Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Announcement

typos and corrections

There are missing spaces between words throughout the case writeup; I hope it's OK that I fixed those I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think the missing spaces are an artefact of cut and paste. Odd though. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so, since they all occurred before wikilinks. I believe I caught most of them, and hope I wasn't out of line to do that (it seemed uncontroversial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One remaining minor typo: Principle 6 (Casting aspersions) records the voting as "Passed X to X" rather than recording the actual vote. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant to search for X, but forgot. On the other hand, seconds after I saved the huge text (I had to do it all at once for the time stamps to be the same), Wikipedia almost died on me. I think there's a couple of other minor fixes to make also, nothing that makes any changes though. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

evidence page deletion requirement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Evidence_sub-pages_in_user_space says evidence pages should be deleted or courtesy blanked, while the write up here says they must be deleted: which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific remedy takes precedence over the broad principle. They must be deleted.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have courtesy blanked past evidence pages on other cases-- is that adequate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is case specific but I suppose for other cases it probably would be best practice to delete them  Roger Davies ^talk 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page (User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say) subject to the requirement that it be deleted within 7 days? Could be argued both ways, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought it was. AGK 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going anywhere near it, but someone ought to drop a note to WMC or tag it, or something. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentary on case outcome

A four month case to hand out 6 month bans? That doesn't seem proportionate to me. Either the committee dragged its heels on this unnecessarily, or the punishments are beyond lenient for the evident disruption caused. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean protection because Wikipedia does not do punishment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just say to me the other day that you don't toe the party line? I'm disappointed, BW. (Unless I missed a sarcasm tag somewhere?) → ROUX ₪ 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potato tomato. Although as you point out, taking four months to decide whether a six month protection period is warranted is similarly way out of proportion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic bans are of indefinite length, by the way. NW (Talk) 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can do good work elsewhere and then come back to it in 6 months on appeal. But yes, for people like WMC who clearly don't get it and never will get it, they are as they say, burned. So it's not all bad.... MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, what do you mean by "burned"? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)small text added at 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Being permanently removed from the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are simply wrong. The nice thing about the particular ban conditions is that good faith editors with a broad range of interests can take this as a forced vacation from a stressful area and spend half a year enjoying the nicer sides of Wikipedia and making new friends there – and maybe learn in the a priori harmless areas why some rules such as WP:AGF make sense. This is something that those editors who are indirectly (through large PR agencies) on the payroll of petrol companies are unlikely to do. Or if they do, it will either make them more easily identifiable (if they concentrate on other customers' interest) or motivate them to make up for the disruption they cause by producing valuable content elsewhere.

I see this as a pragmatic approach to the problem that there is an infinite supply of CC denying sockpuppets but only a finite supply of experts willing to contribute to Wikipedia, who are moreover used to academic standards of debate rather than the mud-slinging that comes out of the PR agencies and their front organisations. Hans Adler 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, I do not think referencing opponent editors to being on the payroll of petrol companies is appropriate and is not an encouraging remark when the case closed only a matter of hours ago. There is too much of attacking editors for being "right wing" or "connected to the petrol companies". It sets the stage for only "left wing people are welcome here", only people who match our POV are welcome to contribute here. The only things that you need to concern yourself with are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT and other relevant policies and guidelines.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just being realistic in a general strategic consideration. This has nothing to do with any individual editor. The methods used by big PR companies are generally well known, and also their former impact on smoking legislation through clouding the public's perception of the connection between smoking and cancer. They manufactured the appearance of scientific uncertainty, which is exactly what they are doing now. They are using astro-turfing and "real grassroots" campaigns. It would be absolutely astonishing if they weren't applying such methods to the freely editable Google hit number 1 on many global warming topics, and I am sure Arbcom is aware of the problem. Hans Adler 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, your version of realism may differ from other editors version of realism but wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH, it is not a forum for ideological battles; I repeat again it is about WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. If you can accuse editors without any evidence of being paid by Big Oil, is it okay then for editors to accuse you and other editors of being in the pay of Big Carbon interests? Spreading conspiracy theories about editors is not helpful, all you are doing is arguing that it is okay to continue to battlefield because you are in your view, in the right. Climate change is a complex and very diverse subject matter, some things are known for almost certain, other things are less certain and so forth, so I am not sure what you are referring to as certainty? I don't think you get what the whole ArbCom case was about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's quite appropriate to comment on WP:COI issues as a part of the problem of entrenched editors -- note he didnt say the whole problem. And especially as presented in context of the greater point he was making about 'forced vacation.' -PrBeacon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mick: Did you see how much evidence was actually submitted? (The answer is: a lot.) AGK 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is kinda the point.... MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An appropriate and well-reasoned decision. It may not really have been necessary to take four months to come to what seems, in retrospect, the obvious outcome, but then I'm not the one who had to slog through all that evidence, so what do I know...  Sandstein  19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The total evidence/discussion ran to about 850,000 words. That's more than the Old Testament and New Testament added together; or twice the length of Lord Of The Rings. :)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is ... impractical. Have you ever considered imposing strict time and size constraints on submissions, like real courts do?  Sandstein  21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but it doesn't usually work. People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged and you start getting loads of overflow onto private sub-pages. It's extremely difficult to strike a balance. There's also the issue of people having their say on the talk pages and the ructions that are caused if they don't. On balance, these things are usually manageable but this case was exceptional in terms of sheer volume of words and the huge amount of accusation/counter-accusation.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking about a one-comment-per-day limit. I know you realize there are the dual issues, that it becomes unreadable, and that the amount of personal restraint will inversely correlate with the amount of text posted. But if editors don't comment as much, reasonable or otherwise, it makes it look like they don't care as much. A comment-per-day limit would force people to think ahead. This could at least perhaps been imposed later, when you were trying to get people to shut up. Mackan79 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As Sandstein's colleague in defeat last election, I join in the praise and the caveat.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't remember partaking in any election?  Sandstein  21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, brainfart.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged

You say that like it's a bad thing. Since this is an encyclopedia a minimum level of competence can be assumed. Beyond that other editors may volunteer (as I have done in the past) to clean up evidence and whatnot to a point where it can be absorbed. --TS 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's bad thing if people care disadvantaged. The problems usually arise in terms of seeing the wood for the trees. Either people don't know policy well enough or they rely on rhetoric instead of factual stuff.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you have to admit it's a bit bad when people go on and on in evidence when a couple of diffs should be enough. --TS 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's the thrust of my point (if you see what I mean).  Roger Davies ^talk 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is, though, a couple of diffs can be ancedotally found pretty easily and make anyone look bad. The bar for asking for sanctions right now is higher than that, and should be.

What it needs to be in big disruptive cases like this is an open question. But I don't want Arbcom taking two bad edits and imposing a yearlong ban or topic ban or somesuch. I'm reasonably sure I've made more than two really bad edits in my Wikipedia history, though I try hard not to.

I think it may be a valid question to ask how do we get to the point that you have hundreds of obvious diffs available and the community / uninvolved admins haven't intervened yet. I think once it gets to Arbcom, though, the level of evidence should be appropriate to the complexity of the case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking "a couple of diffs" too literally :))  Roger Davies ^talk 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first arbitration I unofficially clerked for (this was in late 2004/early 2005 when there were no clerks, I was just being a good samaritan trying to help a guy who was being tormented beyond reason) ran to dozens and dozens of diffs all submitted by one guy. All the parties had English as a second languages and there were multiple socks; I think I was the only native English speaker involved. It took us many days to arrive at what would nowadays be a simple SPI. I think the bar for sanctions is a little lower now because the community is more pro-active. --TS 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban and bloc neutralization

One aspect of the resolution of this case concerns me, but I did not follow all of the (TLDR) case closely enough to know if my impression is correct. It seems that almost everyone was caught up in the topic bans (noting some exceptions like AWickert, who always edits responsibly and courteously). If everyone involved in dealing with "blocs of editors" who "try to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's pillars" is caught up in the bans, this would seem to be a deterrent to attempting to neutralize POV articles which are "owned" by collective blocs of editors defending a POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of folk who could have been included in the topic bans (if we use the metrics that were used to mete out the ones meted out) but who were not. If they change their ways, all will be well other than the sense of justice about who was named and who was not (but WP doesn't do justice, it is a project, not a system of government or a social experiment). If they don't change their ways, it comes down to whether the new enforcement regime is more sucessful at dealing with them than the old one was. And that in turn, in my view, will hinge on how many admins turn up and how even handed they are. Color me cautiously optimistic. Not the best decision, WMC got off exceedingly lucky to be merely topic banned, but not the worst by far. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is how this affects other similar cases, particularly when no admins will touch them. I requested 1RR at ANI once, and NW was the only editor to even respond; when you look at the CC mess, that's understandable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. One thing that will be very telling is how the first few requests/actions go. If a number of different admins come in, and if ArbCom members back them up, it will go much differently (better) than if they get taken to AN/I or wherever and fed to the mob with no backup from ArbCom members. (even if AN/I can't overturn things in a specific case) ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my concern: further dispute resolution in other similar cases is stalled because uninvolved admins won't go near 'em, so the disparaging of other editors, disruption, and collective blocs of editors overruling Wiki pillars continues, yet because of the way new editors take the fall every time, an arb case wouldn't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the "thanks" that have been meted out for the involved administrators in this case, I'm simply not seeing any upside for me or any other heretofore uninvolved administrator to step in and fill the gap left. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most uninvolved admins (LHVU, The Wordsmith, BozMo, and several others) got thanked and nothing more, except to be urged to stay out going forward as it is time for a new approach. One uninvolved admin was rightly chastised (via a finding) for letting the baiting and harassment get to him to the point of becoming battleground-ish at times himself. (that would be me) The other two admins named (StS and Polargeo) were not uninvolved. So I would urge you and every other admin considering participating to please do so. The more the better. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very reasonable decision to me. As for the concern expressed, if you have evidence of POV, ownership, and "blocs", ArbCom has made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. If, on the other hand, you make the accusations, but lack the evidence, ArbCom has also made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. I hope that ArbCom quickly moves ahead and applies this across the board.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just because there were a lot of topic bans and a couple of "please do take a holiday from acting as an uninvolved admin on this topic until further notice" remedies, it's easy to overlook the fact that the content on this scientific topic is of stellar quality and most of those involved in maintaining it aren't touched by the arbitration. The editing atmosphere on the topic is likely to be improved a lot going forward. --TS 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and the talkpage

Per the first bulletin point, are these pages to be dealt with by the ArbCom clerks - to be archived and marked historicial? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway appears to have done something with the page itself, although not the talk. It wasn't an archiving per se, and he's not a clerk, but that hasn't stopped him before. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Tony blanked the page. When a clerk has the opportunity, it would probably be a good idea to restore the page, archive anything there, then mark the pages and all of their archives as "historical", possibly with a link to the Arbcom decision. Given that this is a clerical function in the true sense of the word, I expect that even clerks recused in this case would be able to carry this out. Risker (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a clerk (and the page isn't part of arbitration so that's moot). I just made a soft redirect to WP:AE, as a start on closing the probation. --TS 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why not leave it to an actual clerk to do a good job of it with proper archiving? I'm confused in general about why you like to clerk things. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, how to handle a case like this

If this is more appropriately brought up in a different forum, please advise. I've had ideas on how a case of this nature might be handled in the future to avoid some of the difficulties this one has seen. I'm sure few if any of these ideas are original but maybe it's worth discussing them here.

1. Use an inquiry-based model of arbitration. This should pervade the whole process. Right now the arbitrators often ask questions during the request phase. I'd like to see arbitrators pose questions (both collectively and individually directed) during the post-acceptance phases: to ask for evidence regarding specific claims, to get clarification on assertions made, to see if past behavior accurately reflects an editor's current attitude, to determine the bounds of the dispute, and to direct the conversation toward resolving the dispute rather than perpetuating it. (In this case, among other questions, I would have thought it useful to inquire further of William M. Connolley regarding his position on expert editors, to find out Lar's intent behind his "level the playing field" quote to see whether it reflected bias, and to ask each of the disputants about how far and in what ways they were willing to compromise.)
2. Start with a statement of scope. After voting to accept the case but before starting the evidence phase, arbitrators should draft a preliminary statement of scope. Contribution to the arbitration process should be restricted to issues that fall within that scope. The scope should be altered only with good reason thereafter. Clerks should actively enforce the scope or have an "offtopic" page to where out of scope comments can be moved.
3. Use milestones and iterations. Why yes, I am a software engineer. How did you guess? Rather than a single evidence->workshop->proposed decision->outrage-and-despair process, why not an iterative approach? Set a milestone a couple weeks out for an "alpha" decision, with the understanding that there will most likely still be holes left to fill in evidence and arguments, but with goals laid out regarding which parts of the dispute need evidence, resolution, etc. After the milestone ends, clerks and/or arbitrators should summarize what issues are still outstanding, what evidence is still needed, which topics have been excluded or included scope-wise, etc. Then begin the next iteration, again with a definite milestone. Continue iterating until the committee decides further iterations would bring nothing new to light. The decision should hopefully be apparent at this point, and the final vote can take place. I realize this could wreak havoc on the templates for tracking the arbitration process, but it may be worth the price.

Too radical a change from the current process? I'd appreciate some feedback—from arbitrators, clerks, participants, or even nosy bystanders like myself. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 was kinda in effect during this case already. The Arbitrators who decided this posted a framework, and waited for the response. When things didn't look like they'd be solved by the decision they worked further, and continued to refine and change the decision as the situation continued to devolve.

Since we're doing a bit of a post-mortem here, I think the clerks and arbs did a good job in the latter half of the case when things spiraled out of control time and time and time again (despite the vociferous complains as section after section was hatted or archived), i think that we need to make that more standard in curbing the back and forth sniping, and voluminous postings that these Arb cases cause. Perhaps saying "Post your evidence and workshop remedies to the appropriate pages, but don't use the talk page unless the arbs or clerks have questions" would be beneficial.. and be harsher on those who engage in constant conflict during an arb case. I know several people were removed from the talk pages due to constant conflict, we need to determine if this was an outlier due to the heat of the debate, or something we should look towards doing more of, going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the talk pages are going to be curtailed like that, there needs to be much more interaction initiated by the arbitrators—hence my point 1 above. Basically, the participants need near real-time feedback on their lines of evidence and argument so they don't feel they need to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Plus, if a participant has to thoughtfully answer questions posed by a neutral arbitrator, it might provoke more self-reflection and voluntary concessions than aggressive challenges from opponents might. And there's a chance that warring parties will realize, through the inquiry process, that some of their assumptions about their opponents' motives or reasoning were faulty, making reconciliation a bit more possible. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. Carcharoth asked me some thoughtful questions during this case, which I in turn gave thoughtful answers to... but I didn't see where my answers had any impact on much. (They may well have HAD an impact, but it wasn't visible). The feedback processes needed to be much stronger... another example of that problem is the questions that everyone posted at the beginning of the case, which appeared to disappear without a trace, near as anyone could tell. Again, these may have influenced how the case unfolded but there was no acknowledgment of that, no way to tell one way or the other. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Alanyst on point 2 - There is often significant disagreement about the proper scope, and until evidence is in it's hard to rule scope issues in or out. Also, related problems may become apparent that were outside the initially cast case (behavior on other similar pages or topics, other editors that weren't initially considered parties, etc).

Learning lessons from big ugly case and changing things that are necessary or useful on many other cases are two different things, in looking at learned lessons. Not all issues with this case will come back again often enough to justify structural change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think scope changes could be addressed at the end of each iteration, but during the iteration the discussion should be focused on the goals and scope defined for it. And you're right—this approach may not be suitable for "typical" arbitration cases (if such exist) but might work for omnibus-style cases that may appear in the future. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with point #1, and made the same point following another recent RFAR. If arbitrators were more pro-active in asking questions then it would help them and the participants alike. It'd help keep the evidence focused on what matters and save participants from wasting time collecting unhelpful evidence that the arbitrators need to plow through.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To combine #1 and #2, when a case is accepted the ArbCom could, informally, say something like:

• It looks the charges in this case concern personal attacks, advocacy, and citations. Could participants please provide 5 or 10 examples of personal attacks? The advocacy charge is unclear; could participants please explain it better and give examples? The citation issue is probably not important for this case since it concerns content, so unless there is a behavioral aspect please don't dwell on that. Also, it isn't in anyone's posting but the ArbCom has learned that there is an issue with socking by user:X .

After a reasonable interval the ArbCom could respond with a second informal reply:

• We have enough evidence about the personal attacks. Is there any more evidence about the advocacy issue? Sock puppetry by X and Y turns out to be a significant issue too, please add any relevant evidence.

That sort of thing. While it seems like extra steps that'd take time, effort, and discussion, if the result is arbitration cases that are more streamlined and focused then everyone benefits.   Will Beback  talk  12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with #2; I participated in an arb case that was brought by an admin, and the most significant outcome of that case was that the admin was desysopped. It was turned into an omnibus case, that took (I believe) about four months. Only as the case unfolded did the arbs have the opportunity to see the real offenses, although the admin's conduct was not part of the original scope of the case, and there were no significant findings against the editors against whom the case was originally filed. In terms of length, it took a very long evidence page to show the issues, and although my evidence was long, a former arb wrote to tell me years later that it was the most effective evidence in the case. On the other hand, I participated in a different case where several arbs intimidated and threatened the participants attempting to submit evidence, which led to less than optimal outcomes in the case, which ended up taking much too long to resolve, with an unsatisfactory outcome, and unnecessary delays in the offending editor being finally banned. When dealing with blocs of editors who are POVing entire suites of articles, it takes more than the "normal" amount of diffs and evidence to show the pattern, and by the time these cases get to ArbCom, they are complex-- the arbs get the big bucks to sort through it, and overly restricting evidence size in such cases might not be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've all seen cases where the final decision didn't focus on the issues in the initial complaints. That's especially the case when someone goes crazy during the arbitration process. The scope of a case needs to be flexible, but that doesn't mean it can't be "sketched" out. I agree that complicated cases may take more text and diffs, which is why feedback from the committee is important to keep it focused.   Will Beback  talk  13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for editing my post above after you responded, Will Beback-- I'm having eye problems. I submit that sketching out the scope of the case beforehand might cause the very problems seen in the second case I indicated: the heavy hand of two arbs in that case led to more serious problems in the ultimate resolution of that case, and those delays affected many productive editors. In the first case, one arb did specifically request certain types of feedback, and attempting to comply with his specific request led to my very long evidence page, which he later said was the most helpful. So, I'd not like to see anything that might lead to the kinds of heavy-handed arb or clerk intervention that resulted in the delays in the second case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbitration committee did a pretty good job, and they followed more or less the same process they always have, by analysis of submitted evidence and deliberation. I don't think there's any reason to propose a different way of proceeding that would be unfamiliar to them. --TS 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I still don't have a satisfactory answer to my query several sections above: when a situation become complex enough, admins won't touch it, productive editors and admins are tangled in the drama and disparaged, poisoning of the well occurs, dispute resolution forums are rendered ineffective, and a messy arb case is likely to result. I'm unconvinced that the outcome in this case will encourage admins to engage in complex disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give them a chance. WP:AE is pretty good at handling this kind of situation. --TS 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE is only for cases that have already appeared at ArbCom; ANI is not effective for helping to avoid lengthy arbcases, and what productive editor wants to take four months to present a complex case? My immediate concern is whether the outcome in this case will encourage admins to get involved in helping prevent such lengthy cases. Specifically, when I requested 1RR be implemented to help resolve a messy case, only one admin (NW) even bothered to weigh in, while the childish squabbles over non-issues persist at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading you correctly, I think the best answer you'll get is that ArbCom did pass a principle on casting aspersions without providing evidence to back it up. Unfortunately if the community lets editors make unsupported attacks on admins ad nauseum, and the admins then come to offer choice words in response, I think it becomes quite difficult for ArbCom to put all responsibility on one side, regardless. In my view the real answer is for the community to step it up in addressing groundless or tactical criticism when it happens. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probation notices to be removed

There is a list of articles formerly under probation on the following page:

• User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation

At or near the top of the talk page of each there is an instance of {{Community article probation}} which needs to be removed. I have done the As and Bs. If you'd like to help, please pick a letter and remove the templates from talk pages of articles starting with that letter. --TS 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For technical reasons the list above contains links to both the articles and their talk pages, so it's twice as long as you'd expect. Only the talk pages need to be processed. --TS 12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more up to date. Sounds like an AWB task...although, shouldn't we replace it with a discretionary sanctions notice anyway? T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one also has non-CC articles in them, oops. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all of these articles still at least in theory subject to probation, just under a new regime? OR is the thinking that all should be removed, to be followed by adding almost all of them back again sooner or later? Why not just carry out a review instead of removing, then adding? Or am I missing something entirely, and probation, as a concept, is completely gone? ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are no longer subject to "community article probation" but "arbitration discretionary sanctions". Removal may not be a good idea, maybe replacing with a version of {{sanctions}}? T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, replacement is probably what is needed. --TS 13:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now replacing the old probation notice with the following:

{{sanctions|See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions|the description of the sanctions]].}}

--TS 11:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've more or less finished doing this, although there are still tons of potential articles to tag. The ones I have done are those that have seen problems in the past or seem to be likely trouble spots. --TS 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it extend to user talk pages? Can a user present information he or she would like to see added to an article and then talk to proxies about how best to carry out the edits, for example?... to give a concrete example, is this an example of proxying to get round a ban or is it perfectly normal and acceptable? It could be argued either way, which is why I ask. Some clarity from the Arbs now would be helpful as it would help avoid issues later, after things get more set in. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the topic bans is described in the decision. The ban explicitly applies to articles, article talk pages, and Wikipedia processes; it does not include user talk pages. While I cannot read the minds of the Arbitrators, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they deliberately left an opportunity for subject matter experts to contribute positively without getting back onto the battlefield. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that's why I always use "articles, discussions, and other content" when imposing topic bans. Broader and less opportunity for gaming. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy description of topic bans, WP:TBAN.  Sandstein  13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the fact that Arbitrators chose to specifically enumerate the areas of applicability of the topic ban in their decision, rather than include WP:TBAN by reference or simply state 'topic ban, broadly interpreted' implies a deliberate decision on their part to clearly craft the scope of the ban (and indeed, to supersede any other interpration of the scope). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the question would be the meaning of this: (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Does this mean only proccesses like AFD and the like, or does it include the broader editing process such as the discussion of sources on user talk pages.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Processes' generally means (loosely speaking) 'stuff that happens on process pages', distinct from pages primarily concerned with editing. That's AfD/MfD/XfD, RfC, WP:AE, WP:AN and associated subpages (except, presumably, to respond to complaints filed against them), and no doubt a whole bunch of lesser-used alphabet soup. Reading in the extremely broad definition of all 'editing processes' would be a blanket inclusion of virtually every page on Wikipedia; it would render the first two parts of the statement of scope (which define specific classes of article and article talk pages included in the ban) superfluous. It wouldn't make sense for the remedy to be phrased as it is if the ArbCom intended such an unsually broad interpretation of (3). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, relevant templates and categories and their talk pages do not seem to fall under the ban, but they would fall under WP:TBAN. I'm sure an edit war and discussion in regard whether one climate change category is a subset of another is still possible, without a technical violation of the ban under 10's interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds like a fine plan for those who want to find themselves banished in perpetuity to the dark side of the Moon under discretionary sanctions :)  Roger Davies ^talk 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per SPOV - there is, actually, no "dark side of the moon." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the :), should we expect clarification on the serious questions?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much clearer the decision could have been. I expect editors exporting the conflict to other areas, trying to game topic-bans (by ignoring the spirit), and generally continuing battlefield conduct, will find themselves facing discretionary sanctions very quickly. This dispute isn't moved into exciting green pastures areas; it's winding down.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would sound to me that the talk page discussions themselves aren't forbiden, but once one of these discussions generates conflict then the hammer is going to fall. Close to the mark?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages. It is for other editors to make actual edits to articles, r participate in AFDs, or other processes. They can, of course, be influenced by what e.g. William has said on his talk page. But then, you can also read a scientific paper written by William, talk to him via email, or meet with him in real life. The point is that any editor who is allowed to edit the CC pages, is responsible for his/her own edits. Acting as a meatpuppet, as Lar suggests could happen, is never allowed, regardless of any topic bans. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is acceptable, It looks like there will be a need to clarify where the line is. If the previous section is fine, would participating here [1] also be fine? Arbcom should clarify now, or be prepared to see the official requests for clarifications start rolling in before a week passes.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections. Other editors were free to make the edits or to not make the edits as they saw fit. I'm not offering to meatpuppet, but I appreciate Cube lurker for bringing up my talkpage offer. Since a number of content experts were topic-banned, I feel like we should provide a space for them to offer their suggestions on wiki as long as it doesn't spill over into article space. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "CC noticeboard" can be created for this. This would make the involvement of topic banned editors transparant. At the same time, one should ask all editors to communicate with the topic banned editors only via that noticeboard on issues related to editing CC articles. The noticeboard has to be moderated by an Admin to make sure that the only discussions that take place there discuss some climate science issue, that it is relevant to editing some Wiki article, and that having input from one of the topic banned editors is reasonable. There should be zero tolerance for fighting any disputes there.

E.g. in a recent discussion on the global warming talk page, Stephan told that Boris would probably know a few sources on CO2 lifetime. If Boris isn't around here, and if William is known to also know about this, then one could ask William to post the sources on the CC noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a shame that Lar can't let this go. No better proof of "involved" is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this discussion, if Lar is not otherwise involved, would be exactly what an uninvolved administrator should do — seek clarification of the ArbCom decision. However, as he cannot act on it, because Arbcom found (by a combination of points) that he cannot apply sanctions under the new system, the question does seem questionable, but still needs to be asked, as he's not the only one who thinks it unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Lar's question was reasonable. Somewhere between WMC not being allowed to answer an IP's question on his talk page whether he can recommend a good university for studying climate science, and a programming language for describing edits on WMC's talk page that are then automatically performed by a BAG-approved bot, there is a reasonable interpretation of Arbcom's words. Based on the discussion so far (especially Arbcom's choice of non-standard rules and the ScienceApologist precedent) I think I can guess the course of the intended lines. Plural because I am under the impression that there may well be two lines – crossing one will get you in trouble, and reporting someone who didn't cross the other will also get you in trouble. Hans Adler 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point that some of you have missed despite it being the central purpose of this whole decision is that we (and by we I mean everybody not directly involved in this toxic dispute) want this to end. Don't go looking for ways to do and end-run around the decision, the community is absolutely fed up with this nonsense. If an edit could be interpreted as even approaching a violation of the topic ban, don't make that edit. Try to act in the spirit of the decision as opposed to looking for loopholes in the language of it and just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Move on to another topic area or expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks to me as if you've misread the discussion. We all know what the Remedy 3 topic ban says, and the discussion above has established that there are well understood existing norms.

  In the case of William M. Connolley we've got an on-site expert whose very moderate and mainstream opinion of a subject in which he has published primary research is very welcome. We'd be mad to interpret the topic ban in such a way as to forbid all communication from Dr. Connolley, if only because it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be strongly against an application of the topic ban too far beyond what is written. --TS 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the problem with WMC is behaviour toward others, having a situation where he can give technical comments to those brave or interested enough to approach the beast but where no one else need to seems an elegant solution. He can give references and explain things all he likes. Perhaps it was intended. I hope that is where we have got to. As for the proxying bit if we starting seeing "tell him he is stupid" type comments resulting in people being called stupid we will need to think again. Trying to ban this would drive it off wiki and into email which would be a strange thing to do. --BozMo talk 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, user talk pages (where invited, or on the sanctioned person's own talk page) should be fine; where not invited, it probably shouldn't result in any more sanctions than an unnamed person. I would hope that editing in Template, Category or Portal or their respective talk spaces about climate change articles, should result in a block. That clarification by ArbCom would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments. One characteristic of the more abysmal aspects of this case has been strident crowds turning up uninvited on people's talk pages with torches and pitchforks. This is stressful, intimidating, and wholly unnecessary. I anticipate admins will issue topic bans to deal with this under discretionary sanctions if the problem rears its ugly head again and I, for one, will happily endorse them.  Roger Davies ^talk

I can't imagine what clarification you expect beyond this, which as far as I am concerned wasn't even necessary. I would actually prefer it if Arbcom did not "clarify" every, or indeed any, little detail of the form "What will happen if I break the spirit of my topic ban by doing X, which is not covered explicitly the way it's formulated?" The purpose of the topic bans is to take the steam out of the topic. If a topic banned editor is allowed to do X, then a topic banned editor from the "opposite" camp will also do X. If that can easily be predicted to lead to stressful interactions between the two it's clear that X is covered by the ban, regardless of any wikilawyering one could do on the subject. (Of course this requires a pragmatic choice of X that takes context into account, see below.) By not micro-managing the extent of the restrictions Arbcom can force the topic banned editors to think about the consequences of their actions. (Something like this also applies to other editors, and I personally feel on thin ice when editing in the area. Since one person's robust response to disruption is another person's disruption, this is not a nice feeling. But I believe it's necessary.) We will see what happens when the first "uninvolved" admin blocks an editor for doing something that did not break the spirit of the rules but is superficially similar to something that does. (E.g.: Topic banned editor A taunts topic banned editor B on B's talk page and gets blocked. A week later B leaves an apology regarding some earlier disagreement on topic banned editor C's talk page and gets blocked for the same length of time.) IMO everything hinges on Arbcom's firm response in such a situation. They seem to have thought about it, so let's see how well it works in practice. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger raises a valid point, as talk page interactions were a constant irritant throughout the case. That is, someone issuing "warnings" and scolding messages to other editors, thereby sparking conflict. There's nothing wrong with people using their talk pages to list useful or new sources, and any effort to curtail that just simply offends the sensibilities as far as I'm concerned. It's just wrong, and trying to keep people from doing that is going to cause far more trouble than it will avert. However, editors who are topic banned simply can't or shouldn't go to other people's pages to carry out warfare there. I doubt that any of them will do so, but it's always a possibility down the line. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps every editor involved in CC should put the notice: {{sanctions|See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions|the description of the sanctions]].}} on his/her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned editors already have notice of the decision, and then some. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, the best thing for anyone mentioned in the topic ban to do is to stay away from all CC related articles and topics. Period. Then you don't have to worry if you are violating the ban or if someone on "the other side" is watching to see what you can get away with so they can try it as well. Why would you be discussing something on your talk page if you can't even edit in that area to begin with? There has to be at least one other thing each of you has interest in, go edit in that subject area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the harm in editors who understand the intricacies of CC science exchanging views on scholarly articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William may also have information on some CC topic that no other Wikipedian has, but which is needed in an article. An obvious example where that is likely to happen is in case of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to make an exception for that article, yes, but not any other articles. And do note that even the subjects of BLP articles are not automatically entitled to post to the talk page of said articles. There are many cases of BLP subjects (some dealt with in private to avoid embarassing said BLP subjects) who disrupt the articles and talk pages of the articles about themselves, and their socks and IPs are blocked and they end up de facto banned (usually no-one realises it is the subject of the article causing the disruption). What often happens then (and this is the crucial bit), is that they often reach out by e-mail to someone, and are directed to OTRS (or other off-wiki venues) to make their point in a way where their concerns can be dealt with without them disrupting things for everyone else. In other words, the conduct of a BLP subject on the talk page of their article, is still subject to the normal restrictions and the need to avoid disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place. There is a sense above of editors thinking that certain pages or issues are so difficult or complex that it requires certain editors to deal with them. This is anti-thetical to the entire concept of how Wikipedia works. No single editor is indispensible, and no single editor should be necessary for Wikipedia to work, or for a page to attain a reasonable standard. Trust in other editors (who have similar levels of expertise) and the system to cope with any problems that arise. And no editor should be so tied to a topic that they are unable to walk away from it when asked to do so. In other words, those who have been topic-banned are being asked to leave the topic area alone in its entirety. Do other stuff for six months to demonstrate both that you are capable of acting collegially elsewhere and that you are capable of staying away from this topic area (or indeed any topic area) when asked to do so. Make notes off-wiki if you must, and then make your case at the right time for the topic ban to be lifted, but don't spend the next six months poking on-wiki at the edges of the area that has just been arbitrated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved non-arbitrator, I am with Carcharoth on this. Banned means banned, which means if one is topic banned, that person should not be involved in the topic. In any form. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. As Carcharoth alludes to, if a person is topic banned it is because they have become a net negative in terms of work in a topic area. That is, the topic is better without them, and worse with them. The ban is in place to make Wikipedia better, and as such, it should not be tested around the edges. To put it bluntly: Why would we allow someone to make a topic worse, but only a little bit. If its reached the stage of topic banning, then the person just needs to stay away. --Jayron32 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the opposite of Jayron, but agreed. A Topic Ban means you stay away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "I'm the opposite of Jayron", I pictured you as a really hot, skinny, black woman with a pleasant voice and an active social life. But, I guess that's not what you meant. --Jayron32 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it says something about this case that this point seems clear to those of us who are not on either "side" of this dispute and just want it to end. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels the ban should broadly interpreted and that even looking for loopholes in the language is a sign that the message has not quite been received. I know it's not easy, but I recommend to every named party that you clean out your watchlist of anything related to climate change and really, truly just ignore the topic for the time being. (and I doubt there are many hot, skinny women with pleasant voices who spend their Saturday night editing Wikipedia) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but us pudgy white men with high-pitched, loud voices would like there to be --Jayron32 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carcharoth (and other arbcom members): Hypothetically, if WMC and/or other topic banned editors congregate off-wiki and post citations and articles, does it become meatpuppery or proxying for banned users to make use of those sources in Wiki articles? I'm asking because I imagine that would be the next step if talk page posts on scientific articles are banned. This is not a remote possibility, and I can see it happening with more than one editor and more than one POV. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IS there a bit of "move on to another topic" that's difficult to comprehend. We've asked the topic-banned users to avoid this topic entirely. We don't speculate as to what might or might not constitute a breach of this, on wiki, off-wiki or theoretically. Hypothetically, if they all go and work on Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle, or Toast (and that's not a reference to the planet in 50 years time) then they'll have got the message. All users who are committed to wikipedia should be assisting these particular users in doing something constructive and unrelated, they shouldn't be corresponding with them on this topic, not wikilawyering around it on their, or engaging in the hypothetical of "what happens if".... You want to help them and wikipedia? The message is clear MOVE ON.--Scott Mac 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to concur with Scott immediately above. Several users were banned. That means they need to leave the topic area while the sanction is in place. That does not mean that they can try to wikilawyer around it and push the boundaries as far as they can. If they do so, they are liable to have harsher sanctions placed upon them. I, for one, would be willing to use any means at my disposal (including discretionary sanctions) to keep order in the topic area, even if it requires me to take further action against already-sanctioned editors. The best thing for these editors to do is to edit a non-controversial area for a while, and then come back in six months with a well-reasoned appeal that shows that they are capable of collaborating productively. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the boundary pushing appears to be becoming quite blatant. On 17th October Stevehhll made an edit to Global climate model shown in this diff [2]. I make no comment on the correctness of this edit, but it stood unchallenged until today when William M. Connolley drew attention to it [3], and then 37 minutes later the edit was undone [4]. This seems to be a clear example of the concerns discussed above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones, this clearly follows the precedent described above by SA in that a bare statement linking "breakage" an article has been placed on a users talk page, then shortly afterwards another editor has chosen to revert the change, giving their own reasons and with no indication that their change has been influenced by the user talk page comment. There has been no dispute, and one assumes that the editor reverting has done so to improve article content, which presumably is the aim here. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's sit back and watch the show :) . Count Iblis (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ed is editing according to Wikipedia policies, for the most part, although he's still (begin understatement) a bit (end understatement) abrasive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a history to all this, but (this is directed at Count Iblis) this noticeboard is not the place to raise this. If you (Count Iblis) have concerns, go to Ed Poor's talk page first, rather than trying to make a spectacle of it here. The smilie is not appropriate, either, nor is the depiction of this as a show to sit back and watch. Taking that attitude does nothing to improve things, and reinforces the impression that you are just commenting from the sidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, one has to be pro-active in case of problems. What we may see now are "new" editors apearing that actually aren't new but people who stopped editing the CC pages in 2007 when they failed to gained consensus for more prominence to dissenting opinions in the main global warming article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion