Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals2

Proposed FoF: NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP policy in the manner expected of an administrator

 * User:NuclearWarfare has failed to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator.

I am not that familiar with NW, and don't know if this was a blip, or part of a larger pattern, or indeed if arbitrators would agree with me that NW vocally defended a blatant BLP (and WP:SPS) violation here. But I think it is worth bringing up, even if only to correct any misunderstanding on my part. If anyone is aware of similar incidents involving NW, please propose diffs to be added. -- JN 466  20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. NuclearWarfare wasn't alone in his view of that particular dispute. One of the other reviewing admins,, commented: "I think this issue isn't a clear-cut BLP violation, but a content dispute." Another reviewing admin, , suggested a simple solution to the dispute, and concluded that he was "a bit disappointed that everyone went for the mattresses without much attempt to find a compromise text. But I think this is at heart a content dispute where some constructive approach from both sides would help." In fact, of the 5 admins reviewing this request (see permalink), 3 saw this as a content dispute without clear BLP violations (NW, The Wordsmith, and BozMo). One (LessHeardvanU) suggested topic-banning all climate-change ArbCom participants, which may well have been a good idea but did not address the BLP question directly. And one (Lar) castigated KDP and William, stating: "I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation." Given that a majority of the reviewing admins didn't see a BLP problem here, it seems grossly unwarranted to single out NuclearWarfare, and even more unwarranted to berate him for "failing to uphold BLP in the manner expected of an administrator". It seems more like people looking at this just weren't as convinced as you that this was a major BLP violation, as opposed to a more garden-variety content dispute. I don't think we need to elevate isolated disagreements over gray areas to the level of proposed findings. MastCell Talk 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If Prof John Abraham had wanted to publish his presentation here on Wikipedia, it might have been a BLP issue (we'd have had to review all his sourcing very carefully indeed). But he didn't; it was published by his University. Stating the fact that it was published there is not a BLP issue - it certainly was published there, and it certainly was very critical of Christopher Monckton. To the extent that that act of publication was reported here, it wasn't a BLP issue. There could be notability or due weight questions to discuss, and like NW I would suggest removal or refactoring of the clause, "rebutting all of Monckton's claims". --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't "published" by the university, it was published by the professor himself. SPS are not reliable sources.   GregJackP   Boomer!   22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always understood WP:SPS's injunction, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources (emphasis in the original) to be one of those bright lines that you just don't cross. NW argued at length that WP:BLP did not apply to everything in a BLP, only to material that is biographical in character (verbatim: "Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met."), and I disagree with that interpretation. As far as I am concerned, everything in a biography is biographical, and I found that line of argument very disquieting. Let's make no mistake about it: the self-published presentation that was at the heart of this dispute, and was included as an in-text external link, was a self-published hit piece aimed at the BLP subject. I found the other admins' responses just as worrying. The relevant part of WP:BLP is, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail. The dispute was about an external link to a self-published attack piece. -- JN 466  23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the slide show currently used as a source in the article? I don't think so.  That being said, however, as MastCell pointed out, NuclearWarfare was not the only admin to state that the slideshow might be ok as a source.  Unfortunately, since then NW has edited that article and made comments to influence content on that article's talk page.  I believe that NW is no longer an uninvolved admin in the CC articles because of this. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, NW's argument was that because it was included as an external link, it wasn't being used as a source, and therefore could be included. NW said, "This is not a source of material about a living person, even though it is in a biography.", which struck me as logically flawed. (Here is one of the edits where the presentation was added to Monckton's BLP. Other diffs can be found in the discussion linked above.) NW also argued in that post, "Therefore, normal WP:SPS rules apply, which this qualifies under as the material is self-published by a notable academic and scientist", which contradicts the categorical injunction in WP:SPS, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. -- JN  466  23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The External links guideline, which is referenced in WP:BLP ("In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline."), states: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. The attack piece was first introduced as a ref citation, and later on as an in-text external link.
 * So the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, and I don't see them reflected in NW's argument. -- JN 466  00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that what I wrote has been misrepresented, but I am not interested in getting involved with this at this moment in time. If Arbitrators do want to look into this and propose a Finding of Fact/Remedy, then I ask that they read the situation in its original context, as linked by Jayen466 in original comment and as I will relink now. Could the matter please be left to the Arbitrators? I don't think anything is served by refighting these disputes. NW ( Talk ) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Arbitrators please note that NuclearWarfare also blocked User:Marknutley for edit-warring that day at the Monckton BLP. Marknutley had claimed WP:UNDUE and the BLP exemption to remove the self-published presentation, removing it three times that day:.
 * As far as I am aware, NuclearWarfare did not warn or block any of the editors who edit-warred to keep the link to the self-published presentation in the article. In my view, justice was not done that day. -- JN 466  11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The material Marknutley had edit-warred over was finally removed by an admin more than one month later, along with other material, while the article was locked for editing. Scott MacDonald claimed BLP exemption to make his series of edits while the article was locked:
 * "wow - that type of format is hardly a disinterested way of recording info on a contentious BLP. Yes this is protected, but I've removing this under WP:BLP"
 * "whatever else, this violates WP:OR and is unreferenced - removing per WP:BLP"
 * "stubbing - BLP material with long-standing neutrality and WP:UNDUE concerns. We err on the side of removal until we are confident of policy compliance. There's a prima-facie case this is not." This edit removed the paragraph about the self-published presentation that Marknutly had tried to remove one month prior, until he was blocked by NuclearWarfare. -- JN 466  11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) I have been following this discussion since it unfolded and find myself broadly agreeing with Mastcell's comments. Quite apart from that, the guiding policy here is probably the "not perfect" one: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I would incidentally make the observation that Scott MacDonald, an admin for whom I have the very greatest respect, is something of an expert on BLP, has played a major role in the community's discussions on the subject, and is unafraid to make controversial BLP calls. Roger Davies talk 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept Doc's judgement on that subject; I learned to trust his judgement and his mettle in the early days of the BLP when sometimes it seemed impossible to give the policy the teeth it needed. I don't agree with him on this occasion, actually, because I see no BLP issues at all in the expert critique by Dr Abraham of Christopher Monckton's claims (I only wish I could say the same for Monckton's utterly ridiculous mud-throwing response).  But the Abraham critique is just one of many and it isn't so important. I don't find it surprising that other good admins can disagree with Doc on this matter. --TS 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The key issue here, I suppose, is that the blog/SPS policy is a bright line covering a sensitive area. That overrides, in my view at least, any other considerations.  Roger Davies  talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, Abraham's presentation is self-published, and we do not permit editors to link to self-published criticisms of BLP subjects, even if the author is a a well-known professional researcher or writer. We either apply this policy consistently, or invite never-ending strife.-- JN 466  16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Roger. MastCell said it was perhaps unfair to single NW out. I disagree that it was unfair; of all the admins involved, NW was the most vocal in stating his view that including the external link to the presentation was not a BLP violation, and it was he who blocked Marknutley for removing the material under BLP. In combination, these factors amply justifies devoting more attention to his actions than to those of the other admins.
 * The policies and guidelines quoted in green above clearly and unmistakeably direct that the link should have been removed: nevertheless, it was the editor who removed the link who was blocked. Nothing undermines editors' trust in Wikipedia's impartiality, and the fairness of admin processes, more than admins allowing BLP policy to be disregarded for some BLP subjects, while strictly upholding it for others. It has a corrosive effect and engenders feelings of hopelessness and despair. It contributes to a breakdown in civility, to accusations of a cabal, and to a battleground atmosphere. These are not trifling matters.
 * It should also give us pause for thought that if an acknowledged BLP expert and admin removes the material from the locked article, claiming BLP exemption, he is accorded respect; but if Mark performs the same edit, citing the same BLP exemption, he is reverted and blocked, with his reputation permanently sullied. Again, these are no small matters for an editor. Is there something you can do to give him some redress here, perhaps in the finding of fact related to him? The block log including NW's block is cited as evidence against him.
 * As for NW, this may well have been an isolated incident on his part. I have not made a study of his admin history in this area, and no one to date has come forward with documentation of any similar incidents. If that remains so, your reluctance to make an FoF and remedy on an isolated error in judgment is understandable and generous; but the same generosity of spirit has so far not been extended to Mark. -- JN 466  16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the key difference is that Marknutley's case it was far from being an isolated incident and could easily have been seen as more of the same?  Roger Davies  talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; but it is worth bearing in mind that things are not always black and white, and that an editor like Mark may also be right. -- JN 466  22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) This one has pretty much run its course too so I'll cap it off shortly. Roger Davies talk 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: NuclearWarfare to cease BLP-related admin actions in the Climate Change topic area

 * NuclearWarfare should cease carrying out admin actions related to biographies of living persons, and should not comment as an uninvolved administrator in BLP-related arbitration enforcement discussions in the Climate Change topic area. He may participate in such discussions as an ordinary editor. -- JN 466  16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare stated that "Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong." If NuclearWarfare still maintains today that this view is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP, WP:SPS and WP:ELBLP, then this remedy unfortunately appears necessary to prevent a repeat. -- JN 466  16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A principle for edit warring
I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.

For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues). Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.

I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.

It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this would solve anything. It may well encourage people to make more contentious edits using dodgy sources, knowing that such material could not easily be removed. Something like one edit a day (whether adding or reverting) might be better -- you get one shot, so you need to do your best with good writing and sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that this is an unwritten (or poorly written) rule that could use clearer articulation. Over the years, reverts have become progressively less acceptable, but the standards are unclear. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. But also the problem I often see is an assumption that a smaller number of good editors can overcome a larger number of bad editors simply by reverting more and then having the wiki-bureaucratic complex come down on their behalf.  This may have worked at some point, but I don't think it's a long term solution.  The risk is that you will get the opposite: bad editors will revert more (because what do they care about Wikipedia anyway), and then you don't have a clear rule to deal with it.  My hope would be that by strongly discouraging multiple reverts (as ArbCom always ends up doing), you force real consensus seeking which may be cumbersome but, optimistically, is more structurally aligned with good editing.  Anyway, I'm also just curious what principle ArbCom would present if they presented one. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely the existing content policies are good enough? If what you add is well-sourced, relevant, notable, within due weight, etc. then if someone deletes it, that is unlikely to find consensus in sensible discussion (WP:BRD). The problems start when you have people who specifically want to 'level the playing field' either by adding lots of fringe stuff, or by removing well-sourced mainstream material, to make a point. It is easy enough when there's only one or two, as consensus is clearly against them. When you get a whole vociferous horde, it can be difficult to sort the sensible from the activist. When they start to adopt all of the arguments ever used against them ("I'm not a fringe activist, you are", etc) it gets messy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "relevance" and "due" are based almost entirely how the info casts the AGW theory and the involved players. All someone has to do is actually edit the area in an NPOV manner to see that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To properly reflect scientific opinion, you need to have about 50 times more on the consensus version than on diverging opinions, whether counting by competent scientists, published literature, or by competent organisations. We already overrepresent pseudo-sceptical positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems, based on my experience, that some editors feel that they are supposed to be ensuring that the "truth" is presented in the CC articles, the truth being what they believe on the topic. Thus, it doesn't matter if the information in question is supported by a reliable source, it gets reverted, then the editor gets told on the article talk page that they don't know what they are talking about, know nothing about the science, and that their proposed addition is "fringe", "psuedo-science", and/or "undue."  Revert warring is a symptom, not the core problem, of what is taking place in the CC topic area.  The core problem is that a bloc of editors is continuously violating the spirit and letter of WP's policies with the "ends justify the means" goal of keeping the CC articles "on message."


