Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop/Archive 1

Questions about procedures
Please place any questions about the specific procedures here. Thank you. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you know if the arbitors are going to create a finalized list of questions before evidence begins? Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Furhter, what is to be done about questions which imply the answer? I thought questions were to be neutrally worded. I can certainly change my questions to imply obvious answer, if that was the goal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversely I'd rather not imply answers. If anyone thinks any of my questions do that I want to know about it, and I will try my best to revise them (or take suggestions on board from others on wording). Please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found your question "Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" to be one-sided. A better way of writing that question without assuming the conclusion can be found in my presentation of questions - "How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?" I additionally take issue This with your questions 2, which assumes that such has happened, and question 3, which assumes that such has happened. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well as to Scibaby, I didn't think your question is a substitute, or I wouldn't have asked mine. As to 2, I think the evidence likely to be introduced will do fine at showing that it happened... that's not the point. As I've said before, I do sometimes think that AGW is so dire a threat to mankind that extraordinary measures ought to be taken and some things here changed a bit to deal with the topic area. If so, I'd like that made explicit rather than implicit, though. As to 3, I don't follow your objection, exactly. Could you elaborate? In any case I'm very open to suggested alternate wordings, but the wording needs to address the points I am trying to bring out as needing answering (for example, your sock question is not a substitute for mine as it doesn't address the specific points I think need answering) ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is SciBaby being dealt with appropriately?"
 * "Is the editing environment at Global Warming appropriate? If not, is any inapropriatenss mitigated by quality articles?"
 * "Does the definititon of uninvolved used at CCRE appropriate? If so, does it reflect practice elsewhere? If not, should other practices be changed?"
 * IE - stop assuming the answer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take your suggestions on board but I don't think these rewords get at what I'm actually asking. I'm not sure you've an open enough mind. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, do you see how some of your wordings could be viewed as merely polemic questions designed to get the reader to say "yes, that's right," as opposed to a neutral question that imparts the view of both sides? You state " Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" How do you think I would ask that question (IE, write for the enemy) I'll give you a hint: "Is the massive disruption caused by Scibaby appropriately dealt with through the plodding RFCU process, and it's archaic "not for fishing," requirements, or are more serious and direct measures required to deal with the persistant disruption?" Same question, except it assumes the opposite starting point. Find a way to write an answerable question, please, as opposed to a polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop hectoring me, Hipocrite. I have made some modifications, because as I said I would, I took your input on board. My questions were 'answerable' before I started, actually. Do you take input on board as readily? You are not exactly a stranger to writing polemics, you know. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Lar, whatever. Pure as the driven snow, you are. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a helpful comment. You're doing it again. I changed my questions. If you have further comment that's useful and actionable, I'm willing to hear you out, though. I suggest my talk so as not to monopolize this page. But drop the invective, please. We are all of us imperfect. Some of us realise it. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The questions are what you would like to be seen answered in the Committee's decision final decision. It would necessarily behoove you to present evidence directed toward answering your questions, and any that others posted that you feel should be dealt with, as well as eventually give proposals toward those same ends.  Posting pointed questions, however tempting, is a foolish idea - the procedures state very clearly that each question should be "one-sentence, [and] neutrally worded."  The goal of arbitration is to "break the back" of the dispute at hand.  That means answering unanswered questions, clarifying unclear issues, and solving unsolved problems.  Pointed or loaded questions don't advance the situation.  These questions are not the place to present evidence or argument, and I will remove any that blatantly attempt to do so. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that there is necessarily a need to introduce evidence because a particular question is raised. If the questions I ask admitted easily of evidence, I'd probably just introduce the evidence and then introduce findings in workshop. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you carefully review the following questions, Amorymeltzer:
 * LHVU 5, Cla68 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Lar 2, 3, 6, Polargeo 1, ATren 1, 2, 3, 4, as they all assume the conclusion, and do not lead to a helpful basis for discussion - they are all either implicitly limiting, or merely polemic questions - asked to get a "yes, obviously," to structure that individual as "right," without actually presenting an issue for contemplation. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd make a slightly different list but agree with your larger point about position statements disguised as questions. Whether and how Arbcom handles this stuff will telegraph much about their intentions regarding the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that always seems to happen with cases like this, and I probably share some blame for this also, is that the parties start trying to campaign for their side on the case talk pages. I believe the Committee members are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions in the case, and don't need everything that everyone says interpreted for them.  Hipocrite and SBHB, just present your evidence and let's get through this. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for other arbitrators, but I plan to use the questions as a universe of issues that could be addressed in the final decision. I would then expect to group some of the questions or topics together (in my mind, anyway), and then ask myself which of the questions are suitable for resolution in the decision. That would be based on factors such as whether they are the types of matters on which we can opine intelligently, whether they are the types of matters that the community is willing for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, whether they can be answered in a way that will provide useful guidance for future editing, and whether enough evidence has been presented for us to address each of them. The wording of the questions should not become a primary focus of anyone's work on the case, and critiques by editors of one another's questions are unlikely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions vs. Evidence
Speaking of questions that imply answers... Polargeo's question may be more suitable as evidence. I think the matters it queries are adequately covered in other questions, and the rest perhaps ought to be moved? It may be necessary to counsel him about proper decorum in an arbcom case, as I'd hate to see him disenfranchised early. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps the most obvious of the leading questions, yes. However, there are issues in almost all of the presented questioners. You may wish to review my most recent edit to my questions to see what I'm talking about. In fact, I have not seen a single presentation of questions that was not, at first edit, a list of answers to be questions as opposed to questions to be answered, which is why I'm hopeful that arbcom will state which of the questions are to be adressed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of your four points are not even questions, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Polargeo's "question" prior to revision was full of accusation. And thus full of fail. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your questions remain full of accusations - perhaps more than the now revised Polargeo question, which used to be "the most obvious of the leading questions." Unlike you, however, when presented with deficiencies in my questions, I fix them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fail. But that makes me think of another question, actually. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote myself mere hours ago, Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait. Going after each other isn't productive and does nobody good. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to separate "Issues for discussion" from "Evidence", then I'd like to suggest that the clerks enforce some sort of decorum. Otherwise it seems like just another venue for venting. I agree that in the majority of the questions/issues presented, it seems like the presenters already have a pretty good idea of the answer they'd like to see. Ronnotel (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting theory of mind, but as for mine, I don't think I know the answers that ArbCom is likely to give. Else I wouldn't have asked them. Especially the one about GW being so important that we ought to do things differently than normal. I honestly think we should give that idea careful consideration. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure, also, how I would like ArbCom to handle this case and to what findings they make; and I am almost as sure that my wishes will not be fulfilled in every event, and even aware that I may see the reverse of what I want. Of course I know the answers I would prefer, since if I consider these points to be major issues then I am very likely to have an opinion of my own on them (and would wish the conclusions of others to be that of mine). My preferences for a certain result, however, are not the point - my point is that the issues I have voiced I would prefer to have addressed within this case. I would hope that this is the case for all those who have tried to frame questions that address concerns that they feel should be examined within this case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefering one answer is very different than asking a question designed to get only one answer. My preferred answer to "How do we deal with SciBaby?" is "Ban every SPA who shows up at global warming. If they complain, topic ban them from all Global warming for 6 months. If they survive 6 months of doing something else, apologize." I did not ask "SciBaby is a growing and dangerous threat who has created 600 socks and has inserted purile vandalism into hundreds of articles. Should strong measures be taken to quell this ongoing threat?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on the preceding thread. Objecting to the wording of one another's questions is unnecessary. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Appointing administrators...
This has come up a couple of times, e.g. in JohnWBarber's question. Is this remotely possible? It's not as if we have the problem of a large set of uninvolved admins standing ready to be appointed - on the contrary, we have a small and somewhat inbred group with various degrees of (un-)involvement. ArbCom can only appoint people who volunteer in the first place... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible? I think so. I assume that if ArbCom seriously considers the matter it would (a) privately agree to try to set this up; (b) ask around, privately, to see if it can find some admins willing to do this; (c) make it part of the decision if it has already privately come up with either a definite list or has reason to believe that there are enough admins to do this. We've had quite a few admins step up to do this thankless task already in the past five months. I assume that being appointed by ArbCom to do this difficult task would be a feather in the cap of any admin dumb ambitious enough to want the even greater glory of ArbCom membership or some other elective post. I have no idea why this is satisfying to some people, but apparently there are people willing to do it. I don't see how vandalism patrolling or fixing spelling errors would be fun either, but apparently some do. I've sometimes made mind-numbing edits to "[year] in poetry" articles, and even I don't know why I get some satisfaction out of it. Well, actually, I do: I feel that I'm doing something that will help someone, and I like the final result. I guess that's the reason so many of us occupy ourselves with drudgery here. I'll tell you one thing -- it's a helluva lot more satisfying than bickering, and you can listen to the radio or television while you do it. Although that probably doesn't apply as much to GSCC ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think this would be a good idea if it could be pulled off. If the admins were appointed by Arbcom then presumably everyone would have in mind that Arbcom was watching, which would help keep admins on the straight and narrow while at the same time giving them more implied authority to act. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I think that on most articles, Wikipedia does well with a pretty freewheeling way of coming to consensus and working with others. When we get into intractable disputes like this, I'd rather see more authority exerted, as long as it's accountable authority. I expect private conversations between ArbCom members and admins would be very useful in helping admins not repeat some mistakes. ArbCom will get complaints about admins, and if the complaints are public, admins are more likely to take them seriously, wondering if ArbCom members will. Private conversations among admins and arbs are going to be very useful in either reassuring admins or adjusting their behavior or strategies. There will still be plenty of mistakes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We have very occasionally appointed a small committee of administrators to deal with a specific issue arising from a decision; I believe the Ireland naming case was one such instance, and if I check the list of precedents I might come up with a couple of others. I don't know whether that's something we would choose to do here, but anyone in favor of such an approach can workshop it and garner comments pro and con. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think WP:AUSC is an example, although it's not necessarily one I'm comfortable with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to Clerk
In various places I have seen things like "X is to be done within Y days after posting of the case." For the sake of clarity, could these instances be annotated with a specific date and time? For example, "All (evidence, questions, comments, whatever) must be entered by 28 June at 16:47 UTC" or similar wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be useful for a Clerk to calculate the specific dates and put them in the instructions. Times of day are not necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Does "sanction" in the Workshop guidelines mean any ArbCom action, including "cautioning"?
I assume an ArbCom remedy that "advises" or "cautions" an editor without providing any other remedy is still considered a "sanction". When I use the word "sanction" in my list of subissues, that's what I mean -- essentially "should some ArbCom remedy apply to editor X for this?" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a slight ambiguity in the wordings we use, but for purposes of your own proposals, you know what you meant, and since you've told us we will read them accordingly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust this means that arbitrators will read the term broadly in the context of this case as used by JWB—it hasn't been decided that the term "sanction" now henceforth defined as any remedy adopted by the committee. In particular, a user receiving a caution can answer "no" if asked (at RfA, for example) if they have been the subject of an ArbCom sanction.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for Arbitrators/Clerks
I could compile a great deal of evidence for this case, depending on which issues ArbCom wishes to focus on. If ArbCom wishes to remove the editors it feels are not contributing to a stable and healthy editing environment, I would compile an assessment of the behavior and editing of the most frequent climate change editors. If, however, ArbCom wishes to address the more fundamental issues that make this area so turbulent, as they did in WP:ARBPIA, then I would have to tailor my evidence accordingly. Which issue should I focus on in my evidence? NW ( Talk ) 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are an involved party, and your conduct is likely to be discussed. Why don't you just add any evidence that you think is relevant and let ArbCom decide for itself whether that is the case. If they want an involved party to gather evidence on a specific thing they'll probably ask. Weakopedia (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, which contained several misconceptions, but I would prefer not to overload ArbCom with useless evidence if I don't have to. The section was titled the way it was for a reason. Please let individual arbitrators or arbitration clerks answer my question. NW ( Talk ) 08:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my comment prevents anyone else from commenting, so if you want a private conversation the best place is not on the talkpage of an ongoing case! Weakopedia (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have failed to understand the fairly explicit individual arbitrators or arbitration clerks - this isn't a private conversation, its just one you're not invited to William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments above are not helpful. In answer to the original question, both types of evidence would be useful to the arbitrators, although there is no prejudgment at this stage as to what form the final decision will take. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. NW ( Talk ) 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SPOV and other similar arguments
Folks, if you look into the ArcCom documentation, you will see that the SPOV argument and similar arguments that their nominated "experts" are allowed special privileged are doomed to fail. In short, it is a WP:FRINGE view in ArbCom that carriers very little if any weight. Public and civil organizations, that are open to all, generally don't allow such exclusive rights. Wikipedia could lose it's non-profit status. I'll save the details for if the arguments proceed; however, I want to provide advanced notice for contributors to read the Arbcom documentation before proceeding. I would like folks to have a fair hearing; however, there may be less frustration if they look at the precedents. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)


