Revision as of 13:44, 29 September 2010

Archives

Numbered Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Topical Archives Meta discussion Party statements Discussion of decision Discussion of FoFs1 Discussion of FoFs2 New proposals (1) New proposals (2)

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Archives

Archived discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion.

Statements

Archives

Archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Statements

Discussion

This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.

Archives

Archived discussions about the decision using the case format can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of decision

General discussion archives can be found at:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Proposed principles

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed principles

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed principle" 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 principle numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

Proposed findings of fact

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of FoFs1 and /Discussion of FoFs2

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.

22 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

• 264 reverting a puppet -ban-evading user
• 266 reverting anon (compare to what contributions the anon made to Misplaced Pages: - I suspect it was the same ban-evading user)
• 269 dealing with tendentious problem editor GoRight who was community banned
• 270 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 271 (compare to what contributions the account made on the article )
• 274 (not a reversion; putting source into citation template)
• 277 reverting a puppet - ban-evading user
• 279 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)

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber

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

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

Proposed new finding of fact - ZuluPapa5

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

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

Proposed new finding of fact - FellGleaming

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

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

Proposed remedies

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed remedies

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed remedy" 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 remedy numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please discuss the associated findings in their own sections above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

3.3.19 - KimDabelsteinPetersen (remedies)

I do not believe that this proposed topic ban is apposite. For a period of several months, I read the overwhelming majority of edits KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) made in the topic area of climate change, as with each of the other major participants. It is my observation that in any dispute, KDP is likely to be the first to make a full presentation of his reasoning on the talk page, the first to urge calm while outside input is gathered, and the first to introduce new sources in an attempt at compromise. To the best of my knowledge, KDP has never been blocked, banned, or formally sanctioned in any way. Obviously this would apply to everyone at least once, but in this case we have good evidence to hand that KDP responds rationally when the community expresses concerns.

In early February, KimDabelsteinPetersen was formally warned at the community requests for enforcement board that further participation in any edit war in the probation area would lead to a 1 revert restriction or similar sanction. My part in this discussion may be seen at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2#Result concerning TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC. Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 8#Joe d'Aleo and temperatures is the relevant discussion initiated by KDP with reference to established policy and guidelines; KDP discussed with the editor who initially contributed the material in question and others before invoking WP:BURDEN. He engaged with this discussion even while the recently contributed material with which he disagreed was displayed in the article. This judicious discuss first approach is contributory to a harmonious editing environment, and should be actively encouraged.

Still, the above incident did see KDP revert twice. As people who have seen my work at AN3 will likely agree, I tend to take a hard line approach with regards to edit warring. One of the bigger problems with this topic area has been the tendency of additional editors to involve themselves in ongoing edit wars, leading to article disruption even in cases where no individual editor has broken 3RR. KDP responded to the abovelinked enforcement thread by not being involved in any edit wars for at least the next two weeks (the period over which I followed his edits as due diligence after warning him). Nor was he a major participant in any edit war nor subject to any request for enforcement for the next two months (the period until I rotated myself out of actively adminning this topic area). I believe that he has also stated that he consciously enacted a personal 1RR rule, though I do not care to track down the diff at the moment. Continuing to contribute productively while moderating potentially questionable behavior is the best possible response when the community raises concerns. This again is behavior that I would like to see acknowledged and encouraged.

KDP agreed to the voluntary topic ban proposed by Jehochman earlier in this case, and has continued to follow it unilaterally, with the exception of the case pages. This is very much the behavior of a patient and reasonable editor rather than a disruptive one.

KDP explains his approach to editing BLPs at User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles. Though I personally take a slightly more parsimonious approach to BLPs (I favor excluding any aspect that has not received in depth coverage from good sources, giving us poorer but safer articles), the views outlined at that page are well within the mainstream of interpretations of Misplaced Pages policy. I would not invoke the BLP hammer on anyone making such an argument. Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms.

While I sympathize with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Enough is enough and the success of the Scientology ArbCom case, I believe that we also have a duty to recognize KimDabelsteinPetersen's positive responses to and engagement with the larger community. His editing habits have not been a major contributing factor to the situation leading to this case, and it is my considered opinion that his renewed participation in this topic area would both enhance article quality and contribute to a positive editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to write. An opposing view, which I am not saying that I necessarily endorse, of this editor's contributions can be found here.  Roger Davies 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2/0, you state: Please, let us not argue again whether this interpretation is the best; the point being made is that KDP's approach is self-consistent, rational, and within community norms. No, that does not adequately describe his approach. As I said on Roger Davies' talk page, it's Kim's application -- where the rubber hits the road -- that's the problem. Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to protect climate-change skeptics? Are there cases where Kim has invoked BLP to show where information critical to someone with Kim's general views should be included? I'd like to see diffs of that. What I've seen, over and over, is interpretation of BLP in ways that further Kim's preferences on the issue of Climate Change, with resulting rough treatment for one side and adamant protection for the other. He has worn away all assumptions of good faith in this regard. Combine this behavior with any edit warring, any BLP violations or any other violation of a policy, especially when ArbCom has declared this a Draconian Enforcement Zone in an area where WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has been a problem.

It is an unacceptable BLP violation to cite a blog to call Fred Singer's lead-authored report "dishonest" and it doesn't matter how many times Kim cites "the exceptions to SPS" or has thought out his approach to BLP issues in the abstract. In fact, it's more disturbing to find BLP violations coming from someone who has thought so much about the policy. This edit is unacceptable when you contrast the description of the source at the bottom of this page (Professor Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability) with Kim's description of that source as some kind of "qualified expert" (in the edit summary from the last diff) -- the statement being sourced had nothing to do with climate change or climate science, but with Lindzen's views on passive cigarette smoking: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated".

As far back as June 2009, editors were flabbergasted that Kim would defend that edit after reading Kim earlier rail against use of Op-Eds as BLP sources. It is simply not possible to conclude that this editor is giving adequate effort either to presenting readers information without bias or keeping BLP articles from becoming attacks on the subjects. These and other edits make it look like Kim is using Misplaced Pages as a tool to gain political advantage in a political fight. Kim needs to be separated from this subject area and show he can edit against his side, particularly regarding controversial BLPs, and he should not be let back in until he's shown ArbCom he can do it. As the flabbergasted reaction I linked to shows, this kind of behavior on Kim's part naturally gets under the skin of editors trying to work with him to make improvements to articles. It obviously contributes to a battleground atmosphere. To turn 2/0's statement on its head: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from a more general discussion section below. So the opening comments are slightly out of context.  Roger Davies 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that one is interesting.. especially since i was asking specifically about the issues that ArbCom is now considering to be "ideosyncratic""idiosyncratically", and which they seem to think merit topic-ban, but haven't addressed :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ideosyncratic"? Have I mispelled it somewhere?  Roger Davies 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. --JN466 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Kim (whose spelling is much better than most English speakers, although I think his native language is Danish) is pointing out that he asked months ago for guidance regarding the line between sourcing that criticizes a BLP's work (which might conceivably include criticism from bloggers in some circumstances -- say, if it is considered simply an alternative POV) and sourcing criticism that goes beyond criticizing what a person has done. It's a bit complex to explain the details, and frankly it would be a lot of effort to explain to Kim, who is very well versed in the intricacies. I explained to Kim on your talk page, Roger, how I think ArbCom would be justified in calling Kim's edits "idiosyncratic" in that regard and worthy of a sanction (because to me this doesn't look like a well-meaning misunderstanding). But I obviously don't speak for ArbCom and Kim wants guidance from ArbCom. Years ago, when I first got blocked, I had a similar misunderstanding about policy. It actually only took a few words from CoolHandLuke to get me to think through what was wrong about what I was doing. I concluded that while I was certainly confused about policy, I wouldn't have erred if I'd tried harder to follow the spirit of the policy and that I'd fallen into wikilawyering over policy in order to try to get what I wanted (I think the policy was WP:CONSENSUS, but possibly WP:DISRUPT, too). I think it would take some effort to explain to Kim what he did wrong in that regard, but it would help him to figure it out. I think if ArbCom approves the six-month-minimum topic ban, he'll figure it out eventually anyway, but an explanation would be smoother. Personally, I think if Kim stopped the partisan kinds of behaviors mentioned in the Fof, he'd be one of Misplaced Pages's very best editors, so I think the effort of understanding this and explaining it to him is worth it. I hope the finding and remedy for Kim is approved, but I worry that ArbCom members might think his "idiosyncracy" is just a misunderstanding, when it's really more serious than that. It really is worthwhile for ArbCom members to understand these details, and it would help the project to explain it to Kim. Sorry to go on at length, but I don't know a briefer way of saying this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Link added. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

note: Because i think that my involvement in this discussion may sidetrack it into minutia, and a response/counter/response/... type of discussions, i'll attempt not to comment on this section, except in answer to direct questions. I am following it though, and will be reflecting on the comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel disquiet about Kim. He is not the kind of person who is more trouble than he's worth. 2over0 says it better than I could. Kim is the way forward. We can't improve things by explicitly excluding people who are working very hard to make things better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim's behavior, including BLP violations and tag-team reverting, but perhaps not the deletion of article talk page comments (theoretically more eyes should be watching and prevent this but it looks like all the watchdogs are getting topic bans so who knows), has gone on far too long for a mere "talking to" to get through to him. I will say that several editors have certainly changed their behavior during the ArbCom case, but I imagine this sort of thing is so commonplace that it is transparent to experienced eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about "tag-team reverting." In my experience that term is used by singleton edit warriors to attack several other editors who are reverting their attempts to impose their view against consensus. Have you often found that Kim and several other editors are reverting your attempts to make an edit that you know is right? Is there another definition that I'm missing? What would it be if you and some other editor were reverting an edit by a singleton editor who happened to be in disagreement with you? Would you then also be "tag-teaming"? How can I distinguish "tag-teaming" from "expression of consensus against a determined singleton edit warrior?"--TS 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash evidence that's already been presented Tony. The short answer to your first question is "Absolutely." If you want more detail then simply read the evidence page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the nomination, Kim has tag-teamed revered with WMC. It's really annoying and provokes edit wars. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed enforcement

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" 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 enforcement numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.

New proposals

Archived proposals can be found at /New proposals and /New proposals2

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

Obligatory cool-downs

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

Discussion

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

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

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But they are not. Instead, they have week-long discussions about short blocks or warnings. Listing this option explicitly as a light-weight alternative would be useful, I think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

