Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals3

Proposed new finding of fact - ZuluPapa5
ZuluPapa5 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, , , comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality , ,  , and has engaged in systematic wiki-lawyering.

Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * alternative

has edited disruptively and engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including edit warring, systematic wikilawyering and tendentious debates , personal attacks, bad faith accusations, soapboxing, and comments that reinforced a battleground mentality.

Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new finding of fact - FellGleaming
FellGleaming has engaged in disruptive behavior, including systematic misrepresentations of sources, , edit warring , , , and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality ,.

Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming has been blocked twice for edit warring in the climate change area of wikipedia in both April 2008 and May 2010. FellGleaming recieved a severe warning through consensus and a second warning or even ban was avoided through his withdrawing from the topic area. The second case that was poorly presented was closed as allowing further evidence. Further evidence was not presented because he ceased operating in the topic area (he has now returned). If other editors are to be put under remedy 3 then leaving asside seriously problematic ediotors such as FellGleaming seems to be incongruous. Olap the Ogre (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FellGleaming also brought a meritless RfE complaint against WMC.. The practice of certain users (esp. Cla68, per the diffs just provided) of "poking their opponents with a stick" by dragging them into the RfE page was one of the major factors in ratcheting up the tensions on the CC pages, and needs to be recognized in the arbcom decision. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory cool-downs
Any administrator can, on determination of the existence of an acrimonious editing environment, personally instruct any of the involved parties to cease editing an article and its associated talkpage for a specified period of time. Editors who do not follow these instructions can be subject to blocks.

Discussion (cool-down)
I've been trying to think of ways to empower administrators without making them into what I like to term, "involved monsters". This is one way to do it, I think. Mandatory breaks for users who are involved in heated disputes might clear the air enough for less upset editors to try to collaborate. These breaks would be required to expire allowing the problem editors to return to, perhaps, a page that is in better shape. Arguments over whether an administrator is involved, biased, or favoring a particular faction or POV are made moot since the breaks are required to expire. If an "involved administrator" sends one "faction" away to give "ownership" to the other faction, this will only last until expiration of the break.

Oftentimes editors (myself included) cannot help themselves when a dispute erupts. Administrators rarely instruct people to not edit on a page due to acrimony.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it, with the understanding that a standard cool-down period should be on the order of about a week, so that it is clearly preventative and not punitive. This is like a non-bureocratic version of a mini-topic-ban, and harmless enough that admins can actually apply it without lengthy discussions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are not. Instead, they have week-long discussions about short blocks or warnings. Listing this option explicitly as a light-weight alternative would be useful, I think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephan, that's complete rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means if you have the bit you just say "fuck it, everybody be nice" and they just do it. That's what they're about. If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it.  The ridiculous idea that admins need to discuss endlessly before acting on their own cognizance is exactly why we're going through the pain of this case.  The probation allowed for discretion but it was not enforced, and so it ended up as a talking shop and things actually got worse. I would expect the arbitrators to say, loudly and clearly, "when we say discretionary, we mean at the admin's individual, sole, only and solitary discretion." And if you look at the wording that's pretty much what they do say. --TS 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, most admins who hear "sanction" think "block", and the threshold for a block is, for good reasons, fairly high. What admins can do is irrelevant - the people in the near east simply can decide to be all nice to each other. Explicitly encouraging lower-impact approaches can help getting innovative solutions into circulation - and innovation is something sorely missing from the PD so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm working on something covering just that as guidance in the discretionary sanctions section.  Roger Davies  talk 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in discretionary sanctions in the past (c.f. fringe science). The way they work in practice is that people complain to enforcement boards and admins try to decide whether to block or enact "page bans" on bad users. The whole process was needlessly inflammatory and ended up with the nastiness of WP:PUNITIVE authority being applied unevenly against users who didn't spend enough time or do a good enough job defending themselves. Opposing sides would clamor for blocks, topic-bans, page-bans, and other slings and arrows to be hurled at their opponents by posting on administrators' talk pages, enforcement boards, etc. There was this weird process of warning users with a pseudo-template, logging actions on the arbitration page, and generally causing everyone to feel that any action taken against a particular user was done because that user was a bad user on his or her way toward harsh punishment. Arguments would erupt over whether page-banned users should be subject to other enforcement measures effectively moving the Overton Window to police state. If instead administrators had just quietly and politely told a wide range of users (without judgment) to simply steer clear of a particular page for a day, a week, or a month less chaos would have ensued without the petty logging, black-eye-applications, and holier-than-thou attitudes, there might not have been such a famous ruckus. Stephen Shulz is right. Administrators acting under discretionary sanctions don't often enough engage in the quiet suggestions that can lead to true transformation of arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. that's absolute rubbish. Discretionary sanctions means discretionary sanctions, not some bloody silly commtttee. We went through that pain for six months, and it was bad exactly because of the endless discussion where admins went through the pantomime of listening to involved parties. --TS 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are replying to me (and referring to my suggestion, not the state as it was), I don't think you understand what I tried to say. Please read it again or summarise what you think I said, so I can clarify. I'm not saying it needs a committee to apply one of the discretionary sanctions. I observe that that is what has happened. And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with edits too numerous to count)If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The discretionary sanctions are about to pass. This is ideally how they work: an admin on his or her own discretion, makes a decision. We know that admins have been intimidated in the past, and that admins in the field who want to get involved are rare.  Admins up to the task will be found.  They will act fairly and use their discretion.  If they fail to do so then they know what will happen.


 * Now you unfairly point to some hypothetical "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator." Well if the only admin willing to work in the area is that bad, you may have a point, but the hope is that all admins will feel free to act, without fear or favor, to enforce Wikipedia's policies. But if the admin is that bad, won't he end up in front of arbcom? The intention is to quieten down the field, not to infuse "crazed" admins, who to be honest are notable by their absence.. --TS 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephan: And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion.


 * Yes, I think that's likely. I may have misread your reasoning. I think the example I gave was something like "fuck it, everybody be nice", and I don't think there are many less punitive sanctions.  It's intentionally framed as a mild parental reproof. --TS 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is merit to this proposal, but I would not rate it as an issue that should hold up the final decision. It should probably be rephrased, as I think the term cool-down is a bit loaded at Wikipedia. I have used a similar technique with some success at AN3; I think that EdJohnston is very good at applying it at that board, though I do not know if he is interested in discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in knowing who these "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator." are, can difs be given or a list?  I think it's important since it's been stated here as facts.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But if John answers, it could be called a personal attack. Same reason ScienceApologist can't list "involved monsters". Sure many admins have POVs; if we had blind justice, we couldn't so reliably predict who will say what before we read it. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough but I think one of them just retired from the project. You have to admit that's not good, right?  I will admit that I'm upset a bit that the arbitrators and the clerks didn't stop a lot of the noise earlier on this talk page.  Personally I've never seen behavior like what was allowed except in one other case that was allowed to go completely out of control.  We should learn from older cases, not repeat the errors.  Feel free to hat this discussion, it just needed to be said I think. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should agree we can discuss how things are "completely out of control", without becoming part of the problem, since you just did it yourself. This is not a defense of John's accusations against Polargeo, which I haven't researched and which aren't in this section. Art LaPella (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Art, I agree which is why I said in part "Feel free to hat this discussion". -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new finding of fact: Limits of ArbCom
Due to the traditional restraint on considering questions of content, the Arbitration committee recognises its inability to deal with civil POV pushing. It encourages the community to develop new dispute resolution processes to overcome this limitation.