 * Wikipedia could lose it's non-profit status - this is pushing nonsense to new heights William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, It would depend on how "experts" are allowed to harm others by Wikipedia. Any organization that allows it's members to harm others is suspect to civil, if not criminal charges. Best not to define harm, until someone feels harmed. Even better to uphold civility above all else. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's feasible for Wikipedia to define a class of members based on qualifications; however, that's not the real issue in this dispute (it's a straw man to cover for your behavior). I suspect Wikipedia favors growing "newbie" membership (and content) over protecting a "vested" group.  Once a class of "vested" contributors appears, well then POV sets in and it's a pain in ass to deal with vested interests within a non-profit model.  Especially when there are very little paid staff to handle the high maintenance service that vested folks require.  Folks interested in "vesting" members with special rights, would be better off fund-raising or paying memberships fee's to cover their cost for fairly qualifying them as "vested" and enforcing their special rights.   Frankly, it nearly impossible to have a non-vested group (Arbs and Admins) appointing rights to "vest" special users, without going to the Board of Directors.   This is the wrong forum, plan on the long haul and take it to the Board if you want special status. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest that people not respond to this further. There is about a zero percent chance that any action taken on any of these articles will impact the WMF's non-profit status. If anyone had a serious concern about this, as opposed to raising it on the talk page of a workshop page, they'd contact legal. If ArbCom wants to hear more about how these actions might impact the tax status of the foundation, of course, they could communicate with the plebians, who could then present it - but currently, the effects on the tax status are not in the proposed list of issues to be resolved, let alone the final list. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ZP5's point is provocative. If a Wikipedia editor claims special privilege and exemption from WP's policies based on professional or declared expertise in a given subject, and then goes and adds arguably damaging or threatening information to a BLP, does that create a legal problem for the Foundation?  Are there any lawyers here who could comment on this? Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68, legal problems occur when someone complains to the court. I would not like to be the lawyer, or member of an organization that allows defamation.  Best to prevent it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is claiming an exemption from policy. It's more about how we apply policy in nuanced situations. If Donald Kagan gets into a dispute with Randy from Boise about the Peloponnesian War, then we might attach some value to Kagan's expertise and make some extra effort to retain him as an editor, even if he got unpleasant with the tenth or hundredth person to stop by advocating Randy's viewpoint. Of course, we might also ask Kagan to refrain from editing the BLPs of prominent sword-skeleton proponents. MastCell Talk 03:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on that point. I believe at least two editors have stated fairly clearly that they don't believe that the civility policy applies to them when it comes to defending the content of the global warming articles from "morons" and "scientific illiterates."  Those two editors have, among several others, in my opinion, also abused BLP subjects and I think the evidence which should be forthcoming soon will back that up. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be - I haven't followed the entirety of discussion, so without specific diffs I can't comment on what people might have said. Certainly no one should be exempt from following WP:BLP. I was most interested in the general matter: my sense is that people have expressed frustration that civility is being prized over the development and maintenance of high-quality content - that is, people are more readily sanctioned for "incivility" than for consistently degrading article content. That's not quite the same as claiming an exemption from civility; it's more like asking that we re-evaluate how "creation of a serious, respectable reference work" and "in an atmosphere of mutual respect and camaraderie" should interact to achieve the project's goals. MastCell Talk 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is certainly the story that would like to be presented, but it doesn't really sync up with reality. I'm honestly not sure if I should provide evidence to show how badly the encyclopedia articles have suffered since it'd be such a monumental task and I already have too much crap to compile dealing with the various behavioral issues. Perhaps I'll add a bit on that, but it certainly won't be my focus unless the Arbs decide that it should be the main issue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be assured that the Arbitration Committee will be able to resolve this case without taking any action that threatens to harm the Wikimedia Foundation. For what it's worth, the owner of a site that addressed all science-related issues from a purely scientific point of view would be as eligible for non-profit status, assuming it met all the other requirements, as a site owner who chose to address them from a political or religious or popular-cultural or any other point of view, or indeed one that chose to do its best to approach them from a neutral point of view. How best to apply our NPOV norms in the context of this particular subject-matter is an issue that may be addressed in the context of this case, although we would have no authority (nor inclination) to overrule policy by abrogating NPOV itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What SPOV "Expert" rights are being sought?
Well, let's get real then ... Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking? How would their credentials be fairly assessed ... verified and validated and rights maintained? Would they like to sustain an edit after a revert war? Would they like to be immune from PA removal? Would they like to control drafting final RFC findings? Would they like to veto an admin block? Would they like to overrule an arbcom finding? Would they like their vested POV to become Wikipedia's definition of NPOV? Would they like to increase Wikipedia's costs to everone for their new vested services? If Wikipedia charges membership fees, does this affect the non-profit status? How would an abusive "expert" be diciplined? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking? - none. You have completely failed to understand the argument William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to help, with out focusing on me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone could focus you [link added to clarify that I'm quoting ZP5]. OK, let me try again. You are asking what special privs people are asking for? The answer is "none". Is that clear enough? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks (except, if you meant to PA me?) ... should I assume this SPOV stuff folks are concerned about, is a moot and non-actionable point, as far as you are concerned? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the above exchange makes no sense, that is because ZP5 has silently amended his comment. See . That is a violation of the commonly accepted standards of talk page conduct William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for highlighting that WMC - should be enlightening. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

General observation: Please refrain from unnecessary bickering on this page. Oh, and also, on any other page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume from the above comment that you recognise that some bickering is necessary? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also unnecessary wisecracks. However, not to worry, that one was needful, IMHO. YMMV. HTH. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues questions due in under 20 hours
If you've got 'em, put 'em down! ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 05:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

i've struck out questions about Hipocrite and sockpuppetry
Due to his claim that he no longer engages in such behavior. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless deadlines
The page says Within five days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)), participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. However, this deadline has been broken. I asked the clerk if the deadline mean anything, but he declined to comment. Maybe someone here knows William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have no objection to my questions being deleted, if there is a problem with their being late. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions are intended to frame some topics worthy of discussion. In this instance, at least two of the three issues raised in ScottyBerg's questions are things we are obviously going to consider addressing in the final decision, so it's a bit of a moot point whether the questions are removed for being posted after the deadline or not. Everyone, focus primarily on the merits, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that there was an early deadline, is the committee to make use of the assembled points now or soon (i.e. a "long time" before the evidence deadline) to guide presentation of evidence? I assumed that was why was there a separate deadline for the issues issue (pun accidental, really ;-).  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@NYB: that was more of an evasion than an answer, and ignores the proposals by WavePart, which don't fit your characterisation. Let me be specific: have those proposlas missed the deadline or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curious to know which two are obviously going to be considered and the which one isn't. As for the deadline, it's not not clear to me whether this is a "hard" deadline as you find in court, or not. Personally I don't see why it is such a big deal, but I speak as a violator. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbcom has never been good with deadlines, which is due to it being made up of volunteers and not paid workers. No one is getting fired for being late around here.  My interpretation is that Arbcom puts up 'deadlines' to spur people into action rather than as a 'gotcha' for being late.  If you put something in after the deadline you acknowledge the risk of it not being read, but it would be unwise of the Arb's to disallow or remove something based on procedural reasons alone (as in, it was late).  So sneak it in after the deadline if you can and people may see it, just don't think you are intitled to cry foul if no one read it. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair: if you're late, you may be ignored. Hard-and-fast deadlines don't seem appropriate for something like this. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is longstanding ArbCom practice to deduct 7.5 points from the final score for each editor who submits past the deadline. Scotty and WavePart, I'd be very careful not to get in evidence past the deadline, becasue 15 points deducted will just kill your arguments in the final rounds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be made up in the lightning round. Everyone knows the final rounds points are worth triple the previous rounds points, essentially making the first two rounds moot. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except on Tuesdays. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss proposals, not content
A reminder to all editors - the Workshop proposals and discussion are not the place to rehash content discussions over and over again. There have been thousands of bytes added over the past day or so, and while a lot of it has been constructive there has also been a tendency to devolve back into content disputes. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: WMC has violated the terms one of his probations yet again
By collapsing comments he doesn't want people to read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the request in the section just above by the clerk, and indeed the note on your talk page . However, if the clerk is unhappy with my collapse I'm entirely happy for him to revert it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the clerk wanted it collapsed then s(he) is fully capable of doing it. You are well aware of your restriction on deleting, "archiving," collapsing and modifying other people's comments - something you and your friends were so abusive with you actually had to be formally sanctioned for it. And was it you or Bozmo who edit warred to delete comments in a similar situation? Was that the intended outcome this time as well? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sanctions, you were banned from all discussions related to climate change through August 2010 (later reset to October due to ongoing violations). While it seems reasonable to allow you latitude to participate in this case, that latitude isn't intended as a way for you to sidestep your ban and continue to flog your personal viewpoint on climate change. I don't really care whether the discussion in question is collapsed or not, but maybe one or both of you could take the high road? MastCell Talk 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A sanction that was specifically said not to apply to Arbcom. And don't worry MastCell, I'll include a small section for you in my evidence page - there is a long history of you and a couple other admins defending WMC et all. The fact of the matter is that you people keep on bringing up the "science" of global warming as some sort of defense for your behavior and if that is the case then people should know what the science really consists of and that WMC is here just to promote the views of some of his rather controversial friends. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and my only "ongoing violation" was that I responded to Bozmo on a user talk page - I respected that "ban" that 2over0 unilaterally imposed by diff mining/misrepresenting by not posting at any global warming related articles. I get a 3 month ban for a damn user talk post while 2over0 couldn't stand to have WMC blocked for even a single hour. Odd how he did that to several people, not even bringing it to the enforcement page, but never to any non-skeptics whose behavior has been demonstrably much worse. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it at that. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Heavily involved editors should not be collapsing sections of text. If the arbs have a problem with I will remove/rehat text, but what's there is there and it's not for parties to make personal calls on.
 * 2) This is about proposals, not the same, boring content disputes that got everyone here. Don't be boring.
 * 3) Thegoodlocust, there is no need to respond so caustically to MastCell.
 * Thank you. Side note to Thegoodlocust, you really ought to refer to folk by the name or appellations they prefer. If I am not much mistaken (see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats for more) "Connolley", bare, is not a preferred appellation of WMC. It is common courtesy not to do that. "Dr. Connolley" is acceptable. Please extend others the courtesy you expect them to extend to you. You should consider changing the section heading to conform to this request. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So he doesn't like being called William, Will, Bill, or Connolley? He insists upon being addressed as "Doctor Connolley," "WMC" or "William Connolley?" Well, in that case, since I have no plans on calling lawyers or those with PhD's in underwater basketweaving by that title then I'll use the term "WMC." It goes against my beliefs and respect for the medical profession to start calling mathematicians "Doctors." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you come up with a term that works for you and meets requirements. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar pointed you at a page; you could try reading it. I wrote it because I was bored explaining civility to people again and again. My recommendation is to use WMC, because it is simple enough that spelling problems rarely arise; even Lar has fallen victim to this problem above (no, don't bother correct it). And no, I don't have a Ph. D. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I suppose I could "try reading it" and we are all lucky that wikipedia benefits from your fine teachings on civility. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my subissue question on Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Shortly before the deadline, I added a question about Short Brigade Harvester Boris' behavior in my subissues list. I looked into the matter a bit further and didn't find reason to bring this up here. When I put the question up, I had one problematic edit that bothered me a lot and was sure I remembered other problematic edits, but when I looked, I found I was mistaken. It was a question, not an accusation, but it has almost the effect of an accusation, so it shouldn't remain on the page once I've decided I won't be taking it any further. It's now withdrawn. I'm sorry I did that, Boris. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Move proposed final decisions of each editor to a separate page?
I think the workshop page is now about 130 pages long on my browser window. By moving every set of proposed final decisions of each editor to a separate page, things become better readable. Also, one can then use the talk pages of these pages. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I demur that this is too long for the arbitrators to read and consider. Many of the pages are, in fact, the index and the blank boilerplates for other editors.  Nor is this anywhere near the record length for such a page.  Dividing pages up tends to make individual parts almost invisible, alas. Collect (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to collapse irrelevant discussion. See above William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Advance notice of questions
I've just returned from a wikibreak and have been reading through the evidence and workshop proposals for this case (and the other open case). I intend to comment on the evidence talk page, and on the workshop page for this case this week, and I also intend to pose some questions for some parties and others in the 'Questions to the parties' section, so I'm posting a notice here so that: (a) this is not totally unexpected; (b) so people can note here whether they will be around this week (there is a holiday weekend coming up in the US); and (c) so that people can discuss how such questions should be handled (this section of cases is rarely used, but I would like to use it in this case). If I ask anyone a direct question (as opposed to a general question directed at anyone who wants to answer) I'll drop a note on their talk page, though it will still be a day or two until I get to that stage. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt you'll have any questions for me, but I may be busy with a funeral/funeral preparations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. If I do have any questions for you directly, I'll leave those until later, though I'm going to comment on the workshop now and may comment on some of what you and others have said there, but that is not something that needs direct responses. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the person is question has been in surgery since 11 this morning (some sort of infection in/around the heart) and they've had to replace two valves so far. I've been a bit busy helping out with various logistical details and if he suddenly dies then I expect my time here will be severely limited. Hoping for the best though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

