| Revision as of 10:40, 30 December 2009 view sourceJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Statement by {Party N+1}: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:41, 22 December 2024 view source SilverLocust (talk | contribs)Administrators24,828 edits →users reverting changes made for accurcy despite repeat requests and backed by verifiable evidences: Removing request for arbitration: declined as prematureTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Climate Change == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by''' ] (]) '''at''' 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tedder}}, ''filing party'' (4 protections) | |||
| *{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}* (3685 edits, almost 6% of all edits analyzed) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Stephan Schulz}} (2384 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|UBeR}} (1843 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tony Sidaway}}* (1583 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Raymond arritt}} (1452 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|KimDabelsteinPetersen}}* (1115 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Short Brigade Harvester Boris}}* (711 edits) | |||
| *] is here, for completeness of the top 12 editors (668 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Sm8900}} (644 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Chris}} (593 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Guettarda}} (586 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|A Quest For Knowledge}} (565 edits) | |||
| <nowiki>...</nowiki><small>The following are below the "550 edits" threshold but were originally named.</small> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Atmoz}}* (403 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|GoRight}}* (415 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Count Iblis}}* (475 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZuluPapa5}}* (213 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Martin Hogbin}}* (40 edits) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lar}}* (below 30-edit threshold) | |||
| *{{userlinks|TenOfAllTrades}}* (below 30-edit threshold) | |||
| ; Administrators (involved in an admin capacity) | |||
| *{{admin|Beeblebrox}}* (0 protections, ) | |||
| *{{admin|2over0}}* (4 protections) | |||
| *{{admin|Jayron32}}* (1 protection) | |||
| *{{admin|MastCell}} (2 protections) | |||
| *{{admin|Rdm2376}} (2 protections) | |||
| *{{admin|Stephan Schulz}} (2 protections) | |||
| *{{admin|Wknight94}} (2 protections) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> Editor/admin has been notified about this case. | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * (intentionally not putting these on their own lines) , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Global_warming&oldid=334774945#RfC:_Oppressive_editing_and_page_ownership | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&oldid=334819029#Background_to_RfC | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Archive_12#RfC:_Keep_or_remove_Weart_statement_in_article | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Archive_13/RFC/Death_threats_against_climate_scientists | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=334831654#RfC:_Is_scientific_accuracy_relevant.3F | |||
| === Statement by Tedder === | |||
| In most pages related to climate change, editors have shown an astounding amount of editwarring, ] of talk pages (!), ], and a refusal to bend to any ]. Some of the articles include these: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| This issue, besides consuming an amazing amount of space on their respective talk pages, also spill over to ], ], and ] on a very regular basis. Here are some examples that are currently live on ANI, plus the last one, which is from my own (admin) involvement in the situation. | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334831154#.22RfC:_Oppressive_editing_and_page_ownership.22_at_Talk:Global_warming | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334831154#Serious_BLP_problems_at_Climategate_scandal | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334831154#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334831154#Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident_proposed_editing_restrictions | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334831154#Inappropriate_editing_of_a_protected_page_by_Prodego | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change_-_review_of_Tedder.27s_actions | |||
| Note the list of users involved is a partial list; it's a list of major editors I quickly identified and is not intended to be comprehensive. Some of these editors are certainly "overinvolved", others may not be. | |||
| ; Response to Jayron32 | |||
| :Including Ten* was an accident, but I included you on purpose because you've made admin actions related to these pages. ] (]) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(reply x2) I'm not implicating anyone- I just did a survey of editors and admins who are involved, not editors who are in the wrong in some way. ] (]) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(reply x3, I think) Probably worth taking this off the case (ie to a talk page), but you're just included for having made an admin action, not for doing something wrong. In other words, you're an admin who has been involved in trying to help settle disputes. ] (]) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Response to arbitration, as of | |||
| :I'll go through and weed/sort the list of editors by involvement- I request 24 hours to get this done. ] (]) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I modified the above editor/admin list. It turns out 'narrowing' it to editors with more than 30 edits among those four pages (eight, because I counted the talk pages) in the past three months is too large of a list- 233 editors. I chose an arbitrary "550 combined edits" threshold to capture the top dozen editors. Honestly, it's arbitrary, as there are many editors below that limit that should be included. | |||
