Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of FoFs2

Proposed findings of fact

F15 Minor4th

I have seen that a FoF was added about me regarding disruptive behavior and incivility. I have not had a chance to look at the diffs yet, but I will generally say that I cannot disagree that there have been times my editing contributed to an already contentious and battleground-y atmosphere. I also cannot disagree that there are comments that I have made that could well be considered uncivil or snarky or just could have been phrased more politely. So, without having looked at the diffs, I really cannot take issue with the finding.

That being said, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of overall resolution of this case -- I am nowhere near the top of this list on the issues of disruption and incivility. In that regard, I would hope that there are going to be several additional findings about several additional editors whose behavior also has been disruptive and uncivil to a greater extent and over a much longer timespan than mine. I will give this some time to play out and may add some proposals about other editors to include. Also, I will accept whatever remedy is imposed on me without quarrel, so long as similar remedies are imposed on similar editors. Minor4th 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The finding number on ATren's section is F24 and needs to be changed below. I don't want to do that myself since I have been warned about changing headers and hatting comments. Minor4th 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As I read it right now, ATren is #23 and this one is #22, so I've just changed the title to this section accordingly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This is what's showing for me:

3.2.23 Minor4th disruptive behavior-- Roger Davies ^talk 12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

3.2.24 ATren disruptive behavior

3.2.25 Hipocrite disruptive behavior

3.2.26 Cla68 disruptive behavio

Minor4th 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What seems to count is not what's said in the table of contents on that page (the numbering of which can change if they decide to add a section up top), but the numbering just under the title of each subsection (which, I think, never changes): "22) Minor4th (talk · contribs) has engaged in [...]" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs

1. [1] - this diff was cited for "edit warring". This is pretty thin. This was a subsection I started, it was initially about ScienceApologist, but then Connolley reverted the redirect, so I added his name to the heading [2] with edit summary: Add WMC to heading because he also redirect-warred the article out of existence again. *Kat* (talk · contribs) changed the heading, removing WMC from the heading and the word "malicious" [3] with edit summary: restoring original name to section. I reverted one time which I thought was fine since it was a section I started and named: [4]. I do not think one revert, especially under these circumstances, can be accurately called "edit warring."
2. [5] - this diff was also cited for edit warring, but this edit was clean up of an edit that I had already made that ended up leaving the same text in two different sections. This was not even part of an ongoing revert war, it was simply an edit improving the article. I don't understand why this is included here. This is not edit warring.
3. [6] - This was not a revert. I moved text from one section to a more appropriate section with edit summary: an article retraction is not "career" - it's criticism or "views". I did not add or remove content -- I simply moved it from one section to another. At that point I joined the ongoing discussion on the talk page with this comment: "I agree on both counts. It's questionable whether this pachauri bit is even notable enough to include in this BLP - it is very thinly sourced and not widely reported. Plus, there are large unsourced portions of this BLP. I am going to watch this for a couple of days and anyone who wants content to remain in this article, please source it to reliable sources (something other than a Monbiot op-ed ...it's gotten to the point that Monbiot's activist opinions are now scattered throughout many skeptic BLP's). Otherwise, i'm goimg to start removing unsourced content in a couple of days per BLP policy." I do not see how this is edit warring or disruptive. I had one revert, the other editor had two and discussion on the talk page settled the matter in a way that improved the article in a manner that was not substantially similar to either of our edits. The other editor has not been mentioned in the findings.
4. [7], [8] -- this is unrelated to the CC topic area. This diff requires some back story. This was shortly after the findings about WMC and mark nutley were posted. WMC was following mark nutley around on three different articles about books -- this particular book has nothing to do with the CC topic area. WMC was systematically reverting out sourced book reviews on all three articles created by mark nutley, without discussion on the talk page. On this particular article, I warned both mark and WMC for revert warring and took discussion to the talk page. What followed was not a revert war but a slow reworking of the section, rewording, paring down, etc. This is probably the closest WMC and I have come to collaborative editing. To the extent that I made a revert in the middle of an ongoing revert war, I can see how this can be considered edit warring. In that case, these diffs should be added to WMC's findings or an additional finding about his disruptive editing should be added.
5. [9] - cited for edit warring. mark nutley and WMC had been revert warring. I restored the sourced book reviews and warned both of them, edit summary: restore sourced content, article is being expanded, William C. Connolley and mark nutley warned about revert warring. I was trying to help the situation and get them both to calm down, and I don't think this should be considered edit warring. Again, this article is not related to the CC topic area.
6. [10] , [11]-- same incident, two reverts. This was part of WMC reverting 3 articles about books that mark nutley had created -- they were revert warring and I did get in the middle of it. I did go to the talk page as well to discuss. I'd like to point out also that this is not my typical editing pattern, while it is WMC's and mark nutley's typical editing pattern. I think it's important to look at the underlying behavior as well -- WMC, following mark from article to article and removing sourced content without explanation. I'll take my licks on this on for edit warring though.
7. [12] - cited for incivility and battleground editing. I was mad, and I was upset because I thought mark nutley was being targeted and treated unfairly after spending a great deal of time working on a large sourced article. I still do believe that the redirects were improper and it was the redirects that were the contributors to battleground atmosphere, but I accept that this could have been stated better and did not help the battleground atmosphere.
8. [13] ScienceApologist redirected a brand new article created by mark nutley, without edit summary or discussion or any attempt to contact mark nutley. I do not think my edit summary or comment on SA's talk page was incivil or battleground-y. SA seemed to understand that as well and did not act further on the article. See talk page discussion which was good natured and civil between me and SA: [14].
9. [15] - discussion on Arb talk page about locus of dispute. I stand by my statement there, and don't see how that is promoting a battleground atmosphere. I believe it is accurate, and I wanted it to be considered by Arb. I thought Carc's comment would have been a great comment in any other context, but it did assume good faith where I think such an assumption was missing part of the problem. There were many similar comments by other editors in the course of that discussion. I am not seeing the problem with that comment in particular.
10. [16] -- this was uncivil, I agree. It's important to see what I was responding too though -- ChrisO taking shots at me and saying I was too new an editor and wasn't qualified to comment on socking.

(I will continue to address the diffs shortly) Minor4th 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th 00:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would like to note also that I have not ever been taken to the enforcement board or blocked for edit warring or incivility. I have never had any sanctions or request for sanctions against me since I've been editing in this topic area. I didn't start editing in this area until the evidence was already closed in this case. Also I'd like to point out that all of the diffs cited took place on one of four days (8/26, 8/27, 8/30 and 9/7) over a period of only a few days: August 26 - September 7. That should be considered when remedies are handed down. Minor4th 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• On a slightly different note, I would like the Arbs to consider that I have been instrumental in consensus building as well and have helped de-escalate the battlefield environment, as seen here: [17] -- behavior to which ScienceApologist responded This is incredibly magnanimous, and a comment on my talk page [18]: For being brave enough to change your mind in the midst of the most acrimonious editing environment I've encountered in two years at Watts Up With That?, I award you this barnstar as well as a comment from Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) [19]: Well deserved. We need more good examples like yours. I understand that good behavior does not negate bad behavior, but in the overall context of editing within this topic area, I do not want to be thought of as only promoting battleground mentality because I have been helpful also. Minor4th 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• I was also not mentioned in any of the evidence, and this does seem rather out of the blue. Minor4th 04:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The only diff I'm going to comment on here is the first, since for the rest, you seem to generally agree you did it, but have an excuse (which would be perfectly acceptable if the behavior had stopped). You reverted the removal of a personal attack from your heading and hatted a section you didn't like on a case page for goodness sake. The action was completely over the top and, I feel, a good example that you don't realize how far outside the norm your behavior has strayed. On another note, if you find yourself reverting things you don't like on a fairly regular basis, "but I only reverted once" won't hold much water. Shell ^babelfish 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not generally agree with the rest of the diffs except the first one. There were a number that I did not think should be included for what they are cited for. Please comment on those. Minor4th 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In response, I know this page is getting overwhelming, but I hope you do get to consider the following:

1. First, the behavior has stopped. Since I spoke with you about this privately, the only editing I have done at all is to respond here and a message on your talk page. I have not edited article space or article talk pages. I told you that I would take it to heart, and I have.
2. My purpose in reverting the heading was to include WMC's name because the other editor had removed it. I do not think it's a personal attack to describe editor behavior in negative terms -- as opposed to commenting on the editor himself. Failure to assume good faith? Sure, you bet. But calling a redirect "malicious" -- I do not agree that is a personal attack. This is a personal attack: [20] (but not finding for this editor .. yet)
3. Regarding hatting -- I don't think the hatting was in the diffs. I had seen Tony Sidaway do the same thing a number of times on this page, and another editor as well (Sphilbrick maybe?) I was doing what I had seen other editors do, and did not know there was anything wrong with it. Again, this is something I would never consider doing in any other area of Wiki, but it is commonplace within the CC topic area and I was following what appeared to be protocol in this area.
4. On the reverts, it's not my typcial editing pattern, and I have no intention of continuing. I have no problem with your finding, but if those diffs support a finding for me, then they support a finding for William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), Rd232 (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) -- the editors who were engaged with me in those instances. I will look for those findings when you have finished your work.
5. As far as making excuses -- I am presenting an explanation where I think it is warranted because context is important. I'm not calling anyone Fathead or making a "hitlist" in my user space over it. I can't really argue too much about most of it, I just hope that there will likewise be findings for the scores of editors who have been editing here longer than a month and have more compelling diffs. I applaud your approach and hope that it goes far enough -- if I'm' swept up in the apocalypse, so be it.

Minor4th 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said "has stopped", I meant something more along the lines of "stopped some time ago" rather then "stopped just recently". It's quite possible that you've recognized the problem and will have no further issues - we should be able to see that as time goes on but that doesn't change what has happened. While I certainly won't dispute that your actions could have been much worse, that's not really a positive thing. Labeling another editor's actions as "malicious" is inappropriate at best; it's always important to comment on the changes themselves rather than attribute motives to editors (which you can't really know). I'm sure this will be a learning experience for many editors and I hope that you'll find editing in less controversial areas of the project have a much different atmosphere. Shell ^babelfish 12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read these comments much more thoroughly, because I think you've missed the mark. Minor4th is at most, a minor player in all this. Further, I think you are penalizing those who are willing to admit they are imperfect rather than engaging in a full press defense by denying all wrongdoing, or worse, being sarcastic and snarky to those presenting material instead of working to understand what the issues are. (I can provide examples if you actually need them). ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Shell - I was just responding to your comment that the "excuses" would be fine if the behavior had stopped -- it has stopped. It would be impossible for it to have "stopped some time ago" since I have only been editing in this area for the last month, and all of your diffs are from the last week. In no manner can it be said that I have been persistently disruptive over a longer period of time. For one week I had a battleground frame of mind, at most. Since I edited elsewhere prior to the last month, I'm well aware that there is a very different atmosphere on the rest of wiki -- I have made that point a number of times. Maybe my approach is lacking -- perhaps I should let loose a string of invective or call someone a Fathead. Minor4th 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that you were so quickly drawn into the same unproductive mentality is actually a very good point and hits at the root of what's become the problem in the topic area. Remember, these are findings, a note that this or that happened - why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again is what we hope to address with remedies. Shell ^babelfish 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talking. I agree. It is the only way to edit in this topic area, and if you want it to change, there need to be sweeping remedies. Minor4th 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F16 ATren

(originally posted on Shell's talk, moved here).

I've never received a single sanction or block for my behavior. I had I think 2 RFEs filed against me, one was closed at a clear retaliation filing, and one was closed almost immediately with a mild warning from Lar. The latter RFE (my only formal admonishment whatsoever) was after a brief outburst of anger and I immediately took Lar's advice to cease. Other than that, I've received not a single admonishment or sanction, my behavior was never discussed anywhere (no AN/I or RFC), and furthermore I was one of the few who backed out of this topic area completely when the case dragged on -- and I remain disengaged from the content to this day -- yet despite all that my behavior now rises to the level of arbitration finding?

In the last 6 months, I have witnessed half a dozen editors piling on Lar for what they perceived as bias, most of whom are not mentioned in the findings, certainly not "disruption". Stephen Schulz once joked that bias should be measured in "millilars" because a single "Lar" unit of bias was a cosmological-scale constant. In the RFC on Lar there were dozens of diffs showing several editors attacking Lar with snide remarks and vague allegations of bias.

On the other hand, my questioning of 2/0 (and others) raised real concerns about their unevenness in the enforcement requests, which I am more than willing to support with evidence, if requested. I was stating my concerns, plainly and civilly. They responded to my concerns so I didn't pursue further. I do not understand how any of that rises to the level of disruption, and if it does, then why aren't a dozen other editors contained in your findings? Perhaps you can be more specific about those diffs, what was problematic, and if they were, why others are not subject to a finding for worse behavior?

I would like to ask the arbitrators, what was I supposed to do in a situation where I witnessed bias on the part of admins? I went to the admin's talk page, listed my concerns politely but firmly, and they responded. It was over at that point. If I had followed up with an RFE or RFC or some other formal mechanism, they would have accused me of forum shopping, or of beating a dead horse. Similarly, if I had tried RFC without approaching the admin first, I'd be told to resolve it personally first. Was my only option to do nothing? By going to their talk pages I'd hoped to resolve with the admin directly and avoid filing formal complaints; isn't this what you're supposed to do? It seems I'm being found disruptive for doing exactly what is recommended when there is a dispute about an editor's or admin's actions.

Furthermore, this action is the first indication that my actions were under scrutiny by the committee, and it comes in the 11th hour of the case. If I'd had any indication this was coming I would have prepared an explanation for my actions. This case could wrap up in days, before I've even had a chance to respond. ATren (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said in a few other places, there are more individual findings coming so please bear with us for a bit. There is not going to be a rush to close the case directly after a swath of new findings, a couple of principles and maybe some remedies are added. Lack of prior warnings, blocks etc. will certainly be taken into account when remedies are being discussed, however, that doesn't change the fact that many comments in this topic area have degenerated into incivility and show a clear "us against them" mentality. We've been begged to do more to address the problem and add individual findings; you may also have seen Roger's addition that further addresses the editing atmosphere.