Discussion (civil POV-pushing)

 * Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There needs to be a method by which editors who are uninterested in contributing by consensus and other application of policy, but whose actions are otherwise civil, may be reviewed and if necessary restricted or removed from the project in a prompt and nondisruptive manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with this. I don't really think, however, that the Committee needs to be asked to state their own inabilities. But yes, this is something that is a chronic problem on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, I don't think I agree with an underlying premise of your proposal. Saying that ArbCom is unable to deal with what are essentially content disputes is like saying a shovel is unable to tighten a screw. ArbCom doesn't deal with such things not because it can't, but because that's not its function.  There are other mechanisms, like RfC and Mediation intended to solicit outside views, and help editors work through disputes to reach consensus.  Part of being civil is using these mechanisms, and doing so in good faith, since being polite while refusing to persuade or compromise is itself uncivil.  In cases where editors refuse to use the available tools in good faith, that becomes an issue of conduct where other mechanisms, including ultimately ArbCom, come into play.  DGaw (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not how I think WP:DR is presented. It's an escalating ladder, with ArbCom at the top. Mediation rarely works, and the experience with RfCs in this area is not very positive - there is little outside input (not surprising, as it is a complex topic and needs serious research to become somewhat informed in). RfCs are also heavyweight, given the large number of disputes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Civil POV pushing is editing only ever from one point of view. This has happened to an extreme point in climate change where articles are being badly skewed. This suggests arbcom is able to deal with pillar 4 and not pillar 2. In fact this is exactly what happens. In general there is little scope for dealing with it, this is not because the rules are not there but because wikipedia culture has developed to address civility above all else. Problem goes something like this: Editor has a source - yes, has editor poorly represented that source - not too badly, is source okay - technically, has editor ignored other points of view - yes, has editor done this frequently - yes, across multiple articles - yes, is editor civil and willing to talk if not listen - yes. Not a lot we can do about that then carry on. Olap the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you don't clearly distinguish cause and effect here. There are several reasons for the primacy of "civility" (scarce quotes used on purpose) over content.
 * Civility can be evaluated without taking the time to understand the subject matter, so uninvolved admins are more likely to act on civility issues.
 * Enforcing civility let's admins stay "uninvolved", while supporting a content position would make them involved (this is a serious and systemic problem).
 * ArbCom does not rule on content issues. However, if they see any conflict, wether ultimately caused by content disputes or personality conflicts, they will try to resolve it by relying on behavioural aspects. This forces them to elevate even minor civility issues to a level that justifies serious ArbCom sanctions.
 * Since nearly every editor has some ill-considered opinions in his or her edit history (and the chance is, from simple statistics, higher for long-term productive editors), the over-reliance on behaviour makes it more profitable to hunt for diffs on your opponents than to a actually research the topic. This is not a good state. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree that there is difficulty dealing with civil Pov pushers but there is also a problem with civil advocates who are only here to push their pov and not really here to better the encyclopedia. I think something like the above, without the blaming, would be a good idea. We need to be able identify these types of editors and remove them from the project. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that civil POV pushing is a problem in the CC articles, but I'm not sure that arbcom is powerless in such situations. There is a difference between "reluctance to do something about a problem" and "inability to do something about a problem." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point about civil POV pushers is often over-stated in that it seems to forget that civility is only one of our conduct policies. Our other conduct policies include WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring, WP:Editing policy, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Ownership of articles.  Are there editors who comport themselves perfectly with all of these policies, and yet still succeed in disrupting the editing environment?  If so a better term would be something like "model POV pushers."  I suspect the real problem in that situation has much less to do with the civility policy, however, than it does with our policies on edit warring, consensus, and ownership.  While POV pushing can be pursued with incivility, that isn't usually the place to look. Mackan79 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

'''Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)''' This replaces the previous discussion.

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber
--cot|Collapsing. To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented. Roger Davies talk 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)--

JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, , , comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality , , , , , and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed , , ,.

Proposed per arbitrator request. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in (and highlighted here) on this page. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am adding these to add to the above,

, , ,   Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly not impressed by these diffs. -- JN 466  19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I found the second listed by CrohnieGal, here, quite shocking. It was one of the most egregious breaches of good faith I have ever seen on Wikipedia. If I read it correctly, he's predicting that a "POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator" will game the proposed discretionary sanctions. --TS 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and what if I do? I have no FoF's against me on this ArbCom, and I will simply make a lot of tedious discussion points in an attempt to gain "consensus" among the disinterested admins while carefully promoting my PoV (someone remind me what it is, again?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins have reverted climate change sanctions back and forth. We don't agree on which admins were wrong, but we should agree that some admins had to be wrong, and I don't think it's bad faith to expect that could happen again. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not apparent that he's simply saying that some admin or admins may make bad calls. The use of language, and specifically the term "game", seems to preclude that interpretation. This is not the only time he has gone out of his way to assume the worst. --TS 08:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist, a few paragraphs below, speaks of the need to empower admins without making them into "involved monsters" ... and that's not a breach of AGF either. We are all aware that much depends on admins' performance here. The FoF provide sufficient evidence that people who have passed an RfA are not thereby guaranteed to be model citizens. -- JN 466  05:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading it the same way. I'm also trying to access archive 4 but I am getting an error that says it has to do with the software when I hit the history. Can anyone else? I am trying to find the section where he says he is "a victim of the abuse" or did research and also the comments at the Scjessey FoF Barber set up. Thanks for any help. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway was without merit and should be made a part of this FoF. Resp. to Crohnie: no, I'm not having a problem accessing Archive 4. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more but I have to go for now, maybe I'll pick up tomorrow. Thanks for the help, I learned somethings new with this case. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that there is an FoF on this editor, can we take off the hat so that it can be seen? Editors may have more to add too since I know I wasn't finished with adding one more to what I added. Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) As per the discussion below I would like finish adding the difs I wanted to add prior to the hatting. ,, , and. Thank you for the advice below about adding this here. This is all I am going to say about this matter. I hope the arbitrators will look at the difs provided in this section and make there own decisions as to whether any of them are useful to add to the FoF on the PD page. (Notation: I tried adding the difs and and error message came up and I lost everything, so I tried to give them again.) Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial response:
 * Shell, you didn't do a good job at looking at the context at all in this diff, (Diff #3) which was followed about half an hour later with discussion on the editor's talk page and an apology from me  (for context, I think this is the full talk-page discussion on the editor's talk page ; these two short sections   on my talk page integrate into that discussion) a bit over an hour later with this diff on that page  (see edit summary, I think other changes had been reverted back). I immediately saw I was in the wrong and apologized to Nsaa, although I did want that lead unchanged until the ongoing discussion on the article talk-page was over. You know, Shell, this points to a broader problem: When dealing with KDP and Hipocrite and some other extremely difficult editors such as Active Banana on that page (do you want a dozen diffs on that? two dozen? I can provide them, but perhaps links to the discussions will give the best context), at some point a normal person without superhuman patience will blow off some steam. It matters very much whether (1) the person was goaded, intentionally or unintentionally, by the behavior of others; (2) how rare the occurence is; (3) whether or not the person calms down and either gets back to efforts to come to a consensus or walks away; (4) if the person has been uncivil, whether the person apologizes. These are important considerations that I don't see arbitrators explicitly considering, and so I'm left to wonder whether or not you do consider them. The bottom line here is whether or not the effect of my participation on various pages was to help reach consensus or prevent it,and whether, if I was tending to prevent it or otherwise hurt the process, my actions rose to the level worth ArbCom's consideration). Since you're not looking for punishment but to prevent future bad conduct, you should be clear about whether or not you think some kind of ArbCom sanction is needed to prevent the same or similar conduct from me in the future. I don't have time right now to look through more diffs, but I will. My memory is that I didn't promote a battleground atmosphere, but if any edits show that I did, I'll acknowledge that, apologize and we'll see how much of that promoting there is. In the past, whenever editors I regard as sincere and not looking for a fight have criticized any edit of mine, I've looked into the matter and rectified it if I found any conduct I couldn't defend. That's happened with Jehochman, Franamax and 2/0. (I'll get the diffs and put them here.) You even acknowledge that this may not gain a great deal of support being rather difficult to quantify with diffs. It gets more difficult the more you look into the diffs. If it's difficult to see in the diffs, explanation on this page or on the PD page really is in order. added material starting with the italicized quote and ending here. Forgot to add this before. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)  Corrected diff at beginning of this post and gave it a number -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other ArbCom members: I expect that out of fairness you will either refrain from voting until I've made my case or consider your vote tentative until the discussion is over. I expect a bunch of angry editors to post a bunch of diffs (inaccurate and worse than inaccurate), and (as briefly as possible) I will respond to every single one of them, no matter how many there are, no matter how long it takes. If ArbCom members tell me particular diffs are not worth my response, in order to cut down the discussion size, I'm happy to ignore them and focus on what you're interested in.
 * It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history.
 * This is a busy weekend for me. I'll be in and out today and tomorrow and have more time for this starting Sunday night. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in the editing of the articles but I feel that an FoF on you is just as important as they are on others who as you way and I quote, "It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history." I think this also applies to others who have FoF's where you have put difs against them.  I'm sorry but you can't have it one way for others and a different way for you.  Please, would a arbitrator unhat the above FoF so that difs may be added?  John I feel that your behavior on this page has been in battle mode against some editors.  This is of course my personal opinion but I think I have the right to present what I've seen and you have the right to dispute it.  I'm sorry about this, I have no feelings about you from any previous interactions, though I don't remember any between the two of us.  I could be wrong, and if I am, show me a dif of it please, thanks in advance.  I think that if some of the difs above are added to the PD page, more support may be of available.  Thank you for your time to read this, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Crohnie, you can add diffs even if it's not unhatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? Though I think it being unhatted would be better now that there is an FoF on the PD page and Barber is disputing it, I will do that if it becomes necessary. I have like three or four I would like to bring to the arbitrators attention.  Thanks for letting me know ScottyBerg, really appreciate knowing.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you I've added them. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. I agree with you about the hatting. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidently JWB formerly edited under the account "User:Noroton." That account has a lengthy block record for incivility, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts that should be included in the FoF. Given this past record, my feeling is that an extensive or indefinite block may be warranted as a remedy.  ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * His other accounts that he used, I believe there are four not counting this one, should be listed as history of his account like was done with other editors. His account User:CountryDoctor was blocked for multiple accounts, User:Reconsiderationis his account that he uses when on an unsecured computer, and User:Picabu.  He also has another account for the WikiCommons called  User:Amg37.  That leaves the User:Noroton account which was blocked multiple times for WP:Civil, WP:TE, WP:Disruptive editing, multiple accounts, WP:3RR.  Yes, I think this all needs to be addressed.  Even though these accounts apparently go back to 2008, what we've seen here now is uncivil behavior, tendentious  editing, and disruptive editing.  I haven't looked at the block log of his account he now uses, Barber, but I will.  I have RL calling  me again so I have to go.  I agree with ScottyBerg right now but I'll see if I change my mind after some more checking.  I hope the arbitrators are also checking.  The more eyes the better in my opinion.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (Made correction per comment from 2/0) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick quibble: is JWB's account for use on public computers, according to his user page. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you are correct about this, I named the wrong account. Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For anyone really interested in my last block: It went to ArbCom because I took it there (the best, quickest summary is in my comment marked "@Coren"). It's worth noting that the blocking admin, VersaGeek, told ArbCom that if she had to do it over again, she wouldn't have blocked me (see second bullet ). ArbCom's response was that I should go to an ArbCom subcommittee, WP:AUSC which hemmed and hawed and made me wait months because certain information was private. By the time I got through that, I was too exhausted with the process to take it back to ArbCom and demand that ArbCom, after all they put me through, have the decency to state that the stated reason for the block -- "disruption" -- had no basis in fact. In my exhaustion with the whole thing, I decided that after all, it wouldn't matter -- that no one would bring up such a silly matter against me ever again. Foolish me. ArbCom, you blew it when you had the chance to fix it, and as a result I have Jehochman bringing it up again and again  and again,  and now ScottyBerg and CrohnieGal. It's a neat way that admins can attack editors: mention the crappy blocks that previous admins foolishly made, but don't look too close. I'd love to see an ArbCom member stick a link to it on the P.D. page. Then ArbCom members could explain why my request for an explanation for the allegation that I was "disruptive" was not worth the admin's or ArbCom's time and then becomes background for a new charge of "disruption" that (at least as yet) hasn't been adequately explained. If you want to go back as far as 2008, in which I was in a dispute with Wikidemon and got blocked for three weeks, you might want to see Wikidemon's latest comment about me.  -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's "attacking" you by suggesting that your past block record for disruption, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts be mentioned in the FoF and that it be taken into consideration in imposing a sanction, if one is implemented. Also, you don't strike me as "exhausted." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That last sentence seems unnecessarily catty, as he was pretty clearly describing his emotional state at a past time, not the present. It's nothing personal, ScottyBerg, but I think this is one more example of the widespread tendency all around in this dispute for people to take jabs at their opponents instead of really trying to read and understand what they're saying. alanyst /talk/ 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll admit that last sentence was unnecessary, and I'll strike it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Battleground language by JohnWBarber here on Lar's talkpage (18 September), putting down editors as being part of a faction. Immediately supported by Lar as he comes straight in and criticises the editor who JohnWBarber has an issue with. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If a discussion about the existence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is itself a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially when no names are named, it's a Catch 22. The point was about whether or not it was useful or possible to bring up the idea of factions with regard to the behavior of others. The discussion was about the CC articles, but it was abstract. I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND both on the evidence page and the workshop page early in this case, and I would have welcomed a further discussion of the policy there. You seem to be saying that it's a violation of policy to discuss the problem of factions in a polite way, even when we're not discussing the actions of individual editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Abuse of the climate change enforcement proposed decision case page: his meritless "baiting" complaint against Tony Sidaway . ScottyBerg (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link isn't working. Scotty, you brought up the point that it was "meritless" at the time, and I answered you. I showed with specific diffs how Tony's behavior violated specific parts of a specific policy, WP:NPA, and I think there was enough of that going on for it to amount to baiting as well. I can understand how someone else might disagree with that, but I can't understand how someone else would think it's totally "meritless" and some kind of abuse of process for me to complain about it. I'm not going to repeat the answers I gave you in that thread -- it's up to you to read them and reply. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link is working. I meant the "proposed decision" page, not the RfE page. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

