Statement by Literaturegeek (Uninvolved)[edit]

Ryan Postlethwaite, is right, it is time for ArbCom to accept this case and pass fair but strong remedies including site bans and topic bans if necessary and for ArbCom to take control of enforcing those remedies. I believe that ArbCom is the only way of resolving the battle ground on these articles; arbcom has in its history dealt with other horrific polarised battle grounds with significant success. I have read over the RfC and quite predictably the community is split down the middle with no consensus emerging. It is my perspective that the viewpoint that a polarised outcome from the RfC being able to resolve a complex battleground being waged by fanatical and polarised editors on climate change articles is silly. There is no realistic prospect that the RfC will resolve this battle ground.

I notice that several editors are advocating for ArbCom to not take on this case, expressing their belief that an RfC should be allowed to run its course to see if it helps matters. I am sure some of these editors are doing so in WP:GOODFAITH but I can't help wonder if others are trying to persuade ArbCom not to accept this case due to concerns that they themselves may be sanctioned. Thus I think ArbCom, should decide to accept this case based on the facts (rather than opinions of involved editors) such as the following;

Are there serious and complex behavioural problems and is there a battle ground on climate change articles and has community trust in the climate change probation process broken down? Has this poisonous battle field been ongoing for years without any sign of a let up? The answer I believe is yes to these questions and I thus think that ArbCom not only should but must accept this case as enough is enough.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Regarding the RFC, I do not think that it has resolved anything of much. Sadly some people even used the RfC to character assassinate individual editors, rather than focusing on general problems of the probation system. The outcome of the RfC was a split down the middle of the community, with little consensus.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis[edit]

I agree with Stephan Schulz about the fundamentals of the problem. I think what ArbCom should do is investigate how new rules could be beneficial. For that you initially don't need any input from the involved editors. It is better for ArbCom to start a closed case where they study the situation themselves without any input from editors, as such inputs will likely lead to polarized discussions that would distract attention from the real problems. And, of course, it is better that the Global Warming Cabal edit articles and not engage in polarized discussions on some ArbCom page leading to new disputes.

When ArbCom comes up with a few proposals for new rules, these proposals can be discussed with with the group of involved editors. Such discussions will be far less polarizing because all that can be talked about are the proposals, instead of, say, who was in the wrong in some previous editing dispute. ArbCom can then make a final ruling in which they can take into account the received feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

I don't think an ArbCom case is necessary at this time. There is an RfC in progress and the AGW/CC probation enforcement forum is, in my opinion, operating effectively. Cla68 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it looks like the case will be accepted, I'll state up front the crux of what my evidentiary approach will be, which I think comprises the two main areas of problemmatic behavior regarding the climate change articles. You, the arbitrators, I believe will see cringe-inducing evidence of blatent BLP violations and unrepentant biting, baiting, and bullying of other editors, including newbies, by editors who appear to have no sincere interest in building an NPOV encyclopedia on climate change topics. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the main result of this case, judging by what occurred in the Transcendental Meditation case, will be an emphasis on discretionary sanctions. That's fine, but keep in mind that the climate change area already, in effect, has discretionary sanctions under its current probation enforcement forum. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

The probation quickly degenerated into a talking shop. Over the months this has intensified the battlefield mentality, and the uninvolved admins are nearly all showing signs of battle fatigue. We need less talk, more action. At this stage an arbitration case would not cause more harm than is already being caused, and could at least provide the clarity and focus the probation lacks. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

Uninvolved administrator who quit enforcing the community sanction due to unhappiness with the apparently unfair results.

Never run for ArbCom if you are popular enough to be elected. Otherwise it might become your duty to accept a case like this one. ;-) Have fun, and thank you for the generous donation of your time. I sincerely hope you gain satisfaction from helping to solve this problem. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is not adding much new information because the same users have lined up on the same battle lines. We already know what these users think. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg[edit]

Just an aside that the Arbitration Committee needs to consider its actions as a possible impediment to wider participation. I am broadly sympathetic to the CC point of view but I don't always agree with them on matters of sourcing and such. However, I have done virtually zero editing because of the threatening-looking THIS IS UNDER PROBATION notice that appears on these articles. If you decide to accept this case, and I agree that it is probably premature now, consider steps to make these articles more editor-friendly and less intimidating. That should involve appraising the talk page notices as well as frankly reviewing actions of administrators and other officialdom. Try to take a broad look at the climate of editing at the climate change articles, and try to "change" that climate.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I just wanted to associated myself with User:B's comment that "it creates a chilling effect to issuing warnings to anyone who breathes in the general direction of a global warming article and then log those warnings on a sanctions page." This area is "overlitigated," as the lawyers say. All concerned should ease up. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

ArbCom are already aware of my position, but to restate it here: I think intervening would help in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGoodLocust, claiming extremism is one thing; your comment was something else - it was inappropriate. I presumed that it was dealt with since Jehochman's note; had I checked the page sometime within the last few days, I would've also asked that it be removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Heyitspeter[edit]

To reiterate Ncmvocalist's point above, an Arbcom case would greatly improve the situation. The editing arena is poisonous. Neutral editors are generally absent from the topic area and are invariably polarized after a short time in such a combative environment. The probation itself is not working, as little if anything substantial is carried out in response to enforcement requests.

@Roger Davies: The RfE board certainly is calmer, recently, but this should not be taken as a sign that it is working fine. For example, many editors have left the topic area entirely due to frustration with the editing environment. Their absence makes the topic area run more smoothly, but that's not the kind of smooth running we want.

@Carcharoth's request. I am involved insofar as I have edited Climatic Research Unit documents controversy (and the RfE board). I have stopped, and not because that article's looking good.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addendum

No, the RfC is not helping. It's headed for a no consensus close, with one of the relevant parties suggesting a massive overhaul of the CC probation. Arbitration would be great. --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by B[edit]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not arbcom takes the case, but it creates a chilling effect to issuing warnings to anyone who breathes in the general direction of a global warming article and then log those warnings on a sanctions page.

Wikipedia's climate change articles are horribly biased. For example, Global warming#Politics blames Bush for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, but doesn't mention that the Senate voted 95-0 in a resolution to preemptively reject any treaty that didn't contain emission targets for developing countries.

Creating an environment where outsiders are made to feel unwelcome only fosters an institutional bias. --B (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber[edit]

Adding that I second SBHB in requesting arbcom anchor this WRT what we're all here for, which is writing an encyclopedia. This cannot be ignored. No-one is asking the committee to dictate content, but recognise that the dispute needs to be assessed on its relation to content-grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WavePart[edit]

It seems that there is a lot of sock puppet witch-hunting going on and indefinitely blocking of people as suspected sock puppets without any shred of evidence. In my case, without warning I logged on and saw that I was set on an indefinite block with the stated reason, "Abusing multiple accounts: fails the WP:DUCK test". This was quite surprising to me, since obviously I am not a sock puppet.

It seems my example started (without warning) with this edit by Hipocrite, followed 46 minutes later by this edit where I was again declared an "obvious" sock, given a permanent ban by The Wordsmith, and presumed without any evidence to be someone named Scibaby. Many ridiculous failures of logic then occurred on my talk page, where I was presumed guilty without a shred of evidence ever given, except repeated declarations that I was "obviously" a sock puppet. It was only on the third day that a rational admin finally removed the block declaring it "based more on suspicion than evidence".

I was also added to here as a sock puppet, which I was of course not. There appears to be a discussion here about the failures of "Duck" evidence. In that discussion, a user named User:Weakopedia challenged Hipocrite's standards for reporting "sock puppets", so Hipocrite promptly reported Weakopedia as a scibaby sock puppet, which received some criticism as a dubious action. It seems Hipocrite has indicated he supports policy changes to actively block editors with a POV contrary to his, and has stated that "all new editors that are brand newish and show single-purposed difficultness should be blocked ... that's the level of draconian I support".

Here is an example of the standards of evidence being used here by admins to support these blocks when users challenge them, such as "blatant", "obvious", and "compelling". Also, things like knowing how to use wikipedia tags, or knowing wikipedia policies, are being used as grounds for blocking. It is my understanding that wikipedia policies such as Clean Start and Privacy provide plenty of legitimate pathways for users with prior wikipedia experience to have new accounts, and thus mere familiarity with wikipedia cannot be grounds for blocking.

I mostly hope for the arbitration committee to issue a ruling about minimal standards of evidence before a sock puppet block is issued. It is my understanding that to even be a sock puppet, you essentially need to be using a new account to evade a block, ban, or injunction, or you need to be using multiple accounts at once to deceptively sway a debate. Yet clearly new users are being blocked indefinitely without evidence being shown that EITHER of those two things have been done, and that really needs to stop.