General thoughts
The primary problem here seems to me to be one of sources and the competence and collegiality of editors when discussing and interpreting sources and writing articles based on those sources. This problem was then magnified when administrators started disagreeing over what to do to try and help produce a productive editing environment. I don't think ArbCom should rule on the fundamental competence of editors (though some way of addressing that is needed). What ArbCom can do is address editors who fail to use sources properly, who fail to work productively with others, who disrupt article editing, and who disrupt attempts by admins to carry out administrative actions, and ArbCom can also address admins who misuse their administrative tools, or take a wrong-headed approach to administrating in such an area. Beyond that, what is needed is a mixture of editors of varying levels of competency and skills who are prepared to recognise their limitations and the skills of others and work together on articles in an atmosphere of mutual respect. In my view, what is needed here is to identify the editors and admins that depart from the standards needed here, to firmly remove them from the area for a time, and allow those editors who are prepared to work with others, and to use sources properly, to work on the articles. In addition, there is a need to identify the admins that will firmly and fairly help enforce a productive editing environment (and firmly remove from this area admins that are not helping that process). The only problem being whether any editors or admins will be left standing at the end of such a review. This gives rise to my first general question, which is do any of those participating in this case intend to change their approach based on the discussions that have taken place so far, and if so in what way, and if not why not? Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not sure how bad this will sound, but my basic plan is to either move on and not edit these articles again if I feel the environment is going to remain the same (e.g. more time spent arguing than content-work) or, if the situation changes, I'll work on some of the problems I feel need to be addressed. I've basically avoided most of the scientific global warming articles, but I feel they should sound less like activist literature and explain clearly the key mechanisms of the theory that are currently marginalized and obfuscated - namely, that the catastrophic models are based entirely on theoretical "positive feedback" effects. Personally, I think the track records of past models should be explained somewhere (perhaps they are?), but I doubt there would be consensus for such information and it probably shouldn't be in the main global warming article (perhaps in an article about climate models though). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I intend to focus strongly on saying things once and not responding when merely told that I'm wrong. My failure is consistently getting into back-and-forths that merely provide ammunition against me. Instead of responding to things I think are people going right over the line, I'm going to refer all over-the-line comments to appropriate noticeboards, and stop responding when it becomes clear I'm just being baited. Further, I'm not going to even acknowledge the existence of the scores sockpuppets - instead, I'll leave articles till the sockpuppetry problem is fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. In reviewing WP:BATTLE I found I occasionally drift into some of that behavior, which bothers me. In reviewing some of the diffs and past discussions while hunting for diffs, I found some editors responded with much more restraint to bad behavior than others, and I found that inspiring. I take your comment about "any editors or admins will be left standing" was just rhetorical. The political issues and controversies about climate change are big and heated, with a lot of division in public opinion, so people are going to continue to come to Wikipedia and will try their hand at editing the articles, and you will have the same problems down the line. 2/0 has offered some ideas on systemic solutions. They need to be looked at carefully. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC) rewrote a sentence to make it readable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will probably walk away from adminning the area, following the conclusion of this case, regardless if there is a version of Enforcement request retained or not. I was volunteered into it, took it on, and will carry on working the enforcement pages until the case concludes. I am quite proud of my efforts in this matter, I have enjoyed the challenges, and think I helped improve the situation that was prevailing. Obviously, for various reasons the probation did not succeed in the manner it was hoped. I think I have served my time in this area, and will leave the next group of volunteer syops a clean sheet from which to admin whatever this case concludes is the best method of regulating the volunteers choosing to edit these articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not actually involved in Climate Change as a topic, as I was dragged in by the Lar RFC/U. So - no changes here. Collect (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that's true? . Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Typical remedies
This is a posting of stuff I wrote for a section in the workshop that was a bit off-topic and generalised, so posting it here instead. "[More likely is] a finding saying saying 'Editor X is messing with the scientific consensus in climate change articles' followed by a remedy saying 'Editor X is topic/site banned for his or her conduct' is more likely. Ditto for stuff like 'Editor Y is failing to work with others and is contributing to a poor editing environment in climate change articles' followed by 'Editor Y is topic/site banned for his or her conduct'. The question of what to do with admins who have been contributing to the poor editing atmosphere is more difficult. Risker noted (in the opening comments to the case) that traditionally admins are desysopped if their judgment is found wanting, as topic banning them leaves them a lame duck unable to convincingly act in other areas (as people will question their judgment). I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, as we want admins to get involved in this area without fear of being sucked in and desysopped if they crack under the strain." Thanks to those who have posted above so far. I will try and post some general questions today or tomorrow, in the actual question section of the workshop page (answers get a bit lost on this page). Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gargantuan size of the Workshop page
It's at 337K now, and we've barely begun. I can't believe it won't top 1 million within the next seven days, and it won't stop growing then. It will become difficult, then next to impossible to download or figure out where new comments are. Asking editors to keep down the size of their posts and avoid unnecessary comments is ... a fine aspiration unlikely to be realized here. (I'll try to do my part.)

We might split the page, with all content-related posts on a new page and the more usual, traditional behavior-oriented posts on this page. I think that reflects a deep, wide chasm in the subject matter, and behavior-oriented comments and sections are unlikely to reference the content-oriented ones and vice versa, so this would likely be the least disruptive way to split the monster. The longer we wait, the harder it will be; a week from now, I think we'll all be glad we'd done it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps look at the beam in your own eye and consider if some of your rather long comments could be condensed or hatted William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, William M. Connolley, I got them beams covered. But, hey, thanks for the helpful comment. You really don't seem to believe you have a problem with WP:BATTLE, do you? (I don't think hatting will solve the enormity problem. Condensation? I'll think about it.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another beam William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We could also split by /Principles, /Remedies, and /Enforcemet, though that might create difficulties with referring to Remedy E follows Principle Q leads to Enforcement H and is supported by /Evidence. That page is a bit on the long side, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not likely that splitting a 1 MB page into two 500 kB or four 250 kB pages will make things any easier. It might even make things worse, by having the material more fragmented. The problem is not the length of any individual page but the total mass of verbiage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The sub-issues section could be usefully split off to a subpage and the talk page of that subpage used to discuss which sub-issues are relevant or will be considered by ArbCom. I don't want to tread too much on the toes of the clerks (though I did collapse one bit of clearly off-topic workshop discussion, and will collapse more as I find it) so maybe someone could point the case clerk towards what I've said here? In general, issues of keeping the pages under control is something for the clerks to deal with, so please do ask them to weigh in here and help keep things manageable. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amusingly, that is exactly the section I collapsed before and which the clerk decided was better left uncollapsed. Hopefully he will respect your action William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the clerk told you that if there was any collapsing needed they would do it. And I thought your past behaviour had put you on some kind of restriction about messing with other peoples posts, which is a second reason not to let you specifically collapse things. If Carcharoth wants to not step on the clerks toes, a good starting point would be not to step on their toes to basically revert an administrative act already made. A good starting point would have been to have read the various discussions so as to know that this had already been done - unless that was the specific intention, to overrule the clerk. I hope Carcharoth has a more good faith explanation than this. Another way to avoid toe stepping would be to discuss reverting the clerks actions with them, rather than reverting their actions and then telling anyone who will listen that they should go tell the clerk. Is Carcharoth an admin or a mouse? If he believes the clerk isn't doing their job he should discuss that with them, not just take over their job, revert their actions, not discuss anything and avoid direct contact by the use of proxies. Weakopedia (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weakopedia, as a Clerk I serve and aid the Committee, plain and simple. If Carcharoth wants something done, it might be a nicety to have me do it instead, but at times a bureaucratic nicety.  Moreover, as an arbitrator Carcharoth is in a better position to say when things go off-topic.  I already established on this very page that [h]eavily involved editors should not be collapsing sections of text, which is why I unhatted it.  Carcharoth is entirely in the right here, and intimation otherwise is not helpful. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I agree with you both - he was right to say that you should "weigh in here and help keep things manageable", and it's a shame that you haven't. Weakopedia (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a good idea - I've done it since there's really no need for anyone to be posting there. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point
It looks like people have missed my point. So I'd better expand it. LHVU wrote:


 * 1) The scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently applied throughout Wikipedia, being well sourced and referenced.

but followed it up with a BUT:


 * 2) The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated

So LHVU's POV (which, it is now clear, he has been using his "uninvolved" admin position to push through the probation) is that while the consensus view is well represented the non-consensus position isn't. I disagree with him, and hence wrote:


 * 1) The science in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently reported throughout Wikipedia, being well sourced and referenced.

Which is to say, asserting that the coverage of all aspects, both consensus, non-consensus, and not being affected by either, is well covered. I personally think this is true; you might disagree; that is all right. However, notice the odd asymmetry of response from C:


 * Seems a bit pointless. This sort of accolade should be attained through Wikipedia's review processes, not through ArbCom. It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not... (etc etc)
 * Needs rewording, but something like this could introduce the decision

Can you see the consistency failure there? Guess which is a response to LHVU and which to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * C (and I cannot recall how to spell the name, also) was not so well inclined to my proposal which you note under the BUT heading, the point being that neither of our proposals in regard to the reporting of the denialist viewpoint is sufficient in the opinion of that admin. Perhaps that one Arb's viewpoint is somewhere in the middle, or favouring one or other - we cannot know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a simpler explanation, which is that WMC has picked up on an inconsistency in what I said (and I thank him for that). I've looked over what I've said so far on the workshop page, and it seems that the Needs rewording, but something like this could introduce the decision comment I made is the only inconsistent bit, so I will retract that and replace it with something that is more consistent with what I said elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You've now removed the inconsistency, which is good, thanks. I still disagree with your argument, though: you can indeed tell something useful from the fact that the pages are good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This case will likely resolve nothing, because the deadlines were too tight.
The fifteen days given for evidence just happened to be extremely busy for me in real life, and I know of at least one other editor who has been on vacation for most of the evidence period. I tried to find time to collect, filter and present the mountain of evidence that is relevant to this case, but there wasn't enough time. For a case of this magnitude, involving more than a dozen parties and covering several years of conflict, a deadline of 15 days is much too short.

I respect the reasons for trying to limit the size of this case, but I think the evidence time limit was too tight, and as a result, much will not be presented and will have to be dealt with in another case. ATren (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, they asked us to provide evidence but didn't tell us what issues they were looking to address. I agree, this problem has been going on for years.  Who has that much free time on their hands to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree about the lack of time, but, given the "preventative, not punitive" approach, what good would 3 year old evidence be? If there is no current problem, no action is needed. If there is a current problem, there should be plenty of current evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Historical evidence is necessary for establishing a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. It also plays a role in determining the root cause of these disputes, some of which have been raging for years. It would also help to disarm the argument that recent conflict is due to recent outside influences. ATren (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is not enough recent evidence then it is not a current problem. Also in many instances such as BLP, sourcing etc. wikipedia was playing by different rules 3 years ago. It is just not helpful to examine old diffs in most of the circuimstances I can see in this case. With the length of evidence consideration this stuff is at best clutter but more likely it will smoke screen what is really happening now. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you complaining *now*. You were clearly notified of the case rules when the case was opened. Complaining that the rules are being followed isn't good. @AQFK: if you really have to troll back years, then you have a problem. If you really can't find anything juicy prior to, say, the opening of the probation, then that should tell you that the problems you're worried about have gone away William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC: I didn't say that there wasn't enough evidence. Quite the opposite, there's too much sift through.   Even going through a very recent article such as the Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy has 34 pages of archives.  And that's just one article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when you said Who has that much free time on their hands to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years? I assumed you were hoping to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years. I apologise for my misunderstanding, looking at your comment now I still can't quite see how I managed to misunderstand you. However, the essential point remains: it is too late to complain *now*: you had plently of notice of the deadlines William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC: This is my first ArbCom case I've been involved in. I have no experience in these proceedings and don't know what to expect.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC is right - this case will be happening regardless, and that makes this a fruitless discussion. ATren, the Committee will be soliciting opinions after the case about the procedures, so that would be a good time/place to bring this up. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I will take this case off my watchlist, and start preparing for the next CC case, which seems inevitable. ATren (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from the tight deadlines, I suspect that the Committee, or at least one or two of its members, already have an idea of the remedy that they're going to suggest to close this case. They can correct me if I'm wrong.  Until they do so, I would suggest that everyone can keep adding relevant evidence until told to stop by an Arbitrator.  Cla68 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jimbo told us what the decision was going to be three months ago; we're just going through the motions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the 15-day deadline too, which I didn't realize was in place until it was almost over. I was hoping to put up evidence of inappropriate BLP editing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try reading the messages that people post to you . Or, you could read the clarification noting that you have until the 7th William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the Arbitration Committee has not objected to relevant evidence. But if a case depends crucially on someone trawling through hundreds of thousands of edits to find something relevant, presumably those who believe the case exists must already have done most of the work by reading those highly relevant edits, and must therefore easily be able to find them.