(edit conflict)I've been involved in discretionary sanctions in the past (c.f. fringe science). The way they work in practice is that people complain to enforcement boards and admins try to decide whether to block or enact "page bans" on bad users. The whole process was needlessly inflammatory and ended up with the nastiness of WP:PUNITIVE authority being applied unevenly against users who didn't spend enough time or do a good enough job defending themselves. Opposing sides would clamor for blocks, topic-bans, page-bans, and other slings and arrows to be hurled at their opponents by posting on administrators' talk pages, enforcement boards, etc. There was this weird process of warning users with a pseudo-template, logging actions on the arbitration page, and generally causing everyone to feel that any action taken against a particular user was done because that user was a bad user on his or her way toward harsh punishment. Arguments would erupt over whether page-banned users should be subject to other enforcement measures effectively moving the Overton Window to police state. If instead administrators had just quietly and politely told a wide range of users (without judgment) to simply steer clear of a particular page for a day, a week, or a month less chaos would have ensued without the petty logging, black-eye-applications, and holier-than-thou attitudes, there might not have been such a famous ruckus. Stephen Shulz is right. Administrators acting under discretionary sanctions don't often enough engage in the quiet suggestions that can lead to true transformation of arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. that's absolute bollocks. Discretionary sanctions means discretionary sanctions, not some bloody silly commtttee. We went through that pain for six months, and it was bad exactly because of the endless discussion where admins went through the pantomime of listening to involved parties. --TS 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are replying to me (and referring to my suggestion, not the state as it was), I don't think you understand what I tried to say. Please read it again or summarise what you think I said, so I can clarify. I'm not saying it needs a committee to apply one of the discretionary sanctions. I observe that that is what has happened. And I suggest that lower-impact sanctions are both less punitive and more likely to be applied without a long discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with edits too numerous to count)If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it. THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions are about to pass. This is ideally how they work: an admin on his or her own discretion, makes a decision. We know that admins have been intimidated in the past, and that admins in the field who want to get involved are rare. Admins up to the task will be found. They will act fairly and use their discretion. If they fail to do so then they know what will happen.

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

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

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

Discretion

I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:

Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

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

This is actually the opposite of giving discretion to admins - you force them to "engage in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", not giving them discretion to act as they think best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Read the remedy. There is nothing there about extensive engagement prior to warning or sanctions. It's those who want to reverse the sanction who have to jump the hoops. And quite right too. Of course you don't get to sanction and walk away, you do have to respond to constructive engagement, but if you've got a bit you signed up for it. --TS 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably.  Roger Davies 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not really understand how Roger's comment fits this thread...

In reply to Tony: You miss the point (or I did not formulate it well enough). Either you trust the admins, or you don't. Why would you trust them to enact sanctions responsibly, but not to revert them responsibly? In my experience, the more consequential an act is, the less likely it is to be done. The key is not to make sure sanctions stick, the key is to make them lightweight enough that admins actually enact them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrap it up

Could we be finished now, please? Jehochman 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree...and propose that the best thing to do is eliminate the individualized sanctions and simply pass a discretionary sanctions case. ANY violations by any parties mentioned here and then of any parties not mentioned after receiving one explicit warning should lead to a topic ban for 90 days...next violation 1 year and a third, an indefinite topic ban. Any violation noticed would need to be posted so all administrators can see it at either AN/I or the Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard. Set something like that in concrete and trim the fat out of these proposed decisions and we'd all be better off.--MONGO 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms. However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment. After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By "volatile", I mean "subject to flare-ups" rather than continuously problematic. You've talked about imported political disputes before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. The only imported disputes I am aware of are personal or ideological, not political. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to what the Committee in its draft finding 2 calls the "Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area." It's rather similar to evolution in the respect that the science is well established (overwhelmingly so in the case of evolution, but the basics of global warming are also very well supported) but there are all kinds of weak challenges to the science that can only be explained by the political implications various people apply to the science. The same kind of conspiracy theories recur as in critiques of evolution, the same allegations of fakery, and the same kind of agendas are alleged, despite the exceptional scientific support for both. --TS 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes. Agreed. Hard to know how to avoid that. Ill-informed politicians wield considerable power and generate considerable media coverage, and Misplaced Pages relies on media coverage for sourcing. Scientists have to work hard to get coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines. People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And the problem was magnified a lack of true reporting coupled with an abundance of opinion in the months immediately following the data theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Important point I think,[REDACTED] is not a "Reader's Digest" of mainstream newspaper articles when it comes to scientific topics. There are some that still do not yet fully appreciate the importance of this statement. If the reader falls into this category then I suggest that you read this principle which will be approved in this case, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science Bill Huffman (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest pointing such editors to WP:WEIGHT, and in some case WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly understandable that everyone would love to see this finally draw to an end. But wrapping it up should not be a euphemism for punting. I think that some (not all) of the editors who responded after Jehochman's opening post have been engaging in an echo chamber of "let's not sanction anyone now". Just give everyone a pat on the head, and say next time we're going to get serious. I'm not trying to convince the editors who commented, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that it would be a failure of nerve to do so, a failure to really prevent further disruption, and a big let-down to the larger editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that sentiment. Let my comments above not be understood to be supportive of the notion that there should not be strong sanctions directed at individuals in this case. --TS 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh...this arbcam case has been a tit-for-tat...don't think for a minute I can't see that there haven't been infractions, some somewhat egregious even, but if we had a discretionary sanction case and really enforced it, I bet named parties would alter their game plan. I know this worked at the 9/11 arbcom case...the POV pushers were all sanctioned or simply stopped editing for a year, allowing several related articles the peace needed to get them to FA status...including one that had been a complete battlefield. That case made the wacky cease and desist so I think the sane that work on CC articles would probably conform if they knew they be topic banned for anywhere from 90 days to indefintitely...set that in stone, enforce it immediately and watch things calm down.--MONGO 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. As long as the sanctions are enforced in a fair manner. If they are used as another means to defend the house POV against all comers, they will not solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that? What is the "house POV" in the global warming articles? I see a lot of articles, some on secondary subjects, and a lot of noisy editing. Please explain your comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Certainly egregious violations that harm the project should attract sanction, but many of the proposed statements (such as the one noted by Bill Huffman) should go a long way toward informing editors of how the topic is best tackled. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with what is being stated above. I also find the comment by MONGO an interesting idea too. I remember the constant AN/i discussions about the 911 articles and how things disappeared for the most part after the case closed from that board. So maybe his/her suggestion should be taken as an idea on handling things. As I said above in an earlier statement today, I also am seeing a lot of the problems being generated by the facts that on one side of the issue is a pretty constant set of editors that are under the limelight right now being up against the other side that the editors change and expand quite frequently. I'm not sure why this one side has more and different editors on it's side unless it has to do with what the editors here on this talk page and also the arbs have made mention on the PD about outside blogs influencing this. If that is the case then maybe the editors who are known to be brought from the outside, the spas of this case, need to be dealt with. We can't allow editors to come in from the outside knowingly to raise havoc like this to our article work. --CrohnieGal 10:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Mongo's idea is interesting. However, I'm not familiar with that case so I'm not sure if the dynamics there are the same as here. I also agree with your general assessment of the situation. There's been a lot of talk of "COI" on the part of one editor, but your suggestion that some of the editors may be SPAs motivated by outside blogs is interesting, and would explain some of the behavior we've seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO's suggestion has merit, though the 9/11 situation was a bit different in that it was reality v. nutters not scientific inquirey v. head in the sand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Evidence sub-pages in userspace