Take a deep breath and look at the diffs - if there's any you'd like to specifically discuss because you don't think it's incivil or battlegroundish (is that a word?), there's bunches of ways to contact me listed on my talk page. I've also double-checked and you were specifically mentioned in evidence and on the workshop, so this isn't quite out of the blue. Please don't take this as an indication that anyone else is being given a pass - give it a day or two and if you think anyone is still missing, let us know. I'm also not opposed to very brief, very diff heavy messages if you think something is being overlooked. Shell ^babelfish 11:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell, those diffs (which were spread out over several months) were comments made in response to specific issues I had with uneven enforcement. In particular, at the time of some of my comments, 2/0 had banned an editor who had just arrived to this topic area and had only a handful of edits; while, at the same time, he defended another editor after an RFE containing about twenty diffs documenting a long pattern of disruption which was far worse than what 2/0 had sanctioned others for. The only difference was their editing perspective: the former editor (and, indeed, all editors whom 2/0 had banned to that point) was arguing against the status quo, while the latter editor was WMC. This, to me, was an obvious case of uneven enforcement, and it came very early in the enforcement regime. The mere act of questioning patterns of admin behavior when those admins appear to be exhibiting enforcement bias is not disruptive -- it is, in fact, the admin equivalent of questioning whether an editor was editing with a POV before filing an RFC on that editor.

If I have time I will be addressing each individual diff in detail this weekend. ATren (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell, the issue here is that you're starting in the middle (with Minor4th) or the bottom (with ATren) of the list. You should be starting with the most disruptive editors, the people with long histories of snide commentary, of gaming 3RR, of article ownership, of tendentious argument. Starting this way may not be the best approach. Especially not with ATren who has been a voice of reason in this area. Up your credibility by making your next list entries be some of the really problematic editors. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's rather silly but if it helps, preface my comments with "In no particular order"... Shell ^babelfish 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. Start with the most egregious. That will cut the dramah. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

At lot has to do with what evidence was already presented during the case that can be brought together. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable trying to rank editors in terms of "worst behavior". Please see the new section and feel free to pitch in. Shell ^babelfish 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence was presented during the case on folk you have yet to add, while you dug up new evidence on others, that suggests that perhaps you didn't quite exactly mean what you just said. Also, I don't expect you to come up with a perfect rank ordering, but when you miss major players and focus on minor ones first it's a recipe for dramah. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through the ATren diffs on the PD page. For the life of me, I can't figure out how any of the diffs support the finding. I'd appreciate an explanation of some sort as to how WP:DISRUPT, WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLEGROUND are violated in those diffs. An explanation of how this rises to a level worthy of an ArbCom finding would also be in order. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, I found today that Atren has just edit warred to reintroduce a defamatory and partially unsourced statement s/he'd added on 3 August to a BLP,[21] and appeared then to think that the statement was justified because some other BIOs included criticism.[22] Having removed the questionable paragraph, I've pointed out problems with it and with Atren's approach.[23] . . dave souza, talk 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F18 Cla68 disruptive behavior

This diff [24] (the meat of it: Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles. ) doesn't seem worthy of notice, even in combination with other diffs, as one of the "comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I don't see how you can label that edit as some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:NPA or, frankly, even WP:CIV violation. It's a general statement about the behavior of a group of editors on an ArbCom CC case page where there is evidence against editors for behavior associated with his statement. If that's some kind of policy violation, probably nearly all editors who have commented on the CC case are guilty in the same way. If there's a case to be made against Cla68, you must be able to find a better diff than that. I think Cla68 can provide diffs that back up that statement, which names no names and uses the word "often". This diff [25] (is this the objectionable part? the evidence shows in this case, WMC will do just about anything to win an argument, including attacking the BLPs of critics of his colleagues at RealClimate.) seems like small potatoes. WMC had the temerity (with Tony Sidaway) to try to close an AfD I'd just started and was only stopped when I took the matter to AN/I. I call that doing just about anything to win an argument and there are so many other examples that the phrase is obviously justified. It's better for ArbCom's own standing not to hammer editors with evidence that either doesn't hold up or is too weak to justify ArbCom attention. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment on WMC was incivil and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I don't think it's helpful to defend it. The diffs cited are all too typical. There needs to be accountability. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been many that complained that the PD as first proposed didn't go far enough in addressing the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I consider it commendable that arbcom listened to the input and decided to consider further findings. I think that it is extremely important that everyone be aware as to what the core problem actually is. IMHO, it is a lack of good faith. IMHO, this is the primary issue that has lead to the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I agree with the diffs and the proposed finding regarding Cla68. Treating others with respect as individuals, assuming good faith, I believe will naturally lead to the kind of editing environment that everyone wants. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@ both Scotty and Bill -- if Cla68 has the evidence to back up what he says, and if it's said in connection with discussing this case on a proper page, it's impossible to call it a WP:AGF violation (no assumptions involved) or battleground behavior. We're supposed to bring complaints to dispute resolution forums and discuss them there and be able to cite evidence for what we say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the new findings in general: Any editor who genuinely thinks that lumping people into groups, considering others opponents, and labeling editors or groups of editors as skeptics, apologists, believers or any similar term is acceptable needs to take a long break from the topic area. Editors use dispute resolution all the time without resorting to hese kinds of behaviors. Shell ^babelfish 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I disagree you on the last four diffs in the finding. All but one of them are comments made on the talk pages of this case. We are supposed to be able to speak our minds and give our opinions in dispute resolution forums, that's what they are here for. I believe the evidence backs up my opinion. The other comment was on NW's talk page in which I explained why I think he is now an involved admin. I'm surprised to see a finding proposed because I explained my reasons to him as why I think he is now involved. Please look again at all the baiting and personal attacks made by WMC's group against Lar, both on his talk page and elsewhere. That's what I would consider a battleground mentality. Also, I disagree with you on the use of the Peterson et al paper in the article as "misuse". The paper says what it says. The examples of revert warring are accurate. Those are reverts. Cla68 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worrying that you continue steadfast that there was no "misuse" of the source in the wake of overwhelming consensus indicating that it was improper. It seems a major breach in wp:AGF? It seems to me that there may be a pattern in this apparent inability to accept consensus? I suggest that if one can't accept consensus then one should not be editing in that area. Bill Huffman (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F19 Scjessey

• Climate change topic
  1. December 8, 2009 - I agree that this diff shows me being unnecessarily acerbic. The meat of my comment was absolutely correct, but the assumption of bad faith was inappropriate.
  2. February 18, 2010 - This was in response to this comment by ATren, which I found to be utterly ridiculous from a purely common-sense perspective. My closing comment was simply an expression of frustration that Wikipedia was being used to lend weight to a manufactured controversy.
  3. February 18, 2010 - Frustration continues.
  4. February 23, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. "Rally the science-denying troops" refers to the science-denier movement, not to Wikipedians. This should be abundantly clear from the context.
  5. February 26, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. It seems like a perfectly reasonable response to an attack on Wikipedia by a single-purpose account (see contribs).
  6. February 27, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me not assuming good faith, although by this point it was getting extremely difficult. The user had just been involved in creating POINTy redirects (see "Pachaurigate", "Amazongate", "Glaciergate".
  7. February 28, 2010 - Continuation of dispute with WP:SPA (see 5th diff above).
  8. February 28, 2010 - ditto
  9. March 4, 2010 - No idea why this was listed.
  10. March 9, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me assuming bad faith.
  11. July 13, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me being being unnecessarily belligerent.
  12. July 28, 2010 - Not sure what's wrong with this. States a fact that an NPOV tag is being used as a badge of shame.
• During ArbCom case
  1. August 31, 2010 - As explained elsewhere on this page, this was an attempt to diffuse an argument. The comment uses a figure of speech that has been inaccurately portrayed as a personal attack.
  2. September 5, 2010 - Explaining it was a figure of speech (see previous diff). JohnWBarber accuses me of calling him an "asshole" (a lie), so I asked him not to lie (I even said "please"!).
  3. September 6, 2010 - My frustration with false accusations against me is obvious. This was an attempt at using humor to show how ridiculous the complaint against me was.
  4. September 6, 2010 - No idea why this was listed.

I agree that a few of the CC-related diffs show poor behavior on my part, and these date back to many months ago. I apologize for that behavior, but I think everyone agrees that these mild incidences were typical in what was a very toxic atmosphere. It should be noted that during the same period, I went to extraordinary lengths to build consensus and foster goodwill. It should be also be noted that most of these diffs were covered under a Request for Enforcement process that resulted in "no action" but, nevertheless, led me to improve my behavior (as the lack of diffs after this action shows). This "finding of fact" appears to be an attempt to re-litigate that action and it is no surprise that my outrage at being singled-out after all this time has given rise to the responses in the case-related diffs. I will once again remind the arbitrators that I have remained completely inactive in this topic per my pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) Suddenly some of the complaints have substance to them. This is an abrupt "foxhole" conversion for Scjessey, who, just 15 hours and 9 minutes ago (that is, before the ArbCom Fof #27 was posted) wrote, I'm at a loss to explain why my username should keep popping up on this talk page. [26] and 17 minutes earlier was still attacking me when he declared, There's no legitimate case that can be made if the diffs are read in their proper context, rather than cloaked in falsehood as they are presented in the section above. [27] I request that ArbCom members recognize personal attacks and battleground-promoting behavior for what it is and support the finding of fact. I also request that ArbCom devise a suitable remedy to help Scjessey resist the urge to reconvert, because if he can convert this quickly, he can reconvert just as quickly. I'm not gloating, this just needs to be said. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is nonsense. I have made no "conversion". These are old diffs from a "no action" enforcement that you have dredged up to re-litigate, only this time you have dressed them up to sound worse than they are. Why do you continue this years-long harassment of me? My recent comments that have drawn ire (those on this talk page) are solely because of this witch hunt you insist on pursuing against me. I've been virtually absent from this topic for months (see stats) and was busy doing other things. There wouldn't be an issue if you would just leave me the hell alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that other than the complaints logged here by JohnWBarber I haven't seen too much about this editor around other places I've watched, at least not that I remember. I think that there are more problematic editors than this one. Once this case figures out who are the ones unstablizing things, I think the frustration levels will calm down. From what I could tell frustration got the best of this editor esp. since he knew he was being a target. Just my opinion at this time. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, CrohnieGal, Scjessey has some similar problematic behavior stretching at least as far back as mid-2008 when I first ran across him on the Barack Obama page. His behavior on CC pages has simply continued some of his past behavior. If someone wants, I can spend some time this weekend scraping up the old diffs. His "frustration" got the better of him very, very soon after starting to edit the Climategate article and talk page (which I think was his first foray into this area, as it was my first). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is Sept. 2010, what does 2008 have to do with this, never mind President Barak Obama? Is there history between you or others dating back from then? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See the section #Obama_emigration further down this page. --TS 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, you're the one who wrote since he knew he was being a target. Therefore I replied that his behavior didn't start since then but happened well before even this case. A pattern of previous, similar behavior is relevant for ArbCom cases. Also, see the first diff. In fact, see the other diffs above, dated before Scjessey was in any way "targeted". Before looking at 2008, ArbCom members may want to look at similar behavior from 2009: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up this stuff from years ago? There is no need to remind everyone off what went on before because I have left every block/sanction I have ever received in plain sight on my talk page, mostly as a reminder to behave responsibly. In stark contrast, your lengthy block log and drama-ridden past is concealed behind a convenient username change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) As I said just above: "A pattern of previous, similar behavior is relevant for ArbCom cases." The personal attacks listed there have some relevance. Not nearly as much as the evidence about your behavior much more recently, but there is some relevance. The purpose of sanctions is to stop the same behavior from happening in the future. ArbCom sanctioning you then didn't stop the same behavior, so ArbCom now needs to consider what will. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, I now see what T.S. and the difs posted below help some to make the connections. JohnWBarber, if I am correct you are also in that list that TS posted under a different ID. I'm not picking on anyone here, just trying to understand. I now am getting a better picture though of why below everyone and anyone is being added to Shell's list. It starting to look like a lot of bad history with some politics thrown in which isn't a good match, even in real life imho. Thanks for the responses, (please do me a favor and look at my signature so you can spell it correctly, thanks for that too), --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am on that list. I'm on it because I did some bad things. I felt horrible about it afterward (and said so) and stopped doing those bad things. If I've forgotten something and someone can show I've continued doing some of those bad things, that would be relevant information for ArbCom to consider. But CrohnieGal, you can't automatically dismiss everything I say or any diffs I provide just because I was in a conflict with Scjessey then and now. The diffs largely speak for themselves, and if the context shows Scjessey's statements weren't as bad as they at first appear, Scjessey and others have every opportunity to point that out. Ultimately, what counts is the evidence, right? Concentrating on other matters is a distraction, isn't it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

←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)

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)

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? Why have you singled me out for special attention when I've got less than a tenth of the contribs in this topic area than anyone else mentioned in this case? Please look at your actions and ask yourself how you are benefiting the project with this crusade against me. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of vendetta's, how many times have you said you wanted to use "RAID" on me? And who do you think it was that vandalized my userpage with gay porn when we were having a content dispute? The IP that did it traced back to Pennsylvania - isn't that where you live Scjessey? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Surely this is grounds for being instantly blocked? Take a look at my user page where I list my actual IP address for all to see (and have done so since July 27, 2008). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is it? It is a statement of fact. I made no accusation - however the facts seem to be quite disconcerting because of their obvious implication. Of course, I have no doubt that the IP address isn't technically yours and I suspect it either belongs to a motel or some public hotspot in your state. On the other hand, I notice you didn't actually deny vandalizing my page, since you seem to think that's what I was implying, but you did immediately go on the offensive and legalistically say that your IP is public, which has little to do with who vandalized me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any facts from you, TGL, so I'll offer you some, free of charge: Metropolitan Pittsburgh has a population of 2,354,957. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And how many of those people have expressed a desire to use a poison on me (several times)? How many of those people were involved in serious content disputes with me at the same time my user page was vandalized? I almost wish I had such devoted defenders, but if I did then it'd be difficult to improve my behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you have a decision to make. Is it more important to keep investing time and energy into rehashing old disputes and reigniting new ones, or will you get a better return on your time investment here by creating and improving articles, and collaborating with editors from around the world, with thoughts, beliefs, and backgrounds vastly different from your own? You know the story about stone soup? That's Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest with you Viritidas. I didn't read a word that you just said. I don't have to. I've seen this entire scenario played out dozens of times; embarrassing info comes out and allies come out to try and do their best to distract from that info with every maneuver in a well-worn play book. How about we just let Scjessey answer for himself? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Remind me again, what articles are you currently working on? Surely, arbcom can't be the entire focus of your Wikipedia experience, can it? Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to harass me over this? Don't worry Viriditas, I'd decided during our last scuffle that I'm not editing wikipedia even if ArbCom had the sense to ban the troublemakers in the CC case and not feel obligated to punch the skeptics to look balanced. Congratulations, you've driven away another evil "conservative" (facts aren't really important just perception). I'll see this case through, know I played honestly and fairly, and watch this place turn into your Media Matters proparadise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a good sense of humor. Have you thought about joining WikiProject Comedy? They've got more than a 1000 unassessed stubs that could use your attention. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Viriditas) - Oh this is just ridiculous. I didn't vandalize your user page. I've never vandalized any page. I don't edit with an IP and I don't use sock puppets. I don't even hide my identity. And you portray yourself as an insect, and since you like to "bug" me I jokingly refer to RAID. That's not a threat to poison you, for goodness sake. How the hell would I do that? Use my special USB-powered through-the-internet bug spray? Really this is just pathetic. You've basically accused me of vandalizing your user page with a porn image, and for that you should be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one outcome. Alternatively, you could step up, forgive the good insect locust for his petty misdeed, and rise to the occasion. Sometimes, the only way to stop the war is to stop fighting. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm going to bed before I say something that'll show up in another dressed-up diff list somewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought - I hope you are proud of yourself. You do bring up an interesting point though - what are the limits that a person can go to with the defense of "just kidding!" They certainly sounded mean-spirited to me when you said them. Could someone jokingly say they were going to rape or murder someone they've expressed deep dislike of? Perhaps. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, please ignore this baiting. Thegoodlocust, please review our article on going over the top. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - So you are equating spraying a metaphorical can of RAID at a metaphorical insect with a threat of rape or murder? Dude, you need to get a little bit of perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see here, RAID is used to kill insects, you have now post hoc said you were "just kidding" (despite the mean-spiritedness of the posts) so I'm assuming you think it is okay to describe how you would "metaphorically" rape or kill someone as long as you after-the-fact say you were joking. No, I'd say both are pretty over-the-top when it comes to civility. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want Scjessey to be civil towards you, please try to be civil towards him first. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Towards him first? Who the hell do you think started this? I've been positively angelic in response to his crap. Perhaps in the spirit of friendship and good humor I can opine about how fun it would be to spray oven cleaner in his face? No? That's exactly my point. If you want some credibility in this matter then stop defending someone who said that people who believe in Jesus are dumb. He is the one with the massive civility problem. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If Viriditas defended Scjessey's civility problem, it wasn't in this section. Just above time-stamped 03:59, Viriditas did just the opposite. Art LaPella (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that how you read Viriditas' post? I had a very different interpretation of it. In any case, I never said Viriditas was defending Scjessey's incivility problems, which are pretty much indefensible. The defense was of the person; the method was more of the same - distraction, distraction and more distraction. Perhaps it is hard to understand if you haven't firsthand seen this pattern repeated over and over again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this, something is seriously wrong. I don't know what it is but something isn't right. TGL if you have an accusation like that take it to SPI, it doesn't belong here so please refactor the porn/IP/location allegations now. Does anyone know what is going on here? I hope the arbitrators can figure out what it is because I'm uncomfortable right now saying anything more so I'm not at this time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We all claim to know what is going on here. If you mean the big picture, my understanding goes like this: Wikipedia is a much better place to look up the mass of Mars than for political articles, and there is a broad consensus not to be honest about it. Therefore this whole page is a vendetta. Art LaPella (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGal: Honestly, I would avoid this whole conversation. BTW, if Scjessey is attempting to portray these diffs as a personal vendetta from JWB; this is factually inaccurate. I compiled these diffs myself. JWB had nothing to do with them at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More clarification. Almost all of them I compiled back in the evidence phase here[28] and added four more here.[29] All diffs represent one or more instances of Incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of battleground atmosphere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

[30] Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Viritas: Your edit summary says "On the contrary".[31] However, this claim has already been debunked.[32] Even Sjessey confirms this: "I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter."[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You claimed JWB had nothing to do with the alleged vendetta against Scjessey, nor with your diff collection, but according to the diff I posted at 23:59, it had everything to do with it. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: No, it doesn't.[34] It's unfortunate that you continue (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to disregard the evidence that has already been supplied. It is also unfortunate that your last post doesn't even have a single diff to substantiate your claims. I'm not sure I understand how you expect people to agree with you when you can't seem to provide evidence. However, if you can provide such evidence, I will happily re-examine the issue. But I ask that you provide evidence that hasn't already been debunked[35] or which Sjessey hasn't already agreed with me:"I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter."[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the confusion here. The diffs in your list match the diffs provided by JWB almost identically, although JWB provided his special brand of seasoning to them instead of just listing them as you did (for which I already thanked you on your talk page). I'd like to make it clear right now that although I do not agree with AQFK's choice of diffs or the notion that my behavior has been problematic, I have no particular quarrel with the way he has presented them. AQFK is not the villain here. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) 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. 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? Why wouldn't others want to complain about an editor that many of us see as harming a part of the project?

Here are some quotes that ArbCom should be concerned about with regard to Sjessey:

1. Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August
2. If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even exist because it's a bunch of Republican POV bullshit. I was suggesting ("I'm just floating this idea out there to see what people think.") something that would solve a problem with inaccurate titling of the articles - nothing more than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 30 August
3. This entire article is designed to inflate the importance of a minuscule "controversy" pushed largely by desperate Republicans. Anything less than a straight description of events, rather than the scintillating exposé envisaged and advanced by Noroton, would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 31 August

What should most concern ArbCom is that these quotes, far from being recent, are from way back in 2008. (1. [37] 2. [38] 3. [39]) They look almost exactly like the diffs posted about Scjessey's behavior in this case, from 2010 and late 2009. ArbCom's sanctions against Scjessey in August 2009 need to be escalated in 2010 because he hasn't learned how to get along with others and, frankly, we shouldn't have to go through this same, grinding, longwinded process in 2011 after Scjessey has annoyed still other editors on some other controversial topic. The behavior is recent, ongoing and severe, and after he's been topic banned in one area, he commits the same violations in yet another topic area. Interestingly, I get the impression that the other 2009 ArbCom sanction against Scjessey, against edit warring, did work, perhaps because it forced him to avoid temptation. Learn from experience. Block him for a year. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've hatted the discussion of vendettas and other off-topic and completely over the top commentary. Thegoodlocust has been blocked for 24 hours; I would strongly suggest Scjessey take a break and not go any further down this line of discussion. Shell ^babelfish 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Minor4th 15:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reposting this from the hatted discussion because it isn't off-topic, and I'm refactoring somewhat after discussing this with Shell. Scjessey replied to it (in the hat). Here are some quotes that ArbCom should be concerned about with regard to Sjessey (in this reposting, I've added what policies I think these quotes violated):

1. Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August
2. If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even exist because it's a bunch of Republican POV bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 30 August
3. This entire article is designed to inflate the importance of a minuscule "controversy" pushed largely by desperate Republicans. Anything less than a straight description of events, rather than the scintillating exposé envisaged and advanced by Noroton, would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 31 August

What should most concern ArbCom is that these quotes, far from being recent, are from way back in 2008. (1. [40] 2. [41] 3. [42]) They look almost exactly like the diffs posted about Scjessey's behavior in this case, from 2010 and late 2009. ArbCom's sanctions against Scjessey in August 2009 need to be escalated in 2010, and we shouldn't have to go through this same, grinding, longwinded process again if we can help it. The disruptive, battleground and WP:NPA-violating behavior is recent, ongoing and severe, and after he's been topic banned in one area, he commits the same violations in yet another topic area. (Interestingly, I get the impression that the other 2009 ArbCom sanction against Scjessey, against edit warring, did work.) Learn from experience. Block him for a year. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop it! ArbCom has already passed judgement on my editing behavior in the Obama-related articles and I received a sanction and served the time. Nothing you have presented in this case supports your assertion that I have returned to the kind of behavior that got me sanctioned. You have cherry-picked and dressed-up a handful of barrel-scraping diffs to misrepresent the truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

F20 GregJackP

The first diff is an article in which there were a total of three edits by me. I restored a phrase and sourced it, reverted it back in when it was removed, and added completely different material that was unrelated. At best, two reverts and no where close to edit warring. The second diff I had one edit restoring material supported by 5 out of 8 editors on the talk page, and when it was reverted, I did nothing else. Again, same thing on the third and fourth diffs. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed this before, so I'll just point out that this diff is duplicated. It's the first two diffs listed as incivil. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Shell ^babelfish 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I considered adding more, but realized that a) everyone involved has their mind made up dependent on their POV; and b) my arguments are already posted here in other sections and on the ANI. Note that I'm not encouraging people to choose sides, but it is obvious that they have done so. GregJackP Boomer! 03:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP's inappropriate use of sources

Shouldn't this be moved to the existing section on the same subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Done  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If ArbCom wants to sanction GregJackP, fine. However, the section on "inappropriate use of sources" should be removed or at least carefully examined. I've read WMC's paper twice, and it's very obvious that it's about CC alarmism. In fact, it's core to its central thesis. My initial thought is that what happened on Friday appears to be a knee-jerk reaction based on a logical fallacy, argument from authority. Again, if ArbCom wants to sanction GregJackP, fine. But not based on "inappropriate use of sources".

In fact, I invite the Arbitration Committee to sit down and read through WMC's paper, beginning to end, and ask themselves, "Is this relevant to climate change alarmism regarding global cooling in the 1970s?". If the answer is yes, then I ask the Arbitration Committee to examine the actions of the admins who imposed such draconian sanctions against an editor who, at worst, made a good faith mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An assertion does not become true by virtue of the number of times it has been repeated. — Coren ^(talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren: You are ironically correct: An assertion does not become true by virtue of the number of times it has been repeated. So, let's move on to actual substance. Can you please explain what exactly GregJackP did wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this now? We've already had one extremely long and tediously repetitive thread on exactly the same subject with people repeatedly asking the same question and failing to get the point every time it is explained to them. One good thing, though: it is giving the arbitrators a good feel for what it is like to collaborate day after day in the climate change topic area. --TS 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But the question hasn't been answered beyond faulty logic and simplistic text searches for the word, "alarmism". But you are correct, WP:ICANTHEARYOU is an unfortunate problem here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell Kinney stated it quite well here, I thought. --TS 15:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to A Quest For Knowledge: Why not write up an essay in your userspace where you put forward your arguments in a self contained way (instead of in a back and forth discussion with others). When I could not get my point accross well that the constant c that appears in some physics equations is actually a not so relevant scaling constant, I wrote up this text, instead of arguing the point in detail in direct discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj has reminded me that the internal link I gave above actually belongs to a much longer discussion that had been raging long before that subsection. Looking at the section on the GregJackP proposal now it occupies a full 83kb. Dragging it out here really isn't good enough. (Nigelj has fixed my link now, after discussing it with me).--TS 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a good paper, and I'd be happy if arbcomm read it. It doesn't contain any nasty equations or stuff and is really quite readable. I'm quite happy to answer any questions about it that arbcomm might have. I'd be even happier if AQFK and GJP weren't still insisting that they knew what it meant better than I did. However, this is the Cl Ch arena in microcosm: they really do think they understand what is going on, and edit aggressively to push that mistaken view in. Another the-case-in-minature example is Robert Watson (scientist) (per my evidence [43]), where GJP did exactly the same kind of thing ([44], etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dense editing and rarified atmospheres. --TS 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, William, I would have been disappointed if the arbs had taken an over-simplistic view like, "Seems like a content dispute over something or other; let's ban one from each side and see if they stop edit-warring". As it happens, I am glad that a more realistic and nuanced approach is possible here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William M. Connolley that his paper is quite readable. I think it would be a great idea for everyone to take the time to read it, and ask themselves the following three questions:

1. Is the paper about, or relevant to, climage change alarmism in the 1970s?
2. Is it a reliable source to support the statement that global cooling was not the scientific consensus?
3. If the answer to number 2 is no, is this an egregious example of misconduct that warrants inclusion in ArbCom's FoF, or is it a minor content dispute that got blown out of proportion?

WMC's paper is available here. It's only 13 pages long and won't take a long time to read. This will be my last post to this thread. I hope that cooler heads will prevail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered repeatedly. Engaging AQFK in this discussion simply facilitates disruption. Think carefully before joining this discussion. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK's got it exactly right: There is simply no case to be made that GregJackP seriously violated any serious sourcing requirements whatsoever. I think his footnote might've been a bit clearer, but it did just what it was supposed to do: It cited a reliable source for certain information, described just what that information from the source was being used to show (although, again, it might've been just a bit clearer) and did so reliably. The information was the number of global-cooling media accounts that each trafficked in alarmism. (Footnote: Peterson, Connolley and Fleck outline numerous examples of popular media articles that contended that current weather data "may be the harbinger of another ice age. [45] WP text it footnoted: Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of [ global warming ] or global cooling -- minus the "global warming" part.) With all the debate on various pages, I haven't yet seen anyone contradict that this information was not in the source article and that the source itself identified those media accounts as "alarmist", whether or not it used that word. (If I'm wrong on this point, please correct me. I should probably read the article myself.) In terms of sourcing, GregJackP had all he needed, and editors, admins and arbitrators who state otherwise risk looking foolish. If ArbCom officially states otherwise, ArbCom risks looking foolish. I strongly suggest that ArbCom members do the work on this one. I've got a pretty long argument (five paragraphs) about this that I'm putting here under a hat. I could also put this on a separate page in my user space if an arbs or clerk thinks that's more appropriate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) It's been said about that GregJackP needed the word "alarmism" attached to the examples of alarmism in the source. This is a misunderstanding that I think was caused in part by the (poor) language in the WP article that referred to climate change alarmism as a word (we all know that the article is about the concept). WP:SYNTH doesn't require the same word to be in the source. It requires the same concept or fact. Figuring out that what the source was referring to in citing all those media accounts was, in fact, a slew of examples of alarmism, is not original research but the kind of editorial judgment and use of common sense that Wikipedia encourages and WP:SYNTH specifically allows: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. "Explicit" does not mean use of the word "alarmism", it means that the source explicitly stated that the media accounts were what we would refer to as "alarmist".

(2) It's also been said that the purpose that the source made of the information cited must somehow be the same as the purpose that the Wikipedia article uses. That's true, but only to the extent that the source identified the media accounts as what we're calling "alarmist". The overarching purpose the source had for all the examples of alarmist media accounts is irrelevant to us. We are not bound by it just as no scholar would be bound by it. Anyone who has done any scholarship, certainly in the humanities or social sciences, knows this. It is so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated.