convenience break

 * Shell: I looked over your accusation in detail last night, but I'm having trouble understanding part of it. You admit that your finding is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", and since you brought up things that weren't previously discussed on this page, it's difficult for me to get a handle on just what you're objecting to and how the diffs even relate to your accusation and your additional comment. If you don't provide further explanation, it's hard for me to defend myself: I may be flailing about in discussing specific diffs in ways that don't address your points. The "edit warring" diffs I understand and I can respond to that part, and I can figure out what you're saying in the next four diffs (in article and article talk space) but the four diffs from ArbCom pages puzzle me. You say my comments are far to focused on individual editors. I thought focusing on individual editors was one of the primary reasons for an ArbCom case and so editors naturally focus on them in presenting evidence and arguments for or against sanctioning them. I don't understand how someone can be "far too focused" on that. You say my comments serve to inflame tensions, but even constructive comments on this page will do that as a matter of course, and if politeness isn't the problem, what is? Are you saying that I was making meritless comments not helpful in resolving this case because it was obvious they didn't deal with conduct ArbCom would consider? Or is there something more to it? Please explain. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In general my concern about your participation in this topic area was that you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. The first diff from the Gore Effect talk page is an excellent example: you were asked to provided references for the point you were making, instead of providing them or addressing the request at all, you simply say That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive..  I can't think of a less productive response, not to mention the rudeness involved in blowing off another editor in this manner.  In the second diff, editors start to realize that meta-discussion about who does/does not have which consensus isn't helping move things forward and attempt to get the discussion back on track.  You continue down the path that several others have already noted is unhelpful with Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? with the edit summary Show me the money.  Later in the discussion after editors are concerned that your comments are stonewalling rather than moving towards a consensus, you again repeat your request to be shown a consensus and accuse others of stonewalling instead(third diff).  On to another article in the fourth diff, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?.  The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area.  Other gems include This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future, Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments?, There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. . One final point, it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Shell   babelfish 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That helps me better understand you, Shell. It doesn't help me understand what you think is wrong with this edit. (#10, below) Could you explain your objection to it? Also, I don't think you've looked at some other editors for much worse behavior. Viriditas, for example. Please compare these quotes with what you've quoted from me and tell me how I'm worth a finding of fact and Viriditas isn't.  Roger shelved that discussion on September 27. Another thing: I don't understand why you ignore baiting and personal attacks from Tony Sidaway and consider my reaction (which does not include personal attacks) more important. WP:NPA is, after all, policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. No, that's simply not true. I tend to engage in productive discussion, and the vast majority of my edits are just that, either on the CC case pages, over at WP:GSCCRE, in the CC article pages and article talk pages and elsewhere. Even the #10 diff is about productive discussion. And by the way, Shell, you say gems -- that's a bit of needling on your own there, isn't it? Easy to fall into, isn't it, particularly when you're irritated. And unlike me in the discussions your diffs point to, you're under much less pressure in this discussion. I think that under the circumstances of those diffs, my responses are much more understandable than you make them appear. I'll be demonstrating this soon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For future reference, this is a copy of the Fof with numbers. I'll refer to the numbers later:
 * 25) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring (1), (2) , (3)   and comments that served to inflame tensions and reinforced a battleground mentality (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (8) , (9) , (10) , (11)  , (12) , (13)  .    JohnWBarber was formerly known as  where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts.
 * -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't begrudge John W Barber's right to bring evidence, but I just want to make it plain that I vehemently deny attempting to provoke (bait) him. John, I apologise if my sincere actions ever gave you that impression. --TS 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I rearranged my answers in numerical order below. Easier to keep track. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important, I think, to be mindful of the circumstance under which all of these "Gore Effect" JWB diffs occurred (which seem to comport a rather sizable portion of the diffs), the resultant atmosphere that pervaded the article talk page during that period as multiple considerations were concurrently being injected and heatedly discussed, and exactly what edit precipitated each of JWB's edits.
 * The fact that the article "Gore Effect" survived an AfD on 12 June to which more than 80 editors contributed was simply deemed unacceptable to those in opposition and, from the inception of the AfD determination, a concerted effort has ensued to somehow mitigate the perceived offense of its very existence. In that veritable sea of rhetorical fisticuffs (still ongoing), JWB's diffs were rather par for the course and, in particular, the sequence of events surrounding diff #3 was particularly innocuous and the result of a JWB misunderstanding which he rectified to the satisfaction of all concerned. I'm rather surprised, given the tenor of the debate that frames JWB's "Gore Effect" diffs with (at least) his concurrent talk page comments and the active, undiscussed drive-by editing that was occurring, that any of the "Gore Effect" cites might be deemed to be particularly egregious. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #1: This was not edit warring. The consensus had been reached, although discussion had restarted. I don't recall if at this time there was a consensus to keep the lead essentially focused more on one definition of the term "The Gore Effect" or whether there was simply no consensus to change, but my edit was made to insist that discussion and consensus forming be respected. If you look at the edit history of the page, you'll find Jake doing the same thing at 15:57 June 22. It isn't easy to follow the talk page discussions because they took place at length and were continued confusingly in a number of different talk sections, but the editors involved all knew that there was not a consensus to change the lead. I can demonstrate that with names of editors and diffs if necessary. KimDPetersen's edit, which I was reverting, was done as an end-run around the previous consensus and the ongoing discussion and was therefore disruptive; reverting it -- once -- was not. My revert was limited to Kim's changes in the lead, although Kim had reverted other changes I'd made in the article as well. (I thought he had every right to revert those changes, and if I wanted to change it back I should get consensus on the talk page. IIRC, I decided not to bother. The intent at all times was to avoid edit warring and make discussion the deciding factor. I suppose it would have been better to point out in the discussion that the change had been made without consensus as the matter was still under discussion, and that we needed to change it back if there was no new consensus to support Kim's change. That's what I would do in the future. Shell has criticized my behavior in the discussion on that page, and she makes some good points about that, which I'll address under the headings of those diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #2: This is not edit warring. This is classic WP:BRD: Bold: Revert:  Discuss:  (links to entire discussion) I don't understand why this was included in the finding. Shell, am I missing something? If you look at the timestamps, I even started the discussion a minute before making the revert. I can't see any way that this comes close to edit warring. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (new timestamp)