 * Arbitrators, one thing you will notice about the non-BLP CC articles is that one bloc of editors is constantly engaged in removing and reverting reliably sourced information from them, using a variety of rationales, often along the lines of what Stephan said above. The reverts usually begin around 0700 United Kingdom time.  You can almost set your watch by it. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting example, Cla68, while Pearce as a source is generally good, the statement you added is inaccurate – you put "simplistic" in quotes, but it's a word used by Pearce and not by the subject of the article who you appear to credit with the term. It's also a simplistic reading of Pearce's brief opening note on "main players", and is better examined in light of pp. 28–31 of the book. Oh, and your info was reverted back in by what may be a SciBaby sock, as commonly seems to happen. . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing, if it's really only about "properly reflecting scientific opinion," then why does this bloc of editors remove and revert so much information from non-science articles, like Watts Up With That?   ?  Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a "bloc" now? Please check the edit comments, misspelled as they are. How is removing information? And who said that it is "only" about properly reflecting scientific opinion?  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is "Watts Up With That?" a non-science article? It appears to be a website devoted to putting forward [fringe] views on science. . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave souza brings up an important point in that there is no sharp boundary between "science" and "non-science" articles. The non-science articles often are used as a way to present minority views unimpaired by reference to the majority view. This violates WP:NPOV, which states that even in articles specifically devoted to minority views "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would also perhaps behoove the arbcomm and/or the community to come to some resolution about what to do when BLP concerns conflict with fringe concerns.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a finding on edit warring addresses a larger concern in the CC articles, which is constant civil POV pushing and over- over- over-arguing over settled points. The best example I can cite involves Climate change alarmism and the attempted use of a paper co-authored by WMC, over his protests, to prove that global cooling "alarmism" was a problem in the 1970s. This was a straight-up instance of WP:SYN, and it was settled on AN/I in the context of an action against one of the editors involved, but it still is being argued on the article talk page. Some editors have a "never say die" attitude that complies with the spirit of civility rules while actually undermining settled policies. The lengthy volume of argumentation over these points, a sampling of which we saw earlier on this page, has the effect if not the intent of "wearing down the opposition." That was one of the first things I noticed about the CC pages, months ago. See, "too much talking."ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotty, this is not the way to respond to new arguments and new evidence (see "GregJackP's inappropriate use of sources" section above). If the new arguments and evidence hasn't already been addressed, calling for the end of discussion is contrary to maintaining a good working atmosphere here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my point. I don't see anything materially "new" in that discussion thread. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't be difficult to post diffs for the past edits that already refuted the points I and others later made. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the topic, Mackan79 wrote, Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. All true, and every one of us knows it's all true. Perhaps arbs should have a principle on this ("edit warring" is listed in the "Disruptive editing" principle 12 right now, but that's it). I don't think minor cases of reverting should be in the findings of fact section because we then have Wikipedia dangling the temptation of reverting to editors in emotional situations (where their strong beliefs and what may be hours of previous work is at stake), with admins ignoring the conduct for many months and then ArbCom swooping in at the end and issuing a sanction. Certain admins and editors will then use the findings of fact in the future to disparage these editors. Does anyone disagree with any part of this scenario? In other words, Wikipedia sets up a trap for editors who edit in any contentious area. ArbCom can help Wikipedia avoid entrapping editors by looking the other way on the less egregious reverting (I haven't looked at all the new evidence on that, so I don't know whether the newer Fofs on editor misbehavior already do that.) Other than doing that, and perhaps a separate finding about edit warring, ArbCom can't really do anything and I doubt the community ever will. Maybe the solution is for editors to try like mad to stay out of the most contentious fights, which is a kind of "heckler's veto". Maybe that's the nature of a self-governing wiki. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom could be clearer about the principle it applies, at least. In a similar case it presented the following:


 * Edit-warring


 * 4) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Assuming this remains the case it would seem sensible to say it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I would add something like Administrators are encouraged to enforce Edit warring policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this addition, "Editors who revert or remove reliably sourced content are expected to suggest alternate or compromise wording on the article talk page before making further reverts of the same material. An absence of such attempts at compromise may be considered as evidence of a violation of the spirit of the policy on edit warring even if the letter of the policy is not broken." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with the old Jimbo edict: if something is unsupported, then don't wait around for discussion, just remove it. In theory compromise should come from everyone, in the sense that someone adding material can just as well come up with a compromise if another editor articulates a reason for removing it.  You may have noticed Nigelj suggests the opposite presumption, against adding contentious material, below.  I think this is why there generally hasn't been a presumption toward removing or including, simply a principle that you should resolve disagreements through discussion and not through reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However, sometimes the issue is that content, even if reliably sourced, has no place in the article. Compromise is often the right answer, but not always. We don't want to tilt things to a direction where people add 2x the amount of content they actually want in the article just so they can compromise their way down to what they actually want. NW ( Talk ) 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mackan79. People who remove or add controversial content repeatedly are expected to discuss their concerns on the article talk page. Otherwise they risk being seen as violating the policy on edit-warring. It's always been that way. I don't see any need to grant artificial and "special" status to adding content, vs. removing it (or vice versa) - that's just going to be relentlessly gamed. MastCell Talk 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NW, I disagree with you, and perhaps your recent involvement in the topic area is to blame. We don't assign to one group of editors responsibility for ensuring that articles on a topic are weighted a particular way or reflect a particular balance of views.  That's not how the wiki works.  We're all supposed to work togethter to build these articles.  If the resulting article represents compromise wording from many different viewpoints, then the wiki is working.  It's just that one bloc of editors, from what I've observed, rarely attempt to suggest alternate or compromise wording when they revert material they disagree with  Actually, WMC did propose alternate wording here.  It seems they just want it gone completely if they don't agree with it.  If you're an editor who has just spent 30 minutes putting together and adding some new, reliably sourced content, it can be very frustrating, and, of course, may lead to increased edit warring.  If it is made clear, and enforced, that any editor who reverts sourced information must suggest a compromise on the talk page before they revert again, it will establish that cooperation, compromise, and collaboration is the expected behavior in the CC articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC
 * It's well known that a requirement for compromise encourages each side to stake out increasingly extreme positions -- see e.g., Overton window or argument to moderation. Rather than compromise, we should aim for principled agreement based in policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean that POV editors will argue from an extreme in order to try to game a compromise which favors their position? It seems to me that if that occurs it would be very easy to see which involved editors are working from an agenda and which ones genuinely want to reach a compromise and get these articles expanded and improved. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boris, MastCell and Mackan. In any event, the best that can be done here is for ArbCom to encourage enforcement of the policy on edit warring (which would help slightly). Once we see which editors are working from an agenda -- what then? We can see that now. I think the more cunning, diehard editors will game it and the more impatient editors, both agenda-driven and not, will get caught up in not suggesting a compromise. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Principle on edit warring, continued
I think the opening premise of this discussion, that "often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all" is quite mistaken. It's normal to revert disputed edits and I'm aware of no arbitration case in which this has been presented as at all problematic. It's what happens after a dispute is identified that matters. --TS 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There certainly has been edit warring and that needs to be addressed. But I think that this is one part of a larger problem of general fractiousness, POV pushing and inability to edit cooperatively in these articles, the "never say die" attitude I mentioned earlier. One concern I have is that clamping down too hard on edit warring will give an edge to editors who want to add questionable sourcing and content. As others have noted, removing text can improve the encyclopedia as much as adding, depending on the circumstances. I can't speak to previous Arbcom practice, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have been unclear, but I certainly didn't intend to suggest anything stronger than the very common principle seen here. Consider even WP:Revert:


 * Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's hard to draw a line, but considering that WP:BRD is well supported, I think it's a misconception that to prohibit revert warring bolsters inclusion over exclusion; if anything the strictest interpretations tend to start on the next revert where someone replaces material. Besides that, do good content contributors really revert more often within any dispute than agenda pushers? I doubt that, but especially I'd think they could learn not to. Mackan79 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just having trouble relating that to the CC articles. Both sides in any given CC dispute feel they are "on the side of God" and standing forthright for Wikipedia principles. I've noticed that overt edit warring tends to be addressed pretty quickly via page protection, and then, for days or even weeks, we have gridlock of the kind we've seen in the Climate change alarmism article over the use of the WMC paper. Gridlock, "I didn't hear that," misconstruing of policy and endless bickering is the more serious problem, because it is more commonplace and harder to address. I keep returning to the alarmism article because it is a realtime example of this problem. Some arbitrators themselves were swept into the maelstrom, and had the pleasure of personally experiencing gridlock first-hand. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct
has engaged in disruptive behavior     , including edit warring          , inappropriate use of admin privileges  and comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like mudflinging to me - indeed this proposed FoF looks like scorched-earth battlefield behaviour itself. Are you ready to defned those diffs you've put up? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. See below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked. Even unwrapped, they still look like mudflinging. Hopefully, arbcomm will judge you on that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, given that ArbCom was the one who asked for a FoF regarding StS, I doubt that will happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact: Stephan Schulz battlefield conduct (Alternative wording)
User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated in several edit-wars, including BLPs, editing to make a point, and inappropriate use of admin privileges. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stephan Schulz has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, participated edit-wars, including edit-wars regarding contentious material to BLPs, editing to make a point, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator.


 * Incivil Comments
 * "Oh, not all of them are idiots. And only the better ones are honestly clueless."
 * "Talking about the stupidity/idiocy/yahooness of Wikipedia editors in general is an opinion, not a personal attack"
 * "Trigger-happy, stubborn, misguided, and uninterested in the difference between form and content, yes. Biased, not very. I'd say about 1e-17 micro Lar. Of course a Lar is a unit where an object with a full Lar of bias  has to rotate at near light-speed to avoid collapsing into a black hole from the sheer weight of it"


 * Editing to make a point
 * Stephan Schulz, an involved admin in the CC dispute, disruptively posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section for an RfE.
 * This was then moved to its proper place.
 * Schulz then falsely accuses Lar of being disruptive for moving his comment to the correct location.
 * A Quest for Knowledge asked Schulz if he is intentionally posting in the uninvolved admin section.
 * but Schulz responded with a less than helpful "Ummm....?"
 * which he then changed to an equally unhelpful "What....?".
 * Then, Schulz disruptively posted a second comment in the uninvolved admin section knowing that he's an involved admin, and daring uninvolved admins to edit war with him.


 * Edit-warring to include contentious material in a BLP (Fred Singer)
 * Participates in edit-war to include a BLP violation sourced to a blog.


 * Participates in long-term edit war to remove "environmentalist" from Lawrence Solomon article
 * Removes "environmentalist".
 * Participates in edit war at Lawrence_Solomon - Removes "environmentalist"


 * Edit-warring at Lawrence Solomon article
 * Yet another edit war at Lawrence Solomon. Removes external link. Note: StS rationale about EL may be correct.  But he still shouldn't edit-war over this.
 * Does it again.
 * Does it again.


 * Misc
 * Protects Phil Jones (climatologist) to preferred version claiming dubious BLP violation.


 * I invite the committee to investigate all of the provided diffs in detail and in context. In particular, I would welcome an opinion on this 12 months old semi-protection of Phil Jones, an admin action which at that time was not even commented on, and which was my first ever action at this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: KimDabelsteinPetersen has engaged in disruptive behavior
 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring           and policy-violating or inappropriate edits to BLP articles ''.