| ::I also manually tabulated admins who had protected those articles or talk pages in the past three months and put those stats up also. I did not look at other admin actions (blocking), nor did I correlate their involvement on talk pages. | |||
| ::For completeness, 178 editors made > 30 talkpage edits, 93 editors (presumably the same ones) made > 30 article edits. Let me know if I should notify the users and admins that I've added to this list, or if you'd like me to share the results and/or slice/dice them in some way. I also didn't try adding any other articles to the list- I suspect my list of four articles is incredibly incomplete. ] (]) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TenOfAllTrades === | |||
| I'm not entirely sure why I'm listed as a party – of the five articles listed by Tedder, I've edited only one (]), and made only two edits ''ever'' – but here we go. | |||
| That said, I freely acknowledge that my lone two edits were reverts. The first was of a minority POV-pusher with a week-old account, who has been edit warring since he arrived and had already been blocked once for his conduct at these articles, including making exactly the same edits: {{userlinks|Marknutley}}, . My second was of GoRight, who 'undid' my edit without explanation or discussion of any kind after being encouraged to get involved by Marknutley: . (Marknutley, at his 3RR limit for the day, contacted GoRight to seek instructions on how to file a – inaccurate – 3RR report on William M. Connolley. I need not remind the ArbCom of GoRight's past history with global warming topics in general and William Connolley in particular.) GoRight promptly reverted me a second time, at which point I declined further involvement. | |||
| I would endorse a 1RR limit on climate change articles, as well as extended semiprotection of the articles in this area. There seems to be a painful influx of blog-driven agenda-pushing, and it is making it impossible for moderate, more experienced editors to get anything done. ](]) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by (uninvolved) Literaturegeek === | |||
| I have never edited any climate change related article but I have recently been following the drama on and off on article talk pages in recent months after the climate change email hacking incident became global news. I have read various disputes on a number of noticeboards over the years. There are intense emotions regarding this subject, I have been tempted to inject myself as a voice of reason into discussions but due to the abuse and character assasinating I have always felt repelled from doing so. Basically there are two extremes. One side wants any and all criticism labeled as fringe and deleted. Typically ad hominen attacks and comparing apples and oranges tactics are employed to shoot down their opponents by comparing them to ], ] and ] believers and so forth instead of ''addressing what needs to be addressed'' and that is the sources, applying standards such as ] and ]. Here is an extreme example of extremist viewpoints of an ip editor comparing skeptics to the holocaust., Then from the other extreme accusing man made global warming advocates of being part of a global socialist agenda. One extreme trys to violate ] by giving undue weight to minority viewpoints, using primary sources to debunk secondary sources and so forth and even promoting inappropriately conspiracy theories. I believe the fringe noticeboard is abused as a place to "take down" opposing views. Disputes are often personalised, with allegations of being paid by the oil companies or paid by the carbon tax industry. I think that most (but not all) editors who are a voice of reason and who are willing to set their viewpoints aside and follow ] and ] have been chased away by the intense and abusive atmosphere. The result is we are left with extremists on both sides. I would therefore urge arbcom to accept this long-over due case. It is my view that for this dispute to be resolved that it needs to be seen as primarily an ] and ] issue as well as behavioural issue as well. Minority viewpoints involving scholarly disagreements and controversies should be given low weight, not simply edit warred out of articles mercilessly. If arbcom sides with one side over the other this dispute will be perpetuated for goodness knows how long and will never be resolved. What is needed is calm to be restored so the climate related articles become attractive for people with level heads to edit without being attacked. I hope that my post gives some insite and in the end helps to resolve this dispute.--] | ] 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If one is to look at these people's articles, ], ], they describe connections to oil companies and rightly so, but when conflicts of interest related to making money from carbon trading is cited it is edit warred out of articles leading to page locking., , Why should one COI be allowed but another type of COI be edit warred out of articles? Then here we are again with this article,] and ] locked due to a content dispute where both sides have dug in their heels. | |||
| John Quiggin I am aware of no controversy in the public or amongst scientists about passive smoking but see from the article page there was some industry distorted scientific studies but I think comparing apples and oranges in and of itself is not scientific to prove a scientific point. There is controversy over some of the data used by climatologists, ] and here ] and you will see that there are legitamate scientific disagreement about the statistical data voiced by groups such as ] and the ]. I am not an expert in climate literature and I am not here to define the "truth" of climate change. I agree that the mainstream view must be given the most prominance, of course, but criticisms shouldn't be edit warred out of articles; well sourced controversies and scholarly disagreements should be included following policies such as ] and ], that is all that I am saying. I just saw this pop up on my watch list and felt appealing for the policies of ] and ] could resolve this dispute. I still believe that ] is often being misapplied or sometimes even abused as a way to get around ] which is a policy and ]; I have seen it done on other articles unrelated to climate change. I shall bow out gracefully now and hope that my posting helps encourage some common sense solution to this dispute. Best wishes to everyone here and have a happy new year! :)--] | ] 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| John Quiggin I never said those agencies were opposed to man made climate theory. What I meant was what I said above but to be clearer, that there is some scientific debate over flaws over ''some'' of the statistical data. This is part of the problem, I make a small comment in a neutral posting about this wide ranging dispute and then it is taken out of context and fringe is brought up again. This is one reason people are intimidated from voicing any sort of view on any aspect or controversy whatsoever on these articles. Good luck and I wish you the best in this arbcom.--] | ] 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Beeblebrox === | |||
| I have been only marginally involved in these matters, and then only in an administrative capacity. While I was the one "holding" the protection on ] I was astounded at the amount of arguing over minutiae on the talk page. The sheer volume and pace of it would be off-putting to most editors that do not wish to make editing and arguing over this group of articles the sole focus of their Misplaced Pages activities. Several of these articles have had to fully protected repeatedly to stop edit warring, sometimes over the pettiest of details. I believe, as do many others, that climate change will be ''the'' defining issue of the coming years, and as such these issues are likely to persist for a very long time. I also suspect there may be some users involved here who have conflicts of interest, of either a fiduciary or philosophical nature, that have clouded their judgement in these matters. As such, I believe all articles related to climate change/global warming/carbon emissions etc should be put on indefinite probation, with sanctions for those who edit disruptively. I would add that this problem is coming from all sides, from those who feel climate change must be addressed now to those who believe it is a hoax, and everyone in between, and as such general sanctions rather than targeting specific camps or individuals seems the best solution. ] (]) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by unnamed party John Quiggin === | |||
| I haven't been editing these pages for a while, but I would like to put a view directly opposed to that of LiteratureGeek above. In scientific terms, these pages call for a straightforward application of ]. There is no difference, in terms of the unqualified position of all relevant scientific bodies between this issue and those of the examples given by LiteratureGeek or, to take one with which I am most familiar with, having participated in an almost identical Wiki debate, ]. In both cases, the relevant scientific bodies are unanimous in their view, and the ] position emerges from a set of thinktanks (almost 100 per cent overlap between the two), a handful of dissident scientists (high overlap) and a body of public/political opinion driven by wishful thinking. | |||
| The only difference is that the ] position on the issue is held by a large and influential body of political opinion in the US and some other English speaking countries. ] self-identifies with this body. And this difference is only a reflection of the Global Viewpoint problem. AIDS denialism is, or was, similarly politically influential in South Africa, and if a large proportion of our editors came from SA we would no doubt have the same kinds of problems on articles on this topic. | |||
| The correct solution is to enforce ] and explicitly label views opposed to those of all major scientific communities as ] in all articles concerned with the facts of the matter. Antiscience views belong in ] and nowhere else.] (]) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to LiteratureGeek who says " you will see that there are legitamate (sic) scientific disagreement about the statistical data, with groups such as ] and the ]." What do you mean by this? Both organizations endorse the scientific consensus position as do all national academies of science, major scientific organizations etc. The opinions of non-experts such as you and me, both regarding the substantive truth of AGW and the balance of opinion in the scientific literature should carry zero ] here. We have authoritative statements from the most reliable sources - anything else is automatically ] and needs to be treated as such, just as it is on topics like ] where the ] viewpoint isn't supported by such a large group of editors. ] (]) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by unnamed party, Wikidemon === | |||
| I have not participated much on climate change articles so I have very little by way of evidence, opinion, or concern as to whether this matter is suitable for arbitration at this time. For the record, although there are some harsh but fair words exchanged between me and ] on the AN/I thread cited in the arbitration request, I have no beef with RD232 and as far as I am concerned that issue is closed. We've since had an open and supportive discussion on our respective talk pages and I think we're in agreement, including being comfortable with where we agree to disagree. I'm not so upbeat about the involvement of some of the other editors, as I've seen considerable edit warring, incivility, argument over process, a rush to accuse people of bad faith, and a breakdown of communication among those with different opinions, all during my very brief and peripheral participation here. It's been quite a ride - I've been hauled before AN/I, threatened with a block, and called a climate change denier and member of a "clique of right-wing editors" perpetrating "one of the most blatant acts of bad faith I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages", all for making an earnest but perhaps hasty attempt to edit content. Wasn't it less than a year ago that stood here accused of being part of the ''liberal'' cabal? *sigh* When you dip your toe in the water and something bites you, that's probably a good sign to find a different pond. Even if I did have some constructive ideas to add to climate change articles, or help to offer ArbCom here, it's just not worth subjecting myself to that. | |||
| I do wish everyone the best and hope for a productive outcome, though. Per a funny little template I've been working on lately, {{sorry|sometimes you just have to know when to quit}} | |||
| I'm hoping to step back and spend a little more time with my funny little template, and less time making other editors feel bad or allowing them to get to me. Best, - ] (]) 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jayron32 === | |||
| Like TenOfAllTrades and Beeblebrox, I am unsure why I have been named as party to this case. I agree with the filing, in that I have observed widespread conflict along a wide spectrum of Climate Change-related articles, and it is getting very out of hand. This is exactly the sort of thing that ArbCom needs to step in to work out, as I think that both sides have failed to reach any thing resembling resolution on this, and it has been non-stop for weeks now. | |||
| All of THAT having been said, I am still unclear on why '''I''' am named a party here. The sum total of my involvement in these articles is as follows: | |||
| *I protected ] about 7-8 hours ago as a result of a request at WP:ANI. I had not edited that article before, indeed I had never even watchlisted it before the request, but upon reviewing the history, I thought it prudent to enact protection to discourage widespread edit warring. | |||
| *I closed a discussion at WP:ANI that was getting out of control over the insertion of a POV tag by Prodego on the article ]. The discussion was going nowhere (IMHO) and was looking to decend into some incivil territory, so I thought it prudent to close it. Others disagreed, and it was reopened. I got a bit pissy on my talk page over it, and I am sorry about that. | |||
| Beyond these two actions, I have not once, to my knowledge, ever made a substantive edit to any article or talk page or discussion regarding climate change or any article thereof. I would appreciate it if the person who started this thread could elaborate on which of these two actions made me involved in the dispute as a party. --]''''']''''' 04:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reply to tedders reply to me: So, being an uninvolved admin who acted in good faith on a request to stop an edit war makes me in the wrong here? How so? Can you elaborate on where my protection of that article was against any policy or guideline or where making a single admin action makes me party to this dispute? I just want to know where that went wrong so that I can avoid misusing my tools in this way in the future... --]''''']''''' 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reply to tedders reply to me replying to him replying to me (I think I got those all). So, if I am involved, perhaps you can tell everyone which side of the debate I am involved on. Because I certainly don't know, and it would be enlightening to see where in this dispute my actions show me as being on one side or the other? --]''''']''''' 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reply yada yada tedders blah blah blah: OK. Cool. I just misunderstood the nature of ArbCom cases. I've not often been named as a party to a case, indeed only once, and I've not seen where someone had been named as a party to a case where the originator of the case was not asking for some direct sanctions against said parties. I was thinking of "involved" as meaning what the ] policy says 'invovled' means, which is the only context of the use of the term involved has come up. I apologize for being so confused here, since you were using an oft-used term at Misplaced Pages in a context it is not often used in. Sorry, it's my bad. Carry on. --]''''']''''' 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by JohnWBarber=== | |||
| Dammit, I agree with everything Wikidemon said as far as general points (I'll assume he's right about the specifics regarding himself). Even though I lean toward the climate-is-changing side and made a few edits which have stuck in the article, crap like this , from ], who was topic banned from another political area by ArbCom in the past, and POV-pushing, gaming-the-system crap like this caused me to walk away from the article. Any editor who actually wants to collaborate with others to create an NPOV article would be crazy to touch ] -- or any politically controversial article on Misplaced Pages. I suppose it's not always easy to see just what a piece of crap a POV-pushed article is unless you know something about the topic -- but believe me (or do some research yourself), it's a piece-of-crap article that makes Misplaced Pages look pathetic and does no service for our readers. This will continue to be the case with many (maybe most) articles on controversial topics until ArbCom gets serious with some of these editors, not just Scjessey, who have been POV pushing for some time, with many complaints brought up, usually not dealt with (or treated with kid gloves) by arbs or admins. You know, you don't have to put up with POV pushers: And if you're worried that enforcing NPOV editing policy with sanctions is too distasteful, you could always enforce the behavioral violations around the POV-pushing incidents with punctilio: You point out when they violate policies on edit warring, incivility, gaming the system, battleground behavior, talk-page behavioral standards, NPA -- and clip their wings with severe topic bans and blocks. Or continue playing Whack-a-Mole with repeat offenders as if they're not harming the encyclopedia much. -- ] (]) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Unitanode === | |||
| I just wanted to state that like Wikidemon -- but to a lesser extent -- I dipped my toe in editing a BLP about one of the skeptics (I don't remember which one right now). I tried to work with Connolley and Peterson, in an attempt to deal with some potentially problematic BLP stuff, as well as serious NPOV concerns. Connolley was ''very'' antagonistic, even changing and removing talkpage comments from me and a couple of other editors. After that experience, I watched in discouragement as all balance was removed from the article about the Emails, and anyone who attempted to apply NPOV was shouted down on the talkpage. I stayed out, based on my previous experience with some of the editors involved, but the climate articles -- and the behavior surrounding them -- are becoming a bit of a shame to WP. Some type of remedy needs to be passed to fix this, and to provide guidance to editors at those pages. ]] 06:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ChyranandChloe === | |||
| I'm not listed as an involved party, so I'll be brief. ] has not been exhausted. There are no ongoing edit wars, no serious personal attacks, no RFC/U, few if none administrative actions. A RfC entails outside opinion, the two listed on GW are mainly continued discussions from editors already involved. The is more descriptive. The discussion lacks actionable, verifiable, reasonable ''substance''. ] and ] are the real issues. I think this is silly sensationalism, but acknowledge that a case to set precedent on talk page mechanics would be good. Controversy can be attributed to holiday rush and ], it can be brought up again if it doesn't cool down. ] (]) 06:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Addum''', I apologize to the arbitration committee for a factual inaccuracy in my previous statement. There has been considerable degree of administrative action as provided by Tedder, since I actively track ] and ] which are not protected. I would also like to add my statement of confusion, since some of the involved editors listed do not engage in discussion across all the pages listed and that this request may be the culmination of many disputes not one. ] (]) 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by GoRight=== | |||
| I shall make no statement here until I see a clear articulation of what the dispute actually is that Tedder seeks to have addressed. I certainly feel that there is plenty of room for improvement in the atmosphere on the GW articles, so to the extent that something to improve that might actually come out of this I am more than happy to participate. | |||
| I would suggest that Tedder should try to formulate a specific articulation of what the dispute is and what the specific results he would hope to achieve actually are. | |||
| I will also endorse Literaturegeek's summarization of the prevailing atmosphere as being generally even handed and accurate. --] (]) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Looking at Tedder's list of pages I would think that a couple of representative BLPs should also be included if this goes anywhere, ], ], ], ], and ] are all likely to be representative candidates for controversy. I am not suggesting that you need to be redoing your analysis, nor am I suggesting that the all need to be included. It's just something to think about if you want to hit the trouble spots on the AGW pages. --] (]) 07:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Responses to other editors ==== | |||
| * @Guettarda: ''"Oh, and by the way - I'm not sure what sort of a time frame Tedder is using to pick the "top" editors, but whatever it is, it's far too broad if it includes an editor who hasn't edited (at least not under than user name) since May of 2008."'' - A most comical statement. I have no doubt that Guettarda knows full well that ] to which he refers is also listed under a different name with more recent edits. (Diffs available upon request.) <!-- See . --> And he wonders why people call him disingenuous? His comment is clearly intended to deceive. --] (]) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by ("uninvolved") ]=== | |||
| 4 bullets in 2 sections for rapid readability: | |||
| # Regarding civility and efficiency. Synopsis: '''Don't think RfAr can help.''' | |||
| #* I very much want the global warming pages to be more civil and productive | |||
| #* Civility on these pages requires not only the tough skill of polite online conversation between people who strongly disagree with one another, but also the ability to shrug aside consistent aggravation by sockpuppets, trolls and single-purpose accounts while trying to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio. Arguments tend to spiral out of control as one insult "deserves" another and another. | |||
| #* '''I don't think an arbcomm "decision from on high" can create civility.''' No amount of legislation can make these talk pages more productive. What is required is a universal will to rise above unkind words and be the big person in each and every situation. | |||
| # Something that may help. Synopsis: '''Official clarification of quasi de facto peer-review requirement''' | |||
| #* One item that would help is extreme clarity in Misplaced Pages policy, especially with respect to sourcing. In particular, it would be nice ] could clarify/officialize the quasi de facto peer review requirement for science on these highly-controversial pages. Very specific Wiki-legislation could pave the way for fewer arguments. I honestly don't know if this is an appropriate desire to come via arbitration, and suspect that it is something that should be done via other avenues. | |||
| ] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by non-party Mackan79=== | |||
| It's too bad, but I am skeptical of what ArbCom can do in a case brought by a relatively uninvolved party. I'm used to seeing ArbCom step in where two or more people have come to their wits' ends with each other, and need arbitration. I'm less sure what ArbCom does when someone else says "hey, look at this mess here." Do editors have evidence? I've seen some things that concern me, but certainly I don't have any evidence. | |||
| That said, there is a real problem with the influx of socks and SPAs in this area, and at least partly as a result of this, the way in which new editors are roundly chewed up and spit out. In my view the biting goes further than is justified, which I say largely because there are very significant problems in these articles, and as such I think the energy spent fighting off new accounts would in many cases be better spent addressing the problems. Unfortunately when I see basically no one take such an approach, it's hard to argue that ArbCom should peel off the more militant long-term users, since very well this could end up just turning the articles over to the SPAs. What's worse, I think some of the more militant long-term editors are also very ''good'' editors, and while I suspect there are some bad ones, it is not clear to me how ArbCom could weed them out. An improvement would certainly require something delicate, in which somehow agenda-driven SPAs were kept at bay, and the trained scientists were made to be more judicious in their interactions. Good luck! ] (]) 08:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Guettarda=== | |||
| On one hand, I don't see how a few RFCs on content issues scattered across, different articles involving different editors constituted "prior attempts at dispute resolution". A thoughtful editor can learn from a user conduct RFC, but not from an RFC on a page s/he isn't actively following. | |||
| There are real issues here. Tedders' ] and Prodego's ] are the sort of thing that isn't helpful on pages when tempers are frayed. But the real issue revolves around the ]. It has produced a stream of people determined to "fix" Misplaced Pages's "liberal bias". Solomon's attack on ] only exacerbated the problem. Not on one article, but across a slew of them. The underlying BLP issues also create problems - the involved scientists have been accused of "criminal" behaviour and professional misconduct, often by bloggers. Dealing with people determined to add material like that to articles only makes matters worse, especially when you get called "disingenuous" for suggesting that the BLP policy applies to pages ''other than'' actual biographies. | |||
| I would be happy to see a solution that facilitated ''editing''. But what solution? 1RR restrictions don't stop edit warring when there are a dozen editors on each "side". Restrictions along the lines of the ] might help (''if'' people are willing to police the articles), but quite frankly the arbcomm is too slow and do much good here, and tends to be too much of a blunt instrument. Two months into the future we're probably wondering what all the fuss was about. | |||
| Oh, and by the way - I'm not sure what sort of a time frame Tedder is using to pick the "top" editors, but whatever it is, it's far too broad if it ] who hasn't edited (at least not under than user name) since May of 2008. | |||
| ===Statement by JzG=== | |||
| This looks as if a ] is being fired at the problem. Too many parties, and the case stated in terms which are too general. Has anybody tried using the existing tools in the bag, like article parole and 1RR? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by {Party N+1}=== | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/3) === | |||
| *'''Comment''': There are far too many parties, from what I can see. Could Tedder please (a) sort them out by whether they're included for administrator actions or editorial actions and (b) perhaps remove as parties anyone who has made fewer than 30 edits total in the last 3 months on the articles/talk pages involved, if they are not being included with respect to administrator actions? Thanks. Awaiting additional statements/comments. ] (]) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting further statements and in general agreement with Risker's suggestions. ] (]) 04:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Leaning towards accepting when I become active, but I'd like to see a pared down list of parties in this case to only the core members involved, and further party statements. Like to see where people think we should be looking at (whole area, specific editors conduct, etcetera) ] (]) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == McCready edit warring topic ban == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| * {{userlinks|Mccready}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| ==== Statement by Mccready ==== | |||
| I request that my topic ban for edit warring be lifted or modified on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Misplaced Pages since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. | |||
| I give notice of an appeal on other grounds if this request fails. These other grounds would require a substantial amount of detailed work (going back to my history since joining wikipedia) which I hope we can all avoid. Vassyana has described my case as a battleground. For this reason I have not included attempts to get the ban lifted or modified because they have involved this history (irrelevant if we look to my contributions since the ban) and admins who have reached a point where they refuse to discuss the matter further. ] (]) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Response to Vassyana''' Thank you for your decision to recuse, which I think should apply to the second leg of my appeal, should that be needed. However, I think it remains open to you to express a view on the quality of my edits since the ban. If you look at my edits since then, as if I were a new user, would they give grounds for concern? | |||
| :'''Response to Carcharoth''' The admin who decided this non-arbitration related ban has a notice on their talkpage that they are semiretired. They have refused further involvement after I questioned their review. | |||
| :'''Response to Wizardman''' I will show in my second leg of appeal, should that be needed, that it wasn't a "community ban". Since you have not yet heard my arguments on this score, it remains open to you to participate in the first leg of the appeal. ie 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Misplaced Pages since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. This is a matter of AGF on my edits since the ban, edits which have contributed to the project. | |||
| :'''Response to Risker''' As above to Wizardman. I think it would be more efficient to deal with the first leg first rather than waste time on the history. | |||
| :'''Response to Middle 8''' I obviously dispute your views and will refute them in the second leg if necessary. | |||
| :] (]) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Question for clerk''' I'd be grateful if you could tell me what "should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)?" means? I'm unsure if this means I should amend my case. All I've ever wanted is for someone to look at it objectively without drama. Each admin that has looked at it has run away when I have asked for evidence for their position or shown how their conclusion is illogical. | |||
| ::'''Response again to Risker''' As I've just noted above I seek to make this as simple as possible with as little drama as possible. The question I'd like arbcom to answer, if I can put it this way, is that given my good record of edits since the ban, why not lift the ban or modify it? It can very quickly be reinstated if needed. The path you seem to want to go down is much more tortuous, and involves much more presentation of evidence going back to when I first joined wikipedia. In particular the disputed block log was referred to repeatedly during the discussion which morphed into my banning while I was blocked. Another way of arbcom setting a '''precedent''' might be simply to say: '''a user should not be topic banned while blocked and unable to properly present a case'''. Possibly the clerk's clarification as requested above might also help. Over to you. ] (]) 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Response to Carcharoth's of 23 December 2009''' This is using a huge sledgehammer for a tiny nut. It is moving to the second stage before we have looked at the first. I invite you to look at my contributions since the ban. My talkpage gives an indication of the positive interactions and contributions since that time. My case allows arbcom to set a very simple '''precedent''': '''a user should not be topic banned while blocked and unable to present a case'''. Can you tell me a reason why this path would not be acceptable to you? As I have said many times. The ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. I am trying to streamline this for everyone's sake. Thanks. ] (]) 23:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Response to Rlevse''' I'm worried that you may not have fully understood my position. The two track solution I am proposing will save a lot of work. Of course I can provide evidence (if necessary in the second stage). To phrase my case another way if you like, the first track can assume for the purpose of the exercise that the ban was validly applied. Then the question is whether my contributions since then are of a quality to have the ban removed or modified. The evidence for this is all on my talkpage. What is wrong, for example, with lifting the ban with the proviso that it can be reapplied immediately if needed? I'd appreciate your response to this. ] (]) 23:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Middle 8 ==== | |||
| Hi, just a quick comment from a mostly (re)tired user. This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary ). Since then, he's been a low-key, ]-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then, including with an IP (see ]). | |||
| I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics . I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, but he has not shown that he can stay within accepted bounds of ] while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his argumentation (culminating in a block) over this topic ban shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the ] to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (), and gone on to massively edit war () anyway. | |||
| With regard to Mccready's "disputed block log" (his term), what one finds with a little digging is that most of the blocks were for good reasons, like 3RR violations, but that he objected because in some cases the block was made by an involved admin. In other words, sometimes the blocks were made by the wrong person, but the blocks themselves were (with one or two exceptions) sound. | |||
| @Carcharoth: I believe this ban was a community ban (arising from much discussion at AN/I and elsewhere) and did not involve ArbCom. regards, ] (]) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' I still believe that Mccready's recent ] is insufficient evidence of his having changed his ways. ] (aka Guy) stated it well . If all Mccready intends to do is wikignome, then it shouldn't matter if the topic ban stands, because anyone can fix minor things; if he intends to make substantive changes in the topic ban areas, then he should first demonstrate his ability "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" in other topics. There are many, many articles in the alt-med and so-called pseudoscience realms where he can do that, and then come back with some reliable evidence that he's changed his ways. Wikignoming is nice but doesn't meet that standard. --] (]) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Atlan ==== | |||
| I have no opinion on the imposed ban, but I would like the arbitrators to know, Mccready has been specifically directed to Arbcom on multiple occasions to appeal his ban. His most recent block was partly because Mccready refused to do so at first. To keep sending him back and forth between Arbcom and the community seems like poor treatment to me, whatever the merits of this topic ban.--] (]) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ==== | |||
| Urge the committee to take this case, both supporting Atlan's comment above, and the reverse point that the community needs this matter resolving. As far as I can see several administrators have attempted to deal with the matter with limited or no success, and it has come up numerous times on AN/I. An ARBCOM support/extend/overturn/expire or indeed any clear outcome would be good for the community at large. Clearly one that returns Mccready to productive editing is preferable. ''] ]'', 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC). | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| As a point of information for the Arbitrators, Mccready is currently blocked; the block is currently set to expire at 5:11 December 15, UTC. Also, should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: User has now been unblocked. ] (]) 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Mccready:''' You've not done anything wrong in filing this, don't worry. The reason I asked the arbs about that was because usually ban appeals such as this are handled as amendment requests (see ]) because any action by the Committee would be changing (or amending) the original sanction. In general, a full arbitration case involves a multi-step process where parties to a dispute present evidence about the dispute, propose possible outcomes, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on a series of final drafts of those proposals. Cases like this typically take a month or two. An amendment request, on the other hand, usually is handled through simple motions by the Committee, and goes much faster without the need for any formal case. It seems as though from the comments below as though the Committee would rather handle this the more formal way, so I'll defer to their judgement. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Response to Risker: See ]. ] and ] may also be applicable. - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/1/1) ==== | |||
| * '''Recuse'''. Obviously involved in this matter. ] (]) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. It needs to be clarified whether the initial topic bans were done under discretionary arbitration sanctions, or whether they were non-arbitration related sanctions. If the former, then an amendment request related to the relevant case (after the current block expires) would be best. If the latter, then the first port of call would be those who imposed the sanctions - or, if you want to skip that step, ask those who imposed the sanctions to state here if they are willing to relax them, and (from what you have said) why they are unwilling to do so. ] (]) 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for the links, Penwhale. I've looked at those, and what I see is a series of reviews of this topic ban by the same people (VirtualSteve, User:Kevin and a few others). It would have helped if someone different had done the reviews in each instance after the first one. What might be best is to direct Mccready to prepare a full appeal (the current one is not detailed enough), and to invite the previously involved admins and the community to comment on it, and then see what results from that. In other words, draw more eyes to this to get a more definitive verdict. Most of the work for this need to be done by Mccready (say two weeks to prepare something in his userspace), and he needs to accept that if this fails, then he cannot appeal again for a whole year. This will be better than a continuing cycle of AN or ANI threads where the same people comment, and hardly anyone else bothers to read or comment on the threads. Essentially, '''accept''' and leave Maccready to prepare a full on-wiki appeal to submit when he is ready, followed by discussion for a week, and then a verdict, and then leave the matter alone for a year. Of course, this is dependent on my colleagues agreeing with me that this is needed. If no-one else votes to accept or look at this, then I would suggest the community use a similar framework (allow Maccready to build a full appeal in his userspace), and then deliver their verdict, along with a restriction as to future appeals (e.g. fulfil certain conditions, and require evidence of changes in conduct, before appealing again). ] (]) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Seeing as how it's been 18 months and it was a community-instituted ban, I'd rather defer it to them. ] 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': On reading the user's talk page, I see reference to recent discussions with other administrators and/or the community about lifting of this ban. I'd like to see some links specifically to those recent discussions, please, and the administrators involved should be invited to comment on this page. Mccready, that's something you need to include here. ] (]) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Mccready, there won't be a second part if you do not provide enough information to support your contention. The fact that there is the appearance of your having raised the subject of your topic ban with the community prior to coming here may be a key factor in the Committee's decision whether or not to accept your case. Please provide the links. ] (]) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Decline.''' ] (]) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''': If McCready can't supply evidence now as to why this was not a community ban, I do not see the reason to open a full case. He was asked to do so by Risker and did not supply an answer that cleared up this issue.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :@McCready-I see no reason for a custom made case, there's no reason you can't say "It's not community based because (1-2 sentences) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' I've been following this for some time and see no grounds for a case as currently framed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''; there is no reason to think that this cannot be handled entirely within the community, and no evidence that this is not strictly a community ban. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per some of the other arbitrators' comments. This should be taken back to the community for review as a community sanction, or fleshed out with a more complete request if there is more to the situation than already presented or if an appeal for community reconsideration fails. ] (]) 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 18:41, 22 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.