Diff #3: Addressed above at 17:34, 2 Oct. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #4: To KimDPetersen: ''That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive.'' Well, his comment wasn't constructive. This statement (the entire diff) in fact was an earnest effort to be constructive. If I'm being a little curt it's because I was faced with dealing with editors who showed no interest in actually examining the issues at hand. In my opening comment in that thread, I linked to a part of WP:OR policy -- an exception to regular WP:OR strictures. The response from these editors was "Hey, your edit was original research." As if my link and explanation had never been shown to them. It could make a person a tad frustrated, couldn't it, arbitrators? KimDPeterson, who had reverted my edit, had the least to say about it (the comment immediately above mine in the diff): The main point is: Since at least 3 editors feel that it isn't obvious, then you must be able to provide references for it, otherwise you are doing WP:OR. It even sounds like gloating. Why is a little curtness on my part after all that stony lack of cooperation from those other editors, cited as some kind of "disruptive" behavior? Is it not understandable that I would be frustrated? Was the behavior of the other editors, who ignored my main points in that thread, itself reasonable? Shell, you say that this is an example of "disruption", which is defined as something impeding Wikipedia's normal processes, like coming to a consensus on article content. But editors who continually ignore the main points being made (so long as they're reasonable) are not showing any interest in the purpose of the talk page -- to improve the article. I'm going to say something about content here, but only for the purposes of showing my reasonable behavior and the unreasonable behavior I was met with (so arbitrators' agreement or disagreement with me on the content point is irrelevant): "The Gore Effect", as either a joke or cliche, is a thing made of words. Things made of words are often categorized in various ways. If we see a category that simple editorial judgment (on the order of WP:CALC) can show us is applicable, it is reasonable to suggest saying that in the article. The nature of a snowclone or phrasal template is that part of the phrase is changed while other parts stay the same compared to similar phrases (here: The Gore Effect, The Clinton Effect, The Blair Effect, The Pauli Effect, or frankly any other "Effect" with a name in front of it, preferably also with a "The"). It was therefore necessary, once bringing up the idea of a "phrasal template" to mention similar phrases (just as we couldn't mention that a phrase or word is a synonym of something else without stating what that thing is it's supposed to be like, if we were going to introduce the idaa of a synonym into an article.) The discussion shows that I was willing to drop "snowclone" and simply refer to phrasal templates (see my comment at 18:48, 23 June), per Arthur's objection. I was also willing to use other examples of phrasal templates, although I thought examples with other public political figures were best (see my comment at 21:51, 23 June). That's an effort at coming to a compromise. And my efforts were reasonable throughout. Guettarda ignored my argument on WP:CALC grounds; JakeInJoisey was similarly unresponsive; Arthur threw up various objections, but I might have reached an agreement with him. KimDPetersen at that point didn't discuss the merits of the situation at all. My response was not even uncivil. It was simply curt. Those editors are not wilting lilies, and any other editor who responded to me would have received my respectful attention, in which I would have shown respect to their arguments and to themselves and a willingness to compromise. And for this curtness, in these circumstances, I'm being sanctioned? Just look at KimDPetersen's completely unconstructive, uncooperative attitude and response as shown in the rest of the discussion, after which I soon decided I had had enough of this article:
 * ''That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Sorry, but what is not constructive in requesting that you reference your addition (per WP:V), so that the WP:OR goes away? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ''That it completely ignores everything previously said in this thread. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ''There is no compromise to doing WP:OR - either you can verify it - or you can't. Half-original research is still original research. And i'm sorry to say that i haven't ignore anything you've said. You claim that it is obvious - people disagree - thus you will have to reference it or it can't go in. It really is that simple. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

When editors are not interested in listening, the editors trying to convince them are justified in getting frustrated and it's understandable that these editors can get a little curt. There should be a massive amount of this or it should be particularly hurtful for it to rise to the level that ArbCom needs to deal with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After all that, I still have something else to say about this. Here's what Shell said, above:
 * In general my concern about your participation in this topic area was that you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. The first diff from the Gore Effect talk page is an excellent example: you were asked to provided references for the point you were making, instead of providing them or addressing the request at all, you simply say That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive..  I can't think of a less productive response, not to mention the rudeness involved in blowing off another editor in this manner.
 * Shell, if you reread that discussion you'll find I constantly responded to editors' points, at some points so carefully that I numbered my responses (which seemed to induce Arthur to address them more closely and help make what little progress there was in that discussion). Asking for references was ignoring my often repeated point, since that point was this was a situation where the WP:CALC section of WP:OR was an exception to that policy (you don't need a reference for 30 + 45 = 75 and so you shouldn't need a reference for anything that similar, like "The ____ Effect"). Don't you get frustrated when people don't respond to you after you've asked them to over and over and over? Kim wasn't blown off, he just wasn't interested in actually discussing what I was bringing up. Anyone here can confirm what I'm saying by just reading the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #5: and Diff #6:  These two diffs are from the same thread, here. Shell states above:


 * In the second diff, editors start to realize that meta-discussion about who does/does not have which consensus isn't helping move things forward and attempt to get the discussion back on track. You continue down the path that several others have already noted is unhelpful with Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? with the edit summary Show me the money.  Later in the discussion after editors are concerned that your comments are stonewalling rather than moving towards a consensus, you again repeat your request to be shown a consensus and accuse others of stonewalling instead(third diff).

Shell, anyone just relying on your description and on a quick look at the diffs, without looking at the (short) discussion for context or at the wider history would get a misleading impression about what was going on. You've almost thoroughly mischaracterized the nature and tone of the discussion. For more than a week, editors had been ignoring the fact that they didn't have consensus to change the lead and were trying to edit war their versions in. It was long evident that there was no consensus to change the lead. I told editors to go get consensus before trying to make a change they knew was controversial. Hipocrite started that thread immediately after this edit of mine, reverting to the status quo ante (or as best I could figure out status quo ante among all the changes going on). Hipocrite stated that I had reverted to a version without any mention of the other, non-joke meaning of the phrase (which was false, it was in the last sentence of the lead, and I was fine with tweaking and expanding it). How could you not have seen Verbal's goading, WP:BATTLEGROUND statements? They were right above mine and were what I was responding to. How could you omit from your quotes of my statements the first thing I said, which was to correct Verbal's statement that I had reverted against consensus? You also ignore the very last thing I said in the final edit: ''Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? I've been away from the article for a bit, did I miss where you offered them?'' (That was not some kind of snarky comment: There were about 1,000 edits to "Talk:The Gore Effect" in the previous two weeks and the talk page had ballooned to over 300K by this point, with several different discussions about the scope of the article, which is what this discussion about the lead was actually about.) You talk about "moving things forward" but the onus of suggesting a compromise -- and the most productive way forward. Fundamentally, though, the question had to be framed in terms of what we wanted the scope and focus of the article to be. I had already made my position clear on that in one of the many threads that discussed this point. No one offered a compromise suggestion in this section, perhaps because discussion was continuing elsewhere on the page. I wasn't obstructing compromise by being more obstinate -- I was reacting to goading, asking the goader to quit it and restating my desire to hear what kind of compromise Hipocrite, Verbal and the others would offer. That's all clear from looking at the thread. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #7: Shell says above, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?''. The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area.'' It's evident from looking at the thread at Talk:Fred Singer that the tension was caused by two editors, KimDPetersen and Guettarda, who were not just disagreeing with five other editors (SlimVirgin, ATren, Cla68, ScottyBerg and me), but who were using the flimsiest of arguments to keep a solidly sourced (and innocuous) quote out of the article while Kim had previously reverted in an edit war to keep in the article an attack on Singer coming from a source that BLP forbids. This discussion, on points made by KimdPetersen and Guettarda that were, frankly, silly in very obvious ways, went on for 35K by the time of my edit. It was argued that we needed confirmation that a WP:NEWSBLOG on the New York Times website was under the editorial control of the newspaper or it was unreliable, and that a blog by scientists that called a report whose lead author was Fred Singer "dishonest" was merely criticizing the report, not Fred Singer. Editor after editor expressed amazement: ''This is very disturbing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:48, 24 May ... It is this kind of inconsistency in applying policy that causes NPOV problems on these pages. ATren (talk) 15:10, 24 May ... Kim, are you advocating using RealClimate, a self-published advocacy site, as a source in this article, but not a NYTimes blog? Do I have that right? Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 24 May'' Now, none of these other editors did what I did, and you're right, it did not help the tone of the discussion. I went through the bother of going to the Times website to see what they had to say about editorial oversight in an effort to show Kim something that might prove to even him that the source was reliable. I think I made more progress in that regard than the other editors. But, like the other editors, I also became utterly frustrated with Kim's obstinancy in the face of normal readings of policy and, frankly, common sense (there is no good reason for the Times not to have full editorial control over the reporters' blogs on its website). I say mention all this to demonstrate just how difficult it was to deal with Kim here. It's also true that none of the other editors made a snarky comment like mine. You're right, I shouldn't have said it. In this case, I don't think it mattered much and I do think a little sneering is a relatively mild response compared with other common reactions in tense situations, like harsh incivility and personal attacks. If I had to do it over, I would not do it again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's something else about this that I need to mention: What made this thread particularly frustrating was that the huge discrepancy between Kim's two positions on sourcing was not accompanied by a believable explanation (even after repeated questioning), so Kim's behavior looked (and to me still looks) extremely suspicious. Very few article discussions revolve around editors' explanations that are this starkly unbelievable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #8: Why is this diff in the Fof? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #9: [] I regret the tone of my language here when I was reacting to what I consider Tony's repeated persaonal attack. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #10: Where is the "nasty" language here? Why is this diff in the Fof? The harshest thing I say in it is at the end: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. I don't think Kim's behavior has been reasonable; it's been disruptive, and some of the diffs, seen in context, are my reactions to that disruption. 2/0 had a perfectly acceptable argument asking ArbCom to reject the remedy against Kim. I disagreed and posted a perfectly acceptable argument to the contrary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #11: This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future Shell, how is this diff "not productive"? I thought I made an extremely important, productive point: Arbitration enforcement will be gamed, and I'm entitled to my opinion on that. How is it "nasty"? It certainly isn't needling anybody at all. I wanted to say it in a way that would get your attention (sure got it) You don't like it, I get that. Please tell me what's wrong with it, because I don't get that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor has given me something to think about regarding this one, and I'll have more to say about this one later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #12: Shell objects to this sentence Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? This, according to Shell, is an example of nasty remarks [...] causing more tension in an already tense area. The context shows otherwise. Here's a larger excerpt of that comment:

''Asking others about what behavior they might know of is not proof of a "vendetta". As a matter of fact, neither Scjessey nor Viriditas has any proof that there's been a vendetta against Scjessey. Last night, I suggested Scjessey actualy find some proof, but he's content to simply repeat the smear and Viriditas at 01:12 above simultaneously posts that it is only "alleged" and implies it exists. Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? If I have a concern about an editor, Scjessey, and if I've already complained about that editor in the past in the proper forums, how is it improper if I complain again about the same editor after I run across him again and am attacked by him?''

So Shell, you took that quote from this immediate context in which I was responding to people telling me I was following a "vendetta", and you're using this as an example where it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate.

Here's how "vendetta" first appeared in that thread (just follow the link and scroll up to find it):
 * ←This is a personal vendetta that JWB is dressing up as some sort of bullshit public service. I request ArbCom tells JWB to put a sock in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now here was my first reply (an excerpt):
 * Please provide proof that I'm engaging in a vendetta rather than just complaining about your behavior and explaining my complaint at the appropriate page. I think your comment in the December diff, above, shows you were carrying a grudge at a time when I was trying to work with you (look through that discussion thread). I have been angry with you, but I try not to act on that and I don't think I have. I certainly am not looking for a fight with you. I've had sharp disagreements with others and I've been able to work them out. And the evidence above doesn't primarily concern me. This thread is becoming distracting, not informative. Since my mere comments seem to cause you to make intemperate statements, I'm going to withdraw from this thread for at least the rest of the day. Your 19:32 edit, as it now stands, is a personal attack. Please fix that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So my first reaction was fine, even by your lights. But Scjessey didn't stop, and I thought Viriditas was joining in (I'm not so sure now that Viriditas meant to imply a vendetta [see 01:12, 12 Sept], although he was trying to denigrate AQFK's evidence by linking it with mine). Here is Scjessey's immediate reply (02:35, 12 September):


 * I will not be "fixing" anything. I am defending myself against your campaign to get me sanctioned for basically nothing. And if you're "not looking for a fight" with me, why the hell have you dressed-up those diffs to make them look worse than they are? [...]

Shell, after literally dozens of personal attacks on this page and others -- attacks which you and other arbs as well as the clerks have largely ignored, and personal attacks against me right in the thread that this diff is a part of, "an objective manner" is, frankly, near impossible. I'm not "personalizing" a discussion in which I'm being attacked because it's already been "personalized", hasn't it? In this edit, in fact, I moved from responding to Scjessey's and Viriditas' "vendetta" comments toward productive presentation of evidence, showing Scjessey's comments more recently were inflammatory in just the same ways that they were when ArbCom sanctioned him a little over a year ago. By the way, Scjessey brought up "vendetta" two hours after Tony had brought it up on the same page. I had replied to Tony (17:25, 11 Sept) that the only vendetta I knew of was Scjessey's against me. I was (and am) able to point to diffs showing Scjessey holding a grudge against me. Despite my irritation with Scjessey, the only thing he can point to is me following policy regarding him. Now you point to this and other comments during a string of personal attacks against me as evidence showing how I'm "personalizing" discussions on a page about editors' conduct. Some of Scjessey's attacks on me are on the P.D. page right now, in the Fof you voted to support. I don't think my relatively mild comment in the midst of all of the above was contributing to a battleground atmosphere on this page. Sure, I don't think it was the best comment I might've made, but in context it isn't worth bothering about. (My responses to other evidence will be much briefer.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff #13: There must've been some'' other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over.'' I had just been attacked by Tony. Smeared. WP:NPA. The insinuation was that I had a "vendetta" going on. And your concern: That italics around "some" and C'mon, fork it over. is an example of "nasty" language "making [my] discussion much less effective and causing more tension". Shell, I think a more efficient way to reduce tension in discussions is not to have a personal attack in the first place and for others not to ignore them when they happen repeatedly. I agree that my response could have been better. I'll try harder to avoid sarcasm and snark the next time I'm attacked. But I don't think this diff, even in combination with others, is really important enough for an Fof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"abuse of multiple accounts" There is no legitimate reason to include this in the finding. Shell, why did you include it and why don't you remove it? After I was blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts", the checkuser/blocking admin said the reason had to do with being "disruptive". I asked the checkuser/admin why I was blocked rather than approached, because I hadn't done anything "abusive" -- at least anything that was beyond a technical violation and therefore not worth a block. The blocking admin, Versageek, replied ''I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy.''. I then asked where this disruption could be found and received no actual reply. I then brought the matter to ArbCom, protesting (among other things) that I hadn't been disruptive. Here is the AfD. Here is the DRV. I also made some comments on Jake Wartenberg's talk page. Shell, your inclusion of "JohnWBarber was formerly known as where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts" seems to endorse the view that the multiple-accounts block was justified (by my "disruptive" behavior, something for which there is no proof and never has been any proof). This strengthens your case that I'm showing a pattern of "disruptive behavior" since the block was a year ago. I can understand why you'd want to try to strengthen a case which even you say is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", but I think you're going to have to rely on the block from two years ago rather than a year ago. Versageek couldn't produce a diff in which I was "disruptive". Simply using multiple accounts is not, by itself "disruptive". Please find the "disruption" in the AfD or DRV or drop the allegation. Because it isn't at all over the top to say that you, Versageek, WP:AUSC and ArbCom itself are committing (or have committed) a personal attack by making
 * "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 realize this is complicated and I don't blame you for think you are deliberately trying to continue this personal attack, but ArbCom helped to create this mess. The very least ArbCom owes me is not to perpetuate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (added information -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)) (tweaked language in second to last sentence -- to what I meant to say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Tomorrow, I expect to go through the edits related to The Gore Effect and wrap up my comments here. If I'd had more time, I'd be done already.

Carcharoth, on the P.D. page, says his sole problem with the current proposal is mentioning the last block, which I appreciate. He says he has no problem with the rest, which I find odd, since I've pointed out very clearly on this page that some of the diffs appear to have no substance. It does me absolutely no good to confuse me and others about the relevance of these diffs (and I'm evidently not the only one confused by them), so it would do a lot of good for ArbCom members respond to my questions here. As for my other comments in defending myself, arbitrators either find them cogent or they don't, and I'd welcome feedback or questions about them.

Newyorkbrad says, there [...] is a sharp edge to many of JohnWBarber's comments in various venues that he ought to strive to significantly tone down. I agree, and I will. Five people on the P.D. page and other people who are not grinding axes have now been giving me the same message. That's led me to look into it and come to the same conclusion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Risker said this recently on another page, and I think it's a good principle here: In situations where the editor exhibits chronic low level combative issues, the diffs are but snapshots that must be read in the context of entire discussions, or even entire talk pages. Risker also said this: The objective of providing example diffs is not to summarize all that an editor does that is problematic. The problem here is that there are precious few examples after removing so many examples that don't show the behavior the Fof says they show. Not only do I contend that my transgressions are minor, I think they're also a small enough number that I don't think they merit an Arbcom sanction. They exist, they're real, and I take them seriously, but there really ought to be more of them to justify a sanction. (Risker has said on the P.D. page that my "tone and stridency has been problematic". I accept that criticism.) There's a principle at the Administrators policy page: WP:NOTPERFECT, ''Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.'' I'm not an admin but the principle of "sustained or serious disruption" or "consistently or egregiously poor judgment" is a standard worth thinking about for an ArbCom decision. I think my conduct is closer to "occasional mistakes" than the rest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To add to what I just wrote: In particular, the diffs on edit warring are very inadequate evidence: I probably reverted eight times in this topic area since late November, 11 months ago (and probably between one and two dozen times anywhere else in the encyclopedia, in WP:BRD situations). The three "edit warring" diffs don't show edit warring and those edits were hardly "disruptive" or promoting a "battleground atmosphere" on the topic pages. The fact is, I don't revert much in contested areas. I rely on talk pages when there is a serious disagreement after a single revert. I'm pretty sure I'm actually better in this area than most editors. If this Fof is meant to provide examples of conduct, well, it simply fails most completely when it comes to those three diffs. And when I reverted to get an editor to resolve a difference on a talk page, calling that an example of "disruption" is counterproductive. For anyone in the future who looks into it, that kind of diff makes ArbCom look bad. For anyone who doesn't look into it and accepts the Fof conclusion, it wrongly makes me look bad. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

views of others
I don't quite know where to put this but I think this finding of fact generally misses the mark. Is JWB perfect? No. But who among us is? Some may recall that I was involved in the investigation of JWB in October 2009, referenced above, during which I stated concern about what I saw as the JWB account being used inappropriately. Might have been wrong then, might not have been, it's difficult to say at this remove, but it's my view that JWB has amply demonstrated that he is here for the good of the project, and the issues he raises are important ones. His analysis and evidence are sound and worthy of review. This finding, and the associated remedy that would be based on it, if any, are shooting the messenger. None of these diffs rise to the level that merit more than a caution. There seems to be a fair bit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when evaluating behaviors in this case. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Earlier this year, you told JohnWBarber: I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. Or to interact civilly." You followed that up by calling JohnWBarber "the very model of an incollegial, tendentious, timewasting editor." That's a very harsh (and, I would argue, unfair) evaluation of JohnWBarber's editing. What has happened in the intervening months to alter your impression? MastCell Talk 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I don't see any good reason for you to bring up the matter. Obviously, Lar was angry at the time, and his comments then aren't of any use now in helping ArbCom decide on this Fof. Lar and I exchanged emails some time ago, and I believe we're both satisfied that the dispute is over. He was not the admin who blocked me and then announced that I was "disruptive" without providing proof -- my sole concern in relation to this Fof. I was concerned at the time that something nefarious had happened in private communications about me between Lar and the blocking editor. The communications were referred to WP:AUSC which ruled that nothing wrong had happened. I'm very satisfied with that, and it allayed my suspicions. I don't see a legitimate benefit in bringing up an irrelevant matter or discussing it further. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per JWB. People change. JWB significantly changed his approach. I changed my view. We met somewhere in the middle. MastCell: Your bringing this up, in this way, is unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you two have buried the hatchet, but that's between you guys, and not really why I brought it up. Lar, it's pretty rare (I would assume) for you to describe your fellow editors in such unsparingly harsh terms, and even rarer to come around to describe the same editor as a plus for the project. I wanted to know what you'd seen in the interim to change your opinion, because it might shed some light on the proposed ArbCom findings, and whether they fail to consider substantial changes in JohnWBarber's approach. But if neither of you want to discuss it, then never mind. Question withdrawn. MastCell Talk 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's AT ALL fair to say I "don't want to discuss it". I gave, you an answer, albeit terse, without going into a lot of detail, in order to meet the requests of the arbs about the length of the page. I wish you'd quit twisting the words of others around so, apparently to score debating points, it's quite an annoying habit. And battlefield behavior. Doing so is unhelpful. Are you modeling good behaviour when you do things like that? I don't think so.
 * To elaborate on my terse answer, in general I don't support people using multiple accounts, and keeping that fact hidden, when the account is used to comment purely or mostly on wikipolitics, keeping the main account "clean". At the time I made those comments that is how I saw the JWB account... hiding the association. I also saw the JWB account making comments that were tendentious and argumentative and generally not helpful (and I stand by that evaluation of the JWB account as it was then). BUT, people change. First, the linkage between the JWB account and the previous accounts is now public record, not hidden. That satisfies my concern about using multiple accounts to deceive. And second, I think JWB took some of the feedback on board and his recent contributions are far different than his earlier ones. Much more reasoned, methodical, supported by evidence and much more seeking to find compromise and solutions. People change. Some people anyway. This arbitration in large part is about people who haven't changed, who won't give up their inappropriate actions and who persist in battlefield mentality. (notably many of the folk you give reflexive support to, but not exclusively them) JWB is not one of them, he's now part of the solution, not the problem. I hope that clears up matters. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that your first paragraph is an appropriate nor correct interpretation of MastCell's post. Reread his post, as I interpreted it as just a routine post asking for more information; I didn't see anything wrong with it at all. For example saying "You don't have to answer", is a polite way of saying, "hey no pressure buddy", it is friendly not battlefield. Ironically, though it was not your intention, your harsh comments to MastCell may look like battlefield. I am not just saying this to stick up for MastCell, I don't agree with everything he has said during this ArbCom and he probably doesn't agree with everything I have said. Your second paragraph is helpful as it described from your view, JWB as having been a problem but is no longer a problem and that your view is that he is being punished largely due to his past rather than present behaviour. I think that that was what MastCell was asking. As an outsider I have been wondering if JWB was being sanctioned more for past bad history than present but I don't know enough to be sure, so your answer is helpful for outsiders, including ArbCom (if they are interested which I imagine they are).-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input about MastCell, and I'll keep it in mind, but I stand by my assessment of MastCell and his contributions as often unhelpful, including in this particular case. As for the latter part of your post, one can hope. I've not seen a lot of sign that ArbCom takes input from me on board any more. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you Lar. I did say that I didn't agree with all of MastCell's comments during this case. I was referring to your overly harsh tone and your misinterpretation of MastCell's above comment which appeared to me to be constructive and in good faith, so a little confused by your "I stand by,,,," comment in reply to me.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This may not be a popular view but I think there are times that MastCell's comments appear constructive and in good faith when they are actually not. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Lar -- My impression was that JohnWBarber made many well-reasoned contributions in the course of this arbitration. The statement about the Noroton account in the proposed FoF may sound more damning than the actual background (which I thought did not include abusive sockpuppeting) justifies. If that is so, it should really be removed, lest we give a dog a bad name to hang him, and the decision be made on the presented evidence, which everyone appears to agree is at best borderline. -- JN 466  16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell says above, your tendency to personalize your comments [is] inappropriate. I've been looking over the diffs that I haven't yet posted specific comments on and thinking about a comment alanyst recently made on my talk page, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Shell's made a good point in that comment. Sometimes I have been too snarky. I think there are circumstances surrounding most of those diffs that show the problem to be much less severe than Shell has implied, and I'll post on that, but even with those caveats, I was wrong to make some of those comments. I don't think my comments are worth an ArbCom sanction, and my comments on those final diffs and on some other aspects of this will show why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that calling your findings "personal" is far over-reaching -- and in fact, Shell has done the same thing with my diffs. Seven of the diffs Shell provided in my finding (and which she's since defended) are of me simply warning admins whom I believed acted inappropriately. My warnings are in no way personal; they only deal with the actions of those admins, but Shell insists that they are personal, even as she herself casts aspersions on a fellow arb, accusing him of not assuming good faith in a tone that is no better than anything you or I have done. So it's clear that there are two sets of rules in effect here -- but we can't say that, because then we're promoting a battleground. It seems the only solution is for us to go away and let the POV and BLP problems fester, which is what I should have done long ago. I'm here for 3 years trying to keep libelous material out of BLPs, you're here posting evidence and pointing out obvious problems, yet we're both shown the door while many of those who created this mess are allowed to continue. And then they wonder why editors like you and me avoid these topics like the plague. ATren (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In support of ATren's point, I'm amazed to see arbcoms lining up to endorse as uncivil comments which are not. A more blatant exhibition of systemic bias would be harder to find. ATren's mistake was to warn folks when they might be overstepping the mark and misusing admin powers; such warnings are never kindly received, of course. --Michael C. Price talk 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's very interesting for the participants in this dispute to make tendentious comments supporting or opposing findings that we already know they will support or oppose. Your bickering repels any uninvolved editors. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us all know what you think is interesting, although not everyone shares your view, I expect. But I think characterizing using terms like "tendentious comments" and "bickering" misses the mark. There's been a lot of that going around though. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "edit warring" I don't understand how the three examples in the Fof show edit warring. Not all reverts are edit warring, right? I've looked into all three and don't see how I violated either the letter or the spirit of edit warring policy. Could someone explain to me how my explanations of my edits fail to show how I did not edit war, or otherwise show me how I did edit war? I'd especially like to hear from arbitrators, but really, anyone, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gore effect article as a microcosm of the battleground
The "Gore Effect" article was an unfortunate bit of trivia that quite a lot of editors got sucked into, or rather permitted themselves to be sucked.

Examining the diffs in this proposed finding I'm not surprised to find that 6 of 13 come from that article or its talk page. and that the article also features in the proposed findings of Mark Nutley, Hipocrite, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, as well as the original formulation of finding 6 on edit warring. For a very minor bit of American culture this subject seems to have had a disproportionately divisive effect on Wikipedians. It has been both a touchstone and a catalyst of the very acrimonious atmosphere surrounding articles on the fringe of the subject.

In part, the joke version originally created in December explains how it attracted notoriety while still in Mark Nutley's user space, but the deletion discussion did turn up some constructive suggestions and I wasn't surprised to see it survive the discussion. At that point the thing to do was walk away for a few months and see what community editing did with it. That exactly the opposite happened, with embattled factions warring over a plot "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain," is a snapshot of the worst of Wikipedia. The suspicion, ridiculous to explain in the light of day, appears to have been that the article might somehow be used to push a point of view on Wikipedia. Whatever, the reaction caused much harm. To scientifically literate editors the article's parallel with the Pauli effect should not need to be explained, and the current version of the article is one that we can all be proud of in a small way. --TS 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discretion
I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:
 * Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. --TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually the opposite of giving discretion to admins - you force them to "engage in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", not giving them discretion to act as they think best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. Read the remedy. There is nothing there about extensive engagement prior to warning or sanctions. It's those who want to reverse the sanction who have to jump the hoops.  And quite right too. Of course you don't get to sanction and walk away, you do have to respond to constructive engagement, but if you've got a bit you signed up for it. --TS 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably.  Roger Davies  talk 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not really understand how Roger's comment fits this thread...
 * In reply to Tony: You miss the point (or I did not formulate it well enough). Either you trust the admins, or you don't. Why would you trust them to enact sanctions responsibly, but not to revert them responsibly? In my experience, the more consequential an act is, the less likely it is to be done. The key is not to make sure sanctions stick, the key is to make them lightweight enough that admins actually enact them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If only it were that simple. ArbCom has decided otherwise in the past though:, . NW ( Talk ) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan: I think Roger is saying that as most discretionary sanctions are a straight-forward affair and so few are appealed, the issue of wheel-warring over discretionary sanctions is not as important as it is being made out to be. AGK   22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this case will likely prove to be an exception and several individuals will make appeals down the line. This is why I think some of the sanctions should stack rather than being either/or. For instance, those with major BLP issues seem to be the most likely ones to appeal their bans (and the most likely to succeed considering how tight knit the group is) and so I think expansive bans on BLPs in the topic area should be enacted (in addition to the general topic ban) now to save a lot of heartache later on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Note on 19.1
Even if it fails - then i consider it binding. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my comment below on failed remedies. It would still be better if it were in place as an ArbCom remedy, making it more clear which definition of "uninvolved admin" could enforce the remedy, unless you're willing to accept this definition of "uninvolved admin" for the purpose of your voluntary restriction.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One revert per what time period? (Sorry.  Perhaps you specified elsewhere, but 19.1 doesn't specify....)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One revert is a tighter version of 3RR (see link in remedy) so it's per 24 hour period.  Roger Davies  talk 03:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. Sorry about that.  Some discretionary sanctions have been, in the past, 1RR / week.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)