I added a few more diffs of edit warring to those that AQFK had compiled showing Kim edit warring at the Climate Audit article declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might offer the arbitrators, , , , etc. for review, with respect to the Monckton BLP issue. -- JN 466  00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Is it invalid to discuss issues? As far as i can tell, these talk-page comments are from July 2010, and i haven't been editing the Monckton article since April 2010. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, why did you argue for the use of a self-published slide show as a source for adding negative or pejorative information to the BLP of an AGW sceptic? Article talk pages are where content disputes are usually decided, so you know that your comments there could very well have an influence on the content of that article. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried reading the comments i made? (the links) They explain it quite well.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC) nb: i rather dislike your "have you stopped beating your wife" style of questioning, it is rather obvious that several admins and other users disagree with you on your take of this particular content. Could i entice you not to do so again? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Climate Audit diffs, where Cla68 claims i "declaring, falsely, that there was consensus for the redirect when no prior discussion had actually taken place":
 * Climate Audit was merged by on Feb 5, 2009 without objections. Then split and remerged again on May 3, 2009 (with discussion here). Finally it was split again on April 25, 2010 by, with discussions here, and an AfD was created by  in what i would describe as an attempt to filibuster/force the article into existance during the AfD  - The final result of the AfD was:
 * The result was keep. Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * which was again discussed on talk, with one side arguing that it must mean (singularily) keep, and ignoring the discussion part of the closing admins decision.
 * Basically the article has been merged into Stephen McIntyre for over a year, when and  decided that this shouldn't be so. Attempts to move the discussion to Talk:Stephen McIntyre unfortunately failed (here fault can be put on all participants). I've reverted back to the redirect 3 times (May 5, 2009; April 25, 2010; and May 4, 2010) which are the 3 diffs given [an apparently very very slow editwar] . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, Atmoz first redirected that article without discussion and then he and WMC reverted to keep it redirected. Can you show me where in this thread there is consensus for the merge?  I can't see it.  After the thread, you and Guettarda edit warred to keep it redirected, with you falsely claiming a consensus.  When marknutley brought up the discussion again, you again claimed this nonexistent consensus. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this diagram. When something stands uncontested for over a year, then it becomes the consensus. Bold is fine - in fact it is important... Atmoz was bold, and no one contested his redirect. But as i said in the edit-comments, it is bold-revert-discuss - not bold-revert-revert-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The next 5 diffs are on Phil Jones where people were inserting "alleged theft" instead of "stolen" about the emails. This is (imho) a significant POV violation by the people inserting it - there is no doubt, and there wasn't at that time either, that the emails were stolen. Even in the hypothetical case where they where "found" on an ftp-site, or "leaked" by an inside source, they were appropriated by data-theft. This was discussed at the time on several articles, and most of the people involved were aware of these discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Has it been proven in a court of law that they were stolen? If not, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to adopt a wording such as "alleged theft". Jprw (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is determined in court, is not the act of theft, but the guilt of theft. If you steal the Mona Lisa, and you never get caught, then there will never be a trial, but that doesn't make it an "alleged theft". The material was appropriated from the legal owners, and distributed without consent of the owners - that is data-theft, nothing alleged about it. (unless you go out into conspiracy theory, and propose that the CRU themselves leaked the material - but that is a theory that i haven't even seen on sceptic sites - a whisleblower perhaps, but that would still be data-theft) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that unless it is 100% conclusive and there are no grey areas then as WP editors we should still be reserving judgement by using a hedge word like "alleged". Jprw (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. But at no point in time was there ever doubt that a data-theft had occurred, thus the grey area doesn't exist (in anything other than the blogosphere) - on the other hand there were editors who were pushing for this view despite the overwhelming material in reliable sources saying differently. We are here to describe events, as secondary reliable sources describe it, not to create confusion. A hypothetic whisleblower for instance, is still committing data-theft, he (or she) just might have a reasonable excuse in a court of law for such an act, but it is still data-theft. [which btw. couldn't have been the case here, since legally a whistleblower in the UK, must turn the material over to authorities]. The act of data-theft is (and never was) in doubt... Any writings on the Who, How and Why, on the other hand, is purely speculative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The next 2 diffs (i'm assuming that the last one is mislaid?) are reversions of content that Cla68 inserted, i explained the reversion here. Summary: Cla68 inserted content that failed verification when i looked up the references given (which was hard - since Cla68 doesn't give links in his references, despite the content being available). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The "policy violating" edits, seem all to be from S. Fred Singer and are in the same category as the previous discussion on Monckton. It is controversial, and opinions are very much split, every time the issue surfaces. It leads to a question, that i would have loved to have on this ArbCom case, since it is pertinent to a lot of issues raised, but it seems that ArbCom is not going to look into content-issues:
 * Is or isn't all content in a biography, no matter whether it is biographical or not (ie. about the person), under the strict rules for WP:BLPSPS.
 * The content in question is critique of a report that Singer was part of. Notice that only the Realclimate part in these diffs seem to be a problem, since the first part is reliably sourced to ABC News. If ArbCom is going to rule on this, then they should be aware that they are taking a policy decision, which they at the beginning of this case, ruled that they would not. Again: I'd love for this issue to be resolved, but then ArbCom will have to take a discussion and a stand to this particular grey-zone. [I won't be able to comment during the weekend, since i'm on a family reunion] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons seems to be the most recent incarnation of this particular issue. Please note that i'm not saying that my view on this issue is correct, but rather that this is a grey zone where no resolution so far has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any grey zone here at all. WP:SPS is very clear: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.. The lead section of WP:BLP clearly stakes out the policy scope, and WP:BLP is furthermore absolutely clear on what to do about contentious material from self-published sources: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources ..."
 * It is impossible to argue in good faith that someone's self-published statement in a blog that "X's writing is rubbish" is (1) not contentious, and (2) "not about X". -- JN 466  18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The grey zone lies in the interpretation of "...as third-party sources about living persons " (and the "about" part is deliberately there (see various discussions on BLP-talk). This isn't about a living person, it is critique of a work written by living persons. As for the "X's writing is rubbish" - well that isn't what the text said.... But lets analyze it a bit: Does the critique raise a red flag? No, there is a mainstream source that is significantly harder in its critique. Would the text be considered a BLP violation if it occurred in a regular article (in the same context)? No. (otherwise we could never present negative reviews of published works - since mostly such are written as opinion) Is the source one of those that are excempt in the SPS guidelines? Yes, it is written by subject matter experts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it to you that this is only a grey zone in your mind, because you cannot resist the temptation of using a blog or other self-published source whose POV you agree with. What is the problem in sticking with reliably published sources for contentious material about the value and integrity of someone's work? -- JN 466  00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is rather rude isn't it? I presented a link to a discussion that states that this isn't just something "in my mind", and this is rather similar (but not completely) with the Abrahms case, discussed above. But anyways - you've presented your viewpoint, and i've presented mine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And the arbitrators have presented theirs: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision. -- JN 466  03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Kim, please contrast and compare your sober attitude here about the use of reliable sources to add neutral information to Lawrence Solomon with your actions above in which you used blogs to add negative information to another BLP. Do you see, on reflection, any contradictions or discrepancies in your reasoning?  Also, I take it you don't agree with this outside opinion from a BLPN regular on your interpretation of the sources I added? Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you stand by your assertion that the sources failed verification, why didn't you answer this question? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because i already answered the question? (the line just before Alex's question). And yes, Cla, i do still stand with my assertion that the sources failed verification - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now don't get me wrong here, i consider both yours and Alex's input as valuable - but calling Alex Harvey a BLP regular, and his comment "outside opinion" is like calling WMC uninvolved in the climate change area.
 * Context in the two situations are quite different, so they cannot be directly compared. As i've said before: Context is everything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A little late on my part, but it is not definite there was a data theft, on two points:
 * It could have been someone with legitimate access to the E-mails (or to the backups).
 * To the extent that the material was required to be released under the FOIA, it is not "theft" to release it.
 * Neither point has been discredited. KDP's edits were not consistent with the sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect - both cases are data-theft. Lets take them 1 by 1. Even if you have legitimate access, you are not allowed to "take" it, and distribute it. That is data-theft (in fact it is the most common form of data-theft). As for the FOIA - that has no relevance, sorry. Even with FOIA material, you are not allowed to distribute the information, without permit - again that would be data-theft.
 * But even more important: The overwhelming majority of reliable sources say: The mails were stolen (or words to that extent), we are not here to speculate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, as reported on the article talk page. However, at last report, someone was trying to state that only reliable sources who have specific knowledge should be included, and they all say it's theft.  But even that is incorrect.  UEA says, in an obviously self-serving manner, that it's theft, and the police say they are investigating it as a data breach .  (Not "theft", at least under US law.)  It may be a trade secret violation, or a copyright violation, but neither is "theft".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: Verbal's battlefield conduct
has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality,,,, ,,,, ,
 * Minor4th  22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Verbal's conduct is disruptive and contributes to a battleground atmosphere. He frequently engages in edit-wars, often with solo drive-by reverts, and without discussing issues on the talk page.  I was about to organize some diffs myself but I see that someone else beat me to it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of these drive-by reverts were to revert back to WMC version when he was on an editing restriction and had already reverted. All of these articles have BLP issues, except HSI. In each case, Verbal did not participate in editing the article or engaging in discussion on the talk page to try to resolve issues. Minor4th</b> </b> 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Explanation of diffs because I would really like Arbs to understand why this is a problem in context -- these are all drive by reverts:
 * 1) - Verbal reverted 6 edits by ATren to restore Hipocrite's version on Lawrence Solomon after Hipocrite had already reverted 3 times. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert in POV labels of this skeptic BLP. ATren attempted to address Verbal on the talk page, but Verbal did not respond or otherwise comment or explain his reverts on the talk page. (July 10)
 * 2) Verbal reverted Kelly Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted 1 time while on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 5)
 * 3) - Verbal reverted SlimVirgin on Lawrence Solomon back to WMC version after WMC had reverted and while WMC was on editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. Verbal did not discuss on the talk page. (July 3)
 * 4), -Verbal reverted Minor4th twice on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming back to WMC version after WMC had already reverted.  Verbal disregarded the talk page discussion and did not make a comment until a day later. (August 21)
 * 5) - Verbal reverted marknutley on Anthony Watts (blogger) following 1 revert by WMC while on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made. The WMC and Verbal reverts were removing reference to The Hockey Stick Illusion as a reliable source. (July 20) Verbal reverted marknutley two other times to reinsert COATRACK tag on July 16  and July 19  and did not engage in comments on the talk page until warned after the July 19 revert. Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert.
 * 6) -- Verbal reverted on Fred Singer to KDP's version after a series of other reverts.   Verbal did not participate in editing the article other than to revert.  Verbal made no comment on the talk page and made no explanation in edit summary.
 * 7) - Verbal reverted GregJackP on Robert Watson (scientist) following 1 revert by WMC when WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate talk page discussion for any revert he made (WMC did not initiate talk page discussion when he reverted on this occasion). Verbal disregarded GJP's explanation of his edit on the talk page and Verbal did not explain his own edit on the talk page other than "obvious reasons" after the fact.   This was part of a revert war that was made a finding in this case.
 * 8) -- Verbal reverted ATren on Hockey stick controversy after 1 revert by WMC while WMC was on an editing restriction requiring him to initiate discussion on the talk page for any revert he made.  Verbal did not particpate in editing the article other than to revert.   Verbal made no comment on the talk page and no explanation in edit summary.


 * For info, we're already looking at a FoF.  Roger Davies  talk 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got duplicates in your list of diffs. Please clean up your evidence and make sure it supports what you claim. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor4th: I've begun working on my own FoF regarding Verbal. It's in my user space here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: ScienceApologist (SA) disruptive editing
SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of half-truths, untruths, and assumptions of very bad faith on my part by Cla68 are made here. I leave to you all to decide for yourselves what happened by reading the associated talk pages and a dozen or so spin-off discussions that took place all over the enforcement pages, ANI, and the talk pages of these articles. For example, to claim that there was "no discussion at all" about merging WUWT to Anthony Watts is easily shown to be false. I'd ask Cla68 to strike or modify this part of his comment at least. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that SA's editing needs to be reviewed. While you are at it, please look into the editing by  who has also been a cause of concern in the venue. There is background info at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211. See the info that was emailed to functionaries-en today.  I believe most of you (arbitrators) subscribe to that list. Jehochman Talk 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you were referring to arbitrators being subscribed to that mailing list, Jehochman? It is a restricted list so most other readers/editors of this page would not be subscribed. Risker (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. Jehochman Talk 08:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, ScienceApologist merged and redirected the two web sites to Anthony Watts (blogger), in these edits he also expanded the Watts article four-fold by 19,000 bytes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What info was emailed to functionaries today? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point of the functionaries list. Its for sensitive information not suitable for wider dissemination. Spartaz Humbug! 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well I didn't know -- and if it's so sensitive, why would Jeh be on here telling everyone to go read it? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume Jehochman's exhortation was addressed to the active arbitrators. --TS 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. My entire comment was addressed to arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 08:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the only editor to agree with Marknutley at the time, please see my comment (Sept. 8) why, on balance, I think it was unnecessary to split this information from the article in the first place. It may help explain why ScienceApologist acted boldly and moved it back. Wikispan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. --TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was discussed mark nutley (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I forgot to mention was that the WUWT article is currently in the queue for Good Article review. SA should have known that when he redirected it and the Surfacestations articles. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not properly discussed, as "Blimey, that was quick!" on the talk page rather indicates. And no: putting an article up for GA does not shield it from editing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good article candidacy does not supercede normal editorial process. Jehochman Talk 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More importantly, it was in the GA queue, and not under any active review. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article is in such a state that it's a position to be good faith nominated for good article status, it doesn't shield it from normal editing, it does shield it from being boldly redirected. Unless there is evidence the good article nomination was in some way made in faith on an article/subject that didn't otherwise merit it. It is obvious to any reasonable editor that doing that would be opposed, so discussion should have absolutely been first.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also in the middle of peer review. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. WP:BOLD is not some kind of shield that let's you do whatever you want with no repercussions in every situation. While we often appreciate someone just going ahead and getting the job done, there are some situations where it is quite obvious that isn't going to help and this was one of them. Unless SA can give some evidence that the GA nomination and peer review were being done in bad faith this was purely disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:BOLD sort of is a shield that lets you do whatever you want - once. If other people don't like it, then you can't keep doing it. That's the rub. MastCell Talk 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's not is it? I couldn't go redirect Obama to Presidents of the United states and expect no one to say anything. As I quoted on AN/I (keep in mind Bold is a guideline, not policy to start with), it repeatedly instructs users to be careful. ...but please be careful Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." Redirecting an article that is in a good faith state to be nominated for good article status is reckless and too bold, plain and simple.--Crossmr (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of attitude is, frankly, contrary to my entire understanding of WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. There was nothing to prevent the GA nom or the peer review to be reapplied to the Anthony Watts article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist Has been highly disruptive within the CC related articles.

He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP


 * 1)  Inserts the pejorative Denier into a BLP claiming the three sources are peer reviewed.
 * 2)  User:Wenchell changes it to sceptic (note edit summary) and SA reverts Denier back in

The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine  this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source  is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them.

The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling.

He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations


 * 1) Creates redirect without discussion [Surfacestations]
 * 2) Creates redirect without discussion on an article currently up for GA status Watts Up With That? A highly disruptive move.

After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems a pity to have another section on this - oh well, I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel in order to validate their existence . The claims of disrutpion are groundless. At Watts, SA was bold, but didn't edit war over it. What he did was reasonable, but people didn't like it, so it has been undone. There is nothing wrong with that. There is already an ANI thread over this Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents which says much the same.


 * Surfacestations is an even clearer case of SA doing the right thing. Because, as I've said in the previous section, MN / Cla are being deliberately deceptive by failing to mention that MN demerged it with no discussion only a little while ago. So MN's position, as I understand it, is taht he may make controversial demergers with no discussion, but anyone undoing that demerge is obliged to discuss endlessly before taking any action. The problem with that reasoning is obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To be completely clear, what he did has NOT been undone. Only the 2 redirects have been undone, not the 23 related changes to Anthony Watts (blogger). Q Science (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Q Science, are you saying that the edit weren't undone because they were good edits, or are you saying that they were bad edits and still need to be undone? SA WMC, could you please strike "I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel in order to validate their existence."  That's the sort of thing that will turn into a diff in a finding against you. If you strike it, then it probably won't be used that way. Jehochman Talk 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SA can't, cos *I* said that (I did sign, but then QS rather rudely interjected, so it isn't obvious) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just responding to the content of that paragraph. [To everyone] What I am saying is that the edits merged 3 article together. When the redirects were removed, the merged content was not removed. As a result, the same data was located in separate articles. (After my post above, there was an edit war to fix this. The old text was restored 4 times by IP editors, no less. ClueBot removed the changes twice.) This is not a matter of good or bad edits, but of claims of whether the disruptive changes were "undone". At the time I posted that, they were not "undone". Q Science (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well with the different threads about the same thing I guess I'll make a comment here, if in the wrong section please feel free to move it to the correct location. MN said he was removing himself from this, at least that is my understanding.  If I am correct than why is he starting this thread at all?  Second, if I am correct, MN also is the one who started both of these articles so again why is it he that is bringing this complaint about another editor?  From what I could see SA did do the redirects stating that he was boldly doing it and was reverted.  He didn't undo the reverts so where is the problem?  As for him adding more information to an article, other editors have since edited and not one removed what SA added, so again, what's the problem?  Something needs to be done about the socking going on since I just saw this which is astounding to me.  I've seen a lot of the confirmed socks of this editor at the SPI cases.  That some of the long time editors to these articles can't seem to see that these new accounts and IP's that just 'appear' out of the blue are socks are not believable to me at this time anymore, sorry.  You can help remove the socking by also reporting the socking or you can hide your head in the sand and make it look like others have a vendetta against, heck, I'm not sure what to call it anymore.  I put on the AN/i a request to close the discussion there because of the threads clogging up this page about SA.  I think these multiple threads about the same thing in multiple locations also needs to stop. I think they should also be closed/hatted.  Suggestions from arbitrators?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am posting here because i am constantly mentioned here. I have withdrawn from CC articles, this is not a CC article. I posted the above findings because SA has deliberately misrepresented sources in a BLP, an error he refuses to admit to as he continues to insist they call a BLP a "Denier" and that they are peer reviewed, none of which is actually true. I added the most recent disruption as nobody else had added it to a proposal. There is no need to hat this, it just needs to be moved to the proposed findings section and left for the arbs to decide on a course of action mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Per ArbCom's request, I've begun working on FoF on the editors of interest. However, I cannot do it all by myself.  I've started working on one regarding SA in user space.  Please help.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In my view ScienceApologist made a good faithed redirect, as he appeared to have reached consensus with other editors for the redirect. I suppose it would be fair to say that he should have given it an extra day or two for other people to chime in on the redirect proposal but I do not see anything deliberately provocative. This is not to say the redirect was or was not a good idea, it is to say that it was not malicious from an outsider's (my) viewpoint. I do think that misuse improper/debatable use of sources to label living people as denialists is worrying but I think there is every reason to believe that ScienceApologist will take on board these criticisms and tread more carefully in the area of climate change. There are other editors who have caused much more disruptive over a longer period of time and may require a finding of fact. However, I am not convinced that a finding of fact or sanctioning is needed for scienceapologist at this time. Although I do not agree with everything ScienceApologist does, I do think he overall is a good faithed editor who contributes productively to the encyclopedia in many different areas and I think that stronger evidence of long-term disruption in the climate change area is needed for a finding of fact to be justified.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Literaturegeek above. I think what SA states in his statement above and the corresponding conversation that follows, shows what appears to be the problems editing in the environment of the CC articles.  I hope the arbitrators look at all of this and then take away what I see as the problem.  It appears that any edit, no matter how small, is met with a flurry of demands and questions that should not be used to debate content changes.  The use of policies and even our guidelines are supposed to help editors make our articles expand properly.  I've seen this kind of behavior on many of the sanction requests and other boards and talk pages over the past since the sanction board was established.  Sanctions are used to deter editors with a different approach than some editors would like so they take them to the board to show how they should be sanctioned which is usually discussed to death with no actions taken.  The complaints that one side is sanctioned more than the other side was a constant at the sanction board.  There were reasons for this, which is explained by the uninvolved administrators and even some uninvolved editors at the time.  Watching all of this has been very enlightening to me.  There are some editors who are new to the area of dispute that got there from either AN/i or the sanction board that haven't helped at all with calming things down.  No, SA is not the problem here at this time.  What is the problem is the same editors bring FoF up against their assumed opponnets to try again for a sanction that has failed in other locations.  I hope the arbitrators will take notice of this problem too.  Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To expand on my earlier comment in this section. I would just like to clarify something based on further discussion in below sections. Per this comment and other comments I am convinced that ScienceApologist's edits regarding adding denialist labels to BLP articles are done in good faith, even though I still have concerns with these edits. I have struck the word misuse in my above comment. It is really difficult for outsiders to get to the root of what exactly is going on on these articles and thus I didn't chose my wording carefully enough. I can see why ArbCom are taking their time with their decision.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: Tony Sidaway has engaged in disruptive behavior
 (and his alternate account ) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring              and unhelpful or tendentious editing     .


 * Proposed, based on my observation that Tony often removes reliably sourced text additions that he seemingly doesn't agree with and whose editing gives the appearance at times of being agenda-driven . Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the diffs, but I assume that Cla68 is unaware that I disengaged from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject some months ago and have no intention of getting mixed up in the subject again. --TS 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, what exactly do you mean by "some months ago?" This diff is from 3 August. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so literal-minded. Quantitively I have not edited in the subject area for many months. The 3 August edit was a single reversion of a ridiculously poorly sourced, and if you are honest, very provocatively sourced, edit. That kind of edit must stop. --TS 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I have looked at the edits, I don't think there's a case to answer. Should a majority of active arbitrators think there is, however, that's good enough for me. --TS 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: BLP violation
Tony Sidaway has violated WP:BLP.


 * Proposed, based on Tony's recent comment about Andrew Montford, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, and others whose opinions are mentioned in the book, many of whom, such as Hans von Storch, also have BLPs in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. If anybody else thinks this is even credible, could they please speak up now? I'm utterly flummoxed by Cla68's representations. In case Cla68 is under any serious misapprehension, I have a great professional respect for Hans von Storch. That respect for a professional scientist does not extend to people who write on science while not themselves possessing any expertise in science. This speaks to verifiability. --TS 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you stand by your statement that Montford "knows absolutely nothing about the science", that the scientists and others mentioned in his book are "opposed to science" and that their opinions can be used to show "ignorance?" If you respect Von Storch, then why did you say that his and other opinions expressed in the book are "opposed to science?"  You know that Von Storch has criticized the hockey stick graph research to some extent, don't you? Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand by my statement that Montford knows nothing about science.
 * I do not claim that anybody mentioned in Montford's book is opposed to science.
 * I have read, and am completely aware of, von Storch's criticism of MBH. That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Montford's work is not reliable.  If I read an article in The Sun that happens to quote Einstein on relativity, I do not conclude that The Sun is a reliable source, nor does my conclusion about the reliability of The Sun reflect on Albert Einstein. --TS 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you actually said that the views of the book are "fashionable with those opposed to science." This actually may be true, but I can't decide because you offer no evidence to support this statement.  If you'll find an article in a reliable source that describes "people who are opposed to science" and states that it is generally fashionable with these particular people to criticize the paeloclimatic, temperature proxy research which have produced hockey stick-shaped results, then I guess you might be right.  Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've stated below, 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. I'll add that he is clearly opposed to mainstream science in the subject, and presents a distorted view of the science to promote a fringe position which has considerable political support among those ignorant of the science. This opinion in a WP:NEWSBLOG is that "A rich collection of unfounded beliefs is a common characteristic of those who deny – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence – that man-made global warming is taking place." It links to a verifiable example of Booker, another author Cla68 seems to be promoting, recycling debunked intelligent design arguments, another area where creationists worship science provided they can redefine it to overthrow mainstream science. They're opposed to mainstream science, but are they "opposed to science"? . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but can someone clarify this for me? I am not a scientist, nor do I edit in this area, so what does the above conversation have to do with this case and any infractions being claimed here?  How can a statement here on the PD talk be a violation of BLP in the first place with no names even mentioned in the dif?   This section is most confusion and clarification would really be appreciated.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPTALK requires us to take care in what we write about living persons in non-article space, Tony has expressed strongly his views about Montford's misinformation opposing mainstream science. Whether the sources make Tony's words a reasonable inference is a matter for consideration, as is Cla68's behaviour in using this to attack Tony. A similar discussion took place regarding AQFK's talk page description of individuals as "criminals" even though that word had not been used by any sources, and no proper investigation of the individuals had taken place. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Crohnie: Well, there's definitely an identifiable living person being discussed. Personally, I wouldn't post something like that, or try to phrase it like this: "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 no formal training in 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 ."
 * Dave souza: The reason why that comment wasn't a BLP violation is because the UEA is not a person. Andrew Montford is.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks at least I now understand where this comes from. A Quest For Knowledge, What I see you striking seems a little nit picky and I'll explain what I mean. I take what you are striking here absolutely no knowledge of the science to mean that he is not a scientist in the context of the whole comment made. This comment you strike All he has, it seems, are opinions fashionable with those who are opposed to science. I'm sorry but I don't see a problem with it when taken in as part of the whole comment. That looks like looking for a problem that really isn't there to me. The last strike for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance. I see this one as TS saying that the work is from a point of view of ignorance not him say that the person is ignorant anything. Sorry, just not seeing it when you read the whole paragraph. Editors have to be able to be able to debate things without worrying this much about their words being looked at from under a microscope. Listen, I think all of you need to take a look at what and why you are posting these FoF's and the difs you are showing to try to prove an editor, any editor should be sanctioned. What needs to be done is for a lot of you to start assuming good faith again, instead of the bad faith which is what I think a lot of these problems are arising from in part. Maybe just reading the comments without looking at who the comment comes from would help, I don't know. If this comment was made by Cla68, would there be a FoF about it and editors supporting it, I don't know but probably. The lines in the sand need to be smoothed over and erased. Everyone needs to start over again with assuming good faith first before responding to a comment, that's just my opinion of course, but I think if AGF was use a lot more a lot of these problems would definitely go away. And yes, I know AGF is not a suicide pact, but it's also very much needed if editors are going to decide to edit the same articles. This is my view of this anyways, at least so far. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposed finding is absolutely without merit. TS made an innocuous comment responding to another editor's posting referencing Amazon rankings as a barometer of reliability. That is in no way, shape or form a BLP violation. Once again, Cla68 is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, using an administrative board (in this case the PD page) to "take out" an editor without proper basis. There is already a finding of fact in the PD concerning Cla68 behaving disruptively. I suggest that this section, and the other recent actions by Cla68, need to be added to the PD, and he needs to be appropriately sanctioned. He just doesn't "get it" that throwing around diffs and claiming "COI" and "BLP violation" is disruptive and is battlefield conduct. He not only is not desisting from this kind of conduct, but he is stepping up the pace of his disruptive activity. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Crohnie: Well, my post was more of a comment than a direct answer to your question. Whether this is a bona-fide BLP violation, I'd have to think about it.  But I've learned to be very careful about BLP issues, and I'm just saying that that's how I would have phrased it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Baiting
Tony Sidaway has engaged in baiting, contributing to a battleground atmosphere on climate change-related pages. &  &

These represent three separate incidents. The second baiting incident (second and third diffs above) is explained here and here  -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no merit whatsoever to this proposed finding. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:BAIT, an essay that points to various policies. I looked at it before deciding to post this complaint. Here's a relevant passage: Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on in the subtlest of ways, may come at you as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt. They may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon. In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. Then again, you may not think the diffs fit the bill. We'll see what ArbCom thinks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything either. Maybe thicker skin is needed or the microscope to check every little thing needs to be thrown against a wall and broken.  You seem like you are doing this because of the second and third dif you show.  It was explained, give it a rest and walk away from it.  I find these FoF's stretching patience already when there is nothing to see in them.  To me TS didn't do any baiting but it's starting to feel like you are trying to get peoples attentions.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @JWB: No, none of the links are evidence of either baiting or battleground atmosphere. They just don't even come close. All are informational except one, which politely asks you back off from the CC pages for a while. To call that battleground or baiting is more than a stretch, and just simply making an accusation that is not true. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the trouble to look up the earlier case where John W Barber says I baited him by suggesting, on his talk page, that "you've stretched everybody's patience to near breaking point over the past few days. You're lashing out in all directions and this speaks to your judgement. Take a rest from Wikipedia, and try to remember that these are humans you're dealing with. They don't like to be taken for fools." 

The relevant edits by John W Barber are here. John abruptly moved from editing articles about poetry to making some very inflammatory comments about the behavior of people who were proposing the deletion of an article related to global warming. He subsequently requested the deletion of an article that he claimed was equivalent to the one that had been listed for deletion. Some related proposals were discussed on the probation enforcement page (approximate link which covers the timeframe, please do uncollapse and examine the retaliatory filing by John W Barber).

I find this tit-for-tat battling exhausting, because it's impossible to wind-down such a process once it has begun. At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. They do seem to have had some association on wiki. There's nothing wrong with that, but the switch from poetry to sniping seemed so out of character that I thought John might be pursuing personal matters.

The later comment on this proposed decision talk page related to the Barack Obama probation. I noticed that several editors, including most notably ScJessey but also including John Barber (using his username Noroton) had apparently migrated from the Obama articles. Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama.

I regret saying " They don't like to be taken for fools". From context, "they" clearly means "humans" and the implication is that John was being manipulative in listing for deletion an article that was well established (although if you look hard enough you'll find I have my reservations about it). --TS 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I also regret this edit, which was part of a misguided attempt to maintain openness and parity on the climate change articles by informing every editor of the probation. While I was scrupulous in informing every single new editor, I think it was a terrible mistake because it immediately informed the new editor that he had entered a combat zone. That is no way to great a new editor. --TS 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, I'd like to make it clear that I didn't "migrate" to this topic from the Obama articles. I have no particular interest in the climate change topic as a whole, although I am interested in anything of a scientific nature. I saw a news report about the data theft at the CRU on the BBC and looked it up on Wikipedia because I am familiar with East Anglia. I gradually got involved in the editing of that article because I was horrified at the apparent attempt by certain editors to use Wikipedia to exploit the data theft to promote what I perceived to be a non-mainstream agenda. I have largely confined my editing to that specific article and the talk pages of a few of the involved editors. My presence at that article had nothing whatsoever to do with editing I have done in the topic related to Barack Obama (a topic area I still contribute to). I am concerned that your comments make it seem as if I've been roaming around Wikipedia looking for a battleground to fight on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've managed to upset a good few editors by my earlier remarks on the apparent migration. No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization.  So okay, I acknowledge that I could be quite wrong in my interpretation of the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed. --TS 00:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any CoM/Grundle involvement in the area of this topic I have inhabited (I thought they were both banned a long time ago). I have suffered from Noroton's attention for a long time and I've begged at WP:ANI for some sort of interaction ban to deflect his litigious focus, but as far as I'm aware he only appeared in this topic once it became an ArbCom case (I could be wrong as I don't monitor his edits). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just used the thingy TGA just introduced me to in the section below and it appears JWB edited at the CRU hacking article before me. I concede, therefore, that it could appear as if our presence were not coincidental (although it is). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, let me see if I can help. You just follow the links in that diff and you'll find a pretty good history of interactions. Don't say I never did you any favors. I have a feeling Tony may have seen that comment at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. Who? Where? Provide diffs, Tony. Or it's yet another personal attack, repeated despite it being pointed out to you multiple times that ... it's a personal attack (and it's baiting, and contributing to a battleground atmosphere). We're going around in circles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As the original author of WP:BAIT, I see no evidence in support of the proposed finding with regard to baiting by TS. More generally, may I humbly suggest that this page has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and that the arbitrators proceed to a timely close of this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, Boris, here you go. I was going to look this over again before posting, but I don't want to keep you waiting. It replies to Tony's long post. It should be pretty simple to recognize badgering or egging someone on, but the context (starting with the bullets) should make it even clearer:
 * I plead guilty to abruptly switching from poetry-related articles to climate-change-related articles. This appears to concern Tony so much that he mentions it repeatedly. Although Tony assures us all that it's "out of character", I must admit that I've suddenly switched in and out of editing poetry articles for years. I'm not sure whether or not this calls for me to be topic banned from CC articles or poetry articles or both, but I'll just leave that to ArbCom to sort out. I don't know what Tony is saying in much of his long post above. Mostly it's one disparaging comment after another, without a diff or a fact to back up the vague personal attacks. While it isn't clear what I've done wrong, it's clear that Tony says I was doing something wrong. Somehow I wanted to get back at someone because ChildofMidnight was banned for a year by ArbCom? Is that right? Except that I recommended at the time that ArbCom indef block CoM instead. Somehow it was "personal" for me to get back into editing in the CC topic area on March 3, but Scjessey, who I'm supposed to have a vendetta with, had a complaint against him still on the WP:GSCCRE page on that day and I somehow neglected to comment there. Yet it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. Somehow.


 * Let's turn to hard facts, the kind of things that can be backed up by diffs and simple connections to clear policies that Tony violated:


 * March 3-4 -- I did make an inflammatory comment on an AfD page about a Climate Change-related article. I didn't realize how inflammatory it was, and I later said I regretted making the comment. I said at the time that it would be interesting to see the logical gymnastics if a similar article with similar POV problems were put up for AfD. I was in favor of deleting both articles, one because it was a POV fork benefiting one side of the climate-change controversies, the other because it was a POV fork benefiting the other side. So I nominated the second article for deletion. Tony tried to shut down the AfD (19:06 March 4), I reverted the closure,  William M. Connolley reverted me and another editor immediately reverted WMC. I then took the matter to AN/I to make sure the disruption wouldn't continue.
 * March 4 -- Ten minutes after I filed the AN/I complaint (21:14), Tony closed the thread (21:24)  (which was later reverted). Two minutes later, ChrisO filed a complaint against me at WP:GSCCRE at 21:26 (I've never thought the timing was anything more than a coincidence, but I want to show that things were happening at a fast pace at certain points).
 * March 8:
 * 02:08 March 8 -- I then filed a complaint at WP:GSCCRE against ChrisO for what I thought then and still think was bad behavior on his part for filing a frivolous complaint.
 * 02:20 March 8 -- Tony comments on my complaint Despite my attempts to bear with John, this is a stretch too far. I replied that his comment wasn't helpful.
 * 02:37 March 8 -- Tony Sidaway's first baiting comment on my talk page. this speaks to your judgement. Violation of WP:NPA. Let's say that Tony differed with me over something I'd done, and differed so much that Tony felt he should tell me he disagreed with what I'd done. Telling me that my action showed that my judgment was flawed was, in addition to a personal attack and an act of baiting, an action that contributed to the battleground atmosphere on the CC-related pages. Uncivil, too.
 * 07:01 March 8 -- Jehochman, as an administrator sitting in judgment, started making wild statements that I should be sanctioned for filing the complaint (I've detailed his statements on the evidence page).
 * 07:20 March 8 -- Tony Sidaway, renewing his baiting on my talk page: At I said, you're lashing out. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite. Take a rest, if not from Wikipedia, at least from this area that seems to cause you to behave so oddly. Tony was piling on new personal attacks as I was being attacked by Jehochman on the WP:GSCCRE page.
 * At this point, Jehochman took up the personal attacks (detailed on the evidence page) and Tony left off. I think all this clearly shows Tony was helping to reinforce a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere with baiting and personal attacks on March 8 and with out-of-policy, disruptive reversions on March 4. He's been making personal attacks again, recently, on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nota bene: 6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. From the "Casting aspersions" section on the P.D. page, where eight arbitrators endorse the principle. By itself, Tony's March 8 behavior wasn't enough to call "routine", but I think his behavior on this page in recent days amounts to that level of personal attacks, the specific policy being directly violated. Note also the final phrase: with evidence, if at all. It isn't enough to bring it up here, you also need to have evidence (either immediately or when asked for it). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Casting Aspersions" is one of the best parts of the PD, in my opinion, very much on-point and well-warranted. I think it's especially helpful, if enforced. I see nothing wrong with acting as if it has already been adopted, and enforcing it as such. But I just don't see any basis for applying the principle to Tony's behavior. It just doesn't rise to that level. Since you've already made your point, and this has been totally hashed out, I think this may be a good time to close out and put a hat on this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with below)But Scotty, I'm not done yet. You simultaneously say I haven't made my point ("I don't see any basis ...") and say I've already made my point ("you've already made your point, and this has been totally hashed out") and suggest "this may be a good time to close out and put a hat on this", except that what I'm doing is rolling out the kind of evidence that arbitrators are asking for on this page. See below. Perhaps other editors have additional evidence that I've missed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this disappointing in part because this is again bringing old disputes you had with editors here to this PD. You have helped or started with setting up the FoF's on this page against editors and it looked like at first that you were doing it as an uninvolved editor.  Well of course that was until you answered my question in another section which you said you were either a victim of the  abuse by the editors or you did the research.  You talk about the sanction board complaints.  Well I clicked it and saw that you filed two back to back complaints about the same thing. Maybe editors here should set up an FoF on JohnWBarber after all of this.  I didn't know John had even edited an article in CC group of articles or I just forget, which is possible.  But these continual discussions are, at least imho, close to if not breaching battle territory already. For the record, if anyone cares, I don't think TS should be sanctioned in anyway from what I've seen and I gree with ScottyBerg about this not rising to that level.  I do think serious consideration needs to be given to JohnWBarber about the behavior here and if there is behavior elsewhere, that too. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your last point is important. One characteristic of this arbitration has been misconduct on the arbitration pages, as well as "mini-dramas" in which the arbs have been exposed to the kind of conditions that are prevalent in the CC pages. The arbitration is wrapping up now, but I hope that the arbs don't miss an opportunity to deal with the pressing issue of personal and content disputes being exported to enforcement pages, including this one. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) A list of the aspersions Tony cast in recent days. I've made the point that they're baiting, but I also want to make the point here that they're personal attacks, and show just how they're personal attacks by quoting them. I don't think I need to quote the specific parts of WP:NPA that apply to each one, but I'm happy to do it if requested:
 * (1) Personal attack: 17:30 Sept 11: It is painfully evident that some personal grievances and vendettas from that topic have been carried over to this one. Against me, Scjessey, Thegoodlocust and two editors who aren't around any longer.
 * Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 18:10, Sept 11 (as copy edited, 18:20) Vendettas? Funny, I can only find one. [...] But you put it in the plural. Have you found others?
 * Tony again challenged: 19:22 Sept 14 If you wanted to bring up two-year-old sanctions, avoiding vague, disparaging comments on behavior in the CC topic area would have been the way to do it, not producing a list of editors and attaching vague aspersions to them. I think when we get down to specific diffs and evidence, discussion tends toward rational discourse and tends to be less incendiary.
 * (2) Personal attack (response to last comment, above): 04:08 Sept 15: All of you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and all of you subsequently migrated to the climate change topic area, and it is painfully noticeable that a degree of animus has been imported to this topic area thereby.
 * Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 12:04 Sept 15: In substance, you were hurling rocks with largely moderate-toned language. If an editor has repeated on the climate-change pages some specific behavior from past blocks or ArbCom sanctions or other sanctions, it's constructive to point that out to show a long-term, ongoing problem. Vaguely stating that a bunch of editors had a problem a year or two ago is not going to help ArbCom with anything, and the high-heat to low-light ratio should be obvious. But that fact is obscured by your declining to offer a proposal or even a diff. You said "animus has been imported to this topic area" but you give no proof of it at all. I know of only one case of it, and even there it's a very minor sidelight, and it was already brought up (with diffs). I'll just point out that disparaging other editors while refusing to provide proof is one of the behaviors at the heart of WP:NPA, and that it's being done on an ArbCom page doesn't excuse it. Your response is evasive and repeats the behavior I complained about.
 * Tony's response, noting Scjessey's conduct only, although the point had been made repeatedly that Tony's statements covered more than Scjessey: 12:21 Sept 15 (as modified at 14:55) I made an observation based on a sanctions log, which I cited.  The personal animosity resulting is, and was at that time, already the subject of proposed finding 19. Please moderate your tone.
 * (3) Personal attack: 20:49 Sept 24 (A) At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. (B) Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. In other words (A) My "sniping" had something to do with ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600, both banned editors. This is an attempt to smear me by association. I've stated that by the end of ChildofMidnight's ArbCom case I was in favor of an indef ban for him. I don't recall ever interacting with Grundle2600. (B) Whatever I'm doing here "had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama". Presumably a vendetta against Scjessey, although I've never sought him out or argued with him in the CC articles or elsewhere since I started editing CC articles in November 2009. (I have made formal complaints about his conduct here and tried to do it in a civil way. I think I succeded in being civil while under some duress.) The aspersion here is that I was engaging in that kind of battleground behavior. There is no evidence of that whatever.
 * (4) Personal attack: 00:52 Sept 25 (as modified 00:54) : I've managed to upset a good few editors by my earlier remarks on the apparent migration. No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization. So okay, I acknowledge that I could be quite wrong in my interpretation of the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed. A non-apology apology. (1) He continues to associate us all together, (2) "several people previously sanctioned [...] started going at it to varying degrees" I never "went at it" with any of these other editors. (3) "No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization." Again, smearing by comparing Scjessey and me to two banned editors. (4) "My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed." Again, he doesn't specify between who, thereby smearing all of us with a broad brush. All without providing any evidence whatever. After being asked to do so.
 * Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 03:10 Sept 25 "the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case." Who? Where? Provide diffs, Tony.

Tony has repeatedly made personal attacks on this page, in violation of Principle 6 on the P.D. page. He's repeatedly been challenged to provide evidence. So far, he hasn't. He has made personal attacks routinely -- on several different occasions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being explicit and not just posting diffs, but these are not personal attacks. If those kinds of remarks were to be used as a valid basis for complaints of personal attacks and sanctions, much conversation on talk pages would end, because people would spend much of their time litigating. I don't know what else there is to say, except to repeat that this discussion has lost all value and needs to be hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Scotty, it's in black and white (and some blue) right on the policy page, No personal attacks, fourth bullet point: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. I don't think it's possible to be more clear. Do you need any more detailed explanation about how Tony's statements were "accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence". Nothing Tony provided was evidence enough for the accusations about personal behavior that he made. Actually, I think ArbCom members are able to draw the lines and connect the dots because I've (exhaustively) put the dots so close together. At this point it really isn't a question about whether or not Tony violated the policy, it's a question of whether ArbCom thinks it should enforce the policy in this case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to raise a separate point. I'm not saying that this is your intent, but surely the effect of this entire section cannot help but be to discourage Tony's participation in the project pages and specifically his participation in this page. Sometimes such an effect is a good thing, sometimes not. For that reason, I think that it's important that an uninvolved administrator, preferably an arbitrator, step in on this and resolve the "TS series" of complaints. If they're valid, add them to the PD and take appropriate sanctions against Tony, including but not limited to banning him from this page. If they are not valid, then there needs to be a ruling saying so, and sanctions need to be taken against JWB, including but not limited to banning him from this page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting suggestion: I'll think about it. In the meantime, can we have a moratorium on posting on this? It's counter-productive. I'm a bit puzzled though why Principle 6 should apply as arbitration pages are part of the dispute resolution process.  Roger Davies  talk 16:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any more evidence to add. Roger, in response to your point: Tony violated Principle 6 in four ways: (1) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior I've tried to show it was "routine" with examples from March 8 and three different days in September (counting the last two together because they took place within several hours); (2) his accusations were without reasonable cause; (3) far from helping ArbCom decide anything, the accusations were made in an attempt to besmirch their reputations, because it was pointed out to him that the smears were without foundation and he found no actual evidence to back them up, yet repeated them -- what else are we to conclude? (4) Concerns [...] should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. In other words, even if Tony had a sincere concern, that alone doesn't justify his statements, for which he needed evidence, or he shouldn't have brought up his accusations at all. Posting at the appropriate forum isn't justification enough, by itself. If he did this once or twice, or if nobody objected at the time, it's probably not worth ArbCom's notice (people naturally get hot under the collar here), but this is a different situation. I'm surprised you wouldn't want more evidence, at least from others. I haven't checked, and if it's happened a lot, elsewhere, then it seems to me it would be good to bring up here, now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: Viriditas battlefield conduct
Viriditas has engaged in comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality.        


 * "Yes, I believe I've informed you of that fact several times. It's good to know you finally learned something."
 * After an editor with a mother-in-law who survived the Holocaust has indicated he or she is upset about use of the word "deniers" in this ArbCom case, Viriditas tells that editor "A little less emotional invective based on ignorance, and a little more research based on facts would be appreciated." and then ...
 * ... tells that editor "No, you are espousing stubborn ignorance with every comment you make. [...] I am sorry that you don't understand that this is a real phenomenon, but we cannot make good decisions based on ignorance, only on facts." and then ...
 * ... Viriditas goes to that editor's talk page to further berate the editor, first with this diff ("I'm not sure whether I should take you seriously or not"), and then ...
 * ... with this one ("Please try to listen to yourself." and ...)
 * ... with this one ("Well, maybe when you calm down and can compose a sentence that does not include an attack or an explicative, we can discuss it like rational human beings.")
 * "And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. The worst sources repeatedly claimed, over and over again, for weeks, that because a FOIA violation might have occurred, climate science as a whole was debunked. This of course, makes no sense, but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles. If they could somehow show that the hacked, private e-mails, which were unlawfully released to the public, contained some kind of impropriety, any kind, this could be twisted and framed in such a way as to attack the entire scientific dataset on climate change. And, that is exactly what they tried to do. If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop."
 * "you're trying to make is that you feel that your job, your mission on Wikipedia, is to prosecute the scientists (whom you refer to as "criminals") for their non-existent crimes, using the worst sources you can possibly find."
 * "When AQFK and others like him repeatedly claim that "FOA violations were found to be valid", over and over again, for six months, even after such claims have been refuted, we have a serious problem. And he's not alone, John. We see throughout this case, willful, deliberate misrepresentation of sources to push a POV. " [...] "Describing your edits and your time here as furthering and supporting "anti-science propaganda" appears to be an accurate reading of the problem."
 * -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement from FellGleaming:

This is a regular pattern with this user. In my only dispute with him, he began revert warring over a trivial dispute. I took it to the NOR message board and, when an editor from there supported my interpretation, he began attacking verbally them as well. When two more editors joined and we began thrashing out a compromise text, he started repeatedly section blanking the entire portion of the article:  I won't go into that dispute further but I'll add a few more to the list of incivility remarks:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Challenger_Deep&action=historysubmit&diff=385351010&oldid=385350064] "If you keep disrupting this talk page, you could be blocked for your bad behavior...Now listen carefully...stop disruptive this article with your tendentious edits"
 * "It is extremely difficult to communicate with Fell in simple language".
 * "Is this making sense to you? Now, you and I both know why you keep adding it. You keep adding it because this is the number one conservative talking point..." (which if it is, is news to me)
 * "You reverted my edit and restored Fell's. You tag teamed...this is disruptive editing by the both of you" (this to an editor who regularly clashes with me on other articles)
 * Here where he justifies his actions by saying he "felt sorry" for me.
 * And this rather bizarre accusation that I'm trying to "promote an agenda to weaken US sovereignty" because I cited a Berkeley Law website that says the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS treaty...to support the article text that the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS Treaty.

UPDATE: In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several new articles, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses both in article talkspace and my own talk page, and going so far as filing noticeboard actions against me: Some examples:. I think such obviously retaliatory behavior speaks for itself. Fell Gleaming talk 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How ironic that the complete opposite of what you say is true. Your "evidence" here is purely retaliatory, as I've been posting about your edits on your talk page since the 17th, and notified you of the ANI report I filed regarding your edits to the Challenger Deep article on the 18th.  In fact, I've become very concerned with your contribution history since that time, as I've found evidence of a serious, continuing pattern of a deliberate misuse of sources to push a single POV, and I've posted extensively about your edits on at least three different noticeboards, including  ANI, No_original_research/Noticeboard, and more recently, Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  Yes, we have a problem, and no, it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a final response, I find it ironic that Viriditas justifies his conduct by saying he "posted to my talk page on the 17th", when that posting itself was a veiled insinuation against my sexuality.   Fell Gleaming talk 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only two edits by Viriditas to your talk page on the 17th (September, I assume) are and . I have no idea about your sexuality, but I cannot, after more than 20 years on the Internet, imagine a sexual preference, practice or orientation that can in any reasonable way be construed to possibly be insinuated against in either of these edits. Please clarify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just reviewed every edit Viriditas has made to FellGleaming's talk page from the 17th until the present day, and I cannot find anything remotely like what is being suggested. The first mention of anything related to sexuality is a recent conversation about Christine O'Donnell, and I find no insinuations in that discourse. FellGleaming must provide evidence for this or immediately refactor the comment making this allegation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't look far enough back; the edit that's probably meant was made on the 8th. I doubt there is any solid evidence that people of different genders or sexual orientations prefer particular colors, but there is a popular stereotype to that effect, and it's hard to think of another reasonable interpretation of that remark, especially when, after Fell Gleaming responded that they probably picked the color after working on the article on the color mauve, this followup remark was made. I don't know what Viriditas meant by these remarks, but at the very least the remarks were personal and had nothing to do with the editing or improvement of the encyclopedia.  This shouldn't be taken as support of Fell Gleaming; he hasn't acquitted himself well in what I've seen of the discussions around the CC topic,but in this case Viriditas' comments, at the very least,  were unhelpful, and could be seen as adding to the tension and animosity. Woonpton (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That could not be more wrong. My comments refer directly to the meaning of the user name, "FellGleaming", which is a literary reference to the magical sword of  Narsil, reforged as  Andúril.   The quote about the color mauve is taken directly from Mauve, a quote about recognizing the magical symbol of the color, "signs which fellow pilgrims alone might recognize." All this means is that I figured out the meaning of his user name.  I suppose at the end of the day, a sword is phallic and the color mauve is vaginal, but that takes the metaphor much farther than I intended.  What is interesting here, and I thank you for bringing it up, Woonpton, is that FellGleaming's very user name is a known symbol for fighting battles, and for me at least, the mauve represents the blood he has drawn from the body of Wikipedia and her editors.  I hope that clears up any confusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking for anything that could have been taken as a "veiled insinuation against my sexuality" and that was the only exchange I thought could possibly be taken that way, but if it's true that FG knew that it was about the username being a literary allusion,  then I don't see what FG is referring to with the "veiled insinuation against my sexuality" remark. I guess I'd need to see a diff. Woonpton (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Horologium, an administrator, recently used this page to engage in incivility, turning this discussion page into a battlefield when he explicitly attacked editors who use the term climate change denial.  Horologium compared the use of the term to that of Holocaust denial and AIDS denial, and offered "a sincere, heartfelt fuck you" to good faith editors working to resolve this dispute.  The term "climate change denial" is a valid concept in studies of climate change.  For it's most recent appearance in the literature, please see Chapter 14 in the Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (2011).  My original findings of fact regarding the attacks on WMC and climate change science are based on similar findings in that book.  Horologium's comments were totally unprofessional and unbecoming of an administrator. His comments increased the heat in an already turbulent discussion, rather than helping us find the light of knowledge we are all seeking. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not I who compared the use of the term to Holocaust denial and AIDS denial; that is implicit in the article you linked, Climate change denial, which states Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of the general phenomenon of denialism, followed by a collection of citations to op/ed pieces and an article in a failing news magazine. Note the wikilink, which explicitly compares the concepts. As to the book you linked, two sociologists have no more expertise in interpreting global warming than anyone else who edits here, and their use of the term does not make it any less offensive. If you believe that the usages are equivalent, then I have trouble assuming good faith, because that's just stupid.  Horologium  (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Horologium, you wrote: "As the son-in-law of one of the few Jewish survivors of Bialystok and as an extremely close friend of someone who has been HIV+ for 29 years, I find the comparison of people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers to be repugnant in the extreme, and I offer a sincere, heartfelt fuck you to anyone who finds the comparison to be apt."  That comment did not contribute to a civil resolution of the topic under discussion, but rather distracted away from it.  No one here, on this arbcom case, has compared "people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers".  Furthermore, the term, "climate change denial" is not considered an "offensive" term, and it is widely used in the literature to describe the movement composed of lobbyists, think tanks, and oil companies.  This is a fact, regardless of whether you think it is true.  I did not deserve to be told to "fuck off" for the second time and I would ask that you try to keep polemical attacks to a minimum. As arbcom has stated on the case page, we are here to work together in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.  Please try to remember that in the future. Viriditas (talk)
 * we are here to work together in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Indeed, and when an editor gets a little hot under the collar, we're supposed to quit baiting him. You just baited him here and then went to his talk page to bait him some more. We're not supposed to use an editor's vulnerabilities against him (unless they impede the project in a big way). If you don't see that, you need to have someone in authority, like ArbCom, explain it to you in whatever way is most effective. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't "bait" anyone on Wikipedia, nor do I have a history of doing it. John, you might want to look at your own behavior here a bit closer, as you're accusing people of your own misdeeds. This will be my last comment on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

←This "finding of fact" is an absolutely disgraceful abuse of this page. With all due respect to those affected, "denial" is not a word claimed by people who have been affected by either the Holocaust or AIDS. A "denier" is someone who eschews overwhelming factual evidence because it doesn't fit with their own ideology/position/philosophy/whatever. If someone ignores overwhelming scientific evidence, they are "science deniers". "Scientific skepticism" refers to the natural caution of a scientist, not the blind refusal to accept what is patently obvious from overwhelming evidence. The continued insistence that using the term "science deniers" is derogatory (and this has cropped up in several FoFs aimed at individual editors) is wholly inappropriate. It is a factual term with plenty of support in reliable sources, just as "anti-abortionists" is the proper term for the self-described "pro-lifers". I urge ArbCom to look at JohnWBarber's behavior on this talk page with respect to these frivolous complaints against editors who don't share his "climate change skepticism". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think "denier" is anti-semitic, although Horologium is hardly the first person to be offended. (that's from footnote 23 in the Climate change denial article). But it's beside the point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you believe is "patently obvious", Scjessey? Even the IPCC itself doesn't express absolute certainty that global warming is anthropogenic, and they are much less certain on the subject of effects and ideal responses.   A "denier" is a person who believes the moon landings were faked.  A person who believes the evidence for catastrophic warming doesn't justify multi-trillion dollar responses is simply skeptical.   Fell Gleaming talk 09:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no real desire to use this forum to debate the topic, but I will observe that your comment "even the IPCC itself doesn't express absolute certainty that global warming is anthropogenic" is an example of how "skeptics" attempt to frame a debate to suit their ideology. Nobody says "global warming is anthropogenic", but rather scientists unequivocally state that human activity has had a major influence on climate change based upon the analysis of a gigantic body of empirical evidence. Denying that the conclusions drawn from that scientific analysis is a form of denial (hence "science denier"). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure about this one to be honest.  I don't have enough knowledge of the editor and don't have the time necessary to do the research.  One thing though that I do find concerning is the difs that are in the update from FellGleaming that there might be a problem with proper use of sources.  There have been a problems using sources incorrectly in the past so I think this should definitely be looked at to make sure there isn't a problem going on here too.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment  I appear to have been draged in to this so I shall commment. Viriditas has accused me on an ANI of tag teaming. This is clearly a false accusation []. It is clear to me that the user is highly combative and disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

<od> John Barber's source is rather interesting, but not so much for the article itself, but from the comments. Amusingly, WMC makes the first comment and he admits that "deniers" is in reference to holocaust denial, but seems to assert his right to still use it - these people know full well that they are being intentionally inflammatory. David Archer is also in the comment section, another Real Climate contributor who's been cited to prove that the GW articles are well-made. It really is such a small world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I went yesterday to read the dif given by Slatersteven to the An/i board. First, I recommend the arbitrators to take a look at the discussion there.  Slatersteven, I sincerely think that your name got caught up in the anger and stress involved in this situation and that the use of 'tag teaming' was not meant to be derogatory though I obviously can't be sure of this.  This is again another problem being discussed about the use of sources from my read.  What is doubling troubling about it is that after the referrence was questioned in one article, FellGleaming took it to another board where discussion was still ongoing, no major problem yet, but than FellGleaming thought it was wise to take the same ref to different article where the conflict rose in heat value in a major way.  I've seen this kind of frustration show itself with good editors in other article like Chiropractic.  For the life of me, reading all the difs supplied, I cannot understand why anyone would take a ref that is under major dispute at two locations only to bring in a third discussion about the same disagreements whether the source is being used properly.  This would frustrate a lot of editors and this is again the type of things that has to be stopped imho.  I think if you read the dif about from Slatersteven you will understand what I am trying to say but not saying too well (it's early for me, need more coffee). I will take the time I think to check out the FoF on Viriditas that the arbs supply if I have the time.  I am concerned that the anger being seen by some of these editors being brought up for FoF is because of long drawn out battles taking a toll on them like this one here shows.  Editors are human, so we can expect tempers to flare and patience to wear thin esp. in a long ongoing dispute like this when one side of the editors stays pretty constant and the other side changes editors regularly.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  TheGoodLocust I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to show but may I suggest you refactor or remove it as not very useful to the discussion.


 * I would also point out that I informed the edd that I did not tag team [] (as did others []) and he refused to retract it, and in fact went on to re-state the accusation []. As to fell, yes there may be issus here and I would sugest that his actions are looked at as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * CrohnieGal, you wrote (10:06, 22 Sept): Editors are human, so we can expect tempers to flare and patience to wear thin esp. in a long ongoing dispute like this when one side of the editors stays pretty constant and the other side changes editors regularly Actually, there are editors from various perspectives who have been around for many months, so I wouldn't focus on one side or the other with that observation. And over time, editors are expected to be able to hold their temper in contentious situations or channel their anger into dispute resolution or walk away. Other than that, I think your point is a consideration that arbitrators should be incorporating into their decisions. I think they normally do and probably will here, but I don't always see evidence of that on this PD page. My evidence against Viriditas is pretty concentrated on one day or so of comments here, and if that's all there was, or if the rest of the evidence was any weaker, I wouldn't have suggested this Fof. (As it is, it would be better to have even more diffs.) Similarly, the case against ATren is incredibly weak, as is the case against AQFK (as is the charge that GregJackP wrongly sourced information). These Fofs should show editors violating policy on multiple occasions (so that a brief problem with their behavior -- unless it's particularly bad -- doesn't get treated like an ongoing problem that an ArbCom decision is necessary to fix), and the violations should be clearly spelled out when they're not obvious (so that the ArbCom decision looks fair to as many parties as possible). Temporary flare ups of anger (often at the clearly outrageous behavior of others) or temporary mistakes in judgment (fed by the battleground atmosphere for which others are far more to blame) shouldn't be what an Fof is founded on. Editors who escalate an already bad situation with even worse behavior (as Viriditas did in recent days), editors who continually misbehave and editors whose misconduct is particularly bad are the ones who need to be named in the Fof. ArbCom can set the bar just about as high or low as it wants (Newyorkbrad seems to want to set it very high indeed; Roger Davies and Shell want to set it low, as I prefer), as long as it sets the bar at the same height for every Fof to jump over. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @ JohnWBarber, yes I agree editors are supposed to do what you say in your response to me about editors being human. Unfortunately, during the heat of a debate sometimes you can get caught up in that debate too much to think of the alternatives of using the other DR's and walking away is not something done when you are trying to debate your reasonings.  In a perfect world this would actually be great and this is something that editors in this area need to now take into their thoughts early or get sanctioned to make them do so.  As for your last section about the arbitrators setting the bar high or low and you wanting it to be the same height, I don't think that's is true.  Every editor edits differently thus by default, the bar is going to be different.  For example of what I mean, some editors edit a variety of topics or articles while others only edit a specific set of articles or topics.  The one thing though that I think is important to this is the arbitrators also seem to know quite a few of the editors involved in this dispute so that also is going to be thought of when they make decisions.   Maybe thinking of this being settled by setting the bar at the height shouldn't be used for multiple reasons other than my examples above.  This sounds more like what editors are calling leveling the playing field when complaints were that more from one side than the other is being sanctioned. What I am curious about, is what kind of history you have with some of these editors you keep bringing FoF's against.  The reason I am curious is because of your addendum above showing that you had something going on with Tony Sidaway back in March of this year and now you are adding difs to show why he should be sanctioned now, at least that's the feeling I'm getting from your behavior on this page.   -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood you point so I would like to clarify. Are you saying that we should apply diferent standerds to different users based upon what articles they edit?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well to answer you Slatersteven I'd have to say yes but also no. What is am saying to put it quite bluntly which I've trying to avoid saying outright above is that what I mean is that the bar should be different for editors who are POV pushing, advocating due to outside influences, WP:SOCK and so on.  I'm not say the bar should change for established editors though who are not following policies and guidelines.  Does this clarify my comment for you?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I partialy disagree. Socking is already coverd and if proven can be dealt with. Your other concearns seem to be too subjective to be fairly enforceble, who would determine if some one is POV pushing based on some percived outside influence (and how would you prove said influence?). Seems to me you will just have a lot more of the random ANI's such as the one I have been subject off when users lose thier temper and have a hissy fit. Also if user is an experianced and esablished user there is less excuse for poor activiy, not more. An experianced user knowes the rules a new user is inexperianced in the rules, and thus may not apply them in a way that we would consider acceptable. What you seem to be saying is that the more knowledge a user has about the rules the more lee way we shuold give them when they break them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @CrohnieGal -- "set the bar" means "set the standard", maybe even a standard for figuring out which circumstances call for relaxing the standard. When I see bad behavior that doesn't look like it will end unless ArbCom does something about it, I put the diffs here. If I already know about it, it's because I was likely the victim of it, but in other cases I've researched it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I guess the addendum against the user TS about baiting falls into the category of you being a victim of it. We can't use revenge to have sanctions put against other editors because you feel like you've been victimized.  TS explained some of those to you I remember him telling you why your other name was the first on listed.  You were upset when he originally said it and I guess you still are which is a shame that you can't let it go.  It wasn't that big of a deal until you made it one.  Sorry, but that's how this reads to me.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not saying what I want clearly enough, sorry. The POV pushing from outside influences, at least to my understanding of what is known, is that blogs are involved in getting editors to come to these set of articles.  This has been brought up at the sanction board and also multiple ediors talk pages in the past which leads me to believe that this can be proven that recuitment(s?) have ocurred. To being able to prove that someone is being influenced by outside blogs I would think that the editors in this case watching the different blogs or at least read them, would be able to see if the blogs are trying to influence article writing. Then if a slew of new editors arrive or whatever, there would probably show a correlation between the blogs request and what the editors are saying/doing.  Maybe some of the regular editors who know about this can clarify this better than I am able to. As for the established editors, I agree and thought I was say what you did here, "Also if user is an experianced and esablished user there is less excuse for poor activiy, not more."   I am definitely did not say this, "What you seem to be saying is that the more knowledge a user has about the rules the more lee way we shuold give them when they break them.".  Established users should know proper policies and guidelines and should therefore follow them.  I just mean there are acceptions at times when an established user fails to.  Again, please don't get me wrong, but right now what I've been seeing at this talk page is editors words and/or comments being looked over through a microscope and sometimes looking at the past actions today seems to take things with 20/20 hindsight views.  Am I clearer now?  I really am trying to be.  If you need more, how about we take this to my talk page, or yours to finish it so we don't clog up this page?  If needed we could bring the important parts, in agreement, back to this page for full review by the others or just put a dif for the others to see what is said. In closing this for right now from me, I agree for the most part in what you are saying.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the subject of off-wiki efforts it may be useful to (re)consider this evidence in reference to the off-wiki campaigning problem - in particular, consider this "How-To Guide"--Noren (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this as I've never seen it before. I've only seen comments about this and bits and pieces of it.  I hope the arbitrators take notice of this here as it explains a lot in my opinion. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: WMC battlefield conduct and inappropriate editing of articles related to RealClimate
William M. Connolley has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the article about RealClimate, of which he was a founding member, and other articles related to the topic of RealClimate, including edit warring and removal of reliably sourced text without discussion. In at least one case, an administrator intervened to stop the edit war.


 * Proposed, based on the discussions below about yesterday's edit warring at RealClimate and The Hockey Stick Illusion. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An administrator did intervene, but the log indicates that he appeared to have been concerned by possible sockpuppets. He made no warning to WMC for edit warring that I am aware of, so I don't think the implication of wrongdoing is quite correct. It is true that WMC should have discussed rather than reverted, and he should not have used the "undo" tool. However, there appears to have been ample previous discussion. These were questionable additions to the article, and all appear to have been discussed previously on the talk pages of both articles without a consensus to add. The fact that something is "reliably sourced" does not mean that it automatically warrants inclusion in an article. There appears to have been a reasonable basis not to include, but I think that this needs to be hashed out on the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually he did start a discussion, and asked the anon to join in. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is my opinion also with what is said above. Also this went to the sanction board where the uninvolved administrator closed it with; "Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so. NW (Talk) 8:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"  You didn't follow through and refiled the complaint opting for the arbs to take care of the matter which is what I think I and others have been saying, too much running to sanction boards rather than discussing the matter on the talk page.  I really think this should have no actions and this type of forum shopping needs to stop. FellGleaming filed a complaint right before your's against WMC with the uninvolved administrators saying no action (for different reasons) is need but that FG might require some action toward their behavior.  I feel that a lot of these FoF's are aimed at getting rid of the enemy type of things which also shouldn't be going on.  Does the difs that 2|0 put in that section about the COI board need to be up here too?  I'm sorry but this is looking like revenge or or getting rid of the enemy. Most in that thread didn't agree with this which I find problematic too, I hope the arbitrators will read the thread that started this FoF. Just my opinion of watching all of this and reading the thread below with only part of the info in the above FoF which just seems one sided.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the previous COI discussions, some dating back at least three years.. I can understand WMC's cynical attitude after seeing how he had been dragged into enforcement boards again and again. His attitude doesn't help, but I definitely sense a concerted effort to target and remove him. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - A number of the FoF sections filed seem to have this problem, where old issues are being re-litigated in the hope of getting certain editors "removed from the playing field". When frustrated editors are forced to defend themselves, the new diffs comprising their defense are often used to strengthen the case against them. Classic baiting. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Arbs have indicated they are interested in seeing a larger pattern. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a pattern of frivolous FoF filings emerging, just as it did on the RfE page. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor4th, I think the arbitrators can see a pattern emerging right here on this talk page. I didn't look at the other pages of this case but if it's anything like what's been going on here, they should definitely see a pattern of who is doing what, as I've read here and elsewhere, to level the playing field.  I agree with the above by Scjessey and I said so in a section above about what I have be seeing in this regards.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposed FoF: COI editing and NPOV violations
has engaged in violations of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, by editing RealClimate in a manner that constitutes advocacy and violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. In promoting the RealClimate point of view, William Connolley has added the RealClimate blog as a source, often as a SPS in BLP's, ,, ,, and questionable wikilinking to RealClimate.
 * <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to doublecheck the links, or at least explain them better. I'm not seeing how adding a link to a NASA source is an SPS when it mentions RC, and at least one of the BLP diffs doesn't seem to be a BLP article. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not all BLP's and it's still a SPS even in the non-BLP articles. Blogs should not be used as references except in very limited circumstances (such as discussions of the blogs themselves).  Even greater care should be taken when the editor using the blog as a source is a founding member of the blog and has a personal interest in promoting the blog.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then separate them or something so it's clear what you are saying please. It's hard looking at these FoF's from an outside view, all the help with clarifing something like this would be helpful.  Why do you come to the assumption that the reason the blogs are used is to promote his blog?  From what I've been reading, the blog site gets a lot of attentions already.  Look how many have said they read or have read this blog just during this PD talk page. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you had better propose a remedy then that William should be topic-banned from editing the RealClimate article, and be banned from using it as a source in WP (with posts to talk pages allowed). -- JN 466  00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think before something goes to that, your should both look at the multiple times that WMC was brought to the COI board about this very thing and the results of the conversations there. Just a suggestion, because this has been brought to the COI board before and he was ruled not to have a COI by unimvolved editors, the dif is located in a couple of locations about FoF's for WMC and the discussions.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more reverts by WMC in RealClimate, including deletions of criticism sourced to Die Zeit and The Guardian: etc. -- JN  466  03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: William M. Connolley restricted to 1RR

 * is restricted to 1RR in the climate change topic area, for one year.

There is a long enough history of persistent edit-warring to justify this (see finding 6), and the edit-warring has continued unabated throughout these proceedings, and still continues. It is also one of the most conspicuous ways in which the "uncivil and antagonistic behaviour" mentioned in finding 8.2, which appears to be passing, manifests. -- JN 466  00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FoF 6 is badly broken - it was written by Rlevse and includes many edit wars that aren't actually edit wars at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: global 1RR on climate change pages

 * All users are restricted to 1RR in the climate change topic area, for one year.

There is too much reverting in the climate change pages. Probably, a global 1RR all over wiki would be good, but putting one on to the climate change pages would be a start William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: FellGleaming multiple violations
has used dubious sources to advance his POV ; violated BLP (e.g.  (note that was done *after* Cuccinelli's investigation had been rejected by the judge, see Talk:Michael_E._Mann); edit warred to remove material purely because he doesn't like it  (see Talk:Frederick_Seitz); misrepresented consensus to bias discussion ; and repeatedly engaged in bad-faith tendentious wiki-lawyeing to defend his favoured versions (e.g. Talk:The_Gore_Effect).

Note that FG was censured by the CC panel  and was given a final warning to avoid aggressive posturing. He has previously been blocked for edit warring on Cl Ch articles ; and been annoying other people elsewhere

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had one in with FG in the past. I think he may have some POV issues. As well as a tendancy to wikilayer rather a lot (often from a mistaken interpritation of those rules).Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a rather odd exchange with FellGleaming (See User_talk:VsevolodKrolikov). He was trying to get me to self-revert an edit he didn't like on Watts Up With That? by claiming that I had violated 1RR twice in two days. The odd bit was that he wouldn't produce any evidence, and got snarky when asked for it (probably because he didn't have it). I don't know if it's a particularly egregious thing to have done, but it did involve a misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion (he also spurned an invitation to discuss the content on the article talkpage). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vsevolod's memory is faulty. He demanded diffs and he got them .    Fell Gleaming talk 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that I had been mostly cleaning up (typos, source formatting), I asked ("Could you provide diffs of the reverts you are counting" is not demanding) for diffs and the reply I got was "Come on now, you can count as easily as I can", followed by an accusation that I was misrepresenting my edits (and when I objected, he accused me of having a "battleground mentality"). This forced me to waste my time going over my own edits in detail explaining how each one was not a revert. FellGleaming finally provided two (not four) diffs, and at least one was clearly not a revert by his own earlier inadvertent admission. As I said above, I don't know exactly how egregious people might consider this, but I was struck by the difference between a very civil warning, and the subsequent absence of AGF, and the misrepresentation of policy and fact. At the time I didn't know he had history. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article:  (see this: )  Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's.  That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. " SSilvers, even WMC agreed that Romm isn't a "scientist".  When polar opposites as he and I agree on an issue, you can bank on it.   Fell Gleaming talk 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FG's comment is irrelevant, and he is trying to change the subject to divert attention away from my evidence of his behaviour. But, for the record, Romm holds a Ph.D in physics from MIT, he is a Fellow of the AAAS, he has written extensively on climate change and energy in scientific journals and reports, and here is a list of major news sources in the U.S. who agree that he is a physicist and/or climate expert: .  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that even the person bringing this complaint against me disagrees with you is irrelevant? And I don't have a problem with calling Romm an energy expert.  He's simply not a scientist; honorary AAAS membership notwithstanding.  And I didn't remove him from the article; he's just no longer in the lede.  Fell Gleaming talk 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content." I've also encountered what VsevolodKrolikov calls "misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion" on many occasions. His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that." In my view his editing behavior is far more destructive than most of the editors cited in the current FoF listings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming
William's complaint is a bit odd. He claims this source as dubious, which presumably means unreliable. However, the quote cited is accurate, a fact William doesn't dispute. The underlying fact -- that RealClimate was founded to be a proactive source of information on climate related stories -- has been widely reported. Given William, as a founder of RealClimate himself well knows this to be accurate -- complaining that the source is "questionable" appears to be simple Wikilawyering to build a case against an editor he disagrees with. The article content certainly wasn't harmed.

Charge #2 is that I "advanced my POV", in this talk page comment. This is even stranger. He challenges a fact as irrelevant (a fact first added by another editor besides myself, by the way). I explain why I feel it's notable. He claims my explanation is a violation. If an editor's explanation of why he believes an article should take a certain form is a crime, then I respectfully submit that anyone whose ever made a talk page comment is guilty. My statement that it should be included is no more "POV pushing" than his statement that it should be excluded. His is worse, in fact, as I detailed a specific argument as to why the material was relevant, whereas his justification for removing it was the unhelpful, "take a look at the website", followed by his personalizing the debate with the statement "This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace."

His third charge of a BLP violation is nearly a month old and over 1000 edits ago of mine. If he truly thought this actionable, it's odd he didn't report it then. The material is properly supported by sources. In fact, when he near-instantly reverted the edit, he didn't call it a BLP violation, he simply said "please see talk where this has been discussed". The talk in question was a two-week old thread that as I read it, had no clear consensus either way. And, of course, even had consensus been reached, it doesn't remain indefinitely. But the larger problem with William's accusation is I believe it's clearly made not to improve the content, but simply to attack me. Consider. A several weeks-old edit, instantly reverted by him. What's the point of dredging this up, especially given its clearly not a BLP violation? Is he simply once again trying to squelch editors whom he disagrees with? Fell Gleaming talk 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Update
(this may need to be re-updated depending on how the thing pans out)

FG has now been blocked for 72h and threatened with loss of talk-page access  William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)