(3) Let me give you an example: This morning I edited an article I've been working on in my user space about Vermeer's Diana and Her Companions. Two eminent art historians disagree on whether the scene represents part of a myth about the goddess that is mentioned in Ovid's Metamorphosis. One of the sources, Wheelock, thinks it doesn't, but Wheelock mentions a line or two from Ovid's poem. The Wheelock source does a better job of that than another source, Liedtke, who apparently was the first scholar to see the connection. I'm mentioning both opinions in my article, but in describing the passage from Ovid -- as part of describing the connection between the myth and the painting that Wheelock disagrees with -- I'm citing Wheelock. The use I'm making out of Wheelock is directly contrary to Wheelock's opinion. But no bad sourcing is involved: I explicitly state in the article what Wheelock's opinion is and what Liedtke's opinion is. (If it was appropriate, I'd do it in the footnote the way GregJackP does). The reader is served because the best source is used. I'm not violating WP:SYNTH because what I'm sourcing in that particular footnote isn't Wheelock's opinion but Wheelock's presentation of the fact (his fuller description of Ovid's lines). If I was editing the article with Wheelock and he objected to the use of his work to footnote part of an argument he disagrees with, Wheelock would have no case.

(4) HOWEVER, if I were editing that article with Wheelock or this one with William M. Connolley, some other factors would come into play. First, WMC is a BLP. We have to be careful in this case not to make it appear as if WMC is even indirectly supporting a position he disagrees with. Therefore the footnote needs to be clear on that. Second, WMC is a fellow editor and we need to avoid fighting with him to the extent that we can avoid it. WMC has obvious cause for concern. For GregJackP to respond to WMC's concern by reverting rather than a careful, very civil discussion is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND because GregJackP was promoting that kind of atmosphere with his actions. I'm particularly concerned that GregJackP said that when he discovered WMC was one of the authors of his source he just laughed and went on. He should have paused at that point and decided this was a sensitive matter for WMC and then acted with a lot more restraint. That doesn't mean WMC has a veto over using the footnote. It does mean that Greg had a greater obligation than normal to rely on discussion rather than reverting.

(5) It's perfectly legitimate for ArbCom to find that GregJackP violated WP:BATTLE and even WP:DISRUPT and WP:EDITWAR and perhaps WP:CIV. It is not legitimate for ArbCom to say Greg violated WP:SYNTH or WP:V unless its proven that the facts Greg asserted he was citing were not really there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's much better than my unwritten explanation that MastCell saved us from. Art LaPella (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a stick and it isn't a dead horse. It's a pointer, so class, pay attention and direct your eyes to the argument under the hat. The ArbCom finding is very much "live" since the case hasn't been closed and most ArbCom members haven't even participated in the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JWB, suppose you and AQFN persuade all the arbitrators to read WMC's 13-page article, to study your hatted list, and to decide your content dispute for you both and GJP. They may even change WP:OR so that it no longer says articles shouldn't "advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". You have to remember that this is all over three words in one article ("or global cooling"). A clear consensus of involved and uninvolved editors, admins and arbs have all said that in that form they are not supported by the cited source (including one of the authors of the source). What's it going to be like over the next three words? If editing these articles cannot proceed by normal consensus, even three words at a time, then what hope is there for getting on with updating, maintaining and improving these articles as the real world moves on? What happens to collegiate, consensus-driven editing if every three words take ~100KB of arbitration discussion before we can just... get on? COP16 is coming up, articles are getting out of date, stubs need to be expanded, time-expired information needs to be compressed or moved to make way for recent and current developments. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nigelj, if editors are going to be railroaded on false charges that can be proven false for every three words of copy, looks like we've all got a problem on our hands ... don't it? If it takes 300,000 words to fix it, maybe we should be careful about how we treat editors. You might recall that the beginning of the brouhaha generated by certain editors over those three little words was the logical place for cooler heads to prevail. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed the bit about consensus. You also missed the bit about 'in that form' - has it not occurred to any of you to suggest an alternative treatment of cooling alarmism for that article that might achieve a consensus there? Does it have to be these three words in that place, or its "railroaded on false charges"? Who is responsible for this malicious railroading? If it's the whole arbitration committee and all the other editors and all the admins who disagree with the three of you, then you have to ask if that's really likely too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's relevant to this discussion is the ArbCom finding (perhaps also getting the ANI decision overturned, although that depends on how important it is that Greg not be labeled as bad at sourcing rather than having edit warred or disrupted or engaged in battleground behavior -- have to think about that). I've commented on the article talk page. You have no idea what the whole Arbitration Committee thinks -- or have they all just voted on this finding? I'll have to check. Just checked. Only Shell has voted. I think only he and Coren have commented. And with new information, they can change their minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here's proof that GregJackP correctly sourced what his footnote described as numerous examples of popular media articles that contended that current weather data "may be the harbinger of another ice age. to show the existence of what the WP article said is a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of [...] or global cooling''" (I'm citing the texts the Peterson, Connolley article [46] cites, preceded by the exact page in the Peterson, Connolley article where that text is mentioned:

• 1. p 1329 a frequently cited Newsweek story: "The cooling world" (Gwynne 1975). The story [...] suggested that cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production" [...] Other articles of the time featured similar themes [...]" on p 1330: "The article states that there was an 'almost unanimous' view that the cooling trend would 'reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century'"
  2. p 1329 [T]he news coverage of the time does reflect [...] "the tyranny of the news peg" [...] Developments that are dramatic or new tend to drw the news media's attention, Revkin argues, rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific community.
  3. p 1330 "Popular Literature of the Era" sidebar: There are too many potential newspaper articles to adequately assess [...] The most frequently cited magazine articles are described below. [...] [T]he following is a review only of their decadal-to-century-scale global temperature projections:

(A) "Science Digest's 1973 article 'Brace yourself for another Ice Age'"

(B) Time Magazine (1974) ominously worried '[...] for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age'"

(C) "Science News 1975 article 'Climate change: Chilling possibilities'" The article is quoted stating "by the turn of the century, enough carbon dioxide will have been put into the atmosphere to raise the temparature of earth half a degree." (According to Peterson, Connolley, the Science News article also stated not enough was known to extrapolate temperatures, which contradicts what was just quoted.)

4. p 1331, second half of same sidebar:

(D) "There were also lay books on climate change, some of which received rather scathing reviews in the scientific literature" (which sounds like an indication of "alarmism" to me, although it isn't proof that Peterson, Connolley contended that; this source article doesn't always explicitly state that a book is about global cooling, so I'll limit myself to books that the article does describe that way) Halacy, Ice and Fire; the article quotes a reviewer describing the volume as "a book whose central theme is the prediction of a global cooling as the beginning of a new ice age [...] giving the impression that the advent of an ice age could occur in a matter of a decade or so -- perhaps it will take a century if we are lucky."

(E) The reviewer quoted just above says the book "quotes extensively" Nigel Calder who the reviewer criticizes for doing the same thing ("as did Nigel Calder")

(F) "A more extreme book, The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050, [...]"

The article explicitly provides eight seven sources, now explicitly laid out here. So glad to see that we're all in favor of adequate sourcing for what we say. I think GregJackP is owed an apology from a lot of people. Perhaps I need to cross post the above massive, compelling, incontrovertable evidence on AN/I to get that topic ban reconsidered, although (as I explain below the hat), I think there may well be adequate reason for some sanction on behavioral grounds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the same logic, I could argue that there was an alarmism about asteroid or comet impacts after Schumacher-Levy 9 hit Jupiter. I could then directly cite popular press coverage, or cite a peer reviewed paper on impacts that cites popular press coverage on impacts (e.g. to make the point that there is increasing public awareness about the possibility of impacts). Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you could argue that there are examples of alarmism along those lines. Which. Is. What. The. Footnote. Did. Reread the footnote. I provided the diff. It appears the footnote was meant to back up the existence of global cooling alarmism. It did just that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh, i'd hoped that this was over... So here are a few questions:

1. Who defines these (quotes) as alarmism?
2. What definition of alarmism is used to do so?
3. Is it allowed to cherry-pick quotes from a paper, and come to a conclusion about these quotes that hasn't previously been established by a 2ndry source?
4. If you use such quotes - shouldn't you directly reference the articles where the quotes originate?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

KDP, some of your objections are niggling, nevertheless:

1. "alarmism"? It's a common word. Any reliable dictionary should do.
2. Answered in #1. If you mean "global-cooling alarmism" with or without the hyphen, again, use a dictionary for the individual words.
3. "cherry pick" -- I fail to see what "cherry pick" has to do with it. All evidence is, by its nature, "cherry picked". The detailed evidence I've provided shows GregJackP sourced what he said he was sourcing. It's really as simple as that. Petersen, Connolley is the secondary source (in two cases, tertiary source) in which various articles and books are identified as "alarmism". Not a hard concept.
4. I would have no objection to that, but what GregJackP did is also acceptable sourcing, which is the point I'm making here. (This may be better because we've got a secondary source identifying the alarmism of the articles and books.)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Referring to any quote/source as "alarmist/alarmism" is a textual/contextual analysis. If that textual analysis is done by editors, and not by a 2ndry source, then it is original research. Further taking the sum of such analysis of quotes, and generalizing this into a factual statement, not already provided by a 2ndry source, is a synthesis. Even further, attributing this analysis/generalization, to a paper that doesn't make this analysis/generalization is a misrepresentation of the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We could never create an encyclopedia under your strictures. I quoted WP:SYNTH on that underneath the hat. We source concepts and facts, not necessarily words. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard can set you right on that. Each of the seven sources that can be explicitly found in Peterson, Connolley meets the conceptual criteria found in the footnote and the footnote does the job it was meant to do in the article. You're imagining difficulties that common sense quickly overcomes. If any arbitrators agree with you on this point, I'll comment further. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are missing the point deliberately or not - but the concept here is "these quotes represent alarmism" - and that concept is not supported by any 2ndry source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really a good source for the job it was meant to do. Closely related, but not exactly to the point. Something like this would have been better. --JN466 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to all for having created the article in question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article in and by itself is a good idea, iirc i stated something like that to Mark Nutley at some point. Its a notable concept, and there should be plenty of sources available without resorting to cherry-picking or doing original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder did any of these three ever read the note on every edit page, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, [etc] at will, then do not submit it here"? You win some, you lose some; sometimes your words find consensus, sometimes they get deleted, sometimes you have to compromise, or word it differently, or explain it better, or do more research, or just give up. You can't do this as if everything you type is holy writ to be fought to the death over. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

F8.4 & F8.5 (technical)

They refer to 10.1 and 10, respectively. Is there a renumbering problem? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. 10>8.4 and 10.2>8.5. Now fixed: if you spot any others please let me know. Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the votes on 8.5 need to be further clarified to refer only to parts 8.1 though 8.4 - that's what 'all of 8' referred to when those votes were cast. Besides, those votes make no sense if they're self-referential...

Also, there are references to remedy 21.1 that still need to be updated, currently in FoF 14.1 and in remedy 11.1, 11.2, and one of the two instances in 11.3 --Noren (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. All done I believe.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

F16 ATren's battlefield conduct

I just looked through the ATren diffs on the PD page. For the life of me, I can't figure out how any of the diffs support the finding. I'd appreciate an explanation of some sort as to how WP:DISRUPT, WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLEGROUND are violated in those diffs. An explanation of how this rises to a level worthy of an ArbCom finding would also be in order. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no response to my request for a justification for the proposed finding on ATren. I've just read through all the diffs for a second or third time and I still see nothing. Here's what the proposed finding states:

ATren (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53].

Shell, Coren and Roger Davies have voted to support. Specifically, I'd like to know:

1. Where are the violations of WP:DISRUPT?
2. Where are the violations of WP:CIV?
3. Where are the violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND?

I haven't seen answers to this on any of the ArbCom case pages, although 2/0 did have some late evidence on ATren and there was some discussion on it in 2/0's proposals on the Workshop page. These accusations seem over the top to me. Shell, Coren, Roger Davies -- can you explain? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think these are just a few (more recent) examples of the types of behavior this editor has continued to engage in - a lot of the 2008 and 2009 stuff does not seem to be included (compare this F to F22 for example). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As promised, I've now posted my review of the FoF and added a few more diffs. The key things here I think are the repeated accusations of bad faith and of partisan participation against people perceived as ideological opponents.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I feel John may have a point. These diffs [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] don't strike me as good examples of incivility. Could I ask you to revisit them?

As for the second set of diffs, this ("Stephan, what is your view of WMC's "Martian" reverts? Do you believe they were good faith edits? And if so, please explain your reasoning. ") strikes me as nothing but an honest question that does not deserve inclusion in a finding of fact. (Note that "Martian" here refers to Singer's writings about the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos; it has nothing to do with martialistic).

This was personal advice given on a user talk page -- do we not allow editors a bit more latitude for self-expression on user talk pages?

This too was on a user talk page -- are we saying that no editor is allowed to comment on any user talk page in Wikipedia on perceived tag teaming, or to question the integrity of admin processes? In other words, that such comments should only ever be made as part of formal dispute resolution processes? If so, perhaps that could be emphasised a bit more clearly in a principle; though I am concerned that doing so may curtail editors' rights to self-expression too much. Some of what ATren was saying is, after all, pretty much the same as the arbitrators are saying in the principles, "Collective behavior of blocs of editors" and "Collective behavior of blocs of editors (alternate)".

This and this too were on a user talk page, and they refer to misconduct which the arbitration committee itself has included in its findings. --JN466 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

JN: the thrust of the FoF is broadly right though we can, of course, all argue about the exact weight, precise meaning and specific context of individual diffs almost infinitely :)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It shows him drawing a very distinct line in the sand never mind that every administrator that he doesn't agree with is formally asked to withdraw except for Lar. I think this is part of the big problem in this area of editing, and it's not just Atren doing this kind of behavior. It has to be stopped by all if there is going to be peace in these articles. I think that it's to the point that maybe instead of naming names, maybe stating rules of engagement for these articles would be appropriate. Even if sanctioning some of the editors being named happens, there will be others to take their places which isn't good. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

F22: KimDabelsteinPetersen

Question Looking at this one as written all the difs are real old, aren't they rather stale? Plus, if there is a battle atmosphere being presented, shouldn't there be recent difs from say 3-6 months, which is still old, be presented? I just don't see this one as being correct or at least helpful to stopping what is still ongoing. I guess what I'm asking is if an editor show battle mentality, wouldn't it be a continued problem not just going into the distant past to find something to make an FoF about? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer: I've been on a voluntary 1RR ever since Feb 3, 2010[60] (i think i bummed this in one occasion where i believed a BLP violation to take place). And on a voluntary topic-ban (talk, sanction board, etc. everywhere but here), ever since Aug 5, 2010[61], which will last until ArbCom closes this case (or beyond if they deem so).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

F22 KimDabelsteinPetersen

I'm not making a comment on the BLP sourcing part of the finding, but I think there are issues with this finding's counts of "edit-warring" - particularly, diffs

• 267 reverting a puppet -ban-evading user
• 269 reverting anon (compare to what contributions the anon made to Wikipedia: [62] - I suspect it was the same ban-evading user)
• 273 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 274 (compare to what contributions the account made on the article [63])
• 277 (not a reversion; putting source into citation template)
• 280 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 282 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user

Community policy makes it clear that reverting edits by banned users is not considered edit-warring (it's not a violation of anything) and note: the community has not imposed any requirement of "you must intend to revert a banned user" because that's stupid. I also think the efforts KimD has taken in being civil despite dealing with the mentioned editors (who have been tendentious problems for the wider community - burning out many useful contributors) ought to be taken into consideration. 2/0 also raises several useful points that have not been taken into account in this proposed decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Refixed numbering; leaving a note on an arb's talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I largely endorse the above summary, thank you for saving me the trouble of writing it up.

• I would quibble that the third diff shows KimDabelsteinPetersen reverting to GoRight's most recent revision, though GR was arguing on the talk page for removal of that material. Skimming the talk page from January 2009, the issue appears to have been whether the article should use qualifiers such as purportedly or unsubstantiated to describe a source from ABC news that cites climate scientists rather than named individuals.
• The first set of diffs in the FoF all relate to whether the word allegedly should be added to stolen in describing the documents from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. These diffs are from a few weeks after the event (10th, 20th, and 21st of December, shortly before WP:GS/CC/RE was established), socks were rife, and KDP added a source to solve the issue immediately after the last diff presented. With the exception of two more apparent sock puppets, this appears to have had the effect of ending the edit war. Neither robust participation at the talkpage nor active attempts to seek compromise nor lack of a technical 3RR violation excuse edit warring, of course, but removing unsourced content on a BLP and adding quality sources I think are behaviors that we would like to encourage.
• In the first three of the third set of diffs, KDP bases his removal on WP:UNDUE and OR as well as BLP. A cleaner example would probably make this case easier to interpret as precedent if this FoF passes. This particular issue also involves an account now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight.
• The fourth and fifth diffs in that set are the removal of a clause that was either unsourced or unduly promotional, and a related question of the extent to which we should rely on a living person's autobiography. I do not see how this relates to the question of whether the enhanced sourcing standards of WP:BLP should be applied to non-biographical material and material that might be considered for a spinout article. Please enlighten me if I have misinterpreted the purpose of this series of diffs. Other editors continued edit warring over this material until I protected the article a week later (my last admin action in this topic area except one protection where I found edit warring when performing a due diligence check of a recently expired semi-protection).
• The assertion that KDP exercises different sourcing standards in support of a POV has been around for at least the better part of a year, but I do not think that the currently presented set of diffs demonstrate this. Perhaps the point could be made by presenting two parallel sets of diffs where he argues for more and less stringent requirements. If the division of this list also correlates well to whether or not the person in question is known for being a climate contrarian, then I think the FoF would be justified. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• that KDP exercises different sourcing standards in support of a POV [...] I do not think that the currently presented set of diffs [on the PD page] demonstrate this. That's rather easily rectified. I've provided plenty of evidence and explanation of that in the "Remedies" section below, and there are links in that section to both my evidence on KDP and a discussion on Roger Davies' talk page. It's all there, although it involves different diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse me for failing to specify. The phrase the currently presented set of diffs refers to the diffs that have been presented in various places over the course of this arbitration case. I considered it due diligence to peruse the evidence presented before making a statement, and kindly request that you refrain from insinuating that I would fail to exercise it. The relevant FoF is currently passing and the Remedy seems likely to, but by the rules that appear to govern this case I believe it would be permissible should you desire to submit additional evidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't insinuating that at all. When I wrote That's rather easily rectified I meant "rectified by ArbCom." My point was that the evidence presented on the P.D. page could be improved. I probably could've been clearer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

F 9: Polargeo's battlefield conduct

I started to go through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo’s battlefield conduct diff by diff. When I came to the third diff that wasn't even a comment by myself but by ATren I was in utter despair. How Arbcom can justify such a shoddy list of weak diffs in the wikipedia namespace (given that I have made hundreds of wikipedia namespace contributions during the RfC/U which I started and also during this case in my own defence) as my supposed battlefield conduct is totally beyond me. If I had not had a baby daughter 2 weeks ago I would be defending myself more rigorously but I am finding it difficult to keep up with the venom pouring out of this case. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! This was the diff after the ATren diff that you mention. [64] Perhaps it was the diff the arbitrator meant to include. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who knows. I will not take the bait :). Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what conclusions you feel readers should take away from this section? If your point is that one of the diffs provided mistakenly picked up the wrong diff, I agree with the observation and it can be corrected. However, a single mistaken diff doesn't explain "utter depair". Is it your view that you have not engaged in editing that could reasonably be construed as battleground mentality?--SPhilbrickT 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also some problem with what is currently the last "diff" in wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Polargeo.27s_battlefield_conduct; it doesn't seem to be a diff or to have anything to do with Polargeo. Cardamon (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• My utter despair is at how mindnumbingly mild most of the diffs are. To accuse me of promoting a battleground in CC I would expect some major mudslinging. Maybe a couple of diffs show I have been slightly incivil but I wouldn't expect fairly passive comments on my own talkpage to be used as evidence of promoting a battleground in CC. Also this whole idea of any criticism of JohnWBarber as me personalizing the debate in a CC battleground way is nonsense. I had no recolection of any conflict with him, neither of us are primarily CC editors and he suddenly popped up in this case and with the weakest of diffs called for me to be desysopped and banned, this sort of over the top baying for blood is pure disruption in my opinion. I have since found that he has done this previously to other users. He has baited me many times during this case (the latest of which is in this very thread). For example every time I mentioned his name or criticised his motives he tagged the diff onto his evidence as a personal attack. I truly think he is gaming the system and my highlighting this is not battleground or a personal attack but just my observation which I can back up with diffs very easily, however I don't seem to have the sort of time at my disposal to deal with this that certain other editors have. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explication. I now have a better understanding of your views.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Secondly to include me in "remedy 3" banning me from CC articles when I have no history of problematic edits on CC articles or their talkpages strikes me as a clearly punitive action rather than dealing with any particular issue. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

*:As I indicated on your talk page, I think the Arbitration Committee is struggling with the size of this case and have an adopted a battlefield medicine approach. You're going to see amputations instead of medications. By topic banning everything that moves, ArbCom will put an immediate halt on most of the problems in the topic; however, the cost of doing it this way is that some will inevitably be treated more harshly than they deserve. The project is bigger than any single editor, so the heavy-handed approach is understandable (if undesirable). I'd recommend approaching the Committee and seeking a voluntary restriction. It is a clear signal that you wish to show good faith and put the project first, and it is presumably much easier to emerge from a self-imposed exile than one imposed upon you. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Any situation has to draw the line somewhere but why has Lar not been mentioned in remedy 3 and I have been? He also does not have any problematic editing on CC articles or their talkpages but has clearly spent some considerable time grouping editors together as Cabal etc. and trying to "level the playing field" (this is far more promoting of a battleground than any of my comments) Or for that matter StephanSchulz who seems according to Lar to have insulted Lar far more than I have. The popping of myself into the R3 seems to be entirely random and based on weak diffs mostly provided by JohnWBarber. R3 is not a good solution anyway, editors simply need to be shown that wikilawyering in the wikipedia namespace is not acceptable nor is piling on in edit wars and content disputes, this can be enforced by an effective AE. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

*:::I agree that wikilawyering and edit warring have been significant issues in this topic. ArbCom appears to be responding well to the latter, but wikilawyering does not seem to be attracting the remedies I would've expected it to. I would argue that attacking editors with wikilawyering is as equally egregious as attacking articles with edit warring. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also the idea that my comments are "repeated personal attacks" makes no sense. I started an RfC/U on Lar's conduct and have many edits to the talkpage of that RfC/U. It appears that the arbs are characterizing any mention of an individual editor and a suggestion of a problem with that editor's editing as a personal attack. I obviously had an issue with Lar's conduct as an admin or else I would not have started an RfC/U would I? It now appears that I cannot mention that editor or else it is a personal attack. I thought the guideline said something like "when in doubt don't mention the editor". It does not say don't mention any issues with an editor during an RfC/U on their conduct. In fact the whole case put together against me appears to result from my trying to stop Lar from acting as an uninvolved admin in situations where he had clearly had previous fairly negative non-admin contact with the user and was acting with what I percieved to be bias. If this is characterized as promoting a battleground in Climate Change then I will have to be more careful not to annoy certain people in the future. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I really am trying to stay away from commenting on these pages, but I feel I should point out what may be perceived as the "battleground mentality" per your post above; the uninvolved administrators were very quickly aware of your concerns regarding Lar. However, the consensus between said sysops was that Lar should continue to post in the uninvolved admin section - you had no remit to stop that, and no means other than by persuasion. The RfC/U was properly conducted and no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved". I recognise that there were a majority of !votes on a couple of comments orientated toward the opinion that Lar is involved, but that does not of itself form a consensus (and you will note that subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved per the meaning of uninvolved admin for these matters). What is possibly regarded as examples of battlefield mentality was your habit of interjecting yourself in discussions - and especially discussions where Lar was acting in an uninvolved admin capacity - to proclaim your opinion regarding Lar's status. You were surely aware that all concerned were aware of your understanding of the situation, and you should also have recognised that the situation was not going to be amended to accommodate your concerns; so there is the matter on why you felt it necessary to continue to state your case? I know I once found it necessary to chide you (you commented upon it as "bullying", but that was not the intent) regarding your habit of interrupting discussion on Lars talkpage to put forward your contention, and I believe that Lar also commented that you might tone down the rhetoric. It was your seeming "campaign" to declare Lar an involved admin, despite no consensus forming in suuport, that might be regarded as exampling battlefield mentality - and it may be pointed out that you are apparently still of that frame of mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of order. I have never ever declared that I thought Lar was an involved admin in Climate Change as a topic area (although I agree with the arbs advice that he is best steering clear of admining this area) but I feel strongly that he is involved with regard to certain users such as WMC. Lar clearly had several negative interactions with WMC (e.g. here and here) in a non-admin capacity before starting to act as an admin calling for sanctions against WMC. What constitues involvement has not been finalised and is still very much being debated by arbs. As to interjecting myself I started the RfC/U and most of the diffs come from either the RfC/U, this case or my own talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that you did not raise any issues as regards Lar and whether he had edited within the the Climate Change topic area and that your concerns were only in respect of his past dealings with WMC. As noted in the RfC, while there may have been a history between the two users it was irrelevant since Lar was not taking any actions with regard to WMC but only contributing to discussions - he did not initiate any discussion (on anyone, not just WMC) at the enforcement page but only commented. He brought up past issues relating to WMC, and others, just as other parties past histories were brought up by other parties. Lastly, you need to review your editing history of User talk:Lar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would maintain that in a highly polarized environment it is hard to find consensus for anything. Your no consensus arose that Lar was not "uninvolved" criteria means that no-one would ever be found uninvolved. Consider why we require lack of involvement: It is so that actions appear to be fair and thus can find wide support in the community. Hence a majority opinion finding that Lar is involved or his behavior is problematic should be plenty to cause him to recuse himself from the case - or, in a working system, be recused. "[...] subsequently this case has determined that Lar was not involved" - does your crystal ball work on the stock market, too? So far, the vote is open. And the finding reads "nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator [...] it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator", which to me clearly is a signal that the "nominal" determination is quite irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason why majorities and !votes are deprecated on WP is because it is not (should not) be a matter of how many making most noise, but those making most sense - a majority of criminals have a low regard for civil law... It should be noted that the arbs are clarifying their comments on the uninvolvement of admins to ensure that campaigning against an individual is not of itself grounds for that sysop to withdraw. No crystal ball, but an appreciation of intent is all that is needed. I do agree that there is no benefit for Lar to continue acting as a uninvolved administrator, he has exposed himself too long to that corrosive environment and deserves a well earned rest from the poison directed at him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• The list of supposed incivil remarks are just fairly hard observations I have made during this case. They are not incivilities. When I think an editor has overstepped the mark such as I think JohnWBarber did (as I outlined above) I would appreciate being allowed to say this without expecting the diff to be thrown back at me as an incivility. A wikipedia where everyone is sickeningly pleasant and does not speak plainly is not the positive constructive wikipedia many people seem to think it is. At its limit it simply turns wikipedia into an extremely unpleasant place inhabited by civil POV pushers and two-faced back stabbers. Polargeo (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thats one user who may have been driven of Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean may? And congratulations for helping William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

At the time of posting I thought that maybe he was either doing some tidying up or changing user names. I was hoping that he would not raise to the bait.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Now another editor/administer has slapped a retirement template on their page. I think this makes 5 so far that I'm aware of. Something is wrong when we are losing editors with this frequency from one case. I for one am sorry to see so many feel the need to leave the project and some of the have been here without any sanctions ever against them until this case I think. Everyone here should think about how people, real people, are leaving for being hurt. I, for one, am sad to see these retirements occurring and I am expecting even more as the case winds down. Just for the record, someone told me that the ones who would leave would be advocates or pov pushers or something along this line. Well as you can see, this isn't coming true. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo (more)

Was Polargeo clearly on one side or the other of a battlegound with respect to CC articles? This is important in whether Polargeo has been promoting a battlegound. The PD has found evidence of minor incivility in the wikipedia talk namespace but has it really found battleground evidence? how can an editor be battleground when they support editors on either side of the supposed battleground? Evidence that Polargeo supports editors on what is percieved to not be "his side" follows e.g. my nearly solo defense of MarkNutley's edits [65], my defense of TheGoodLocust [66] and [67], my request that an enforcement against FellGleaming be thrown out becasue it was not within the remit [68] more to come Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh who cares anyway. Arbcom don't seem to deal with reality just the evidence a couple of trolls put in their faces. Olap the Ogre (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ArbCom doesn't mean choosing sides with regard to sceptic versus alarmist viewpoints on AGW, when it says battleground. They literally mean battleground regardless of whether on one issue you supported one group of editors and another issue you supported the other group of editors. Although not relevant, I do think that you were neutral on global warming disputes, as in you were not partisan, per your examples above and your comment on your userpage. The battleground ArbCom are probably referring to is your emotional responses and personalisation of disputes with individual editors eg with Lar and other wikipedians during this ArbCom case. Additionally as you fail to recognise how you contributed to a battleground atmosphere, ArbCom probably will be concerned that your lack of awareness of problems raised leads to concerns that the problems will continue to be repeated. When you were battling with Lar you were attacking yourself moreso than you were Lar, it backfired; accept it, come to terms with it oh and don't go leaving wikipedia, :) you are not the only one who has made mistakes and gotten into fights and disputes. I say this not to criticise you but as someone who has got involved in disputes including one ArbCom case but to make you aware of how I think ArbCom are thinking. If you let go of personalised issues and say yes I did do wrong, I won't do it again, the less likely you are to be sanctioned or the quicker the topic ban will be overturned at a later date. Good luck.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Literaturegeek. Take a break, come back refreshed and ready to ignore anything that seems to be about you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Skeptic versus alarmist"? Excuse me, but that is unacceptable language. --TS 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the Overton Window in Wikipedia is nowhere near the clash between true Scientific skepticism and Earth First!, it may strike us as "unacceptable language". But such phrasing is actually fairly "leftist" in such alternative contexts. Ironically. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tony, probably any descriptive word will offend at least someone on this page. I am not involved in climate change on or off-line, and I am not familar with what people find acceptable or not acceptable. I thought though that many on this dispute feel that we should be alarmed about climate change, where as sceptical editors were of the viewpoint that there is nothing to be alarmed about and it formed part of the dispute. I did not realise offense would be caused and it was not attended. I know there are people who take a more moderate viewpoint. Are you saying you believe there is no need to be alarmed about climate change or your views are moderate? If so how would you prefer to be referred to? Climate change moderate? Maybe if I say, sceptics, moderates and alarmists?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Alarmist" is to "Skeptic" as "Denalist" is to "Realist" Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that there aren't alarmists involved in this case. Most of the people here lie fairly square in the middle of the IPCC viewpoint, most consider newspaper articles "problematic" exactly because they are either "alarmist" or "sceptical" leaning, instead of presenting a moderate view. I'll be bold and claim that most editors are rather closer to the viewpoint of Hans von Storch than they are to the viewpoint of James Hansen. (just to cite two fairly known scientists within the field). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for your views and explaination. Maybe I should refer to editors as those who hold to the IPCC position and those who are sceptical of it? Or maybe I should avoid labeling as best possible. :O) I do agree that newspapers are not good sources for sourcing scientific articles and views etc. I really do think that that promoting this WP:SCIRS to a guideline would be of big benefit to not just climate change articles but other science related articles. It wouldn't resolve BLP and political disputes though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Okay so in summary I am being topic banned from climate change and closely related areas not because of any issues with article or article talkpage editing, not because of being on one side or another or promoting a particular POV but just a heated situation involving Lar where I tried to demonstrate that he should not have been acting as uninvolved with respect to WMC and my reaction towards an editor who oddly popped up and called for me to be banned, desysopped and blocked seemingly because I had dared to criticise Lar. I am not trying to say I have always acted impecably. I recognise I have inflamed situations at times but such a major topic ban seems more than extreme and does not in any way address any issues. I would understand an interaction ban but a topic ban makes no sense as I am not a problematic or POV editor on this topic. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a bellicose and confrontational pattern in your participation and that is adding fuel to the fire in an already over-heated topic. Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Only in a very limited way and in wikipedia namespace therefore a full topic ban still makes no sense. I don't see any similar sanctions regarding Lar who has gone around calling editors a cabal and trying to "level the playing field" etc., attacking other admins for being biased and generally stiring things up and consistantly supporting one "side" against another. If you think my presence is worse then it demonstrates that keeping ones head down on arbcase talkpages pays off. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You and eye don't see eye to eye on matters here so I'm not sure if this will help but I hope it does. Anyway first, I take it as self-evident that arbcom's primary concern is not punishment, but both trying to help editors who are having problems and also trying to prevent and resolve editor related problems that are preventing people writing an encyclopaedia. Sometimes these mean removing editors they find are problematic from areas where they are causing problems. If you don't agree with my view of their concern then I think it's probably pointless to go on.

But if you do, my impression here, and forgive me if I am mistaken, is you have been involved in editing climate change related articles (used in a very broad sense to include strongly related BLPs) including in the early stages of the case. For Lar, although some have questioned his fairness, actions, civility, comments etc, it's generally true he (at least I seem to recall Lar is a he) doesn't edit climate change related articles.

Now it seems likely that arbcom is going to find your behaviour was problematic. It also seems likely that arbcom is going to find Lar's conduct was in some instances problematic although not as problematic as yours.

If arbcom's intent here was punishment, it may seem fair that both you and Lar should be punished. But as I've said, that isn't their intent. Given their intentions, it seems they do think it necessary to ban you from the wider climate change related area. Now they could topic ban Lar as well, but given that Lar isn't a participant in that area, there's no point and no reason. He has undertaken admin actions in the area, but it seems likely that even if they are not going to directly say he should not participate, they are going to implement remedies which will have the same effect. They could of course restrict him in other ways, de-admining for example or stopping him participating in discretionary sanctions or whatever, but it seems they don't consider his behaviour serious enough to warrant that.

Perhaps arbcom could hope that you will get better once things have calmed down, some of the problem users have been removed or are no longer part of the process (Lar in particular for you), but unfortunately in this case it's clear they think things have gotten so bad, that they do need drastic action so that doesn't cut it I guess.

In terms of the 'keeping your head down' perhaps I misunderstand your point but if not is that really surprising? I for one don't think it's surprising that showing some of the very behaviour that is causing concerns, on the place they are watching most careful is going to get their attention and not in a good way. Particularly since if that behaviour is shown when the case is active, it suggests to them the person hasn't learnt and isn't going to learn. It's a bit like the person on vandalism related offences who gets caught vandalising the court before their case (I actually heard of a case like this in the real world). Or if you want the friend who goes to court to support someone accused of vandalism but is then caught vandalising the court. Things can of course get a bit heated in arbcom cases or when there is a dispute and I suspect there's some allowance for that but ultimately as I've said before there is going to be a limit.

BTW in terms of your earlier point about you being on both sides, well my impression is that AQFK is also arguably on both 'sides' although probably on the other 'side' a lot more then you. I don't personally find it surprising that people can be problematic, including showing battlefield conduct even if they don't always agree with the same editors. I'm not suggesting your case is similar to his, I believe many of the problems relating to him are from mainspace.

Also as you may have gathered, I haven't analysed the evidence much, hence why I've emphasised most of my comments above are just my impression. In particular, I'm not making judgement on whether arbcoms views of how bad your behaviour and Lar's behaviour have been is accurate. However despite that, I admit from what I seen including in the comments on this page, I can somewhat see why arbcom is concerned. Now I understand you feel hard-done by from arbcoms proposed decisions, but it's the kind of thing which probably isn't helping your case.

I'm not BTW saying arbcom is perfect and I acknowledge that some of their actions may have contributed to the current situation.

Also as a disclaimer I should say I'm an occasional editor of climate change related articles, and although I'm not that familiar with the science I definitely am on the mainstream or in fact probably closer to the alarmist. More importantly, I am therefore somewhat aware of some of the participants in this case but already was of the belief long before this case that there were problems on both 'sides'. (But I you're not one of the ones.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's ok that I am being bold and I've unhatted your comments Nil Einne. I think what you say here is kind of important and should be seen by others, esp. those who are not familiar with a lot of this. Plus I wanted to comment after yours which would make my comment seem out of context. If you have a problem with my doing this then by all mean rehat but please move my comment above it, thank you. I said it before and I'll say it again, Lar's talk page needed to be read to understand totally where all this involved/uninvolved was coming from. I have had Lar's talk page and the sanction page on my watchlist for a very long time so I've seen the 'battles' and the comments that have gone on over there and imho it's important to look at for complete context of involved/uninvolved. I don't want anyone to be upset with me over this comment so please understand I'm not taking sides here. All I am trying to do is bring to the attentions of everyone concerned about this that his page be looked at, even Lar stated earlier on to read his talk page so it's not like I'm saying something all by myself here. Now, as for what to do with the situation with Polargeo, I have learned from his alternate account Olap the Ogre that s/he had given his tools back and scrambled his Polargeo account so that he (I'm going to say he but I don't know so if I'm wrong would someone please ping on my talk page so I can correct) can no longer access that account. He has now also done that with the alternate account he was using to try to make his points here. I have to say that Polargeo hurt himself by the constant stating of Lar being an involved administrator at every chance he got. He shot himself in the foot on this matter. I would like to ask though, why did the administrators on that board and on the RFC/u say that Lar was an uninvolved administrator when it showed clearly on his talk page that he had already decided certain things that would make him, in my opinion, unacceptable to be an uninvolved administrator when it came to the sanction board? He stated many times about WMC cabal, faction and other terms. He stated that the need to 'level the playing field' was needed which required getting WMC and others who agreed with him removed from the CC articles. This was all stated at the RFC/u. The closing done was by an administrator Wordsmith who said that Lar asked him to close the RFC/u. I'm sorry but isn't that against policy to pick an administrator to close something that is about you? I'm not saying anymore since I've said too much already. Lar, I am not trying to pick a fight with you and if we need to discuss things please, oh please either take it to my talk page or email me about this. In closing, I think that Polargeo has been through enough, he gave up his tools, he gave up his account, and his feelings are very emotional. I hope that he returns when he gets his emotions under control but I also think he wasn't totally wrong, he just did it the wrong way. Thank you again for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

C: I think you're confusing "having an opinion" with "being involved". As for Polargeo, I think recognition that he gave up his admin bit in controversial circumstances and can't get it back without standing for RfA or specific application to ArbCom (and perhaps an interaction ban with those that he seems to have had the most issues with) would be sufficient. I'm not sure I see the need for remedy 3 in his case. Roger's correct when he remarks on Polargeo's interaction style with certain folk as having significant room for improvement, but his edits have been pretty good in my view and he does at least sometimes try to be even handed, with a few blind spot exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, someone can have an opinion about things and still remain uninvolved. I think though you went too far with your repeating your opinions about specifics groups of editors and the support and comments on your talk page shows that in my opinion that you stepped from being uninvolved to involved in parts of the cases brought to the sanction board. If you would have just recused yourself in some areas of the case when you were requested by multiple editors I think the whole issues would have been diffused but you adamantly refused to even consider yourself to recuse. Again, that became a big problem, caused a lot of unnecessary drama and an RFC/u that could have and should have been prevented. The difs can be seen at the RFC/u. Just my opinion from watching, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no proposal to remove PG's admin status on the PD page at the moment, nor has anybody even offered any evidence for an abuse of the tools. Why would anybody think that "he gave up his admin bit in controversial circumstances"? I can't say I'm surprised anymore, but I do say that I'm seriously pissed off by this spiteful and completely unjustified suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my read that there are controversial circumstances here, but I may be wrong. Would you suggest that if I gave up my bit right now, in the middle of a case, that I was entitled to ask for it back? I'll leave it to arbcom to determine both those things if they so choose. As for the rest, well I'll say again that I think remedy 3 ought not to be applied in Polargeo's case. If you're still pissed, that's unfortunate. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course if you gave up your bit in any situation where there is no serious proposal to get it removed, you should get it back in the routine way. Only controversies affecting your status should affect that ability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess, since in my view there was material introduced during the case's evidence phase which could have led to a proposed finding to get various bits removed, on the grounds of conduct unbecoming an administrator. I tend to construe controversial circumstances rather more broadly than you perhaps? Finally, if you could see your way clear to not casting aspersions such as "spiteful and completely unjustified" right away that might be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is fairly late in the arbitration, and it looks like ArbCom is not planning to even propose such a desysopping. My position would be that any administrator who resigned the tools and wishes to ask for them back should be given them back so long as they have not had major issues with our important content policies – BLP, copyright, plagiarism, edit warring, source falsification, and so on. If ArbCom thinks that Polargeo should not be allowed to automatically ask for the tools back, which is a reasonable position (albeit one that I disagree with), a finding of fact stating that Polargeo resigned under controversial circumstances should be proposed and passed. If not, it is only reasonable to assume that they do not wish to pass such a remedy and that Polargeo should be able to regain the tools. NW (Talk) 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would an arbitrator or two clarify whether the tools were requested to be taken from him and if so why? Also, from the discussion above I think clarification is also needed as to whether they will be returned to him if he should ever decide to return to the project. I think this is important enough to require proper clarifications for everyone, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While I would agree with the sentiment that a remedy (especially Remedy 3, the thermonuclear option) is not required for Polargeo, I actually think that an FoF is appropriate. I do hope that PG returns to editing at some future date, but I'm still not sure that he realizes how some of his actions aggravated an already parlous situation. I can use myself as an example in this case; if he had not dropped a bunch of sarcasm on my page during the Lar RFC, I would not have participated in this arbitration at all. A FoF without a remedy (or with a remedy which is more congruent to the situation) is proper; I think a simple warning would be sufficient. Unlike most of the other editors here, none of Polargeo's transgressions involved inappropriate edits to climate change articles; in fact, only two disputed edits involved article space at all. Polargeo's problems were primarily about poor interactions with other editors, which was (at most) a secondary consideration for this RFAr. Horologium (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Horologium I think I agree with what you are saying. Polargeo shot himself in the foot many times due to emotional outbursts. I think a warning would be appropriate like you say instead of what you call the nuclear option. Thank you for saying it a lot better than I did and with less words. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of specific questions to the Arbs that perhaps ought to be directly answered. Feel free to remove this posting if they do get directly answered. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

5 Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area (Scibaby)

I'm broadly satisfied with the way the arbitration seems to be going and I'm very grateful that the arbitrators have devoted a very large amount of time and effort to trying to resolve this complex and entangled dispute.

One area that bothers me, though, is the treatment of Scibaby, which I think is represented in the current proposed finding, to wit:

Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

The bolded text doesn't seem correct to me, though historically it may have had some factual basis.

Here's a summary for the month of January:

On January 1, 2010, 5 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed, and all were tagged and blocked by Checkuser J.delanoy.

On January 5, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. 7 were confirmed by Checkuser Alison, and all 7 of those were tagged, and they were blocked by admin NuclearWarfare. Alison reviewed one of them and decided she had erred in one case. He was unblocked.

On January 7, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed by Alison and blocked by NuclearWarfare.

On January 8, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added 1 more. 2 admins blocked them.

On January 9, 2010, 4 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed and blocked 2 of them.

On January 16, 2010, 3 users and one IP were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed 2 and they were blocked by NuclearWarfare. Another was found to have a sock which had not been listed, but was not apparently related to Scibaby. Neither of the latter was blocked.

On January 22, 2010, 1 IP and 1 user were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed the user as a sock of Scibaby, and listed 4 other socks she had found. She said "no comment" on the IP. Stephan Schulz blocked all 4 Scibaby socks.

On January 25, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and suggested that a rangeblock might be appropriate. The user was blocked by Amory, and later Alison applied a rangeblock to 24.205.128.0/19, "as there's very little else other than Scibaby on there."

On Januay 28, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added a third. They were blocked by 2 admins.

On January 29, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. It was confirmed by Alison and blocked by Amory Meltzer.

On January 30, 2010, 1 editor was listed as a suspected scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and Amory Meltzer blocked it.

On January 31, 2010, 3 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. The admin Prolog blocked 1 as an obvious sock to prevent further disruption, "It's definitely Scibaby." The admin Mastcell blocked another as "an obvious match" with one of the reported suspected socks. Checkuser Luna Santin confirmed all of them and added another. They were all blocked.

This seems to show a pattern of highly reliable sock spotting, confirmed by separate Checkusers. Only one instance of mistaken identification has been detected for the whole month. Assuming this was not some fluke "lucky" month, the data does not corroborate the characterization in the proposed finding.

Could I ask the arbitrators to please take a closer look at this and consult the Checkusers to see if they agree with it? --TS 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate it if the Arbs could address Tony's question. The 20-40% false-positive rate doesn't agree with my general impression, nor does it agree with Tony's compiled data. I understand that the 20-40% figure includes rangeblocks, and while I agree that overzealous rangeblocks were highly problematic, I think more clarity in this regard would be helpful, because the 20-40% figure can be (and indeed has already been) used as ammunition against the small and shrinking handful of editors who actually handle this prolific sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I looked over the first few months of 2010 a while back, and found the data very much more consistent with Tony's description than with a 20-40% error rate. ArbCom should also be careful to distinguish between wrongly suspected users, and users caught in range blocks, as these are caused by separate processes and people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are people here reading Risker's clarification (from early September) in that remedy? It seems to explain how the numbers was derived, in particular the 40% was from last year, the 20% this year which suggests things have improved but we still have a way to go. Perhaps what's being proposed here (or should be proposed here) is that some of that is summarised in the finding? Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The finding should, in particular, highlight that the rate at which editors identify Scibaby socks does not have 20-40% false positives, nor did it ever have them. How many legitimate contributors are caught in range blocks is a different question. Moreover, there seems to be an implicit assumption that any sock not confirmed by CU is a false positive. That is, of course fallacious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

According to a discussion on Carcharoth's talk page[69], the figure comes from a report that discussed Raul654's checkuser-based rangeblocking, which ended in July, 2009 according to his admin log. If so then the Committee really does need to update its finding to describe what has happened in the intervening year, which appears to me to be sock puppet handling performed to commendable standards. --TS 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you could keep such discussion here in future, and not take it to my talk page, that would be good, Tony. The section you raised this in on my talk page was nothing to do with Scibaby and I've separated out what you said there (and the responses, none of which were by me) to its own section, but really it would be best if you hatted that discussion on my talk page and directed people here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

This finding of fact includes the following clause: "a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated." Please confirm that this sentence is accurate. I will, as usual, only respond to AC (or active checkusers). Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this question is addressed in more detail in another section above. --TS 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And, as stated above, that's a ballpark figure. Which is why it says "estimates". What is your point? — Coren ^(talk) 02:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The January stats posted by Tony above implies that the real number is about an order magnitude lower for those actually blocked. I think that's significant enough... NW (Talk) 03:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The analysis (by Tony) may be taking the wrong approach, and seems to be too small a sample in any case (a better approach would be to identify the numbers unblocked and extrapolate from that to estimate how many people didn't bother to ask to be unblocked). I'm not that comfortable with the 20-40% figure either (though see Risker's explanation of it on the PD), mainly because any percentage needs to give the numbers involved as percentages can be misleading, but I am satisfied that there has been an over-reaction to Scibaby, and that, rather than specific percentages, is the key point here. It is difficult to deal with Scibaby-like issues, but the point that we are trying to make here is that more care when looking at such issues, and less collateral damage is needed, not more damage or quibbling over numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I believe that the 20% and 40% figures are about range blocks, not about "accounts blocked as Scibaby," which the PD states they are about. Could you confirm that is correct? If it is correct, shouldn't it be made accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's easy (and correct) to say that more care is needed in dealing with Scibaby, and less collateral damage. But those statements are vague to the point of uselessness. Do we need to show more care in applying rangeblocks? Because that's already happened, I think. Do the people who currently report and/or block Scibaby sockpuppets need to show more care? That's not clear to me from the finding, because it seems to be based on outdated figures, which are confusingly billed as "current" checkuser estimates.

It might be helpful to have more specifics about how you (the Committee) would like to see this sockpuppetry handled, because right now the whole thing is a gigantic Catch-22 and a trap for the people who care enough to deal with the problem. People standing on the sidelines are all too happy to use the false-positives as a handy bludgeon - and the 20-40% number will feed into this tendency, unfairly. That's my concern, and I don't think it's a quibble about numbers. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Mastcell, I share your concerns that the proposed finding at present may err on the side of maligning the people who are presently working on handling the sock puppetry, without giving criticism that can be understood and acted upon. The arbitrators know they're not there to pontificate, but to make sure problems are resolved going forward, and I see some signs that they're going to move to strike some of the problematic text. I think that would go a long way towards addressing my concerns. I think it would have been better if the Committee had recognised that some of the criticisms are unconstructive. It would be perverse to make poor material placed by a suspected sock more difficult to handle than poor material placed in good faith. --TS 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A check of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive for April (a random relatively recent month where I participated in adminning this topic area but little) and September (the most recent month for which data are available) shows seven and five distinct sets of Scibaby reports being opened, respectively. A breakdown by date of initial report follows (length of time a report was open maps pretty well onto date of next report):

breakdown

• April 03: 4 accounts reported by Prolog, 1 by KimDabelsteinPetersen; all 6 were confirmed and blocked, along with one sleeper.
• April 06: 1 account reported by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, confirmed and blocked along with an unspecified number of sleeper accounts.
• April 06 (again): 3 accounts reported by Prolog, 1 by Hipocrite, 4 by KimDabelsteinPetersen, and 5 by unspecified (in the archive, presumably it is in the page history if this becomes important); 2 were unconfirmed (and never tagged or blocked), 5 were confirmed as Scibaby, and 6 were confirmed as socks of each other.
• April 10: 3 accounts reported by Prolog; all 3 confirmed, along with one sleeper.
• April 13: 1 account reported by Aunt Entropy, 5 by Prolog, 1 by KimDabelsteinPetersen, and 1 by ChrisO; all 8 confirmed and blocked with no sleepers.
• April 20: 1 account reported by ChrisO; confirmed and range blocks applied (unspecified, obviously).
• April 25: 4 accounts reported by Prolog, 2 by ChrisO, 2 by Stephen Schulz, 1 by me, 1 by Hipocrite, and 11 unspecified; 22 confirmed (including an unspecified number of sleepers, obviously), 2 unrelated socks of each other, 1 unrelated sock, and one probable open proxy.

• September 06: 9 accounts reported by Prolog; all 9 confirmed, along with 2 sleepers.
• September 09: 7 accounts reported by Prolog; all 7 confirmed, along with 1 sleeper.
• September 14: 8 accounts reported by Prolog; 14 confirmed (in two sets of sockpuppets).
• September 18: 9 accounts reported by Prolog; all blocked plus one sleeper.
• September 26: 1 account reported by Sailsbystars; blocked, plus 4 sleepers.

Ignoring the sleepers as just icing, for April we have 8 people reporting 36 confirmed active Scibaby sockpuppets, 9 socks in various sets not necessarily related to each other or Scibaby, 1 probable open proxy, one set of range blocks, and two unconfirmed accounts who were never tagged or blocked. For September, we have 2 people reporting 34 socks with perfect accuracy. This gives a confirmation rate of 36/48 (75%) or 46/48 (96%) for April, not counting collateral damage from the range blocks. Even with this little collateral damage (the two unconfirmed reports were likely never aware of the SPI case, though I cannot comment on activity from the ranges blocked), I am happy to see the PD acknowledge that it exists. It always hurts the project, and people should keep unintended consequences in mind when dealing with sock puppetry. I would, however, be happier if the parenthetical in the second to last sentence of Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area, (20-40% by current checkuser estimates), were dropped or reworded. That sentence already acknowledges that range blocks are a blunt tool. It might also be better to use the more ambiguous some in place of the more loaded a significant proportion, especially as we are not dealing in statistical significance here. I am also not familiar with any edit filter actually being implemented in this case; if they have been only proposed but not implemented due to a high rate of false positives during the testing phase, that clause should be reworded. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth, above - none of the accounts listed for April or September of this year have been unblocked, or even requested it. This includes a fair number of WP:DUCK blocks. While appreciating the acknowledgment of the difficulty involved here, I would like to second MastCell's request for some guidance. I intend on continuing to ignore this particular problem, but it is about to get worse; also, if I had any more useful advice for dealing with this sockmaster I would already have given it. It may be that a discussion at WT:SPI or somewhere would be a better venue than here, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The concerns raised here about this statistic being used elsewhere are not idle. I received an email concerning an unrelated sock issue which quoted the figure as an example. This finding does not link to the analyses that it's based upon, and does not distinguish individual blocks from range blocks. I agree that this finding may be counterproductive for dealing with the overall problem of sock accounts.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this matter should be taken care of with some urgency, as the case is set to close. --TS 20:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has considered that most people being shown the door at a restaurant (for example) do not return - perhaps some who are "shown the door" at WP do not engage in clearing their name, but simply leave permanently? The use of "the usual" as a rationale for blocking is clearly deficient per ArbCom findings. Collect (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good argument against sock puppet investigations. Wikipedia isn't going to stop using sock puppet investigations because of this case. On the substantive statement, obviously if anybody has ever used "the usual" in their blocking statement they were doing it wrong. Did they? --TS 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(bit offtopic)Prolog is doing extremely good work here, and should receive recognition for it. He is likely to burn out though, if no one is helping. Best case is to just turn in for CU, not tag or block, then if they are false positives, they will never have noticed - that was my MO on these. (obviously i couldn't block :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some commentary here. First off, a lot of the speculation in this thread is based on the assumption that Scibaby checkuser requests and blocks are almost exclusively related to SPIs; according to the checkusers I spoke with, this isn't necessarily the case. Several checkusers reported receiving private requests, some of which led to checks and some of which led to blocks or alternately lifting of blocks, and many of them weren't formally tagged "Scibaby". Secondly, there is an assumption that all of the excessive range blocks were the work of a single checkuser; they weren't, and it's taken quite a while to change that "culture" amongst checkusers and administrators. Luckily, many checkusers had never got in the habit of making long range blocks for "nuisance" sockers (Scibaby is a nuisance, and is nowhere near as destructive as several other sockpuppeters), and few administrators make lengthy range blocks without discussing them with checkusers in advance, so we had a running chance at fixing this issue. It's taken time to change this behaviour, though, and we do see periodic resurgences (not necessarily associated with Scibaby). In the interests of reducing the grumbling about this section, however, I am going to reword the Finding of Fact. Risker (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Addendum: There was a "Scibaby" edit filter until fairly recently; however the administrator who created it and monitored it advises me that, despite numerous tweaks, it still gave a 70-80% false positive count. That was with the edit filter only screening edits from non-autoconfirmed users on specific articles. The terms that are most closely associated with Scibaby, it seems, aren't particularly special or unique. The fact that accounts blocked as Scibaby don't demand unblocking is irrelevant; most new users who are blocked don't request unblocking, regardless of the reason they were blocked. Risker (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of much of that, and I deeply appreciate your clarification. I am satisfied with the new wording, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

18 Cla68 battlefield conduct

I suggest adding to the findings of fact Cla68's battlefield conduct on the climate change request for enforcement page:

• Tendentious complaint against William M. Connelley, closed as "no case to answer." [70]

• "Notice of formal request to William M. Connelley." Cla68 abused the RfE page, and added unnecessary drama, by first "formally" requesting that WMC cease editing an article[71], and then repeating that "formal request" at the RfE page.[72] Clerk notation: "Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so."

--ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might be interesting to some of the arbcom if I pointed out some of Cla68 apparent battlefield conduct outside the CC area. Perhaps helping to establish a pattern of behavior on Cla68's part that would make a contentious area like CC only worse. Cla68 has made threats and scolded other editors.[73][74][75] I can see the possibility that some might consider these three incidents as Cla68 making rather pointy but still good faith efforts to improve other editors behavior. What Cla68 did against me though I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as good faith. Here [76] Cla68 tells a brazen total lie to Arbcom giving false testimony that I claimed that a particular person claimed a degree from Warren National University. He told this falsehood in an attempt to get Arbcom to ban my editing on the Warren National University article. I proved here [77] with google searches on my website that Cla68's unsupported assertion was a brazen falsehood. I also linked to archive.org links to my website from the past and invited Cla68 to point out where he read the claims that I had supposedly made. Cla68 has never been able to give a good faith explanation for his totally false assertion. Bill Huffman (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

16 ATren's battlefield conduct

ATren has expressed concern about the finding on his conduct in the topic area, but he focuses on some instances in which he repeatedly tries to deter uninvolved admins from acting in the area. This is fully documented, alongside other problematic behavior, in the evidence submissions of 2over0 and Hipocrite. It isn't some new evidence. Others stood aghast for months while ATren seemed to be doing his best to prevent the probation from working at all except on his terms.

In January the community expressly granted uninvolved admins discretion to take action in the topic area. This doesn't mean ATren couldn't express his concerns, but he set about it in entirely wrong way, by brow-beating admins, and by numerous failures to assume good faith. This is consistent with much of the rest of his engagement in the topic area, which was at times so partisan and divisive as to deter those who support his causes.

That's the problem: approaching an issue in a way that exacerbates it. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing out - politely - to various admins that may be misusing their powers is classified as "uncivil". (Have you looked at the "uncivil" diffs?) Part of the normal checks and bounds that we claim makes Wikipedia function. Instead, a topic ban? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bias are assumptions of bad faith (no matter how much the person saying it says its not, which is in and of its self disingenuous) as such may be seen as PA’s. Also accusations of bullying and baiting (telling other users to ‘back off’, which is hardly diplomatic language, is a bit aggressive) can be seen as more assumptions of bad faith. Moreover having said that an admin was policing fine when that admin makes a decision that this user aggress with, when it’s a decision he disagrees with the attitude changes to one of accusations of bias, a clear indicator that the user is not judging based on merit (or lack of it) But on the bias of the banned user (and the support this users has for that POV).In normal situations it is not problematic but may have (and I would argue has) helped top contributed to the general deterioration of attitude and behaviour on the CC related pages.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not: Accusations of bias are not assumptions of bad faith. Bias is mostly unconscious and is (usually) conducted in good faith - that's why it is a problem, and that's why it needs to be pointed out, and why it should be addressed and not have the messenger shot. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

by brow-beating admins, and by numerous failures to assume good faith. There are instances of this with other editors regarding Lar: Stephan Schulz and Short Brigade Harvester Boris come to mind, and those instances were personal attacks. I can find the diffs if asked. I previously thought ArbCom was looking for something more than a couple of personal attacks for a finding of fact, but given the intolerance of ArbCom for any of my own errors, or errors by ATren or AQFK, perhaps ArbCom would welcome similar proposals regarding these or other editors. I can only think of one instance with Stephan Schulz (the "milliLar" comment already in evidence somewhere), and I read Boris' multiple comments on Lar on Boris' talk page. For hours today, I've been going through some tangled page histories to finish my response in my own case, and I'm not keen on dragging in other editors for what may be brief violations, but if ATren is sanctioned for direct requests to admins to consider their conduct and withdraw from the case, then other, nastier forms of this should be brought forward. It hurts ArbCom's credibility to be sanctioning some editors while treating editors with similar or worse conduct without sanctions. If ArbCom is presented with this kind of evidence, arbitrators should be able to explain what the difference is or put new sanctions on the page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

JWB, the evidence of personal attacks against Lar was summarized nicely here. I pointed this out to Shell, but she ignored it. ATren (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The diffs against me were taken completely out of context and took no account as to whether my warnings to those admins had merit. Here is the context:

• I warned Fut.Per. when he was threatening a user with a block for creating a userspace draft (even BozMo agreed it was unusual). Here is a permalink to the section: [78]. Here is a sampling of FPAS's tone on that thread (all emphasis mine): "reckless disregard for NPOV... disruptive... such shenanigans cannot be tolerated.... If I see you recklessly pushing your POV in a manner like this once more, you will be indef-blocked...The warning stands, and is extended to you too, since I see you aided and abetted in writing that draft...any rational observer, by applying simple common sense, should recognise as obviously unacceptable... If anybody did take it seriously, they must be caught in patterns of magical thinking on the intellectual level of a ten-year-old, or they must be in a state where they allow their political agendas to get the better of their rational judgment in a rather extreme way. In either case, they should not be Wikipedia editors....He flouted the rules deliberately."

  All of this was in response to a user space draft of an article that still exists. But I am being sanctioned for telling him to "back off".

• Here is the sequence of events that led to my warning to TOAT: (all emphasis mine)
  1. WMC provoked a conflict when he collapsed a section on a talk page, sarcastically calling it "another sterile debate" and with the provocative comment "I wonder if I can get away with this" [79]. This seems to be a clear case of disruption and battleground editing.
  2. ZuluPapa5, who was participating in the discussion which was collapsed, complained on the enforcement talk page (though, as was typical of ZP5, his complaint was cryptic).
  3. TOAT responded by hatting ZP5's section with the comment "unnecessary griefing"[80] and put a stern warning on ZP5's talk: "This is a final warning that if you choose to further abuse the probation talk pages with namecalling and other attacks, I will ask for enforcement action regarding your own conduct in this area."[81].
  4. After some mild back and forth, TOAT again warned ZP5 in a comment filled with bad faith: "Gaming WP:NPA this way doesn't work, just so you know... hounding him (WMC). Moving the hounding and attacks to another location isn't an acceptable response.... you're far past the point where any sort of informal engagement with WMC is going to be productive.... Oh, and I've deleted your creation of WP:WASTEOFTIME. Don't pull a stunt like that again."[82].
  5. TOAT's response to WMC (the editor who provoked the conflict) was as follows: "I think that ZuluPapa is best ignored from here on in. I've warned him in no uncertain terms that attempting to goad you on the probation enforcement talk page is out of bounds, and that if he has any complaints he should use an appropriate venue rather than passive-aggressively lobbing insults. He's pretending that the probation talk page is equivalent to your talk page; I would recommend not letting him redefine reality that way. I would expect that the admins reading the talk page there are well aware of the members of the mutual support chorus by now, and I suspect that the best way to discourage their trolling is to not rise to the bait. (I know it's difficult.) Best wishes, "[83]

     My response to TOAT after this episode was a single comment on his talk telling him I found his actions "highly inappropriate", and that's now presented as evidence of my battleground behavior.

• I warned 2/0 mainly for defending WMC. In case anyone is interested, below is the evidence I had collected against 2/0, and which I never presented because I thought 2/0 and I had settled it. I was even supportive of 2/0's participation later; I only objected to his perplexing defense of WMC. See hatted section below (I originally posted this to Shell's talk -- she ignored it):

context of my complaints against 2/0 back in January

I have not presented evidence against 2/0 in this case, because he did seem to correct his issues after I challenged him back in early 2010. But since I am being sanctioned now for challenging 2/0, I think you should understand the context of my complaints. In that light, please consider this RFE from that time (the one second from the bottom, hatted in pink with the comment "closed as a mess..."). At that point in time, 2/0 had already warned WMC directly about civility. The RFE was opened by Heyitspeter, an editor who was previously (and subsequently) uninvolved in CC, certainly not a combatant. Heyitspeter presented 14 diffs of battleground editing and attacks, for example: "repair for the incompetent". 2/0's immediate response was to chastise Heyitspeter himself [84] for raising the request. And when others challenged 2/0 on the diffs presented (including me), 2/0 responded with an extended defense of WMC, which is the hatted section near the bottom of the RFE. In that defense, 2/0 analyzed every diff from WMC from the previous 2 days and defended each one. Shell please examine that analysis and tell me that MY concerns about 2/0's bias were not warranted. Here are some examples of 2/0's defense of WMC:

• • "this is a silly victory for the yahoo's" - 2/0's response: "expresses disappointment in the sanction being lodged. Nobody enjoys being subjected to restrictions, long term productive contributors doubly so." Implication: long term editors can refer to their fellow editors as yahoos.
  • "Boris, I lack your patience with the idiots" - 2/0's response: "touchy and ill-advised comment, but not actionable". Implication: calling fellow editors "idiots" after you've already called them "yahoos" is not sanctionable.
  • "MN is, as usual, defending anything anti-GW, regardless of reality" - 2/0's response: "unproductive comment." Implication: insulting another editor is "unproductive" but still not sanctionable.
  • removes well-sourced material, calling it "trash" - 2/0's response: "edit during discussion, citing WP:RS." Implication: removing material sourced to 2 major newspapers and calling it "trash" is fine.
  • "When the issue is the latest skeptic nonsense I usually lose, and we just remove it a little while later when it proves to be twaddle" - 2/0's response: "typo correction; argues WP:RECENTISM." Implication: calling well-sourced material "skeptic nonsense" and "twaddle" is simply arguing WP:RECENTISM.
  • "On the plus side, at least we can spell", a snide remark on my talk page directed at an editor who had thanked me for advice. 2/0's response: "comments that his last name was misspelled." No reference to the obvious sarcasm.
  • "You're not listening", directed at the same editor who was the target of the misspelling sarcasm. 2/0's response: "refocusing a discussion here". No mention of the incivility.
  • "The article is not here to argue the skeptic POV" - 2/0's response: "argues WP:WEIGHT". No mention of the battleground tone of the edit.
  • "If you want to know how unbiased AQFK is...", attacking the editor, not the edit. 2/0's response: "adds a comment on another editor to the previous. I assume the quote is accurate." No mention of the battleground tone of the edit.
  • "... Come on, leaving aside the mob, you ought to know better" - 2/0's response: "argues WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.". No mention of calling other editors "the mob".
  • "...Palming it off to an RFC is weaseling. I thought you might have an opinion of some value... but if you don't, OK" - 2/0's response: "chatter related to WP:Dispute resolution (on the discuss personally and seek outside input side of the scale).". No mention of the incivility.
  • removal of comment from his talk with the comment "you've said your bit; repetition is dull" - 2/0's response: "removal of comment from own talkpage" No mention of the incivility
  • AQFK's assertions of impartiality indeed appear "laughable"... I think it is plain what side you are on....Could we try to stick to reality, please" - 2/0's response: "Fails to refocus debate." Implication: battleground editing and attacking another editor's impartiality is an attempt to "refocus debate"
  • "Come on, try a little bit of honesty: at least correct yourself over the removed-three-times" - 2/0's response: "requests refactoring of erroneous or misleading statement". No mention of the incivil tone or the accusation of dishonesty.
  • "That you can't tell them apart is quite significant", a snide comment on that other editor's intelligence - 2/0's response: "adds suggestion that another editor take more care to previous". Implication: insinuations about another editor's intelligence is nothing more than a "suggestion" to "take more care"
  • "... Hopefully you weren't relying on MN to be accurate" - 2/0's response: " notes that there has been rather a lot of incivility at my talkpage lately; more on an earlier self-reversion". No mention of the insult directed at MN.
  • "... It looks to me as though you've thrown the trolls meat and they want more..." - 2/0's response: " a bit annoyed at me, but hardly the first time someone has suggested (or insinuated or demanded or requested or inveighed) that I take some administrative action or another (aside: I appreciate when people direct my attention to the latest flare up, but refuse to take action without investigating the current dispute)". 2/0's analysis completely neglects the fact that he was calling opposing editors "trolls".
  • "... Effectively, you have ruled for that nonsense to remain in indefinitely" - 2/0's response: "opines that I soft-locked The Wrong Version". No mention of the battleground tone.
  • "Try looking up the word "tendentious"", with an edit comment "dictionary required", implying that MN doesn't understand the word. 2/0's response: "reiterating advice rendered by others". Implication: attacking another editor is OK if others are doing it too.
  • "I thought you were a paid-up member of the civility police?", edit comment. 2/0's response: "removes comment from own talkpage". No mention of the PA in the edit comment

Some points to consider here: (1) all of these diffs were from just two days, and each one demonstrates extreme battleground behavior, (2) The diffs themselves are striking, but even more disturbing is 2/0's response to them, in which he ignores obvious problematic elements and downplays others. In those two days, WMC called his fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos", "trolls", and "the mob", accuses them of dishonesty and bias, and in general fosters a battleground environment, 'yet 2/0 was actively defending him.

Here is 2/0's summary of the analysis:

"I venture to suggest that this is not the portrait of an editor we should be topic banning. WMC has been markedly more diplomatic in expressing his opinions since the recent sanction was imposed than at some times past. This is precisely what the sanction was meant to drive home - supporting or opposing an edit with well-reasoned policy-based arguments is good; supporting or opposing an edit with reasoning and reference to past history of the editor can be good or bad depending on how it is done, though sticking to the first approach should obviate any need for it; commenting on a specific editor or group of editors is usually bad, or always if a comment is denigrating or insulting. If he starts attacking other editors then we should do something about it, but at present I think the point is taken. There are plenty of people watching his edits, so I feel confident that yet another enforcement thread will be raised and further sanction imposed if and when he steps over the line. There is *far* too much drawing up the battle lines in this topic area and at this board, and quite generally it interferes with article building and probation enforcement both. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)"

So 2/0 not only ignored Heyitspeter's evidence, he chastised Heyitspeter for presenting it, and then presented his own lengthy defense which itself contained perhaps a dozen more examples of battleground editing which he defended!

Now, considering this context, Shell, do you really think it's unreasonable that I would have had concerns about 2/0's impartiality? Consider also the later evidence, such as 2/0's unblock of WMC with minutes remaining in a 1-hour block and his recent defense of KDP on the PD talk page; KDP was one of the editors most frequently aligned with WMC. And I haven't even cited evidence from other RFEs, where 2/0 exhibited uneven enforcement. (For example, he article banned another editor a few weeks earlier based on two edits.)

Would you at least concede that the body of evidence clearly shows that 2/0 had a soft spot for WMC and his POV? Given that soft spot, why am I being sanctioned for challenging 2/0 and asking him to step back? Isn't that the first step of dispute resolution? I had collected much of this evidence back then, but I went to 2/0 first to try to handle it directly, and now I am being sanctioned for that courtesy. How can that be the incorrect course of action? As it happened, 2/0 did reduce his involvement per my request, and so there was no need for dispute resolution, but I was prepared to proceed. So again, why am I being sanctioned for taking the first step of DR, directly confronting who had clearly demonstrated uneven enforcement? ATren

All these warnings given to various people by ATren remind me of a point I made early in this PD discussion, here. I hope that whichever version of the discretionary sanctions remedy passes will be clear on this issue. --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point and I've added it to Remedy 1.2 (the one currently passing). Roger Davies ^talk 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So how are ATren's "warnings" more disruptive than repeated personal attacks, Roger? (If this has been pointed out already, please just tell me where.) Perhaps we should display ATren's comments with links side by side with comments and links from the proposals or evidence for Stephan Schulz or Boris and the discrepancy in ArbCom's treatment will become clearer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

'So how are ATren's "warnings" more disruptive than repeated personal attacks?' That's a bit beside the point, really. They're obviously less disruptive than dropping a piano on somebody's foot, to introduce another random comparator.

And in fact I'd argue that they were not particularly disruptive as they were mostly ignored. But the finding is battleground behavior. And that's what they appear to be. --TS 21:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been moving around heavy furniture all weekend, so your bringing up dropping pianos is a sore point with me that I wish you would drop. If an editor in this case dropped a piano on the foot of another editor in connection with Wikipedia climate change articles, I would expect a finding of fact, a remedy and a call to the police (well, actually an indefinite block, but never mind). What we may well have is evidence of worse behavior by other editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, worse than ATren's, not worse than dropping pianos. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading ATren's hatted evidence above is a facepalm. ATren should not have been castigated for questioning the admin's impartiality under such circumstances. I hope that we will have a better level of impartial adminning in future, and that editors who point out such failings in Wikipedia processes will be thanked, rather than ignored, or accused of "battleground" tactics and disruption. --JN466 00:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, whisteblowers should applauded, not banned. Unfortunately the arbs' attitude seems to be, "He needed banning, what does it matter if the charges are trumped up." --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is al very exciting; it throws up Jaymax's Good grief you wind me up WMC. Someone who knew to use search might, for example, more reliably search on 'non-peer-reviewed', to see what the rules are for, umm, non-peer-reviewed literature, you condescending twat; (FWIW, I don't see how I'm being much less civil than you here, just more concise). [85]. Any arbs got time for another FoF? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the problem being danced around here is that ZP5 has, indeed, made absolutely no productive edits to the Cl Ch pages at all; but has caused a certain amount of pointless disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)