Just a reminder that per longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the evidence has been submitted and/or the case closes, the sub-pages should be deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Thank you for your understanding,  Roger Davies 07:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have posted this...this should be part of the normative arbitration process...anyway to set this in stone?--MONGO 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on the proposed principle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Disinterested in BLP's?

Just a comment that, in the language used as denoting the appropriate tone when writing (BLP) articles, the term "disinterested" is used. I feel that dispassionate is preferable, unless of course ArbCom are advocating a style exampled as "Eric Fudgecake is a Professor of Linguistics at Halabamabashbang University, Utopia. Probably. Whatever." I think less passion is better than less interest in a subject, when it comes to editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, well made :)  Roger Davies 07:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Further examples at Proposed Finding of Fact 8.5 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons, and Proposed Remedies/General Remedies 4.4 Biographies of Living Persons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not really correct. As per the OED, 'disinterested' means '1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage', 'dispassionate' means 'not influenced by strong emotion'. Dispassionate editing would lead to the example you give above, disinterested editing is what we want.--67.161.94.10 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd. Which version of the OED are you looking at? Mine (v4.0) gives "Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned" as the first meaning of disinterested and doesn't give the text you mention at all. The SOED definition is just "Not interested, unconcerned". I suppose, in the context of the high passions here, dispassionate fits the bill better and is less ambiguous.  Roger Davies 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disinterested" means not influenced by a personal view, or personal interest in the sense of advantage; neutral; uninvolved. It's not the same as "uninterested." SlimVirgin 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For info  Roger Davies 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird. That's directly at odds with what I was actually taught in school. Maybe it's an American usage? Guettarda (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That M-W page is interesting. Prescriptive grammarians (at least in the U.S.) have wanted to keep the distinction in meaning between dis- and uninterested, and I always assumed it was a settled difference, but obviously it has been used the other way. I say "disinterested" should stay so that Misplaced Pages does it's part to maintain the useful distinction, thus promoting civilization. The "Synonyms" section on this Dictionary.com page indicates "disinterested" (implies a fairness arising particularly from lack of desire to obtain a selfish advantage) would be a more precise word here than, say, "impartial". The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary recognizes only the "fair" definition. Then ArbCom should ban from its official statements the uncivilized "incivil", which M-W doesn't even recognize (and Wictionary tells us is "rare" ), in favor of "uncivil" which M-W tells us has been around since at least 1553. You can never be too careful in upholding civilization. But if ArbCom members think the preceding statement is too WP:BATTLEGROUNDish, WP:SOAPBOXy or WP:UNCIVIL, I take it back. I take it back! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would note that I was only guided by my understanding of disinterested, which is a more judged version of uninterested - that someone by choice has no interest rather than by lack of exposure. Whatever (hah!), I think dispassionate is more apt under these circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the portion of the decision I drafted, I used "disinterested" in the sense SlimVirgin describes. If there is any ambiguity about what the word means, then I agree that a synonym should be substituted, as Roger has done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "disinterested" is fine. The point is that one must edit these biographies in a manner, ideally, lacking in personal feelings for the subject, one way or the other. "Dispassionate" is also fine. Since violations of this finding will tend to be neither "dispassionate" nor "disinterested," I'm not sure it makes much difference. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Broad, indefinite topic bans for individuals

A slew of indefinite climate change-related topic bans are now being considered for a number of individuals, some of which seem misdirected and/or unnecessarily harsh. The remedy has been proposed for me, which I think is peculiar because I have very few edits in this topic (in fact, I have only contributed significantly to the editing of a single article concerning a matter of data theft, not climate change). I am concerned that individuals are being judged as a group, with a lack of regard for specifics and a whiff of guilt-by-association. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover,it doesn't solve anything over the long term. There's no shortage of aggressive editors in this area and there's no reason to think such a shortage will develop in the future. If anything the opposite, given certain chatter in the blogosphere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it won't solve anything. I see no way back into this topic area for many editors who have become totally engrained in their positions. Indef bans and placing the topic area under arbcom sanctions worked in Scientology, a topic that is quite comparable in the amount of emotion and blog coverage associated with it. --JN466 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the situations are entirely comparable, except to people who spend a lot of time in-universe with Scientology disputes. Misplaced Pages is a bubble. By this site's standards, date delinking disputes are of comparable magnitude to the dispute over climate change. Is Scientology the subject of a consensus statement of concern from the National Academies of Science of the U.S., Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Italy, the U.K., China, Japan, France, Mexico, Germany, and Russia? Is it routinely a major political issue in elections and national and international legislative sessions?