I wasn't aware of the deadline either, but I don't think the Committee is composed of fools so I haven't bothered to submit any diffs. This is for the same reason that I no longer edit the articles and only comment on them to note egregious errors that I am sure can be resolved without controversy. So far I seem to be hitting .400. It's good to be able to contribute to this subject without upsetting people. That's all I ever wanted.

The science is well established and, according to prominent scientists who have been consulted, well represented on Wikipedia. Whatever happens in this case, it will continue to represent the science accurately, else Wikipedia would have dropped the ball for the first time since its inception. That's all I care about. I don't care who does the editing as long as the science is correctly represented in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. I would not give a fig for an encyclopedia that failed to represent the science correctly.

Obviously the Committee already realises how important it is that we continuue to represent science accurately on Wikipedia, but I still think it's worth saying here this time and a couple of times more. The Committee knows how to deal with behavioral issues, where those issues are beyond the community's ability to handle them, and the Committee may also be able to provide some clarification of Wikipedia's policies that will make things better going forward. --TS 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just became aware of the deadline issue myself. I don't know to what extent, if at all, I would contribute evidence etc., but myself and am sure quite a few other editors have been away, this being the July 4th holiday in the U.S. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of "Evidence about Hipocrite and a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere"
JWB's "analysis" in the abovenamed section is an abuse of the "analysis of evidence" section; it merely introduces more evidence, apparently in an attempt to evade the evidence limits. I request that it be removed William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not in our hands to decide, but solely up to the committee to decide how to weigh evidence. Collect (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the correct place to put requests to the arbs / clerks. That is what I've done. If you have nothing to say, please don't say it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. Not perfect, but fine. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From this point forward, I am going to ignore comments from William M. Connolley that are obviously time-wasting posts equivalent to arguing about angels on the head of a pin and obviously not meant to be helpful. If any ArbCom member thinks it would be useful for me to answer any of William M. Connolley's comments that I've ignored, I'd be happy to do so. If anyone else thinks it would be useful, tell me on my talk page and I might answer there in a very bland way. I find that I'm tense about some of the evidence because it brings up bad memories (I don't know how I'd get through this if I had to go through the crap that Lar and some others have gone through). When it comes to William M. Connolley, I find it almost impossible to avoid pulling out the loose threads in his comments and unravel them in a teasing way, partly because it provides me with some comic relief. At first, this seemed useful in pointing out to William M. Connolley that he might want to apply his statements about others to himself, or to deflect his rudeness in a funny way. But after a while, I can't really justify it, and if I respond, I can't really avoid teasing him, which I'm realizing is probably not productive and possibly harmful, so I think this is the best way to avoid temptation. All good fun has to come to an end sometime. I'm not even asking that William M. Connolley stop his comments, but I am asking that arbs make note of them and consider what this says about his attitude. I will say this about his comment above: If William M. Connolley is concerned about evading evidence limits, such as, say, the 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC) deadline, he doesn't have far to look. There, now I'm done. Cold turkey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes your bad faith and battleground mentality perfectly plain, so I can thank you for that, at least William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by drafting arbitrators
The arbitrators thank the editors who have posted issues for consideration, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case. We are carefully reviewing everything that has been submitted. It will not be possible for us to determine which of the issues identified by various editors can be addressed in the final decision, until we have reviewed the evidence submitted. Therefore, editors should continue to address those issues within the scope of this case that they feel should be discussed in the committee's findings and remedies. Also note, some key issues brought up in the three RFARs that resulted in this case have had little on no evidence thus far presented. Arbitrators will be preparing a draft decision in the near future. However, some of the arbitrators will have little or no availability for the next few days because of the holiday weekend in the United States. Because of this, and because at least one editor appears to have held off on posting evidence in the expectation that we would be selecting the issues to address in advance of the evidence (and our instructions may not have been clear in this regard), the time for editors to post additional evidence or workshop proposals is extended through 1159 on Wednesday, July 7. No further extensions should be expected.

This is being posted on the evidence and workshop talk pages.

Proceed accordingly.
 * For the committee's drafting arbitrators,  — Rlevse • Talk  • 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re evidence relating to matters raised in one of the various RfAR's which instigated this case, but not presently addressed, rather than every participant evidencing their comments made there could it be made clear which issues the Arbs have in mind? This would allow those commentators and any other party with a view to that issue addressing them over the next few days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than lots on WMC and a little on Polargeo, there's little evidence on the personal conduct of editors who regularly edit this area. If we find other areas worth mentioning here, we will.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a great deal of mud, far too much to respond to in any detail. If you could note some of the diffs which you consider credible, I'll deal with those William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the things that strikes me is how nebulous this whole process is. A general topic is advanced, "climate change," and editors are given no guidance as to what the committee is focusing on. At some point the committee should say, "we'd like to hear on subjects X, Y and Z." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have provided some evidence on other editors in addition to WMC. If the Committee needs more, the evidence deadline would need to be extended again. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting others' evidence/comments
I assume (hope) this was accidental and leave it for the clerks to handle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably accidental. Here was my response: "FWIW, I do not edit in science articles.  Indeed, the overwhelming number of my edits are related to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy which at best is only tangentially related to actual science." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um ...??? Click the diff. Your comments weren't involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the original query has been dealt with. Thread finished. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)