Revision as of 19:47, 20 June 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

In addition to the usual guidelines for arbitration cases, the following procedures apply to this case:

• The case will be opened within 24 hours after the posting of these guidelines.
• The drafting arbitrators will be Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Risker. The arbitration clerk for the case will be Amorymeltzer, but all the active arbitration clerks are asked to assist with this case as needed.
• The title of the case will be Climate change. Participants are asked to bear in mind that case titles are chosen for administrative convenience and do not reflect any prejudgment on the scope or outcome of the case.
• Notice of the opening of the case will be given to all editors who were named as parties in the request for arbitration, all editors who commented on the request, and all editors who commented on either of the two pending related requests ("Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar"). If any other editor later becomes a potential subject of the case, such as by being mentioned extensively in evidence or named in a workshop proposal, a notice should also be given to that editor at that time.
• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
• Within five days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)), participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)). The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence. For example, an editor may present evidence in a form such as "event A occurred and then event B occurred , which led to event C , followed by a personal attack , and an uncivil comment , resulting in a block , an unblock , and an ANI discussion ." It sometimes happens that the editor is asked to shorten his or her evidence, and it is refactored to read something like "there was a dispute about a block ." This does not make life easier for the arbitrators who have to study all the evidence. Editors should take this into account before complaining that other editors' sections are too long.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:

  The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.

• Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (We hope that it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
• This procedural notice shall be copied at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. Any questions about these procedures may be asked in a designated section of the workshop talkpage.
• After this case is closed, editors will be asked to comment on whether any of the procedures listed above should be made standard practice for all future cases, or for future complex cases.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

GoRight unblock

1) WITHDRAWN Fast tract request, GoRight (talk · contribs) be granted an injunction and probation to participate in this case. He was banned during the sanctions, for too many enforcement request, and his views on the sanctions are highly relevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) This relevant issue may distract from the core "disruption" issue in this, what is expected to be a long and complicated case with evidence diffs and principles worked out to resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Er, he was not "banned for too many enforcement requests". He was initially blocked indefinitely by 2/0 for a variety of long-term behavioral issues. He was conditionally unblocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs), in the interest of a last chance. However, Trusilver became disheartened at GoRight's continued problematic behavior and brought the matter back to AN/I here. As you can see, the thread was closed in favor of a community ban; GoRight appealed to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and received this reply.

GoRight's participation in various dispute-resolution forums was broadly problematic, and in fact played a major role in his ban. Given that he's been a net negative in dispute resolution (particularly on climate change), I don't see what would be gained by inviting his participation here. MastCell  23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic, in that he found himself in a constant state of appeal after he would try to get folks to look at wikipeidia principles als. Instead, they tossed out the foundation with the rules and banned him. Perhaps I may be expecting that folks will respect a principled argument in ArcCom. After all, there are scientists with Ph.Ds participating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to gently suggest that a principled argument would begin by correctly explaining the rationale for GoRight's ban, ideally with diffs and links. MastCell  23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Sub-issues to be addressed

As requested, please list your concise, one-sentence, neutrally worded question(s) here

Suggested topic(s) by LessHeard vanU

1) Is the scientific communities consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as evidenced by reliable sources, the encyclopedic neutral point of view? 00:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2) In determining NPOV should the fact and content of claims denying or skeptic toward AGW be weighed by their prominence in general media reliable sources, irrespective of it being a minority and challenged viewpoint within the scientific community or not being made from a sustainable scientific basis? 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Have some editors who subscribe to the scientific consensus regarding AGW acted in such a manner to restrict viewpoints outside of that consensus from being represented in the main articles, contrary to WP:DUE? 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there evidence of a concerted effort, including off site media, to diminish or deprecate the scientific consensus presented within AGW articles, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:V? 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

5) Are the interactions between contributors who edit toward the scientific consensus and those who edit in a manner to more widely represent the AGW denial or skeptic viewpoint generally in accordance with the preferred WP policies of consensus through respectful discussion and use of established methods of dispute resolution, or more example battlefield mentality? 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

