saying these things for the sake of opposing.  I just believe that if you are going to follow through with this idea these questions need to be answered or it will fall apart before it does good. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with precedence, or arbitration. It's simply against policy to put permanent full protection on an article and no argument seems to have been made on the benefits of doing so even if we all agreed to do it. The harm that would be caused is substantial, so any argument for doing so would have to be pretty good. --TS 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If everyone agreed to do it, then it wouldn't be against policy. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The grisly facts and a prediction
I have just finished yet more archiving. This page, in the last two months, has generated a staggering 350,000 words and counting. This volume wouldn't be so bad if it the effort had gone into four new novels or nearly seven hundred new DYKs, but much of it has been partisan, ill-tempered, and of dubious relevance. And that's without mentioning the systemic wiki-lawyering ...

The time has come to wind down the interminable discussions, with genuine effort now going into pertinance, brevity and collegiality. If not, it is probable that the clerks will be obliged to start intervening. Roger Davies talk 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The clerks intervening would not be a bad thing at all; in fact it would have been helpful had they had done so much earlier. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the first person to say this, but if the arbitrators themselves had posted a bit more (especially early in the case) about the kinds of evidence that would be convincing or unconvincing, or simply told editors, "No, that argument/evidence/reading of policy doesn't hold water with me because ...", this page would be a tenth of the size it is. (Some of this has happened, but rarely.) And of course this page seems to be used now as a Workshop and evidence page. And, of course, this whole case has taken -- how many months now? I appreciate the work you and some other arbitrators have obviously put into this, and you, Roger, and Rlevse, have done more communicating to the rest of us than anyone on Arbcom, but ArbCom has put people through a lot more discomfort and bother than was necessary. And as we who are on this Website to write get edgier during the interminable wait for a decision made almost entirely behind closed doors, we chat a bit. So save the sarcasm. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What sarcasm?  Roger Davies  talk 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This volume wouldn't be so bad if it the effort had gone into four new novels or nearly seven hundred new DYKs -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the equivalent word length of 350,000 words.  Roger Davies  talk 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Perhaps not the clearest example of sarcasm I've ever seen, but I apologise if my remark offended you.  Roger Davies  talk 04:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit late for you to start comlaining about this. Right at the start I noted that some evidence - I think it was from JWB - was clearly partisan and not at all neutral. the arbs reaction was we-don't-care. If you've finally realised that is bad, then hurrah, but you should not be trying to cast blame on the case participants for errors that you have substantially contributed to. Ditto on talk length: the arbs habit of gnomic silence is largely responsible for this. And *yes*, the talk pages should indeed be more strongly clerked. Oh, and having a rubbish PD scrawled on a fag-packet by Rlevse didn't exactly help, either William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this was hatted so quickly since it was a thread started by an arbitrator. Shouldn't we see what Roger has to say out in the open and not under a hat like it's not important? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The original post was only partially on-topic and the thread swiftly veered right off-topic. The important thing is that people keep post volume and post length to a minimum.  Roger Davies  talk 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The important thing, Roger Davies, is that the Arbitrators have collectively failed to manage the Arbitration process. For months they have failed to participate meaningfully in the process, and they have failed to give effective guidance to their clerks.  They have failed to inform parties of the scope of the case.  They have failed to discuss their interpretation or evaluation of evidence.  They have failed to provide feedback at nearly every stage of the process.  If it's taken two months for an Arbitrator to notice that this page has a tremendous amount of irrelevant bickering, off-topic discussion, and interminable wikilawyering, then something is seriously broken.  Perhaps your request would be met more warmly if it were accompanied by an acknowledgement of the errors the Committee has made so far, and an honest and open discussion of how they intend to remedy the mess that they have helped to construct.
 * The Arbitration Committee failed in a very similar way last year around this time when they ignored the WMC-Abd case for extended periods; made no effort to curtail excessive, repetitive, unconstructive comment by some of the parties; and presented an appallingly unbalanced and ill-thought-out initial proposed decision. It is disappointing to see how little has been learned and how little has changed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever suggested that this case has been ArbCom's finest hour and I do agree with some of the points you make. However, in ArbCom's defence, mega-cases like this are exceedingly difficult to manage and they don't crop up often enough for us to get really good at them. The main problem is that they're basically a string of mini-cases with lots of over-lap. It is almost impossible to define a detailed scope in advance because you don't know how it will unfold. What is said in the statements rarely closely matches the final case.
 * We have already said that we'd hold a workshop/post-mortem after the case closes to see what can be learned from it and that remains an excellent idea.
 * Evidence is a systemic problem and not just in this case. In reality, we are reluctant to curtail evidence because this seriously disadvantages the inexperienced and/or the inarticulate. We cannot weigh evidence on its own; and have to wait to see what comes in by way of rebuttal and supplementary material before making anything approaching a determination.
 * That said, this case is exceptional for its verbosity (the whole thing is about half a million words incidentally, the vast bulk of which was contributed by fewer than twenty editors).  Roger Davies  talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't follow your comparison with the Abd-WMC case: that was over in two months, start to finish.


 * Most parents and teachers learn pretty quickly that it's a bad idea to make rules that you don't intend to enforce. Doing so only undermines your credibility and leads to your charges misbehaving even worse. Leaders of effective organizations learn similar lessons. Unfortunately the arbitrators do not seem to have taken this principle on board. The case had word limits that went unenforced even when brought to the attention of the committee; there were deadlines that slipped by weeks; and on and on. That's not to excuse the misbehavior of editors, but the committee itself has a considerable share of the responsibility for what this case has turned into. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disgree with you about ArbCom having to shoulder a considerable share of the responsibility, though obviously some lies with us. Ultimately, the responsibility for misbehaviour lies with those engaging in it. In fact, one of the core problems here is that, with a couple of exceptions, editors are not accepting that anything is their responsibility and doing their utmost to lay the blame somewhere else or on someone else. I agree entirely with what you say about rules and deadlines, and the expectations that are created.  Roger Davies  talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Arbcom was responsible for people's misbehavior. I can see that "what this case has turned into" was vague enough that such a reading is possible, and apologize for the imprecise wording. It certainly wasn't what I meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :)  Roger Davies  talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, your original post was quite sweeping and didn't seem to refer just to misbehavior. I didn't think you were just addressing misconduct on the arb pages, but rather more general verbosity etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with TenofAllTrades and some of the hatted comments, esp. the ones by JWB and WMC. While I agree that brevity is important, it's not right to even implicitly blame the participants in the process for the length of the pages, the wikilawyering, etc. The participants of all points of view were staggering around in the blind. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something here. Are you really suggesting that the bad behaviour in this case, the same sort of bad behaviour that has been going on in the topic for years, is ArbCom's fault?  Roger Davies  talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gawd no. Maybe I misunderstood what you were referring to in your post. I was referring to the length of the posts and people sort of staggering around, not misbehavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's clearer. I've no idea why the same (relatively few) people are posting so often and as such length. It's a new one to me too,  Roger Davies  talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to pile it on, but one example is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop. This ran for two weeks, collected a long list of suggested issues, and, as far as I can tell, there has been no feedback at all - so of course evidence and proposals were written for all proposed issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's simply wrong. A great many of the workshop proposals found their way into the /Proposed decision in one form or another, though obviously the content-related ones and the over-specific ones didn't make it. The 'side issues' was a good and ambitious idea but probably collapsed under its own weight, 140-plus side-issue proposals of extremely variable quality and relevance. Roger Davies  talk 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be that they went into the PD, but that was invisible from the outside for several weeks while the evidence was piled on and discussed. If you propose a multi-stage process with specific questions, it would be much more productive to provide feedback and focus during or directly after each phase. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I try to engage but with the torrent of discussion it ain't that easy. However, not everyone has the available time or the temperament to do so. I can also understand my colleagues' possible reluctance to fuel further drama by extending old and inviting new discussions. The key thing here is that this case turned out to be exceptional in so many different ways = the highly invested/entrenched nature of many participants; the seemingly infinite capacity for discussion of minutiae; and, it has to be said, the unpleasantness of many of the interactions - and I don't think that was fully anticipated.  Roger Davies  talk 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least User:Ncmvocalist will have enough to write about. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he's referring to your job reporting on this over at the signpost.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my take on the remark, too. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I wonder if he read the part about pertinence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Earlier today I made a sarcastic response to what I regard as an unactionable if well meaning suggestion to have all articles within the topic area fully protected. I asked "what could possibly in wrong" in such a scenario, and it was only on reflection a short time later that I realised that many editors with little experience simply do not know what is wrong with the "discuss first" editing model and why we don't use it unless the alternative it an edit was. I tried to revert but by that time I was on the move and on longer had access to a computer powerful enough to handle the task, so I took the discussion to the user talk page of the person to respond. I apologise for needlessly stepping into a pointless discussion and inflaming it, only hours after reading a disengagement suggestion on the very same page and nodding sagely. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you might support the idea? Its *not* unactionable.  Somebody just needs to Be Bold, IAR (since this would benefit the wiki) and do it.--*Kat* (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The telephone has its idiosyncrasies. "in" means "go" and if you have a telephone keypad you can work out the rest. I've considerably expanded my thoughts, which I believe reflect Wikipedia's principles and current policy, at the user talk page of the first editor who responded to my sarcastic comment. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response Kat, I would oppose the proposal even if I thought it was within written policy. As a strong supporter of "Ignore all rules", however, I would accept if I found that it was widely supported and effective. I've been there a few times myself and proudly wear the grimy t-shirt. Fuck process and policy is what works. But you have to get everybody to agree that it works. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So where do we go to get this voted on? Its a good idea and, in my opinion, far preferable to seeing multiple editors get banned.  If we ban the editors we lose their knowledge, energy, and talents.--*Kat* (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kat, without sarcasm I applaud your impulse to find an innovative solution. Ignore all rules is our first policy, and it's also a powerful kind of magic which, if followed assiduously, is far less effective than you might hope but far more effective than any other kind of engagement on Wikipedia. When it works, nobody will notice. When it fails, everybody will point the finger so make sure it isn't pointing at you. Go to the policy page, read all the essays, and then forget them. Edit for a couple more years. Then come back and say what you want to do. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TonySidaway, I have been an editor off and on for five years. More on than off.  I have over 4,000 edits under my belt.  I have re-written over a dozen articles and contributed in a positive manner to many wiki projects.  Even when I wasn't actively editing I was actively reading.  I have been reading the essays and archives since I first discovered them some four years ago.  Is that not enough experience for you?--*Kat* (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As to what you said about finger pointing, the fact that you haven't heard of me should be an indicator of my ego. I'm just here to help.  I'm not here to gain rank or prestige.  If this fails then point all the fingers at me you want.  Point your toes at me if that is what you want.  But give this a try.  All of you.  I think that if you give this a good faith effort you will get good faith results.--*Kat* (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to stop anybody going to Requests for page protection and asking for certain articles where there is no ongoing edit war to be fully protected. Getting the administrators to agree to do it is another matter. --TS 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Randy marches on...
There goes another valuable expert. It's a good thing that some editors with no expertise in anything but Wiki policies are able to write featured articles on complex topics based on Fox reprints of press releases and cherry-picking the primary literature, without going through the trouble of getting a PhD in the topic - otherwise we would be in real trouble. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see the loss of real expertise.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite having commented, and thus arguably part of the problem, I don't see this is as a commentary on the PD, so I hope a clerk will hat it.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very much a comment on the PD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to the PD, the smartest course for any editor who has been mentioned in the PD is to lay low and stay off the Committee's radar (as Lar and Cla68 appear to be doing). It keeps you from getting embroiled in further controversy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SPhilbrick is right that it's not really a comment on the PD. However, I think that editors "retiring" at such a pace, as an apparent reaction to the PD, needs to be made known somehow. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RANDY is apparently in action here and should be cause for concern. I believe that the idea that has been put forth on these CC case pages that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than an amalgam of generally reliable sources is a partial source of the conflict. This type of an editing attitude can actually work very well in some topics, for example Military History. The sources in this area have already generally done the work of boiling down what is important and what is undue weight. But the idea that this type of editting is going to work in Climate Change is really rather ridiculous. I think that arbcom should be concerned with this kind of issue. Editors that think this is the "Wikipedia way" need to be told it is not the way or Wikipedia will be a Reader's Digest rather than an Encyclopedia, at least in areas like CC. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Urban Dictionary springs to mind too. It really is too bad that serious expertise is being insulted and thrown away at this pace here. Many highly qualified people feel that they have put in seriously hard work to build and maintain these articles over the years, sometimes in the face of egregious ignorance and extended undermining attacks. Then a few vociferous individuals on this page are not only allowed, but encouraged to trawl back through years of their work here and look for odd times when tempers have flared or IAR has been misapplied... I don't suppose they ever expected to be thanked for their input, but they are voting with their feet here. I hope those that are left paid attention in their thermodynamics, statistics and fluid dynamics classes (they did take some, I assume?). Judging the relevant credence and weight to apply to each new angle and factoid that the media will throw at this subject in the coming months will seriously test the skills of whoever's left standing. --Nigelj (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)