The current list of topic ban candidates seems to suffer from a desire to sanction a roughly equal number of people from each "side", an approach which I think is based on faulty assumptions. The idea that, say, Verbal, Minor4th, and Mark Nutley have been equally "disruptive" on climate change articles seems questionable at best. The cynical side of me thinks that if we wait a week or two, the pendulum will swing back and we'll see another, different set of proposed remedies, but whatever. MastCell  15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not trying to fix the climate, we're trying to fix a Misplaced Pages topic area. ;) --JN466 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. There should be more names added though. Anyone who has edit warred or been uncivil more than once in this topic area should be topic banned. Minor4th 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Mastcell that the editors listed are not equal in terms of the amount of disruption, but that just indicates that the threshold is rather low -- not a bad guiding principle, but there's a lot of work yet to be done if the threshold is so low. Off the top of my head, without regard to which "side" these folks fall on, the list should include ScienceApologist, FellGleaming, Viriditas, Rd232, Guettarda, Jehochman, Tony Sidaway. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of -- tried to think of more on the skeptic side, but they are mostly either listed or banned already. Minor4th 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's behaviour of mine that you consider disruptive, I would very much appreciate if you raised it with me. After all, you can't address potentially problematic behaviour that you're unaware anyone sees as problematic. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a 'one size fits all' remedy doesn't make much sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I like the flexible "Appeal of topic bans" remedies (either 3.2 or 3.2.1). But the AQFK and ATren findings look even more outrageous if accompanied by a six-month-minimum topic ban. I haven't seen where Roger, Coren or Shell have defended their weak case against ATren at all or where Coren and Roger have adequately answered the questions about the AQFK finding. We now, finally, have an adequate Arbcom remedy for William M. Connolley's behavior, and the idea of reapplying for permission to edit the topic is actually brilliant because it gets to the heart of the problem: editor intentions and attitudes. We've seen right on this page, right up to the present, that some editors haven't adjusted their attitudes. I guess Remedy 1 (or 1.1) is supposed to address future problems. Maybe with the strong language elsewhere on the PD page it will be adequate (it authorizes admins to act first and then the action can be appealed to A/E or ArbCom, and that alone should help; but we'll still have a problem with biased admin actions). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When you're smugly gloating over one of your perceived opponents (WMC) getting what he (in your opinion) deserved, while in the same breath professing "outrage" over "biased admin actions" directed towards those that share your own point-of-view...well, that attitude pretty much speaks for itself. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't smug, and it isn't gloating. ArbCom's Fof 8.2 ("William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic") had no corresponding remedy that looked like it might pass until now. Other remedies regarding Connolley's behavior in that area weren't getting support (see Remedies 5.1-5.5; the majority-approved BLP ban would not have addressed this). It isn't "gloating" to say WMC has had a problem with attitude -- it's what Newyorkbrad said in his comment at Fof 8.2. I pointed out the strength of the idea that an editor with problematic behavior would be allowed back in after giving assurances or demonstrating (or both) that the attitude has changed. That's a lot better than just waiting six months or a year. The new proposal offers editors a constructive way to get back to editing the topic, addressing both the editor-interaction and content problems ArbCom identified. Your comment doesn't actually help ArbCom or anyone else better understand the topic of this discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is and it's these kinds of comment like what JohnWBarber said above that needs to stop in this case, articles and other locations. It's not just Barber saying things that are inappropriate but it is an example of it. I'd also like to see something to address the edit warriors and the editors brought to these articles from the outside. --CrohnieGal 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be brought to the arbitrators attentions

harsh but unfair

As one of the main issues is that whatever we do it won't work then lets be harsh but unfair. Perma ban all usrs from the articles in question who have reverted more then twice in one day. Impose a subject wide 1RR restriction (perimenatly) and permeantly block any user who breaches 1RR after that point. No this is not a joke, but it is an example of about the only thing that wouold work (assuming the fears expresed by many of the users is true, which I think it is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, all that would do is slow down the conflict, not diffuse it. And we would have the same endless debates about reverting socks and BLPs we have now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps slowing it down (or accepting there is nothing we can do about it) is the best we can do. Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas (a bit childish if you ask me, its not as if any one takes wiki that seriously). Under those circumstances even if we block all users mentioned here and do nothing else (as others have pointed out) someone else will repalce them. Effectivly its a war of attrition with an inexustable supply of canon fodder (how Haig must envy us). So at the end of the day the only answer is eaither let them fight it oout, have these silly debates every so often, or put them all in a field and bomb the basterds.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very strange argument. Why is being unfair likely to settle any disputes? Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas - not at all sure what you mean here. Could you provide links? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding since I started being an editor is that the project wanted and needed experts in different fields, like this one. Is there anyone else concerned about the possibility that most of the experts in the science field of Climate change may now be banned? What happens to the articles? It's been shown undeniably that there has been off[REDACTED] blogs recruiting to get editors sanctioned as this "How-to-guide" dif shows and this one that I just heard about. I was aware from comments and the PD page that there are off project blogs interference but this dif provide by Noren above was my first look at it actually being shown. I don't know if there are other blogs doing this but I guess checking Misplaced Pages Review wouldn't hurt to see if there are discussions going on there about this case and if so, who is involved. Are there any editors here who are members there who can check on this and provide difs if there is something important to this case? I am aware that off project stuff isn't supposed to be brought on project but with this case I find it extremely important because the PD is looking like it's going to reward the off project behavior by doing what they wanted to happen to begin with. If arbitrators haven't looked at this reference, I would suggest they do so to see what is going on over there at pediawatch.wordpress.com. I just think that the PD should be fair and that not all that are named are equally wrong in all of this. I am also concerned that too much thought is being given to the edit warring with too little thought given to more serious breaches of policies. Thank you again for considering my opinions, --CrohnieGal 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in many cases that come to ArbCom there are off wiki issues between rival factions related to a topic. ArbCom knows this to be true because they often see material that is submitted privately that needs to be deleted or suppressed. Unfortunately, there is not much that ArbCom can do about it except to advise users to follow up off wiki with the appropriate authorities as needed, and to keep it off wiki. Any other approach would take too much investigation to give any thing approaching a fair remedy. (Meaning that there is often a long tangled history between people that come to Misplaced Pages and dispute with each other.) So usually, ArbCom does not explore off wiki activity in the level of detail that you want to when drafting the case (with occasional exceptions if it specifically addresses sanctionable on site editor conduct.) See my comment below for the reason that I support indefinite bans for this group of editors. (my opinions based on my prior experience as a member of arbcom. Of course other arbitrators may see it differently). FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the term unfair to aknowedge before the first reply that those affected by it would consider it unfair. After all (it seems to me) its the other side causing the trouble, so why should those who only want to make[REDACTED] better be punished as well, goes many of the arguments. It will solve anything, but it might discourage those who want to edit war to push agendas. I don't think its a perfect answer but is I think the only one that will have some impact on this. However I am not aware of what solution was tired (and seemed to work) on scientology relatesd pages, but I am not sure its quite the saem situtation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the points raised in this section, in a new section below. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you FloNight for your polite detailed response as a former arbitrator. I really appreciate what you say. That being said, looking at what is said on these off site blogs shows who is being targeted and why. It also shows that editors that are active on this page is also active on those blogs. WMC seems to be the biggest target by them too so as an outsider I find it quite disturbing that the ones who are blogging off project to get editors on the project banned are going to feel rewarded by the way the PD is looking. I guess I am frustrated that there is no way to stop this kind of behavior. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is, don't acecept the bait and report the activities. The problom is edds reacting to baiting in kind, not according to policy. Now there may be a case for greater and more proactive sanctions against disruptive edds (rather then the 'he's been blocked three times already lets block him again so he learns his leason' mentaility). But that is the fault of admins not enforcing rules with enough severity and users who will defend disruptive editing based upon content rather then actvivity. Perhaps a three strikes and your out rule may be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban scope

What about, say, Template:Global warming? That's neither an article, nor a talk page, nor a Misplaced Pages process. Does that mean that it is not covered by the topic ban? T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck in getting an answer. There is a pile of unanswered questions at the end of the "Remedy 3.1: Scope" section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Logic would say it is covered by a CC topic ban in my view. Editing it would look like looking for loopholes in the remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I think clarification may be helpful and there may be some cases where I can understand there would be confusion, in this case I would have to agree anyone who edits it then tries to argue it isn't covered should rightfully be smacked down for wikilaywering. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is best to preempt those wikilawyering in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is an easy answer to this question, then one of the many watching arbs should just give it. If they don't answer, then the assumption muct be that there is no easy answer, in which case asking isn't wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an easy answer: it's any directly or tangentially related article or topic attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. That's what broadly construed means.  Roger Davies 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about Hadley cell, Greenhouse effect, Atmosphere, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Antarctica, Suess effect, Photosynthesis, Rice, Windpower, Royal Society, NASA, Ocean, Walker circulation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Current, Hurricane,...? I think it will be quite hard to delineate the topic, and it is essentially impossible to delineate the topic on a per-article basis without massively overshooting the target. In addition, most of the more technical articles have been fairly quite, if only because non-experts simply are not aware of them or do not understand the implication of the concepts. Do we need to extend topic bans to articles that never have been a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is one form or another is already mentioned in 14 out of the 17 articles: the other three have potential for coatracking. Probably best to leave well alone with all of them,  Roger Davies 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Customarily, topic bans are a ban on contributing content related to the topic. So, any edits to any article, template, image, or related talk page that introduce material related to the topic would be a violation. For example, introducing material about the topic into an article about a politician would be a violation of the ban despite the person not being in any category related to Climate. That is the reason that we can not merely give a complete list of WP entries that fall under the ban. But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban. And yes, preventing the problem from being introduced into more articles is one of the goals of the remedy, so we define the topic ban as "broadly construed" for purposes of enforcement. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban." - that's not obvious to me at all, and seems to be a horrible idea. Why not articles related to biology and ecology which are just as affected by climate change? Or to politics or building codes? For all of these we can construct reasonable connections to climate change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FN has failed to distinguish Climate from Climate Change. Not an easy mistake to make, but a possible one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the frequent number of mentions of "change" in the Climate article, including a section named Climate change , (the concept of change is include throughout the article for example see Record), and also for example in the Climate model article, I don't see how an editor can edit about Climate and avoid bumping into content that could be in conflict. Also, articles about climatologists are in conflict at times and need to be included in the topic ban for it to be effective in stopping the constant disputes. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that we all live in the climate, the topic touches everything. Go for a site ban then. "Could be in conflict" is not an operational definition. Stradivari violins may sound so good because the climate in which their wood was grown was colder, so an edit to a classical music article "could be" in conflict. On the other hand, updating Köppen climate classification is unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy. "Stopping the constant disputes" is an admirable goal. As stated by several other editors, even complete removal of all current editors is unlikely to achieve this goal. And what's more, the overarching goal is not to stop disputes, but to build a better encyclopaedia. If you want no disputes, restrict the topic to Barney the dinosaur, the allowed content to "Barney is cute", and lock down the Wiki (in fact, you could do away with the Wiki in favour of a static web page, much cheaper to operate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I defer to Boris' superior knowledge in this domain. But that does not affect the main point: "could be in conflict" is not a useful criterion, and there are edits to climate topics that are not significantly connected to climate change or the climate change controversy, just as there are non-climate edits that are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FN;s stuff is all besides the point, and should be ignored as ignorant. RD has provided an answer, which is clearly all we're going to get attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. Thus Hadley cell isn't covered, by RD's defn, at least not at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: Hadley cell clearly is covered and I wouldn't disagreee with FN's block prediction either.  Roger Davies 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, if you make an edit such as you did on the Hadley cell article then you would be blocked because it is adding content directly related to Climate change. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are no objective criteria that could be laid out without being susceptible to wikilawyering. Instead, I'd suggest a few subjective rules of thumb:

• By making the edit, are you attempting to say something about climate change or about a person with a notable connection to climate change? If so, avoid making the edit.
• If you were to ask a disinterested but knowledgeable and reasonable person which topics were closely related to the article you wanted to edit, would there be a strong possibility that they would mention climate change (or global warming, etc.)? If so, avoid making the edit.
• If a topic-banned opponent in this dispute were to edit the same text you want to edit, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit.
• When in doubt, ask someone who will not just tell you what you want to hear -- preferably one of your more reasonable climate change opponents; barring that, a disinterested third party.

Run these rules of thumb past the scenarios offered above and see if there are any that are truly still unclear. alanyst 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the rules of thumb. At first, I thought you were changing the emphasis from the article to the edit, but now I see that you have covered the union. If someone wants to edit building codes, and discuss grounding rules, that's fine, but if you want to discuss changes in codes due to potential climate changes issue, then it is covered. However, if the article is primarily about climate change, then any edit is covered. I wanted to make sure, for example, that someone editing the CRU incident article would not be able to claim they were editing about legal issues, because their edit related to FOI, and that's not climate change. That should be covered, and is, based upon your rule of thumb. This is not to say there won’t be questions that arise, but the rules of thumb sound like a great start.--SPhilbrickT 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Flexible topic bans

This would work as follows. ArbCom puts some editor X under a flexible topic ban for, say, BLP articles. ArbCom appoints Admin Y to be the mentor who implements the flexible topic ban for editor X. Admin Y familiarizes him/her self with the FoF on editor X in this ArbCom case. If editor X wishes to make an edit to some BLP article, the mentor can approve, disapprove, or ask clarification what exactly the editor wants to edit and make a decision based on that. Admin Y could also require editor X stick to a 1RR or 0RR restriction while editing. In case of violations of an agreement, Admin Y is authorized to block editor X.

I think this is a better solution for some editors who are capable of making good contributions to certain topic areas who nevertheless have not behaved well in disputes with editors who have different views regarding climate change. Count Iblis (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship arrangements are very difficult to put together at the best of times (limited pool of admins prepared to undertake such a role). Specifically, it is probably undesirable in this instance because of the likely pressure the mentor would come under to revise calls (ie "you should/shouldn't have let editor X make edits k.l.m" ) and the intense partisan scrutiny that such arrangements would likely attract.  Roger Davies 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roger. And more debate and conflicts about the value of the edits of the people being topic banned is not the best way to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the problems, but I think there are solutions here. You can think of ArbCom putting constraints on this system, like the mentor only being authorized to let the editor edit under 0RR. This would solve three problems. First: There obviously wouldn't be much of an issue with other editors objecting to the edits and contacting the mentor about the permission to edit; in case of objections they can revert and that then also ends the editor's involvement in editing there because of the 0RR. Second: Because of this effective veto, the mentor won't give permision to edit in the first place, unless being reverted is unlikely. Third: the factionalist mentality can be better addressed via the discretionary sanctions, I'll explain this at the end of the last paragraph below.

There is a limited availablity of mentors, but I think the arrangement I'm proposing here is of a different nature than other mentorship agreements. Also, we're probably only dealing with a few editors for whom this is appropriate. The mentor won't have much work to do. Away from the polemics in the climate change area, there won't be much of a hurry to make an edit, therefore the mentor doesn't need to promptly consider editing requests.

If e.g. William were topic banned this way, think of William filing a request to edit some very technical article on some aspect of climate science. Clearly, approval can wait a week. Now, suppose that some editors can't put their WMC-obsession aside, follow William and revert him on that technical article. Obviously, applying the discretionary sanctions would then be in order. It is, of course, not likely that this will happen, so it may be a way for people get rid of their factionalist mentality. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Has any such revert of a highly technical nature occurred in the past by any "obsessed" editor? Is this a matter of clapping hands to keep elephants away? Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. But if this issue is moot, that's another argument why a mentoring agreement of this sort would not cause trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see that there are new proposals on the PD that names editors with per Remedy 3, which starts here, that are being voted for. This may be a stupid question but what does this mean for the editors? Again, sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't understand if it means a month or indefinite or anything in between. Thanks for any clarifications to this,--CrohnieGal 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed "Remedy 3" ban in this case is an indefinite ban on having anything at all to do with the topic on-wiki, with the possibility of an appeal as defined in either Remedy 3.2 or 3.2.1, whichever passes. --TS 13:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I have assumed it means an indefinite topic ban, which seems extraordinary given the wildly different issues and standards of conduct between the individuals named. I raised concerns about it in an earlier section. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, past attempts to make editor remedies very specific to the person was a failure on several levels. Deciding between 3 months, or 6 months, or 9 months, or 1 year bans on numerous editors needlessly adds complexity to cases, and are difficult to quantify adequately without doing a full review of each editor (a consistent problem is poor quality of evidence submitted by the community which does not necessarily fully address the underlying problems). Indefinite bans that can later be lifted is a better since it lets users comeback if they are viewed as able to edit collaboratively in the topic area rather that picking an arbitrary period of time for the ban. This idea fits better with the preventative nature of the ban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But such a system is extraordinarily unfair. In this case, we have identical remedies proposed for individuals whose behavior ranges from minor WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA violations to in-your-face WP:EW/WP:DISRUPT/WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA/WP:BAIT orgies. The guy who stole an apple from a market vendor is getting the same punishment remedy as the guy who stole millions in an armed bank robbery that left a trail of corpses. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem unfair, but the more I think about it, the less I'm concerned about it. I doubt anybody is going to tell a topic-banned editor that he or she got the same treatment as some more egregious violator and therefore was just as egregious: If so many editors got the same remedy, it's hard to believe that. It's a blunt instrument on the P.D. page, but it will be much less blunt as editors apply to get back in -- then it will be tailored to fit the circumstances of each editor. The guy who stole the apple still gets a six-month ban (in some cases, I think that's still unfair) and should get back in pretty easily; while Caligula may have the seven labors of Hercules to complete before convincing ArbCom. For those who really like editing Misplaced Pages rather than just like promoting a POV, the time should pass pretty easily. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages productively and would do so exclusively, were it not for the activities of certain individuals who first game and then bait to remove a perceived opponent. This is the second time such underhanded stagecraft has been used to (seemingly successfully) attack me in an ArbCom case, but there will not be a third. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the issues here go beyond a simple inability to work cooperatively with other editors. In several instances we've seen editors with a deep philosophical belief system that conflicts with Misplaced Pages standards on sourcing, and/or with a cockeyed view of Misplaced Pages standards. These editors can almost instantly demonstrate that they can work with others, if it's on articles on noncontroversial subjects, and then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. That could be addressed by asking those editors to help bring an article that's controversial in some other field to FA status. A skeptic working on a BLP of an anti-Intelligent Design scientist or journalist or book and improving the article in NPOV ways (especially in giving fair treatment to views that are the opposite of your own) would make it pretty difficult for ArbCom to refuse entry back into CC articles in six months. Once an editor has done that once or twice it should become easier to get into the habit of doing it with CC articles. And once an editor has gotten into the habit of editing for the other side I think they'll find it a pretty satisfying thing to do and even take some pride in it. The six month waiting period also makes it easier to work with people you've had conflicts with in the past. Some of them, anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flo and John. And -- this topic area has become overheated; a cool-down period to re-gain some perspective may be useful. The editors concerned may appreciate that themselves after a few weeks, once they are out of this toxic environment. --JN466 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Thank you for all your inputs to my question I now understand. What will happen if these editors just leave the project all together? Another thought is, what if there is a boycott not to edit in this area by some? I can see both of these happening. I guess I worry about the stabiliy of the articles. I think this is something that needs to be thought about. Remember the goal here is to write the best articles possible to give our readers the best knowledge they can find. I worry that this is not going to happen and that the articles are going to suffer and if the articles suffer so do our readers. Just a thought I want to share. Thanks again for answering my question, --CrohnieGal 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, Arbcom does not get involved with content. The effect on the quality of the articles is a content issue and thus is not something that Arbcom can consider here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is asked not to edit on a tiny fraction of the articles in WP, and decides to fully leave the project because of that rather minor restriction, it suggests that the editor may be an SPA. If that is the case, the project is better off without them. However, I think this is merely an intellectual exercise; I don't see a single name on that list who is likely to leave forever simply because they cannot edit a few articles for a few months.SPhilbrickT 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::After looking at these again I have to say I don't see the need for them since most of the editors votings are becoming clear what the arbitrators feel should pass or fail. Why the need for these extras at the bottom when there is the above remedies being voted on? It seems almost redundant imho. --CrohnieGal 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I struck this, this has been explained to me off this page. Feel free to delete my comments. --CrohnieGal 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• @SPhilbrick and anyone else. I have no history of poor editing of CC articles. No edit warring. I have defended myself on the arbcom case talkpage and obviously taken the bait once or twice when offered. For this I am being accused of promoting a battleground and am in the list for a topic ban. I have not primarily been an editor of Climate Change articles and that is certainly not my reason for being on wikipedia. However, I would regard a topic ban as a very silly slap in the face from arbcom and should this pass I will retire from[REDACTED] with immediate effect. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Will the decision be structurally biased?

Kamikaze editing

Question of my own....

Why not place all the embattled articles under Full Protection?--*Kat* (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because not all editors are the problem, and just about everybody wants to fix the broken bone rather than saw off the limb and stick it in formaldehyde. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a wiki. --TS 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

too many of the articles already have some kind of protection. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who decides which of the wrong versions gets full protection, who decides when it gets changed and who decides when protection is no longer needed? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the question, isn't it? My idea is that all the embattled articles be given full protection. Then, y'all would have to hash it out on the talk page and come to an honest to God consensus before having any revisions inserted. This would require you to make compromises about what goes in and what stays out. The end result, I think, would be an article that really is neutral. One where minority views are neither suppressed or given undue weight.--*Kat* (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is very good reasoning. I would support this idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, I think you've cracked the whole problem of how to enforce the neutral point of view on Misplaced Pages. Let's fully protect evolution and not allow any edits unless "due weight" is given to creationism. What can possibly go wrong? --TS 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

As a non-sarcasm response, the concern is that the version would be 'locked' in an unacceptably wrong version which could be filibustered to maintain, regardless of its merits. As long as the current versions supporters maintain an appearance of no consensus to change then the ones who want to change it are rendered powerless. The argument then would shift to bickering over wether the admin who invoked consensus and made the change was actually acting neutrally or partisanly leading to the same arguments that we have already concerning admins 'involvedness'. Essentially the argument would adapt to the new editing enviroment without being solved. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely there are some dedicated admins who don't give a darn about climate change out there. What about TWOFR?. Furthermore the revisions don't have to take place on the day concenses is achieved. It could work on a schedule. Once a week or once every other day if the article is hot and there is new stuff coming on regularly. As to your first point: If a truly non-biased editor agrees that an article unacceptably POV, then the admin in charge could revert it back to a more acceptable version before putting the full protection on.--*Kat* (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)