6) Is the widely (but not universally) adopted practice of seeking consensus between uninvolved administrators at the AE/CC/Enforcement Requests page appropriate? 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

7) Is the editing environment within CC related article greatly at variance with the usual practices found within Misplaced Pages. 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

8) Should there be an expectation that editors new to the topic are required to familiarise themselves with the particular situation found in the AGW article area before either editing or commentating? 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

9) Has the Probation enforcement page become an instrument by which editors have sought sanctions upon other contributors as a means of deprecating their means and desire to edit? 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

10) Has the Probation enforcement page become a fulcrum of WP:Battlefield activity, where the process itself becomes an area where "competing" viewpoints attempt to influence the final decision? 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues by Hipocrite

1) When evaluating the prominence of a scientific argument, what is the appropriate weight given to various media types?

2) How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?

3) Are all editors appropriately following sourcing policies?

4) Are all adminstraotors appropraitely following involvement standards?

5) Are current involvement standards appropraite?

Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber

1) Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles be modified by having the Arbitration Committee appoint the administrators who would deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page?

2) If the Arbitration Committee decides to appoint administrators to deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page, should it ask the community in a year's time to suggest to ArbCom whether WP:GSCC is still needed in any form, and if so, whether that new, ArbCom-appointed set-up should be continued or revert back to the present set-up, and in either case, whether it should be modified in other ways?

3) Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for tendentious editing, ongoing incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks?

4) Should User:Kim Dabelstein Petersen be sanctioned for tendentious editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and WP:BLP violations on climate change articles?

5) Should User:Jehochman be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" (filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

6) Should User:Franamax be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" filed March 3 and "ChrisO" request filed March 8, and on other pages, or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

7} Has User:Polargeo been disruptive on various pages related to climate change articles, particularly WP:GSCCRE and its talk page?

8) Should User:Hipocrite be sanctioned for excessive and frequent incivility?

9) Should User: Short Brigade Harvester Boris be sanctioned for tendentious editing, edit warring and disruption at Climatic Research Unit email controversy?

Suggested question by Tryptofish

1) Should the Committee provide a definition of "uninvolved administrator", for purposes of aiding Arbitration Enforcement in the future? --17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Cla68

1) Has there been any extended abuse of BLP articles by a group of established editors, including one or more administrators?

2) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, employed incivility including personal attacks, bullying, baiting, sarcasm, and insults over an extended period of time on the talk pages of any of the climate change articles and, if so, did the behavior result in decreased cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in expanding or improving the content of those articles?

4) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, displayed contempt, derision, or indifference towards Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and/or article-improvement forums such as WP:Good Article or WP:Featured Article?

5) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?

6) Have any established editors who may have a conflict of interest, such as having a close personal or professional relationship with BLP subjects involved with climate change controversies, edited climate change articles in a way that could be interpreted as a violation of NPOV?

Suggested issues to examine by Lar

1) Should the Scientific point of view be used in the GW/CC area instead of NPOV?

2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was?

2b)Further, is Global Warming such a dire threat to mankind that Misplaced Pages should take a position on it or at least modify normal standards to ensure that the articles adhere to generally accepted scientific consensus at all times and in all ways?

3a) Should the definition of "uninvolved" as used in the CC/RE pages be modified to conform to the generally accepted definition elsewhere? (taking into account editing in the general area as well as editor interaction)

3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case?

4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later)

5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately?

5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied?

6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets?