I also hope that the arbitration committee can issue an injunction specifically against Hipocrite reporting any more "sock puppets", given his apparent abuse of this process for the purpose of winning arguments.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs)

@TFD: I explained quite plainly and openly on my talk page that I have had previous wikipedia experience, and that I have edited here, not in a while, and not continuously, but for a very long time. My first edits of wikipedia were probably before those of almost everyone reading this. I've made no secret nor deception about this, have stated it openly, and never stated otherwise. BUT, and I emphasize this, by no means are Clean Start users required to specifically notify arbcom upon returning unless running for an admin position. (Which I obviously didn't!) And by no means should they be required to, under Privacy. WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: For the record, since I haven't said it to you yet, I acknowledge you were acting in good faith in maintaining the block. It is your faulty application of the rules and of basic principles of justice that I challenge, even though I did not mention you by name. I make no contest about my edit history, it is plain for everyone to see. I contest that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that edit history, and that you CANNOT treat an edit history like that as grounds for an indefinite block under wikipedia policy. There are no policies against editing controversial articles as a new user account after 11 edits and months of existence. There are no policies against "jumping" from non-controversial articles to controversial ones. There are no policies against changing what articles you focus on for a time. And there is no rational basis for giving a higher penalty (indefinite block) to someone doing these trivial things which violate NO rules, than the standard penalty (~24 hour block) for someone who does a dozen or so reverts. WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: And Hitler was an artist before he started a war, therefore everyone who is an artist is going to start wars? There's a severe logical failure in using weak circumstantial evidence to apply indefinite blocks, and there's a further damage to the encyclopedia if those blocks are being requested and applied with partiality as they are. WavePart (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rievse: Arbcom doesn't need to create policy here. I think the policy is already pretty established. What is at issue here is the blocking of people from editing and contributing on the basis of poorly defined suspicion rather than policy. And the fact is it appears this blocking is being requested and done on controversial articles to influence editorial consensus, and that makes this approach to blocking as insidious as the sock-puppeting the practice is trying to combat! WavePart (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell: Can I ask, for the sake of clarification, what you think alternate steps are that would actually have a real chance of working prior to arbitration? It's very hard for people who are blocked to make any sort of community-based progress (which is kind of the point, people are being selectively shut out of the discussion), and there don't really seem to be many figures around here other than the arbcom with the authority to rein in admins who are on a blocking spree. WavePart (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Since you continue to make accusations, can I ask you to define what the definition of the word "Sock Puppet" is? In particular, I will ask you who I could possibly be a sock puppet of? There are only a finite number of people editing the specified article, so you pretty much have to pick one of those to accuse me of being. Go ahead. Make a real falsifiable accusation or knock it off. WavePart (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved?) Stephan Schulz[edit]

Have any other means of conflict resolution been tried? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: How many of those "over 20" have actually been blocked? And unless I miscounted, there are at least 133 confirmed Scibaby socks and 12 certain socks which may or may not be Scibaby identified in the SPI reports from January 1st to May first. If we declare a mere report with a 85% or so success rate abusive, we are putting an unreasonable burden on all other editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: From a short count, your 20+ in the January-May time frame include people identified as other abusive socks. Looking over the few cases where CU did not finally confirm socking, I found only 2 instances where a user was blocked due to Scibaby suspicion - one by a CU due to an error on her part (unblocked after 4 hours, indef reblocked after a week for disruptive editing) and exactly one case where a user was blocked, but the CU did not confirm socking. That block was never challenged and still stands. There are not "20 folks improperly blocked", and nobody has presented evidence that "one out of seven potential contributors [were forced ] off of WP". Blocks of Scibaby accounts without Checkuser confirmation are exceedingly rare, and blocks before CU confirmation that turn out to be mistaken are still more rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Weakopedia: I think you are confused. WavePart was unblocked without any intervention from ArbCom. As far as I know only User: ClimateOracle was blocked with talk page lockdown, and that was after two rejected unblock templates. And that still leaves unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, not just ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Collect[edit]

The current practice of "Sentence first, verdict afterwards" could be ameliorated by simple ArbCom motion. The standards appear to be "if a person acts like they know what they are doing, they must be a sock" and usually a sock of someone who has edited in that same area. The problem is, this is not always true, and the "duck" excuse has definitely driven away a number of potentially good editors. The motion should be on the order of In order not to drive away potentially valuable contributors to the project, it is important that no editor be blocked as a sock without strong and compelling evidence more than the WP:DUCK test. It is more important that innocent users be left unblocked than it is important that socks be blocked while an investigation is underway. Collect (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Polargeo: The problem is that users who are genuine users have been blocked in the past, and even prevented from contesting the block (by eliminating the ability to edit their own talk pages) in the past. This is contrary to the direct foundations of Wikipedia, and should not be allowed to continue, thus the proposal above. Your post does nothing to dissuade me from my position. Collect (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@any Looking at all the Scibaby accusations from 1 Jan to 1 May showed over 20 which were not actually Scibaby at all. "The usual" was given as the evidence in virtually every case. 20 folks improperly blocked is 20 too many. 5 a month. Clearly the system is broken at this point. Collect (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan -- what would you say if you were one of the "only one out of seven" who were forced off of WP? Suppose you were in a fight where "only one out of seven" got killed? Or suppose we said that "only one out of seven" wrongful convictions for murder was "acceptable"? Or that forcing one out of seven potential contributors off of WP because they hit someone's nerve - whose only "evidence" presented is "the usual"? Nope - One out of seven is far too high a ratio to continue "the usual" as evidence. And requiring more than "the usual" is not an "unreasonable burden" in my opinion. Collect (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC) @Stephan I realize you felt that "one in seven" inaccuracy was appreciably different from your claim of "85%" accuracy as you aver on my UT page. I feel however that the minimal difference between the two did not mislead anyone. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Polargeo[edit]

What collect has outlined misses the point. I agree that if the duck test just shows some controversial edits and a knowledge of wikipedia then that is not enough to block. However, if a new user with clear indepth knowledge of policy enters into the middle of a heated debate in a way that it is highly unlikely that anyone would have done who was not already involved heavily in that debate then this screams sockpuppet. In such a sensitive area as climate change the duck test is very important. However, I agree that a simple knowledge of policy and a POV pushing edit or two is insufficient evidence. Polargeo (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine concern that should be dealt with in its own right and this is not helped by LessHeard vanU (below) lumping it in to general editor problems or enforcement. In fact it should not be. This is a very specific detailled issue which is separate. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved LessHeard vanU[edit]

Either this could be accepted to be dealt with by Motion, or it could simply become part of the huge Climate Change ArbCom of 2010; Two other requests outstanding, awaiting an RfC or two to drift into stalemate, and the usual parade of characters (including me, I realise) commentating. How many more side issues need be brought here before it is realised that it is the subject matter and the participants rather than the specific concerns that require a case? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to NYB; Do you perhaps think there might be an issue whether the determining of Scibaby socks should be be one that involves admins who are otherwise determined to be "involved editors" as regards Global Warming Probation enforcement, or left to those involved in SPI. Admins who also edit CC related articles are likely the quickest to spot likely matches, through experience, but may also be more prone to positive/negative misinterpretation of a new accounts initial edits toward a skeptic viewpoint. Might the determination be left to "uninvolved admins" (per definition of CC/AE/RE) at SPI, and might this be enshrined via Motion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to Jehochman; As I understand matters, it is not viewpoint that Scibaby edits to but the disruptive way they did it that lead to the ban and the resultant sock war. Blocking accounts on the basis of the viewpoint being used as an indicator of likely Scibaby sockpuppetry is what is at issue here, since the viewpoint is (or should be) permissible if it is acted upon within WP policy and guideline. There needs to be stronger correlation to the puppetmaster than a preference for the same style of shoes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to NYB re procedual outline - though the use of terms which tend to denote a certain viewpoint held by two or more editors will likely form part of the deliberations of this case, is there to be any discussion about what is permissible to designate some editors who apparently agree on certain matters? I am referring to labels such as "cabal", "cadre", "deniers" and "skeptics", which have of themselves drawn criticism from those implied to belong to such groupings. Will these shorthand descriptions be permitted, or does this require consideration before evidence is posited using such terms? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to be proved wrong, but I don't think there's any doubt that one side of the climate change debate deny, or are skeptical about, the existence or magnitude of anthropogenic global warming; in that sense, it would appear to make some sense to call them global warming deniers or skeptics. On the other hand, if there is a different term that this group of scientists, or of editors, ascribe to themselves, it might be better to use that one instead.

The term "cabal" has taken on extremely negative overtones on Wikipedia, and except in humorous contexts, it is better that it not be used.

No opinion on "cadre." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful to distinguish between editors that are described as skeptical and editors that self-describe as skeptical. I know that at least myself and Atren have been misdescribed as skeptics, though we are both of the strong opinion that anthropogenic global climate change is 'real'.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the issue I am addressing, those who edit to a perception of WP policy that would allow greater input of the fact and substance of climate change denial or skepticism (regardless of their own opinion on the matter, and regardless on how the AGW consensus of the scientific community as regards the validity of those concerns) within GW articles are likely to be referred to as "skeptic" orientated. Of itself, I find that definition limiting and in some cases erroneous. That is going to be the focus of my contribution to this case. The other part of the issue is how to describe those editors whose combined aggregate actions have had the effect of removing or limiting content regarding opposition to the scientific consensus relating to global warming from climate change related articles. I think my coining of the collective noun "confluence" will need to suffice, even cadre denotes a certain uniformity of viewpoint and direction derived from an agenda - which is also likely inaccurate and limiting, since these editors edit from the mainstream of scientific AGW consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare[edit]

A block was made. I wouldn't have made it myself. Some other administrators disagreed with the initial block and WavePart was eventually unblocked. I don't see that as anything that needs to rise to the ArbCom level.

Now, to address the larger issue, new users who exhibit signs of returning accounts/sockpuppeteers. The fact of the matter is, there is no easy way to differentiate between the two. They each exhibit much of the same signs – a familiarity when policy acronyms, a knowledge of when to cite which specific policy, the ability to use wikisyntax correctly, the ability to wikilawyer, etc. However, returning users in good standing (or even banned ones, to be honest) usually stick to uncontroversial articles and don't try to stir things up. If I see signs that a new user who exhibits all the signs of a returning one (which is not this case) acting disruptively in a controversial area, I am going to block. Unless ArbCom wishes to unnecessarily hamstring the ability to administrators to try to keep a somewhat peaceful editing atmosphere, then I suggest that they reject this case. NW (Talk) 13:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by ZuluPapa5[edit]

I suspect the Scibaby investigation may be abused when folks knowingly circumvent the SPI process and submit to the ongoing Scibaby investigation. Perhaps expecting a faster response. The result is the diagnostics applied for Scibaby can be mis-calibrated and we have upset editors such as in this case.

The WP:duck test must require a second if not third opinion to proceed. Sock suspects should not be blocked for investigation, unless there is direct diff evidence they have caused a standard disruption. The duck test suffers from Argument from ignorance.

This occurred within the Climate Change probation and my attempt to increase the warning to new editors was just reverted [1].

Arbcom should remand this to a Scibaby Investigation Request for Comment.

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, new users who display a surprisingly strong sense of justice, are being interpreted as behavior evidence that they have sock behavior because of past enforcement experiences. This may not be wise to assume that a new user knows and respects civility that they learned it from sock prosecution as wikipedia may run in a real lawyer new user one day, if this continues. The sock enforcement business is ripe with fine line of violating AGF.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if around 8 to 20 editors have been harmed in the pursuit of only one Scibaby sock. This number can only go up. Scibaby continues to wreak havoc on Wikipedia, not as directly, but at the expense of his pursuer's investigating innocent victims. ArbComm should watch this closely and ask the community to improve the situation. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert[edit]

I urge rejection of this case. There's no sign anything requiring arbitration committee intervention happened: an apparently mistaken block was made, the review process worked. There's no evidence being presented that there's a long term problem with admins improperly blocking people based on "the duck test" or any other detection mechanisms for sockpuppets. If that evidence were presented, then the appropriate arena would be community review of policy via RFC, AN discussion, Village Pump, etc., with the intent of developing a new consensus approved working policy.

There's no sense here of an individual wrong needing arbcom intervention or a systemic problem the community can't handle needing arbcom intervention. Ordinary mistakes do not an Arbcom case make. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved B[edit]

There doesn't seem to be anything to arbitrate here, but it would be nice if those issuing sock blocks would make very clear (1) whether the block is based on checkuser evidence or just something you are doing based on contributions and (2) where to find relevant evidence or who the user is accused of being. --B (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved TotientDragooned[edit]

I myself was accused of being a sockpuppet about a year ago, to the point where I was banned from commenting on an arbitration case pending a review by the arbcom (who never followed up in any way). I urge the committee to scrutinize the current standard of evidence. Sadly, many people nowadays think there are only three kinds of Wikipedia editors: admins, sockpuppets, and "ripened" sockpuppets.

Comment by Weakopedia[edit]

The problem should be one for arbcom - admins are blocking based on no evidence whatsoever, and giving those blocked as an only option to email arbcom, so if arbcom are the ones who have to deal with the mistakes then they are the ones who should be enforcing the standards. This problem is most evident on controversial articles - the ones most likely to motivate an unregistered user to open an account and add something, and then get themselves blocked for daring to have an opinion. Probably many users just give up at that point - or actually start sockpuppeting, if in fact their editing privelages were wrongly removed and they were informed in their block of what a sockpuppet is. The act of blocking someone before they have done anything worth being blocked for and without providing any kind of evidence is just a way around all the other procedures that everyone else has to abide by to block someone when there is no evidence to support a block. And the fact that some people read up on policy before commenting is often evidence of nothing more than diligence - the fact that some do not is the issue here, and that some of those are admins. Weakopedia (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlevse - the evidence of DR is right there, and is there for every case where an admin blocks someone on socking grounds. Right now admins are using alegations of socking (alegations without evidence) to indefinitely block editors from editing, and giving them no option but to email arbcom. No evidence, no chance for other admins to review the block (unless someone else adds the blocked editors name to SPI), and often even removing the editors ability to edit their own talkpage and respond to the alegations. The blocking admin says 'take it to arbcom if you don't like it' so that is what is happening. Arbcom does not have to change any policies - the policy is already there, and admins are not always following it. Since arbcom is the only avenue for a blocked editor accused of socking it is arbcom who ultimately decide if the alegation was warranted. Arbcom therefore should ensure that admins follow policy when initiating blocks based on socking. Since the only way out of a socking block is an appeal to arbcom, arbcom should ensure that all SPI blocks are made within the existing policy, which does have some minimum standards of evidence. Weakopedia (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan - you say I must be confused and that WavePart was unblocked without arbcom intervention - but I didn't say that he was. This case is about minimum standards of evidence for blocking, it was only initiated by WavePart. This case covers all bad socking blocks, and if I make a comment about this case, it is about this case, not just about WavePart. You say that only ClimateOracle had his talkpage locked down - again, this case is about all socking blocks, not just the few most recent ones. This is not the first time that an editor has had his talkpage access removed for being a suspected sock, and this case is about all those times too, so if I comment about this case, I am commenting about this case, and not just ClimateOracle. And finally, if blocked editors have other avenues other than mailing arbcom, then blocking admins shouldn't be telling them that if they don't like it they have to ask arbcom to be unblocked.

ClimateOracles unblock denial reason #1

Decline reason: "We weren't born yesterday. Email ArbCom via the links on that page if you so desire."

ClimateOracles unblock denial reason #2

Decline reason: "This is NOT a court of law - "rebut evidence", "fair hearing" are not a part of the community process. You have been advised that you are to e-mail ArbCom directly, no administrators will remove this block."

See? No administrators will remove this block. Hope that clears up your confusion. Weakopedia (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWordsmith - you say that you are "fairly new to adminship, and sometimes I forget things", but that is exactly what we are talking about here. You are a new admin, there are various policies that you must follow - you don't know them all by heart yet. Maybe some day you will be able to quote off the top of your head what all the policies are, but for now if you want to implement one of the policies, like blocking on socking grounds, you could better take a moment to read the policy page. That way you are 100% sure of following the policy, even though as a new admin you might not be 100% familiar with it's finer points. Well, as a new editor I did exactly that - before I opened my big mouth I read the policies that covered anything I might have to say. Before I ever edited a Wikipedia article I read the policies that dealt with editing - after all, what is the point of blindly adding content and having it removed by someone who does know policy?

Anyone who turns up anywhere and wades in without first appraising themselves of the rules of conduct is one type of person. Another type of person is that which makes sure they are commenting in the right way first. Wiki policy is that this new editor may not edit semiprotected articles til they are confirmed - your policy is that they can't even do that. The rules are there for anyone to read, but your system punishes new editors for doing so. Weakopedia (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

Even if we AGF over what seems to be a new (and more calculated) form of disruption, the very obvious cannot be ignored - utter failure to try earlier steps in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Mark Nutley[edit]

Totaly agreeing with Collect and Weakopedia here, when i first came to WP i was accused of being scibaby, when it was painfully obvious i had no idea on how to use WP. The evidence given was "The Usual". Scibaby has been used as a bogyman to block and deter new editors and this has to stop. Editors can`t just get blocked if they happen to have read up on policy, i wish i had. Ten of all trades has just blocked another user claiming he is a sock, with no evidence at all, he has even stopped the guy from using his own talkpage even though a CU cleared him of being a sock [2] This abuse has to stop, blocking editors just because they have taken the time to read the rules is just not on mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Kww[edit]

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I do a lot of sock blocks: socking is the main focus of my administrative work, although I don't deal with Scibaby. I find in general that I am often extremely certain, and fill out the SPI only as a formality after I have already blocked all the sock accounts, tagged everyone, and reverted all of the sock's edits. Sometimes I'm not as certain, and request a checkuser before I proceed. That takes more work, more time, and generally leads to more disruption as the unblocked sockpuppet continues to edit. What we really need to do is to change the system to make running checkuser far more automatic in these circumstances: if the evidence was enough to persuade a reasonable admin to block, it's enough to run a checkuser on as well. Blocking an account indefinitely while refusing to run a checkuser on it based on privacy concerns doesn't seem reasonable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by named BozMo[edit]

@CHL you say "little is lost by waiting for a confirmation on alleged Scibaby socks" but I disagree. They may not move pages but Scibaby and the other handful of CC socks are pretty good at wasting a load of community time and goodwill with spurious arguments just calculated for the ignorant to take them seriously, protests, votes, disruption etc. and currently the very small number of wrong identifications and the medium number of argumentative socks who end up getting indef blocked later after a well meaning unblock before they are found to belong to a different sock master are not clearly a greater disruption than the socks. More checkusers then, please. --BozMo talk 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cool Hand Luke[edit]

Two opinions:

1. We probably need more checkusers.
2. Scibaby is not a page move vandal; little is lost by waiting for a confirmation on alleged Scibaby socks.

I don't think there's a freestanding case here, but perhaps ArbCom could write some findings in the global warming case from hell, which is festering below. Cool Hand Luke 12:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Count Iblis: "Opening up negotiations" with Scibaby would be a mistake. To use an over-worn cliche, he's not here to write an encyclopedia. He's trolling, and I suspect he enjoys it when he causes collateral damage. The solution is to be more restrained in our response. Cool Hand Luke 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved The Four Deuces[edit]

Wavepart, why are you referring to "clean start" both here and at the Sock puppetry talk page?[3] Are you saying that you have made a "clean start"? If so you should have notified Arbcom.[4] TFD (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This presents a problem to administrators. They are able to correctly identify that a new account was created by someone who previously had an account but it is difficult to determine whether the creator is attempting to evade a block or is a clean start. In one article, Individualist anarchism, there were no fewer than four blocked editors who returned as socks and it was difficult to connect the socks to the underlying accounts. Is it too onerous an obligation for a clean start editor to disclose this if challenged? TFD (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jéské Couriano[edit]

As the one who rejected WavePart's first unblock request, I examined his contributions beforehand and saw an immediate red flag - the only articles he'd edited before were unambiguously unrelated to global warming in any way, and he started editing on that topic less than half an hour after he'd made ten edits, the bare minimum for autoconfirmation (since he'd already had more than 3 days under his belt). In the interim, he made only one edit, and it was to the last article he'd edited (Algorithmic efficiency) before GW. As such, I (and a couple other reviewing administrators) came to the conclusion that he was indeed a sockpuppet, of the sleeper/autoconfirmation-busting variety, and declined upon that basis.

To be blunt, this whole situation could probably have been avoided if WavePart hadn't (1) jumped from one uncontroversial topic to another, controversial one in the space of under half an hour, (2) focused solely on GW after starting editing on that topic, and (3) waited only for the bare minimum of edits to start editing the semiprotected GW article. Those three signs, to me and most of the rest of us who deal with sockpuppets (not just Scibaby's), almost always indicate a ban-evading sockpuppet intending to circumvent semi-protection. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breeblebrox) That isn't what I'm exactly suggesting. I'm merely stating that one of the major components of the duck test in areas where the articles most disrupted are semi-protected is whether or not an editor has barely more than ten edits before he starts editing in the disputed topic. The reason for this is because most of the banned sockmasters are more than aware of the means to get a sock autoconfirmed. (If I go any further on this topic, I'd be handing them ammunition, so I'll just leave it at that.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis) Your concern is touching, but WP:DENY exists for reason. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WavePart) Actually, behaviorally both those things you cited are, indeed, typical sleeper sockpuppet behavior (waiting for the bare minimum number of edits and editing in unrelated topics first). Again, I could explain why, but in doing so I'd be rendering the information I give useless as they'd latch onto what I say and learn from it. Serial puppeteers (again, not just Scibaby) are more than willing to learn ways to not arouse suspicion from incautious posts. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by William M. Connolley[edit]

Why isn't this a simple case of an error by a relatively inexperienced admin, TW? According to the block log, 2010-06-01T18:08:58 The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) blocked WavePart (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: fails the WP:DUCK test) yet there is no block notice on the users talk page, no sock tag on the user's page and more importantly no subsequent apology by TW for the error.

There is a fairly simple conclusion here - inexperienced admins should not block users on flimsy evidence. Which is not to say that WP isn't someone's sock, or a returning user. Nor does it say anything about the many other (good) Scibaby sock blocks.

Incidentally, I fully support WP's first "terrible" edit [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Jehochman[edit]

If I can make a suggestion, the outcome of this discussion should be that we don't indef block accounts for socking without reasonably strong evidence. On the other hand, Global warming are highly troubled by Scibaby, a persistent and prodigious socker. On balance, we should have a low threshhold for topic banning suspected Scibaby socks from GW articles. If some of these new accounts turn out not to be Scibaby, but are instead users who've come here to edit like Scibaby (also problematic), there is a net benefit in topic banning them if they fit the Scibaby editing pattern.

Am I making sense? Socking is easy to do and takes minimal effort. We should not create a situation where reporting, investigating and blocking prodigious sockers takes substantially more effort than churning out throw away accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when there are three arbitration requests pending at same time in the same topic area, that's a pretty strong signal that you should start a case. (Don't start this case. It has the wrong scope. Start the one below.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis[edit]

To prevent future collateral damage, we should start cease-fire negotiations with Scibaby. We could allow Scibaby to post a limited numbers of comments per week on some wiki talk-page if he agrees to stop creating socks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments

@ Atren. Yes, ignoring would work. The negatiations I'm talking about is only about Scibaby agreeing to stop creating socks. A ban can be re-imposed the moment he violates any agreement.

@ Beeblebrox, MuZemike & SirFozzy. When we ban someone, we are actually compromizing on the core principle that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. We should only do that if it is really necessary. So, if we can reverse or relax a restriction, then from our POV this should be considered positive move. From our POV, this should not be considered a compromize at all. Of course, the assumption here is that we can do this without harming any articles.

The precedent argument that this is a bad idea because if you just behave very badly, you can get around bans, does not hold here. You will not be allowed to edit if you don't (promise to) behave well. Of course, we then also have to re-examine all the bans imposed on everone else as well. On the long run, Wikipedia would be better off if it has the image that everyone, even those people who have behaved badly in the past, can and are editing Wikipedia. We also need to keep in mind here that while the heated controversies of today may not exist in a few years time, a permanent ban is forever.

Who knows, perhaps we would still be hunting for Scibaby socks 20 years from now while Scibaby would have accepted AGW by that time and stopped creating socks for many years. We would be like those Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle in Indonesia in 1975 who didn't know that WWII ended in 1945 :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cool Hand Luke. We could call his bluff. He'll be re-blocked the moment he misbehaves again. This has the advantage of making it very clear to outsiders that Wikipedia can really be edited by everyone who can contribute constructively, regardless of any issues regarding past behavior, no matter how serious. Count Iblis (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

Note that in the other ArbCom request below, I made the argument that ArbCom should make new rules for science related articles. I want to see Wikipedia moving more in the direction of SPOV. For the Scibaby related problems that would mean that someone would be in direct violation of the rules and not mereley behave in some vague tendentious way if he were to behave like Scibaby. So, we could say that Scibaby was exploiting a weakness of the system, we blocked him and he created socks to continue exploiting that weakness and we had to repond by checking for sockpuppets. Had we not had this weakness in the system, Scibaby would not have been able to cause so much disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ATren[edit]

We shouldn't negotiate with Scibaby, we should ignore him, like any other troll. From what I've seen, most of his edits are not terribly damaging; just quietly revert, and if they escalate, then we escalate, without ever mentioning Scibaby. Perhaps if we stop making such a big deal about him, he will lose interest, like any other troll. This has the added benefit of not accidentally blocking good faith editors. ATren (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by marginally involved Beeblebrox[edit]

I say marginally involved because I unblocked WavePart. When he asked to be unblocked, I looked at the reasoning in the block log, saw that there was no SPI, no real explanation, just a simple statement that he failed WP:DUCK. Seeing as his unblock reasoning was at least as plausible as the blocking reason, I felt that WP:AGF demanded he be unblocked. I have made blocks of this nature myself, and I know when you have dealt with a serial sockmaster for a long time you can develop the ability to detect sock accounts that another user less familiar with them might miss. I also know from experience that sometimes you can get too close, too involved and start chasing ghosts and getting paranoid. The toxic editing environment in the area of global warming articles is a natural incubator for that sort of paranoia. What happened with WavePart was more or less inevitably going to happen to somebody. I don't really know what ArbCom could be expected to do here however, other than maybe finding more seasoned admins to help enforce the editing restrictions on GW articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Count Iblis: That is a terrible idea and would set a very problematic precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jeske: I don't think that a user being able to understand that becoming autoconfirmed allows them to edit semi-protected articles is in and of itself evidence of socking. What about a long term ip user who simply decides one day to register an account because they don't like being locked out of so many articles? That he made the ten edits required before trying to edit a protected article only shows that his brain is working. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TheGoodLocust[edit]

I'm rather surprised that this hasn't been mentioned, but Ratel, a pro-AGW editor, was recently found to have been using a sockpuppet (Unit 5) for a very long time. If his sock's name is any indication, that it is his fifth account, and if we can safely assume that socks don't usually come in pairs, then I have to wonder why several of the other more aggressive pro-AGW editors haven't been checkusered as well based on "DUCK."

Since Ratel ironically had a habit of accusing people of being Scibaby socks, perhaps to throw people off his scent, then I'd suggest checkusering the pro-AGW editors who are most active in that arena. Additionally, I have a further concern that some pro-AGW editors are using at-work accounts w/ different IP addresses to supplement their at-home account's activities.

Live by the sock die by the sock. Cheers.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bozmo: Like several others here I was accused of being a sock in an unrelated topic area. The checkuser report said I had the same ISP as the sock lord, but that I was a state away and that he "didn't know what that meant." You say "only" 20, or whatever, people were falsely identified as socks, but from capital punishment studies, which presumably have higher standards of evidence, we know a huge number of innocent people have been put to death. So three questions need to be asked - how many people have been falsely banned, added to the list, and not corrected? And, in falsely banning those people, creating a larger and larger pool of ISPs/IP ranges identified with a specific sock, does it not make it easier to "confirm" future socks and thus falsely ban more people? Finally, who benefits from having these convenient bogeymen (I wonder)?

Comments by MuZemike[edit]

What's the definition of "no evidence whatsoever"? That sounds very, very subjective, and many accused users (or non-accused from time to time) use that term to merely dismiss certain proofs of allegations. This is coming from an administrator who does his share of blocking as well as his share of AGFing on SPI.

I cannot see what there is that some of the users want ArbCom to do other than hold nooses over admins' heads more prominently than what the angry community already does (and they do a fine job on that IMO). How do you define "tighter standards" to block sock puppets, keeping in mind that CheckUser is not the be-all and end-all in determining sock puppetry? Perhaps some discussion is needed (i.e. via talk page, RFC, etc.), but I cannot forsee how that would work out. Should we make sure that we have admins that know how to detect signs of sock puppetry and block or warn if necessary if it does occur? Perhaps we should; we have requests for adminship in which to vet out admin candidates for that.

As a closing note, I do not think I can support any negotiation for Scibaby to return even on a limited basis. That's the equivalent of admitting that Scibaby has Wikipedia and/or the angry community by the balls, dictating what he can and cannot do. That would also show that if you sock hard enough, you can win; that is a terrible, terrible message to send to the good faith contributors here, not to mention, as SirFozzie said, make the blocking and banning policies virtually meaningless. –MuZemike 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]

I still believe that WavePart is a sockpuppet of somebody. I raised the possibility that it may be Scibaby [6], but I never said that it definitely was. I used the same standard for detecting the signs of socking that most admins involved in SPI would find pretty convincing: the 11th article-space edit was to a controversial topic (and semiprotected page), the first 10 were to something not even tangentially related to global warming, the 7th edit was to create a userpage with no meaningful content, so he wouldn't show up as a redlink, and his 12th total edit demonstrated knowledge of wikilinking and the finer points of NPOV. In his first 50 edits, he shows knowledge of diffs and 3RR], implied knowledge of AGF and in that same edit, telling Torontokid2006 that he would overlook the insults because TK2006 was new. In fact, if one examines Torontokid2006's contribs, he has been active for a few days longer than WavePart and displays the typical newbie behaviour just like 99% of editors do. I believe that my block was reasonable and based on sound behavioural evidence.

That said, I did apologise to WavePart for not leaving a block template[7]. I am fairly new to adminship, and sometimes I forget things. I also told him that if he continues to be a productive editor, I won't trouble him [8]. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved FT2[edit]

Wikipedia's nature as a collaboration between volunteer hobbyist writers using crowdsourcing, means editors do not have police grade evidence if a concern arises over bad faith or deceptive editing.

It also creates a degree of pragmatism, like the "duck" test. The community (including its administrators and checkusers) cannot access ISP records nor see through a net connection, so reasonable belief is often the standard. Not many people are interested in disrupting or editing the same topics in the same same way as a previous banned user, so behavior is often a good identifier.

The community's core editing process is a mix of be bold and consensus, means one person opines and may act on their view, and that view may in turn be challenged or cause discussion. It may not be ideal but it is basic to making Wikipedia work. The same applies to almost all other editorial areas. In this case a user was blocked and then upon review unblocked. The user was blocked for 1.5 days while the process took place. I'm not seeing anything to suggest abuse; although obviously for a legitimate user this would be discouraging and distressing it's within norms, not an arbitrable concern, and lesser approaches do not appear to have been tried nor failed.

Hipocrite is a user who supports stronger safeguards against abusive users and is willing to accept this may sometimes deter a small number of legitimate users. Since Wikipedia crowdsources its content and some abusers try "sock supporting sock" to bias the "crowd", many users take a harsh ("draconian") line on users who appear to be editing contentiously or possibly to an agenda, on one or few matters, especially if the area has previously been heavily socked. In this case Hipocrite reported his concerns, a second user reviewing concurred. The concern was not entirely unreasonable to raise in the context of a known prolific sock user though very direct in tone and lacking more direct behavioral evidence. The community further reviewed and expressed enough doubt to unconcur. None of this evidences abuse so far. Hopefully the concerns will include evidence of disturbing editing, not just of prior wiki knowhow and topic focus, another time.

This should not be read as confirming nor denying any claim of sock-puppetry nor whether any user should or should not be behaviorally blocked as a sock-puppet. It's more an observation that "normal idiosyncratic quirky Wikipedia community process has taken place in an unexceptional manner". If new socking is easier than the hoops needed to remove likely socks that's a bigger problem (Jehochman's comment). The more persistently socked an area has been, the more likely new accounts may be scrutinized and might be considered more sophisticated socks. In some cases it's common for many new accounts to be socks when reviewed with Checkuser (though all deny it).

These are non-ideal facts we have to work with, in the face of abusers who try clever ways to take advantage of Wikipedia's editorial process. Norms have developed accordingly. Should the norms change..? RFC is thataway but I'm not convinced it will get immense traction.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Crotalus horridus[edit]

Can someone please clarify exactly when Scibaby was banned, and on whose authority? I checked the List of Banned Users, and Scibaby doesn't seem to be on there. Looking through past cases, I could find no indication thta he had been banned by ArbCom, and I am also not aware of any discussion on AN/I or the old Community Sanctions noticeboard that would indicate he was banned by the Wikipedia community. The block log shows that he was indefinitely blocked by User:William M. Connolley on 9/25/2007, but, of course, a block is not the same thing as a ban. The single word "sock" was the only explanation given. On the talk page, he was accused of being a sock puppet of someone called User:Obedium, who I have never heard of. Further complicating matters, Obedium's user page says he is a sockpuppet of Scibaby! Why was William M. Connolley, an involved user on the other side of the AGW debate, involved in this block? Weren't many of the early checkusers conducted by User:Raul654, another involved user? I think we should seriously reconsider whether Scibaby should even be blocked at all. If he were permitted to edit under his own account, maybe the sockpuppeting (to the extent it really exists and isn't just an excuse to ban every anti-AGW account) would end. *** Crotalus *** 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The single word "sock" was the only explanation given - no. Look at his talk page User talk:Scibaby#Sockpuppetry, where I explain why he was blocked. You'll notice my offer to discuss the block. Note also that CU was requested at the time, but declined by Lar per DUCK: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Scibaby. I blocked Scibaby about 10 hours after the DUCK call William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is Obedium a sockpuppet of Scibaby, or is Scibaby a sockpuppet of Obedium? It can't be both. In such cases, the appropriate solution is to restrict the user to one account, but in this instance it appears it was used as an excuse to block both. *** Crotalus *** 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to dredge through the history. As I recall it, Obedium was the first-noticed account, and Scibaby was regarded as the sock. That, as I said, is why I blocked him - as the CU commented, he failed WP:DUCK (which explains your Why was William M. Connolley, an involved user on the other side of the AGW debate, involved in this block). You'll notice I *didn't* block Obedium; he was blocked at about the same time 2007-09-25T02:49:21 Madman (talk | contribs) blocked Obedium (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation) but that was for a 3RR violation [9], which became a violation because he was identified with Scibaby. In November, Raul subsequently blocked Obedium for a week for vandalism [10], and then indef as a sock. The final block as a sock looks perhaps a bit opaque - see [11] - and I can't comment on that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to place the blame for this situation solely on you — sorry if it came out sounding like that. It appears that Scibaby is not actually banned from Wikipedia. Blocked, yes, but not banned. Therefore any administrator can unblock him, and hopefully put an end to the sockpuppetry. *** Crotalus *** 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first account was User:Slaphappie. I've assembled a brief chronology here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you don't mention that Raul was edit warring with Obedium before blocking him and how Obedium seemed to indicate that several people used the same computer. It seems like it would've been better to tell them they should not edit in the same areas. Also, it seems like none of them were actually checkusered? For "sockpuppets" they seem amazingly honest without having been confronted with actual evidence that they used the same computer - they just admited it and said they wouldn't do it anymore. Also, I notice the "slaphappie" account only edited Hansen once.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Heyitspeter[edit]

For Rlevse's (1) and (2)

[12]--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Hans Adler[edit]

Blocks per the duck test can be a very useful tool to deal with ongoing disruption, and they are probably a necessary tool. I guess that initially this tool was used only in very specific circumstances: When it was obvious to everybody that A was a sockpuppet of B, continuing widespread disruption that B had started in precisely the same way. Or when A5 was simply the obvious next one in the row after A1 to A4, all of which had positive checkuser results. But it is tempting to expand the applicability of such a potent tool up to the point of diminishing returns – and in fact further than that. I think two years ago application of the duck test was already routine, but I don't remember anyone invoking it in the form "you are a sock of someone, per the duck test, although I have no idea of whom". Recently I seem to have seen this more and more often. That's not a good sign at all.

We may have to formalise the conditions for duck test blocks. WP:DUCK is obviously useless for this purpose. I believe there is nothing in WP:Blocking policy that authorises them. Therefore they are basically invocations of WP:IAR, and any type of invocation of that principle that becomes routine is unhealthy. Hans Adler 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite[edit]

Lar states he is an "uninvolved" admin for the purposes of WP:GSCC. Other users say he is involved, and yet other users say he is not involved. Lar is repeatedly removing statements made by Stephan Schulz‎ from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. Stephan Schulz‎ has removed statements by Lar from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. There is no reasonable way to resolve this dispute without a direct ruling by ArbCom that one or both of them are uninvolved/involved/whatever. Please limit the scope of this case to the issue of admin involvement - dealing with the Global Warming problem is a different, but related case. Trying to mush them together would merely slow down both. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it might seem expiditious to deal with this by motion, I suggest that ArbCom, if it intends to do so, should at the very least allow for a limited presentation of evidence from people who care (namely, not me.) Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For GWH - arbcom has already stated as such - from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Avoiding_apparent_impropriety: "...administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention..."

It should be noted that even as this request is live Lar continues to make determinations that other admins are involved. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And those determinations are being challenged by those other admins. I would ask that a clerk add Polargeo to this case. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar has now threatened to block another admin if that admin undoes Lar moving his edits out of the uninvolved admin section. Arbcom - this escalation (admins blocking eachother) is your narrow remit. Please step up. Individual message to each of you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo has promised to stop reverting his views back into the section. Will deescalation be rewarded, or will this be like poorly-implemented page protection, where the last reverter before protection "wins?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar[edit]

I think a case is overkill, a clarification of this matter by attaching to the right existing case would be more efficient, I suspect. But I leave that to others to deterime

Simply put, while there are those that would find it convenient to remove me from the enforcement action, and who have labored hard to make it so, I'm not involved in climate change matters as I do not edit in the area. There is an RfC running about this, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar. I think my response is instructive. I think that all the other uninvolved admins have said they consider me uninvolved is also significant.

On the other hand, Stephan Schulz by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be uninvolved. His placing material in the uninvolved admin section is apparently provocative baiting.

I ask for a quick finding so we can get back to the real matters at hand. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: Apparently your view that I am not involved isn't enough for some folks, who want another bite at the apple, and in taking their bite, are emitting all sorts of distortions and unfounded allegations. They should know better, but it's part and parcel of the tactics used by some in this area. Folks shouldn't fall for it. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to give up, I usually try hard to make things work, but you know what? Maybe JohnWBarber is right. Maybe it's time to pull the plug and knock some heads. It'll be a horrific case but maybe finally something will be done. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie II: (in regards to his narrowboat vs supertanker query) - My desire initially was for a narrow finding, to wit: "Lar is not involved, Stephan Schultz is" (As has been found before in previous requests here, talk page comments, and the like) and that would be that. But I despair of getting that, or, if I did, whether it would be enough or whether WMC, SBHB, Polargeo, et. al. would want yet another bite at the apple. JohnWBarber, Jehochman, et al. may be right and a big case is needed. I had hoped that the RfC pending on the progress of the probation so far, and the feedback and good ideas and new admins that participated as a result, might do to get things back on track. Perhaps not. If a big case is needed, so be it. It will be bloody. But perhaps it will at last level the playing field. At least for a while. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz[edit]

The climate change probation explicitly spells out that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. I have not commented in the "uninvolved admin" section in any case in which I am engaged in any conflict with the user under discussion. In fact, I have contributed there rarely and usually only to correct misunderstandings. I don't think any of my contributions in that section can be considered particularly biased, either.

I have today moved an inappropriate comment by Lar on another clearly uninvolved editor only after Lar refused to amend or retract it and detached my comment on that from its context. The relevant discussion on Lar's talk page is here. I have not, to my knowledge, ever moved any other comment by Lar.

In my opinion Lar is clearly involved in the one way that is relevant: He came to the area with a strong prejudice, he has acted almost entirely one-sided, and he has rejected input and opinions from other editors on the flimsiest grounds. While any administrator who is willing to engage in that area deserves respect, Lar is not helping. He is escalating when he should de-escalate, he is sniping when he should consider his position, and he has the unfortunate habit of trying to declare "facts" by fiat without even a modicum of tolerance for other opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put down a somewhat longer statement on my problem with Lar as an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar#View_by_Stephan_Schulz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Rlevse: Dead animals don't quite translate into cyberspace, but harassment does. See [13],[14], [15], [16]. I can add any number more, including at least one series with personal information on a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Sadly, several of these off-wiki smears are contributed to by users who play the same game, if more demure, on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU[edit]

As this is a fairly narrowly defined request I feel it might best be dealt with by Motion, and suggest acceptance on that basis. I would also suggest that a definition of "uninvolved admin" might follow that as suggested here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp to SirFozzie - I am with regard to the narrow question; when the big one happens nobody is going to need ask... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Coren; there is a RfC being set up by 2/0 to gather the views of participants and others in respect the perception of the effectiveness of the Probation and what are the options going forward. It may be that returning it to ArbCom, a very likely option, will be the preferred course of action. It might be awaiting the outcome of the RfC, unless there is a meltdown in the meantime, would be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by likely involved ATren[edit]

Here is a recent capture of Stephan's top 30 pages, by edit count:

Top 30 pages:

• Talk:Global warming - 1532
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science - 655
• User talk:Stephan Schulz - 630
• Global warming - 512
• Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 303
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - 253
• Talk:Global warming controversy - 243
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - 224
• Talk:Waterboarding - 212
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - 194
• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement - 150
• Talk:Jesus - 144
• Global warming controversy - 141
• Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change - 124
• Talk:William Connolley - 108
• Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy - 100
• Global cooling - 98
• Scientific opinion on climate change - 91
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - 90
• Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle - 85
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - 83
• The Great Global Warming Swindle - 81
• Effects of global warming - 78
• Talk:Medieval Warm Period - 74
• Kyoto Protocol - 71
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics - 67
• Talk:Global warming/FAQ - 67
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby - 65
• Talk:Holocaust denial - 65
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 63

I've highlighted the CC-related pages: 17 of 30 total pages for a total of over 3000 edits, more than 20% of Stephan's total of 14,000 edits.

Lar has never significantly edited a CC page before this probation, and I don't believe he's edited any during the probation either.

I have followed this debate for some time, and I can vouch for the fact that Stephan is an active participant on these pages -- in other words, it's not 3000 vandalism reverts. Certainly, given the amount of vandalism on these pages, some of those edits will be janitorial in nature, but on the whole, editorial debate has been a significant portion of Stephan's CC edits. If this case gets accepted, I will present a more thorough analysis to justify this statement.

Stephan is involved. Lar is not. ATren (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect[edit]

In the past, "involved" has generally meant "editorially involved in a topic area" - else the instant any person who had not editted significantly in the area would be accused of being "involved" as soon as he or she acted as an admin in the area the second time. Catch-22, if you will. This case, therefore, is ill-suited for an ArbCom discussion as such, though at some point in a case where the actual disctnction becomes important, it may decide to adopt a formal position as to what point makes a person who is not actively editing an area (making the normal exclusions for formatting edits, spelling etc.) become "involved" when this has not been the status quo ante on Wikipedia as far as I have been able to determine reading past ArbCom findings of fact. Collect (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert[edit]

Point of information - the sequence of edits did not result in either editor removing the other's edits - they were both "move to section I believe they belong in" moves. Several intermediate edits had a section removed but in both cases they put it back in, somewhere else.

I think that this doesn't come close to justifying a real case. It might be useful to see if a wider community consensus could be developed around Sandstein's proposal wrt admin neutrality and appearance of bias, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#Outside view by Sandstein in the conduct RFC on Lar from earlier this year. Appearance of bias, even while one is completely technically compliant with the existing admin bias restrictions as written, can be as corrosive as any other real or perceived admin abuses. I don't think it's in Arbcom's remit to impose that as policy, but a good word towards discussing it might be helpful to prod things along. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68[edit]

Stephan Schulz clearly knows that he is involved and shouldn't be posting in the "uninvolved admin" section of the enforcement requests. He only does so, as far as I can see, when William M. Connolley appears to be facing an imminent sanction for yet another violation of Wikipedia's policies. Thus, I submit that Stephan's interference in the admin decision-making process at that board is in bad faith and disruptive. In sum, I think this constitutes a misuse of admin privileges by Stephan Schulz. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that several people here have gone on record as stating that there are bias problems with most of the admins currently helping enforce the AGW probation forum. I think there is some evidence of this. For example, here it appears that 2/0 is hinting to Hipocrite that he should file an RfC on yours truly. I disagree, however, that the probation isn't working. Just today, in fact, WMC was banned from the Fred Singer article due to disruption and BLP violations. Actions like that will slowly but surely correct the problematic behavior involved in the AGW articles. For the probation to continue to work, however, heavily involved editors like Stephan Schulz need to be stopped from purposely disrupting the proceedings as he has attempted to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: 2/0 has stated that he was not trying to encourage Hipocrite to start an RfC in the diff I mentioned above. I believe what 2/0 is saying and withdraw my allegation of bias as regards to that example. Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Mathsci[edit]

In the current RfCU on Lar, Short Brigade Harvester Boris has made a statement that many editors have agreed with concerning Lar's views on groups of editors. I think that Lar is very well meaning. However, because the same names and games recur on the CC probation enforcement page, like other administrators who have tried to police problematic pages (eg Chiropractic or Homeopathy), friction between users creates a "relationship" and various unspoken assumptions. Possibly after a while the administrator develops a mental picture of particular users or groups of users which is not particularly helpful. I don't recall that Stephan Schulz has been sanctioned so far in any way at all. Atren and Cla68 spend a lot of time themselves on the CC probation enforcement pages, so again may possibly have developed their own idées fixes. The best that could happen here is for ArbCom not to accept the case, not even to pass a motion, but gently to remind administrators to take note of complaints and, even if they don't quite agree with them, quietly to move on to something else, with no loss of face. I also agree with the view expressed by many other editors that it would be a good thing to find a way of rotating uninvolved administrators overseeing CC probation enforcement. Mathsci (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ SirFozzie: here's what arbitrators wrote when Cla68 filed a similar request 2 months ago. [17] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Carcharoth: That was the diff immediately prior to the case being discarded by Ryan Postlethwaite as ArbCom clerk [18]. I'm not sure I can do much better than that :) Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popping over here to briefly explain things... The original diff you provided was the one of Rlevse accepting what became the Russavia-Biophys case. The diffs that work best for me (and all users regardless of their settings) are the following: [19] and the second one you provided. If you look in your preferences, there is an option under "misc" that says "Do not show page content below diffs". I have that option ticked. I presume you don't, and hence when you load a diff you have a table of contents you can click on to generate links like this, which combine a diff (the "&diff" bit) and an anchored link to a section on the page (the "#..." bit). For those who don't have page content shown below diffs, those sort of links won't work. Does that make sense now? Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TheGoodLocust[edit]

Stephan Schulz (and indeed others on his side like WMC) often break/bend rules with the full knowledge of their actions. The intent is obviously to evoke in others, through constant provocation, diffs which can be used as "evidence" of bias and therefore banning. I wish to highlight another example of Schulz's insistence that the rules don't apply to him by noting this enforcement discussion (Note: Schulz was involved in the edit war discussed; Bozmo overstated my reversions while understating WMC's).

Despite being directly involved in the edit war, Stephan Schulz claimed he could comment in the "uninvolved administrator" section through WP:IAR.

On a side note, if this case is accepted then I believe it should include a review of the actions/involvement of several administrators such as Bozmo and 2over0. For example, 2over0 has been a staunch defender of WMC, unblocking him without consulting the blocking admin, while diff mining/misrepresenting and avoiding the climate change enforcement page in order to unilaterally topic ban, for draconian lengths, climate change skeptics like myself and several others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: Your comment does not apply, at all, to my comment. Stephan has shown that he is willing to flagrantly violate the definition of "uninvolved." Additionally, the terms of the climate change probation have consistently been altered/ignored/extended in order to topic ban people like myself, but in contrast, regarding those you've defended for years, only a strictly literal interpretation is allowed - and even when that is violated we can be guaranteed enough shouting to drown out any presented facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bozmo: Agreed - especially Horologium's comment. In fact, to extend his own comment somewhat, I can think of several long term contributors who've been driven off of not only the climate change articles, but wikipedia itself (e.g. rootology and unitanode off the top of my head). TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bozmo2:Astute observers will notice that Lar's support was not "focused" on a single statement and over a few days, but spread out over a long period of time and over several comments - with a far greater sample of truly outside observers. In fact, counting everyone who supported him brings his number closer to 30. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Okip: He sounds like someone who is tired of letting people slander BLP's of skeptics as believers in "martians" and who argue that the New York Times is unreliable when it doesn't fit in with a certain agenda (proudly violating core wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFY) - all while quoting their own blogs as "sources." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CountIblis: Incorrect. AFAIK climate change skeptics have almost all been either banned or driven away - the subjects of the current quest for ideological purity actually believe in AGW, but don't think that has anything to do with the constant BLP violations, wikilawyering, baiting and rampantly unapologetic incivility.

Comment by ZuluPapa5[edit]

This is a petty issue which can be handled by the CC Sanctions Project. The real issue is that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) has repeatedly caused disruption (20+ cases) such that Admins are siting involved as a straw-man distraction. ArbCom's time would be better invested in reviewing William M. Connolley's disruptions to determine if his involvement in so many cases is the root cause. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forming a group of appointed or elected admins at the sanctions would moot this issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Comment by Vsmith[edit]

Stephan Schulz above has quoted the "definition" of "uninvolved" from the probation page. That is the definition he is operating under in his edits to the Results section of probation cases. He has pointed that out in his comments on that page in the past. All others commenting here and in dispute with him seem to be using a more general definition of "uninvolved" - whether they haven't read the probation page or just disagree with it, I don't know. All here need to re-read the probation page. If that definition needs to be changed, then work on that - meanwhile it is the definition in effect for admins on that probation. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seeems almost everyone is continuing to ignore the definition given on the probation page. Lar has basically stated that policy is made up on the fly and what is written down is irrelevant [20]. That is a recipe for confusion and conflict and a disturbing comment directly relevant to the narrow scope of this arbitration request. Lar and Stephan Schulz are involved in a conflict based primarily on this point. I urge the committee to address this limited conflict and avoid (for now at least) the drama of a broader case. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JohnWBarber[edit]

Pull the damn plug already on WP:GSCC. It isn't working, and it's obvious it isn't working. Replace it with five or so appointed admins and rotate one out each month. That would ease the pressure on admins who, frankly, sometimes seem to be getting a little punch-drunk with the strain. If the admins are appointed by you, they'll have a mandate and confidence that self-selection doesn't give them, and you're more likely to select careful, discreet people than self-selection will. Appointed admins know they can be removed by ArbCom if they go to far out of line (and they can be reminded by email), but they'll also know that there will be a time for them to gracefully exit. The main problem with this request is that it's narrowly focused when the disaster that is WP:GSCC is very broad. I agree with ZuluPapa5 that you should include William Connolley in this and look into topic banning him because the constant complaints that his behavior generates are an enormous time sink. Look at Polargeo's recent disruption (an involved editor posting in the "uninvolved admins" section of a complaint) and the thinly veiled personal attacks in his comments [21] [22]. The admins at GSCC are bickering among themselves and find it difficult to come to consensus on various cases. It's an unholy mess. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's opinion on whether or not GSCC is working is much too rosey. It's true that Wordsmith banned William Connolley from editing one BLP. This was the result of -- what? -- the 20th or 21st or sixteen dozenth complaint about Connolley at GSCC. And there was disagreement from other admins over whether or not Wordsmith's action had consensus. [23] [24] If GSCC were working, then Cla68 should not have been able to gather all these diffs about the conduct of WMC, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Guettarda and Stephan Shulz here [25] or about Polargeo here [26] No editor should have to put up with this kind of abuse. But if Lar exits GSCC, he leaves it in the hands of open to more influence from admins like the one who put this on my talk page. [27] If you think 2/0 was possibly being reasonable in his what looks like an effort to intimidate me, please follow the diffs he and I provided in that discussion. Frankly, under the present set-up I don't believe any admin is likely to be able to do this job without making significant blunders. When many drivers get into accidents at a particular spot, traffic engineers are called in to see whether or not a redesign of the spot and the traffic rules for it may be necessary. We are at that point. ArbCom appointment would help: each month a new admin, to serve for five months on a five-member board. Cracking down on some repeat offenders would also help, pour encourager les autres. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)small revision for clarity -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) -- softening the language a little on 2/0. It's possible that his comments were good-faith, although I still don't think they were reasonable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iblis: There are a gazillion disputes having nothing to do with the scientific point of view. I'm not a skeptic. Lar says he isn't one. Not everything boils down to outside-Wiki POV. Having a house POV would not have made WMC's edits to Fred Singer any more acceptable, or any incivility any more acceptable. Or any gaming the system any more acceptable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mackan79[edit]

Simply put, if Lar is involved, then so are the majority of administrators who have worked in the area. Nearly all hold and have expressed views about what is responsible for the poor editing environment in this area. Some, including 2/0 and Bozmo, clearly come from within the movement of anti-fringe editors. Lar comes from the view that some "vested contributors" are also creating a problem. No claim has even been made that Lar is more involved than those editors; he is far less involved than several by any measure.

Stephan Schulz is in a completely different category, not just because of his extensive ongoing involvement in the area, but because he has also commented as uninvolved in disputes where he is involved in the dispute itself.[28] He then argues that if he is involved, then so is Lar. In my view this is part of the same gamesmanship that has been continually attacking admins who are seen to have disfavorable views in order to suggest that they are biased and therefore "involved." I would like to clarify that there was similar criticism of other admins in the area; however editors including myself attempted to play a moderating role, which unfortunately has not been reciprocated. If ArbCom did look at that issue, my best realist take is that ArbCom would find significant cause to admonish editors including Stephan Schulz and William M. Connolley for this type of gamesmanship, which would be a slap on the wrist, but may help. Mackan79 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On possible routes for an omnibus case: It strikes me that ArbCom mainly has the options of directly applying sanctions, or of empowering admins to do so. The main benefit of the first route (direct evaluation) seems to be that ArbCom could give a real look at some evidence, and make a clear statement about what types of behavior will or won't be tolerated. The weakness is that its real impact would either be draconian or mostly implied, given the impossibility of dealing with all current and future editors at once. The obvious weakness of the second route (discretionary sanctions) is that it has already been tried; nevertheless, maybe by tightening the terms, and maybe even with with some findings, ArbCom could create a better ongoing system for enforcement (maybe with broader admin input as well if it were brought over to AE). Either could help, in theory. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BozMo[edit]

I think rather than repeat things here, people should be referred to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar where many more people have thoughtfully contributed (there is a lot of duplication but as at today 21 people have endorsed Lar's defence and 23 have endorsed this summary of the issue. Good luck. --BozMo talk 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK[edit]

I see no merit to this case. Lar has not edited within the climate change topic area, and thus cannot be claimed to be not-uninvolved. I was briefly active in this topic area's enforcement page earlier in the week, upon being asked to comment on a peripheral issue about general philosophy with respect to enforcement requests—as were many other administrators who frequent the main enforcement board. What struck me there was the ferocity with which debate on any topic, significant or not, is pursued by many parties. Lar especially was spoken to in an abrupt and markedly unfriendly way. That kind of heat cannot be conducive to good editing.

The climate change enforcement board would benefit more than anything else from some fresh eyes. Lar, from what I gather, has been active there for some time; he may like to take a break from enforcement duties there, and have some other administrators cover in his absence. But that clearly is his prerogative, and as an uninvolved sysop with no prejudices on the topic or its contributors, he is under no obligation to do so. Irrespective of the outcome of this case, I'll be messaging a few of the other sysops who are active on the main AE board to enquire as to whether they would like to devote some attention to GS/CC.

A healthy dose of calming-the-hell down is needed here. I don't think another arbitration case would administer that, by any stretch of the imagination; but the careful attention of some uninvolved administrators not previously active there might. AGK 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: In what was a moment of obvious insanity, I took the case request at face value. Silly me! I maintain my opinion with respect to both a narrowly-framed case to look at this specific incident and a case of wide scope that would re-examine the wider climate change subject area. I do, however, fear that we are headed for an omnibus case (at best, in six months or so) if things don't improve. If the Committee were to examine the wider subject area, perhaps it would be better to do so sooner, not later. I'm on the fence for now. AGK 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cenarium[edit]

As this is a contentious issue, a determination by motion as to whether Stephan Schulz‎ and Lar are involved and in which respect may be needed. No case is needed for that determination, and I don't think that a broader case on CC is warranted, I'm pretty sure that would not be beneficial and severely increase tensions in this area. I agree with AGK that the CC probation needs more uninvolved admins. That's why I've decided to participate as uninvolved admin, funnily it seems that this specific incident was induced by a comment directed at my own (non-)involvement. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren made good points on the perspective of taking a general case on CC. I'd prefer that the community make a review of the probation before any arbitration. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg[edit]

I'm confused as to why this case is being brought at this time, at the same time that there is an RfC running on one of the parties. Apart from that, which is more of a question than an objection, I agree generally with Hipocrite. I also wish that this case wasn't brought.

My feeling is that there is generally too much adjudicating/beefing/whining in this area. One of the underlying issues is the personal animosity between the users, and the high degree of incivility that seems to be tolerated on both sides. I don't think that formal tribunals are the way to deal with such problems.

I think that there needs to be a greater appreciation of the appearance as well as the actuality of bias. Administrators need to show more self-restraint, not become involved in personal squabbles with editors, and not engage in name-calling or labeling. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, it is certainly possible for an Internet discussion moderator, which is what administrators here basically are, to become involved in a subject through his/her moderation as well as participation in the discussion. I don't think that this principle is sufficiently recognized. There needs to be a broader definition of involvement, and greater intervention by genuinely uninvolved administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pessimism by Jehochman[edit]

Global warming conflicts are intense, and involve teams of pro and con forces who'll stop at nothing to get their way. The lobbying, goading, and gaming is a big turn off for uninvolved editors and administrators. It is long past time for ArbCom to investigate these behavioral issues. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timid comments by arbitrators are disappointing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timorous may stay at home.

— Benjamin N. Cardozo

Statement by Literaturegeek (uninvolved)[edit]

Jehochman, sums up the problem well. We all have views on climate change but the extremism, aggression, gaming the system, BLP violations, tag teaming, edit warring etc on climate change articles, seems never ending and trust has broken down within the community with allegations of bias and misdeeds by admins. I feel it is time to accept a full case into climate change. I think that a case just looking into climate change probation will not be possible as climate change probation is about misdeeds on climate change articles so arbcom will end up looking article diffs to understand the background and context to CC probation actions. It is also in my mind unfair to single out a couple of admins, who don't even edit the articles, for special attention when there are teams of POV pushers behaving much worse on these articles who require looking into rather than just a couple of admins who are dealing with POV teams; look at all alledged problem editors and admins fairly and squarely. Also a full case is needed to sort out the climate change problems once and for all; rather than chop at the branches, chop at the root causes of the problem. The climate change battle field is perhaps the worst and longest lasting of chronic disuptions on wikipedia. It is time to get it sorted out. I would like to see as Sirfozzie puts it "The Great Climate Change Omnibus case of 2010".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis[edit]

The driving forces behind all the trouble on the climate change related pages are the simple content disputes between climate sceptics and the people who support the mainstream scientific POV. The probation system, as it is set up now, leads to this main content dispute to dissipate into a myriad of micro disputes, each on some stupid triviality.

The fundamentals of the dispute are robust. The climate sceptics are not going to change their opinion anytime soon, nor are the other editors. So the situation is analogous to thermodynamics where you have a first law (problem is not going away) and a second law (the main dispute can either stay as it is or it can spread into a larger number of smaller disputes).

This means that the only feasible solution is to tackle the main dispute. ArbCom can simply ignore the details of the present disputes and look at the general issue of editing climate change related articles in a climate where you have many sceptics. My proposal would be for ArbCom to declare that all climate change related articles have to be edited from a SPOV perspective. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

The request as framed (is one specific admin uninvolved?) is unsuitable for an arbitration case. But as a look at WP:GS/CC/RE shows, the topic has reached Balkanic levels of contention and battlegrounding, and would benefit from Committee intervention. A case should be opened to examine everyone's conduct. Ideally, this case should result in a topic ban for the most problematic editors (although I don't know who that is), discretionary sanctions, and an expeditious means of reviewing further disagreements about involvedness (perhaps referral to a panel of one or three arbitrators).  Sandstein  06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

I first became involved in editing in this area at the beginining of the month. The situation there is very bad, as Sandstein describes, and it's unlikely to be sorted out without ArbCom assistance. My main concern is that it's affecting the BLPs of scientists and others who express minority views.

It would help if, as JohnWBarber suggests above, the committee could appoint a group of experienced, uninvolved admins to enforce the probation. As things stand, CC editors who also happen to be admins are claiming to be uninvolved (Stephan Schulz and Polargeo, for example), and are causing significant disruption on the probation page, to the point where it has become difficult to follow discussions, or work out what the decisions are. For what it's worth I haven't seen any diffs that suggest Lar is involved.

Failing that, I agree that a full ArbCom case may be necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]

You can choose to make this a huge case, but I (along with others including LHVU) would like you to decide on the narrow issue: just what definition of "uninvolved" should be used. As Stephan Schultz has pointed out, the probation was set up with a clear definition of uninvolved: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Others, including Lar, have chosen not to abide by that definition. Who is right? Note also that the issue is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Involved/uninvolved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber[edit]

Addressing the crux of who is an involved admin would not be too arduous for the arbitration committee and at least put an end to a few arguments for the time being (including the RFC on Lar which is split with two sets of views and unlikely to reach consensus.) I think once this is settled, the framework is there to allow matters to continue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2over0[edit]

When the GSCC were established, several editors opined that the community should review the sanctions in a few months. I have opened Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC, which may have some bearing on this case. On the matter at hand, my opinions are set out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#View by 2over0, which venue I think is a better way to address this question. No particular opinion on the merits of opening an omnibus case except that I think it should be started as such rather than allowed to morph into one. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I have been completely uninvolved in the climate change editing area, but have participated in the RfC/U on Lar. I suggest that, for now, the Committee decline the narrowly-defined case requested here and, instead, pass by motion a clarification of the definition of "uninvolved" for these purposes, reflecting the definition given by Coren. I also think that, subsequently, an "omnibus" case will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) at 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

• Other editors at Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change. There are no concerns over conduct of a specific editor or editors; I have notified those participating in the article here.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

Confusion has arisen with regard to the intent of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Use_of_blogs_and_self-published_sources. Discussion (see here) centers on whether the provision regarding blogs and other self-published sources is meant to apply solely to BLPs (and especially to BLPs of individuals taking a contrarian perspective on the issue) or whether it was meant to apply more broadly. In the interest of disclosure my own view is the former; i.e., Arbcom's intent was to prohibit use of blogs in BLPs rather than to discourage the use of blogs more generally. Clarification of the Committee's intent would be helpful in keeping the situation from becoming more heated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur (strongly) in User talk:Scott MacDonald's comment below regarding scope. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I'm new to clarification requests. Will there be a bottom-line closing statement from the committee, or will things just sort of die out after arbitrators give their individual views? Responses so far have differed such that the situation has not been, in a word, "clarified."

To expand on this a bit: Several have commented on the use of self-published sources in BLPs. The request here does not center around use of blogs (or other self-published sources) in BLP material. That's not to be done; it's clear; we get that (or should get it). The need for clarification regards restrictions on the use of blogs and other low-rank sources on topics outside of BLP material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scott MacDonald[edit]

I've no interest in Climate Change, but if this is to be limited to BLP (and I take no view on that), then I'm sure arbcom and Short Brigade would agree that it should be "BLP material" rather than simply BLPs. This is an important point, but should not be contentious.--Scott Mac 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ron Cram[edit]

I wrote the paragraph which has become the subject of contention. I did so with knowledge of the arbcom ruling Boris cited and in the belief the paragraph I wrote complies with the ruling. In my view, the intent of the ruling is clear - it is to make certain that blogs are not used in situations in which they might not be reliable sources. Blogs would typically be considered reliable when speaking about the blog proprietor and so would most typically only be used in articles about the blog or the blog proprietor. The ruling does not say this is the "only" use. Some blogs are written by notable people. Such is the case here. Roger A. Pielke is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. As the proprietor of the blog, there is no question the comments he has written reliably reflect his opinion. It is Wikipedia's policy that a blog post, even by as famous and well-respected researcher as Pielke, should not be considered a reliable source on the science itself. Fair enough. After all, there are qualified experts on both sides. But there is no way anyone can say Pielke's blog is not a reliable source for Pielke's opinion regarding his criticism of the IPCC. It is an unreasonable position for anyone to take.RonCram (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to give arbiters feedback regarding the helpfulness of their comments. So far, Jclemons comment has been the most helpful and applicable to the situation. The criticism being contested is from Roger A. Pielke, taken from his blog. It is criticism of an organization, not an individual, so comments about BLP are not applicable to this request for clarification. Finally, the citing of WP:SELFPUB was helpful because I had not seen it before and clarifying because it directly applies. Actually, WP:BLOGS (just above SELPUB) also applies since Pielke is an established expert in the field. RonCram (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098[edit]

I'm glad I voted for Jclemens. He's one of the few who knows "teh rulz" these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466[edit]

In addition to WP:SELFPUB, see WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". --JN466 17:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Blogs, self-published materials, and the like are to be used as sources with great caution, especially when better sources are available, and especially in highly contentious topic areas, of which Climate change is the preeminent example for 2010. Blogs are particularly disfavored as sourcesw where their contents are negative comments about individuals. As Scott MacDonald observes, it is inappropriate to post an inadequately sourced negative statement about a living person (or anyone, really) in any article, whether or not the article is the BLP on the person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree that a blog that is undisputedly written by one individual can be a reliable source in defining the stated views of that individual (as of the date of the post in question). A separate question is whether a view expressed only on a blog is sufficient important to warrant inclusion in an article; as to that, as much else, context is all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The short of it is "No, this applies everywhere". This is a straightforward interpretation of both policy and practice regarding careful sourcing; the point is that it's all the more important to get things right in BLPs, not that subpar sources are acceptable elsewhere. Primary sources of the sort are difficult to use right, and of very limited scope, because they are not reliable sources. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with those above, except I take a harder line. Blogs, self-published materials and the like are not usable sources, ESPECIALLY in highly contentious topic areas. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ... Except under the limited, narrow conditions of WP:SELFPUB, of course. That shouldn't normally be necessary to say, but the fact is, blogs can be useful in certain cases, such as to illustrate a BLP subject's own views, as expressed on his or her self-authored blog. Note that each of the five conditions of WP:SELFPUB must be met in order for the usage of a blog to be acceptable. To amplify Newyorkbrad's comment, I'm uncertain how a blog containing a negative statement about another person could pass point 2, "does not involve claims about third parties". (arb-elect, as of this point ...) Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with what Guettarda said here: "The ruling says "typically articles about the blog or source itself here". That means you could use Pielke's blog in Pielke's bio, or in an article about Pielke's blog. This is neither of those." I also agree with the point made by Arthur Rubin that the IPCC is not a BLP individual. Criticisms of organisations are a valid topic for articles about those organisations, but the criticisms need to be reliably sourced. Really, though, at the end of the day, editors working on these articles should be able to resolve differences like this without needing clarification from ArbCom. Was there not a noticeboard that you could have gone to first - one that deals with self-published sources, such as the WP:RSN? That would, I suppose, only work if those asking for clarification there held their tongue and didn't all pile in to repeat what they had said on the article talk page. Agree on the article talk page on a suitable phrasing for the question, ask the question, and then step back and let others have room to give their opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In reply to Boris, it's my understanding that if the arbs conclude that a motion is necessary, then a motion is voted on. Otherwise, if arbs conclude that a motion is unnecessary, the arbs request the clerks archive the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SBHB: I think if you glue together the bits here, the general feeling is (as per Coren) we believe policy should be interpreted as "this applies everywhere" and (as per Carcharoth) whether or not a particular source is reliable is an editorial question, perhaps for WP:RS/N and not a question of an ArbCom motion. Shell ^babelfish 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Stephan Schulz (talk) at 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Stephan Schulz[edit]

User:Marknutley has been indef blocked by FloNight in early November 2010 in connection with WP:ARBCC topic bans. She instructed him to appeal to ArbCom for unblocking. On appeal, he had been told to wait for the new committee, and has received no feedback to his new request yet. I have no particular opinion on whether an unblock is a good idea or not, but I think it's unfair to let him hang out without any acknowledgement. ArbCom owes him at least an answer.

Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]

Mark's anonymous edits can most likely be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy. There are however at least two other users using the same proxy farm. There was a related sock puppet investigation somewhere (now deleted). All the IPs have since been blocked as known and proven proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether or not Mark should be unblocked, but as far as I know, there is nothing tying him to the so-called "pink proxies". I seem to remember he was indeffed for one edit as an anon from his own IP while he was blocked, but I may be wrong. --Sander Säde 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the indefinite block is not clearly documented, but I believe this was the reason. That administrator forgot to extend the block to indefinite, a mistake which was quickly corrected by another admin. HeyMid (contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight[edit]

User:Marknutley was been indef blocked by me after contacting him privately with my concerns about violations of our multiple account policy and he chose to be blocked rather than continue the discussion about the situation at that time. Before he was blocked the matter was also reviewed on the Functionaries mailing list.

Later Mark changed his mind and asked for his situation to be reviewed. It needs to be done by arbcom because it involves his use of various ip that should not be discussed on site.

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Ban appeal cases are not usually quick, especially those involving private data; discussion of this one is still on-going. I would suggest patience is the best option here or Marknutley could always contact ArbCom directly if he would like an update - he's not done so since his initial request. It's only been 10 days at this point and there's quite a few new Arbs who need to review the original information from last year. Shell ^babelfish 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As Shell notes, this is currently being discussed and should be addressed fairly soon. –xeno^talk 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cybersaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• dave souza (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kennvido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)