Submitted for consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) ... and revised. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo

1) Should the fact that an admin has not edited a Climate Change article give them carte blanche to deal with an editor in this area no matter what the admin's past history with the editor may be? Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Issues to examine by ATren

1. Is it appropriate for editors with a strong POV to be editing the biographies of people with whom they disagree?
2. Is it appropriate for editors to add blog-sourced criticism to BLPs, and in particular, when the editors have prior association with those blogs?
3. Is the disruption caused by individual Scibaby socks so severe that we are willing to block on little or no evidence (i.e. less than 25 non-vandalism edits, no checkuser support)?
4. Has the zeal of a small group of long term editors, protecting against real or presumed socks, caused a de-facto banning of opposing views in this topic area?
5. Should editors be held to a basic standard of civility?
6. Does truth supercede verifiability?

ATren (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz

1) Is climate change a field in which "expertise is irrelevant", because Misplaced Pages only "reflects what reliable sources say" or is climate change a large, complex scientific topic in which a general understanding is necessary to achieve due weight?

2) How can the community deal with high-volume sophisticated socking without causing editor burn-out?

2a) Has the normal SPI process been an undue burden on non-socking editors?

3) Should participation in off-wiki discussions be taken into account when determining good faith and civility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there a concerted off-wiki attempt to influence on-wiki content, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

5) Is there a off-wiki campaign targeting certain Misplaced Pages users, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

6) Per "everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler", is the requirement that each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question something that should be strictly enforced or would we rather not force our competent editors to use their immense grammatical skills and the English language's ability to connect several sentences with conjunctions to write one long and convoluted sentence where two or three short ones would have been simpler and clearer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (last updated 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5

1) Should William M. Connolley be topic banned for uncivil disruptions?

2) Should Stephan Schulz be admonished for enabling William M. Connolley's problematic behavior?

3) Was Lar's May 18, 2010 block for 1 hr to William M. Connolley for "Disruptive Editing" for valid and fair reasons?

4) Should GoRight Request for Arbitration, which was closed and lead to the Climate change probation, be reopened in this case?

5) Should Stephan Schultz or others be sanctioned when behavioral evidence is submitted in sock investigations and there is no sock puppet findings, and then they repeatedly continue to make false allegations on unknown editors?

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

--Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

--Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by William M. Connolley

1) Are wikipedia's science-of-climate-change articles (headed by global warming) generally held in high or low regard externally? 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Should editors be held to a basic standard of usefulness? 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Has the Cl Ch probation unnecessarily tagged large numbers of non-controversial pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by Count Iblis

1) Should the unofficial but de-facto WP:SPOV policy that editors stick to on almost all science related articles, including the global warming related articles, be made official (possibly after it is rewritten by the Arbitrators), for at least the global warming related pages, in order to reduce tensions?

2) Do we need new civility rules to prevent sniping at experts while allowing people to utter justified criticism at each other, so that the experts don't run away?

3) Is there a self-selection effect that contributes to and amplifies problems (i.e. does the Kindergarten like nature of many of the disputes attract editors who are most at ease in such a climate)?

4) Has enforcing civility rules without addressing the core problems made things worse?

5) Do we need periodic external peer review by climate science experts to see if the procedures the editors (and possibly Arbitrators) decide on, do indeed lead to high quality articles?

6) Do we need to study if the commonly used "reliable sources" in Misplaced Pages (newspapers as well as scientific journals) follow proper editorial policies in case of news reporting on climate change (e.g. when a news report has been debunked, the source retracts the report), to determine what sources can be considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages's climate change topics?

Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue suggested by Heyitspeter

1. Do the arbitrators believe that WP:SPOV should be followed as it is written currently?
2. Does WP:SPOV contradict WP:V?
3. Are scientists to be considered authorities on metascientific issues at the expense of other reliable sources, e.g., with respect to research ethics, controversies surrounding the politics of global warming, etc.?
4. How do WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply to articles related to global warming?
5. Does a supportive editing environment yield better article content?
6. Since the presence of certain editors has a negative effect on this topic area, would a topic ban for these editors improve the editing climate, or is some other response prudent?
7. With respect to WP:RS, how should we approach sources that stem from scientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
8. How should we approach sources that stem from nonscientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
9. Where reliable sources like the New York Times, the BBC and the Wall Street Journal contradict scientists in the field (e.g.), should scientific sources be included at the expense of the other reliable sources?

Issues suggested by TheGoodLocust

1. What/who is the source of the problem?
2. How long has this problem been going on?
3. Have sanctions changed the behavior of the problem contributors?
4. Have the problem contributors driven away both experienced and new editors from wikipedia?
5. Has a culture been created in the topic area that promotes incivility and a battleground mentality?
6. Which side on the debate has benefited from that culture?
7. If the probation has not changed the culture in the area, then what can cure it?
8. How do we deal with obstructive practices by a tight group of editors who show up at esoteric articles to defend each other?
9. Is WP:MEAT being properly applied to long-term contributors in the area?
10. Should all long term SPAs (or nearly SPAs) be checkusered to weed out socking?
11. Is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of William Connolley - his at-work account?
12. Is Hipocrite creating "false flag" socks in order to demonize the opposition and block new editors?
13. Would sanctioning editors for wikilawyering help the situation?
14. Should editors be able to extensively source articles to their blogs, ex-blogs or the blogs of their friends?
15. Similarly, should editors be able to extensively source articles to the scientific papers of their friends, while excluding the viewpoints of other scientists?
16. At what point, in % of edits, do revisions, reverts, and removals of other's edits become intentionally obstructive?
17. Should editors with high %'s of such behavior describe themselves and each other as "high quality contributors?"
18. What dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve any conflicts on article content?
19. Would extending the probation to cover content fix obstructionism or codify it?
20. Are the sides accurately described as skeptics vs. non-skeptics?
21. Since the majority of people who oppose the long-term global warming group actually believe in global warming why do they oppose them?
22. And why does the global warming group insist on calling those editors "skeptics" or "scientifically illiterate" if they hold the same beliefs?
23. Does William Connolley have close relationships with certain controversial scientists?
24. Do such relationships motivate him to promote their work and protect their reputations?
25. Have his actions demonstrated such activity (e.g. using[REDACTED] to increase google page ranking of their websites)?
26. Finally, would topic banning the top editors in the area improve the situation?

Issues suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1) Are repeated declarations of a desire to "level the playing field" more favorably toward certain editors and less favorably toward others consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

2) Is the declaration of a specific content position while engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

3) Are repeated characterizations of editors as a "cabal," "cadre" and similar terms while engaged in enforcement with those editors consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

4) Are personal insults such as "socially inept" directed toward editors with whom an administrator is engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

5) On articles related to scientific topics, what weight should be given to views that have little or no credibility in the relevant scientific community but are widely promoted in blogs and the popular press?

6) How should Misplaced Pages respond to external criticism?

7) Should responses to external criticism vary according to the source; e.g., academic evaluations or straight news reporting versus partisan commentary?

8) How should op-eds and similar commentary be used as sources?

9) May editors deliberately insert or retain information that is attributable to an otherwise reliable source, but which is unambiguously known to be erroneous (e.g., misstatement of the author of a book) under Misplaced Pages's policy of "verifiability, not truth"?

10) Is global warming primarily a scientific topic that has sociopolitical and economic consequences, or is it primarily a political topic that is to some extent informed by science?

11) In the interest of fairness, should WP:WEIGHT be abandoned in favor of a perspective that treats all views presented in any reliable source as equally valid, regardless of their proportion those sources?

Issues suggested by KimDabelsteinPetersen

1) Where does BLP start and stop with regards to professional/scientific controversy?

2) Are comments (by another published expert) on published papers by a scientist considered BLP material?

3) Is there a difference between material/content/text placed in a regular article, and a biography, with regards to the materials BLP or non-BLP status?

4) When considering content on different articles with differing amounts of published material both in time and distribution, should there be a set standard for how much neutral/praising/criticising material there is? (both in distribution and length?)

5) If a reference can be shown to be factually incorrect (by using more reliable sources), what consequences does this have for its state of reliability/weight?

6) Do books published by political commentators automatically count as reliable and weighty sources to science?

7) If a political advocate writes a book or makes a film about a topic, does the book/film count as opinion or as a general reliable source (to science or otherwise)?

8) When dealing with a top-level summary article on a very large topic, is it considered incivil to point out that discussion and possible inclusion of a "news/blog issue of the day" doesn't belong, but instead should go to a sub-article?

9) Is it incivil to point out that WP:TALK seems to disallows general discussion on a topic?

10) What, if any, measures can be taken so that article talkpages do not become soapboxes/forums for the "issue of the day" within a topic-area?

11) Would a welcoming committee consisting of bipartisan editors for a topic-area be useful for catching newbie editors, on their talkpage (pointing out problematic behaviour/editing) before making mistakes ending up in grief?

Question raised by BozMo

1) Should Social Inclusiveness have equal or greater or lower priority than content quality?

2) What should our approach be to the "attitude" which is not quite uncivil, but goes along the lines of "why should well qualified contributing editors reasonably have to spend a large proportion of their time civilly educating a rotating series of much less qualified virtually non-contributing editors about fairly basic errors/meanings", even assuming that we agree that the judgements therein are merited.

--BozMo talk 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of issue 1}

2) {text of issue 2}

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:ScienceApologist

Proposed principles

When the science is settled

1) When the science is settled on a question, as in the case of the reality of anthropogenic global warming, Misplaced Pages articles make it clear that the science is settled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Some of the most heated controversy in global warming articles concerns the extent to which the considerable doubts about global warming expressed in popular media, public opinion polls, and by congressional representatives should be covered. I suggest that while such sentiments cannot be described as science per se, the fact that AGW has engendered significant political conflict as few scientific theories have is itself notable.

Comment removed

Settled science is an important concept when considering WP:WEIGHT. The difference between a novel but speculative suggestion like string theory and a settled and vast consensus understanding such as "AGW" means that when discussing the scientific understanding of the idea it is important to keep in mind that vocal minorities buttressed by non-expert naysayers do not dominate the balance of the discussion. Tiny minority ideas are generally excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SA, but disagree that Some of the most heated controversy in global warming articles concerns the extent to which the considerable doubts... should be covered. is *currently* true. In fact the science-of-GW articles have been little troubled for some time now. Where is this dispute occurring? Perhaps I have missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but very little else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This comment is obscure. You appear to be suggesting that, say, the global warming article contains little more than the assertion that the science is settled. That assertion is blatantly false, so you can't have meant that: what did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, for example the global warming article contains little more than the scientific communities consensus on how it works, how it came to be, how it (potentially) effects the planet and the life therein, and how these issues are being addressed; there is negligable coverage of the ongoing debate/campaign promoted by skeptics and denialists, even though it gets considerable general media coverage. This is in contrast, for example, to the article regarding abortion, where not only are the medical, historical, and legal aspects covered by reference to the professionally supported facts, but clearly notes those opinions and their rationales that are opposed to the practice - regardless of the fact that they are not grounded in sustainable scientific grounds. I give this as an example of an article upon a subject that is more than simply scientific explanation, but a balanced view of the issues also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion is a medical procedure, not a scientific fact. Better to compare this to evolution where the controversy is generally confined to creation-evolution controversy where it belongs. Global warming's cause by human actions is a scientific fact that should not be swept under the rug by media hype. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that abortion is a poor analogy. A better one would be nuclear fission which does not trouble itself with the politics of nuclear power or nuclear bombs, but leaves those to political articles William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is this proposal relevant to a dispute? For example, how will we know when the science is settled on anthropogenic global warming seems beyond the scope for ArbCom action now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this principle. This goes to the heart of this issue, and ZuluPapa5 raises an interesting point: does Misplaced Pages as an institution need to recognize that the science on global warming is settled? Personally I believe as a layman that yes, the science is settled. That may explain why the scientific articles seem to be least controversial, while the ones on the fringes are the most contentious. The corollary is that skeptics represent a fringe point of view that are generally to be granted less weight and less deference in determination of article slant where scientific issues are paramount. The balancing act comes in articles where the science is not paramount. To what extent should this principle be reflected in articles on issues and people impacting on global warming? That seems to be the crux of the matter. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed answer .... Misplaced Pages will know when the science is settled when there are no longer NPOV disputes in the articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Baloney. As someone who is very active in these areas I can tell you that for every settled instance of science we can find quirky and wrong Misplaced Pages editors who promote "NPOV disputes" on the topic. Think perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics? There's a number of Wikipedians who don't. Think that the speed of light is constant? There are a number of Wikipedians who don't. No, Misplaced Pages's open-door policy suffers fools gladly and any crank with a computer can perpetuate a "NPOV dispute". The reliable sources external to Misplaced Pages are what dictate the foundational aspect of settled science. Naysayers can say "nay" all they want, but they should not get a chance to railroad Misplaced Pages into perpetual conflict or ambiguous hemming and hawing in the articles as you propose. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

2) Misplaced Pages follows the most reliable sources, and those sources in this case agree with the IPCC assessment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

The reliable sources relating to the scientific consensus, yes. The reliable sources relating to the continuing debate not so much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment removed

The critiques are all marginal. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Most" but not all. Many reliable sources are critical of the IPCC and a few, at least one reliable source has presented a consensus view on the science, which would could threaten the IPCC's monopoly view. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Views trumpeted by political organizations and promoted by a tiny group of itinerant scientists do not belong promoted at Misplaced Pages and have been duly impeached as being unreliable. Let the people who want to change the settled science fight it out externally, but do not let them have a soapbox in Misplaced Pages. WP:CBALL. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be true for sources related to the science, but is not relevant to articles where scientific principles are not paramount. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every article on the subject of global warming touches on the scientific facts of global warming and at every turn anti-science proponents have attacked those facts as they've been presented. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Editors with a political bias against the scientific facts relating to global warming

1) Editors with a political bias against the scientific facts relating to global warming have hounded scientists and neutral editors to the point of driving some away and causing the general quality of global warming articles to deteriorate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Comment removed

How do you define an "editor with a political bias against the scientific facts"? The global warming issue is based on politicized "scientific consensus". ( Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.) Can you give an example where an editor's political motivation has violated the principles in wp:5 ... can you show how an editor has advanced an agenda that precudes other notable and objectivity established positions? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors who are global warming denialists routinely attack climate scientists in an effort to gain an upper hand in editing articles to conform to an anti-scientific POV. You have done this yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages is a General Purpose reference work

1) Misplaced Pages is an open editing project, designed to produce an encyclopedia that is accessible to all and to cover as wide a range and breadth of topics as possible. It does not confine itself to narrow definitions of article matter, and only concerns itself that articles are notable, referenced and accurate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Trying for a standard wording that reflects the nature of a project that is open to all to edit, constrained only by basic principles in constructing the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a General Purpose Encyclopedia is to educate the general public

2) Misplaced Pages's content is directed toward the layman seeking information upon various issues relating to a subject, and therefore needs to reflect all aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Further to the above, noting the requirement to focus subject matter upon the expectations of the readership rather than defining it by the majority expert viewpoint only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me about this principle is that it can be misunderstood to justify excessive inclusion of fringe points of view that may tend to mislead the reader. In the article on the "Climategate" issue, for instance, we are currently debating how much detail we need in the lead, when those details are media reports that were repudiated by subsequent findings of investigators. We can actually mislead the reader by being too focused on being indiscriminate in the information that we provide. There seems to be a continual tension between those two aspects of Misplaced Pages: "fringe" and "inclusiveness." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This principle is in direct contradiction to the provisions of WP:V and WP:NPOV#WEIGHT. The arbitrators have generally resisted proposals for unilateral change to major site policies, but perhaps they will relent in this case. This leaves aside the very major point of how we will somehow divine all of the "aspects in respect of the subject that may be raised by the readership." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is in contravention, since legitimate questions ("What is the effect of a raise in sea temperatures?") will be covered in topics under WP:DUE and frivolous ones ("Why do scientists have beards if the weather is getting warmer?") will not - and the answers to the serious concerns will be referenced. The issue I am attempting to address is the type of question exampled by "Why does Dr X think that the effects of rainforest depletion is overstated" having no answer because it is the scientific communities considered opinion that Dr (of dentistry) X's concerns are so ill founded they need not be addressed or indeed noted. A good encyclopedia should note Dr X's position neutrally, assuming that it has had enough exposure to indicate notability, while noting also that it is considered marginal by the scientific community (and having links to related articles where the scientific consensus is explained). Thus the reader is educated as to why Dr X makes that comment, and its relationship to the wider and contrary viewpoint held. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In most cases it is impossible to note fact that Dr. X's opinion is "considered marginal by the scientific community." Experience has shown that such attempts will be rejected as WP:SYN unless a reliable source has stated that "Dr. X's opinion is considered marginal by the scientific community" in those exact words. The pattern is that individuals who are mentioned even once in a local newspaper get their opinion presented unchallenged, because they are not sufficiently prominent or credible to have drawn a formal rejection in a reliable source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that is an issue, but the brevity of Dr X's article, and the source provided, should give a reader some indication of its value, expecially if they click the link to Rainforest and find Dr X's position is either solitary or not noted at all when viewed with the rest of the content regarding rainforest depletion. Neutrality in reporting, like democracy, might give an appearance of untoward recognition of extremely minority viewpoint but, like democracy, that ideal should not be sacrificed for reason that it is unrepresentative of a majority or significant minority. Also, by deciding what should be included even if it otherwise satisfies inclusion criteria does mean that WP is advocating certain viewpoints as being the only legitimate ones - the antithesis of neutrality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles may be more than a definition of a subject

3) An article may be more than the sum of its technical description, its history, and its application(s) (if any). Attitudes and opinion toward a subject, favourable, unfavourable, neutral, historical and current, may be included where these meet the criteria of notability and reliable references and exposure in the wider world (and thus readership). Related content may be included where relevant and provides greater understanding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Clarifying that content is not dictated by narrow definitions, but should reflect per WP:DUE all aspects relating to the subject matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the editors of an article on a scientific topic may decide not to include views expressed outside the realm of peer reviewed science if they feel that this would provide for less understanding. This decision is an almost invisible rule on almost all science related articles. It is "invisible", because it almost never has to be applied explicitely on most science articles (because the popular media rarely writes about, say, special relativity), but see here for a rare case where it is applied. In case of an article on a scientific topic that is controversial politically, it is even more important to apply this rule if we want to report the scientific facts accurately. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a distillation of all notable viewpoints, per WP:Due weight

4) Noting that while a majority viewpoint, or an expert consensus upon the subject, should have prominence, that all reliably sourced viewpoints, with regard to compliance with WP:Due weight, should be recorded for an article to be considered neutrally written.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Making the point that a majority or consensus viewpoint is not of itself necessarily the Neutral Point of View; that dissenting or variant pov's may be included in presenting a NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially a null finding. No-one disagrees with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that to be the basis for principles (but the proposed findings are below, anyhoo). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not seriously disputed as far as I can tell. The problem is in deciding what constitutes "due weight" for each view. Specifically, for scientific topics is it the weight accorded in the relevant scientific literature, or the weight accorded in newspapers, blog postings and soundbite journalism (as you have argued elsewhere)? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors, including WMC, have repeatedly removed dissenting POVs from articles in the CC topic area in tension with this principal. It certainly is disputed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

. And note that "in tension" is fine - disagreements amongst editors of good faith frequently arise as to what is NPOV. "in contradiction" would not be fine, were you able to find examples William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

template

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Presentation of the scientific consensus regarding AGW within related articles is excellent

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of skeptic or denialist viewpoints regarding AGW within related articles is deficient

2) The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated, and in some cases non existent, regardless of the sources and references used and the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

I feel that the weight of evidence will draw the the conclusion that there is a bias toward not including content that is contrary to the scientific consensus within major subject articles, of marginalising skeptic or denialist viewpoints to articles specifically relating to those issues, permitting the inclusion of contrary viewpoints toward skeptic/denial content that is not reflected in relation to scientific consensus content, the more stringent examination and challenging of sources, and of greater scrutiny of the editing ethos of contributors of denialist/skeptic inclined content than there is of those editing to the scientific consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see even a trace of evidence for this. The main global warming article contains a section on solar variation, mentioning the hypothesis by Svensmark. And then we have an article dedicated to solar variation which contains a big section on global warming and a big paragraph on solar variation theory. Last but not least, there is a wiki article on global warming controversy, containing many statements by sceptics that are not propperly rebutted, because scientists are not going to rebut every flawed statement made by sceptics.

So, clearly the views of sceptics are overrepresented on Misplaced Pages. This is consistent with the contents of some other popular[REDACTED] science articles. E.g. the article on dark matter contains a rather large section on alternative theories, even though it is a rather small part of the literature. The only difference between climate change articles and the other science articles is that in the latter case the contrarian points of view are part of the regular scientific discourse. Count Iblis (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. Global warming mentions alternative hypotheses such as solar variation and cosmic rays in much greater proportion than their appearance in reliable sources, as do various sub-articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Per CI and Boris: this finding is factually incorrect (but may go some way to explaining LHVU's biases) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposals by ZuluPapa5

Proposed principles

The basic foundation for civil editors to create a free and open NPOV encyclopedia.

1) Assume Good Faith

• Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

2) Civility/disruption/reasonableness

• Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
• Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
• Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Misplaced Pages policies, as well as the spirit of Misplaced Pages and the will of its editors.
• Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.
• The Wiki software and Misplaced Pages policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Misplaced Pages articles. When disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Misplaced Pages articles.

3) Consensus

• As put forward in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
• In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

4) Edit wars

• Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseam. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

5) Neutral point of view (and associated principles)

• Misplaced Pages's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
• Misplaced Pages articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.
• Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.
• A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Misplaced Pages; that can only be determined by the edits to Misplaced Pages..
• Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.
• The Misplaced Pages policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Misplaced Pages, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible..
• Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Misplaced Pages editors which have not been independently published in other venues.
• Neutral point of view as defined on Misplaced Pages contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages articles are edited from a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".
• All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Misplaced Pages:NPOV.)

6) Original research

• No original research.
• Misplaced Pages is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Misplaced Pages:No original research.
• Misplaced Pages is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.
• Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for original research. (See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, expounded in Misplaced Pages:No original research.)

7) Ownership of articles

• (a) Misplaced Pages pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. (b) This is a crucial part of Misplaced Pages as an open-content encylopedia. See Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles and Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages

8) Personal attacks

• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Misplaced Pages editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
• Personal attacks which occur during the course of Arbitration either on the Arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration.
• Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

9) Provocation

• When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

10) Staying cool when the editing gets hot

• When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

Proposed principles

Avoiding article bloat

1) WP:NPOV and WP:RS does not mean that articles should bloat to include all information. Misplaced Pages is better served by discrimination: when articles become large, easily identifiable sub-blocks should be split off from the main article. In the case of global warming such sub-blocks include politics of global warming, global warming controversy, climate sensitivity, attribution of recent climate change, temperature record, urban heat island and many more, which correctly allow the main article to focus on an overview of the core science William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Scope

2) Misplaced Pages is an entire reference encyclopaedia and is not aimed exclusively at the general public. Where the core of a subject is too complex for the general public this should be handled by creating an introductory article rather than dumbing down a complex subjects William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others: