Revision as of 01:41, 23 August 2010

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

Case Opened on 00:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved editors

"Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not."

Requests for comment

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Lar

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

There is currently a request for a case below (permalink) about the actions of Lar and Stephan Schulz‎ in the global warming field. In my opinion, the case is far too narrowly focused and based on the actions of two editors who are only relatively peripherally involved in the main area on contention on global warming articles. It is sadly my belief that due to the high levels of on going bickering and poor behaviour from all sides that the community imposed probation has failed. I am therefore bringing this request for the arbitrators to take a look at the whole topic area in a bid to determine;

1. Whether the community probation has been a success.
2. Whether further measures are needed (such as discretionary sanctions) that may help in the topic area.
3. Whether the conduct of certain editors in the area is so egregious that that they require topic or even site bans.
4. Whether any administrators have used abused their tools in the area.

To that, I think it would be good to review the conduct of all editors in the field, whether or not topic bans are needed. There has been talk of an RfC - In my honest opinion, we are far beyond the stage that an RfC could help in these circumstances and what we really need are remedies from the committee that have teeth. I'm well aware that this may seem to some to be a duplicate of the request below, but I'm of the belief that a request filed on the whole topic area is needed and will most probably have a more effective response.

Please note: If I have included you as a party to the case, it is in no way a reflection of wrong doing from my perspective. I've tried to include everyone who has been involved in the probation. If others have been left out, please pop by my talk page and I'll add them - it would be best not to add them yourself (unless you are completely uninvolved) in order to stop any potential disputes. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Premature at this point. Several arbs have suggested letting the RfC run a bit farther. Suggest a decline or place in abeyance for now, without prejudice to a later opening if needed. Ruling (via motion, since fairly clear statements don't seem to be yet having the desired effect) on the narrower request now would be helpful though. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To NYB: Your request that statements "should focus on whether there is a reasonable probability that an arbitration case could lead to a useful outcome" requires handicapping ArbCom members as to their willingness to speak plainly to VestedContributors and to make hard and potentially divisive decisions. Because that is what will be required here, and several prized oxen will likely be gored, with the concomitant mess and fuss. So, then, aid the handicappers, would you... Are you all up for it? Risker hints that she is up for it. What about you, NYB? Are you up to it? Will we get forceful and useful findings from you? As you go, so often goes much of the rest of ArbCom, you know, and watery findings beget more watery findings. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point I agree with JWB and JeH... it's time for a case. The CC probation RfC has gotten about as far as it can. Read what it says, take it into account and let's go. Dispose of the oldest request by issuing a motion on what involvement means. ( My RfC has gotten about as far as it can (and in fact your issuing a ruling via motion would finish things up nicely) Open the second request (this one). Dispose of the newest request by motion (and in passing point out it's not really related to this case per se) reminding admins and others to be a bit crisper when circumstances warrant it re sockpuppet allegations. That's my advice. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: JWB, good summary of where things stand on the CC probation RfC... thanks! (I forgot to endorse some views but I don't think that would throw your summary off a lot. You are correct in characterizing my view as not in opposition to a different regime for selecting who admins the area... it's a narrowly taken view, deliberately so.) ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BozMo

Helpful, thanks Ryan. After some early success the probation has turned into too much talk and become a scene of more unpleasantness than the articles. All is smoke with very little light. I suggest

1. that enforced rotation of uninvolved admins would be helpful
2. that it should be accompanied by some agreed guide for uninvolved admins coming into a complex area on what the appropriate actions are for a given level of offence
3. that a simple target charter for dealing with requests (with time expired closures on different sections) would help move things along too
4. a limited, much slower appeal process should be allowed just to check actions against agreed guide

--BozMo talk 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Polargeo

Premature. There is a constructive RfC running on this very issue which has been overlooked in the hurry for this case Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC Polargeo (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I do agree with some of the statements by Bozmo above but I hope these can be dealt with without an arbcom ruling. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I agree that this is premature, given that there is the open and active Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC. In my opinion, the underlying cause of the problems in this area is the organized off-wiki political campaign against the scientific opinion on global warming. Misplaced Pages conflicts are only a symptom. Therefore, I'm doubtful if ArbCom can help resolve the problem, in particular if it sticks to its traditional role of avoiding content questions. About the only positive outcome I would hope for from an ArbCom case would be a clarification of the weight of reliable sources, with academic publications, in particular overview reports and peer-reviewed journal articles given a clear primacy over the popular press, and in particular over editorials. <removed comments on completeness of participant list>

• @NYB:"Nor, I am sure, does the reference to "of 2010" reflect any desire for sequels." - who knows, but what it's likely to reflect is unjustified optimism. It's June already! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Premature, as per parties commentating. In consideration of Newyorkbrad's request, I feel that the RfC variously referred to is likely to establish a definition of the issues for a Request for Arbitration; in that most views are inclined to agree that input by the Committee is required going forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While the request was premature, in my opinion, it is possible that acceptance - possibly worded so the case holds until after the RfC concludes - may not be. If events at the various pages continue as it does, then I fear this issue is going to spiral out of control; a provisional acceptance may convince a few individuals to up their game to avoid possible censure (although one or two may decide to kamikaze).

Statement by ZuluPapa5

Suspend this or the RFC, both should not be on at the same time. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

A case is sorely needed. Adminstrators are overstepping their bounds left and right, there is no end to the sockpuppetry, and long term contributors are consistantly elevating wikipedia disputes to newspapers, while outside agitators are constantly driving their roaring masses to disrupt wikipedia. Please solve this. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

I do not have any appreciable connection with edits on the topic, and my comments otherwise have been on the order of following established procedure. I see no likely positive result from using this as a case for ArbCom. Collect (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnWBarber

I have hardly anything to add to what I wrote just days ago on this page. An ArbCom case would provide about as much bickering, but with the possibility of closure. At the RfC I've proposed the same Arb-appointed regime I mentioned here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Roger Davies: Other than that, the Requests for enforcement board seems to be working fine Oh, fine and dandy, fine and dandy. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• The Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC looks like it's gone as far as it's going to go. It's very doubtful that enough editors are going to comment in upcoming days in a way that will significantly change the results, so could ArbCom members who want to take the RfC into consideration please do so? Then we can get one or even two of the three (count 'em: three) requests off this page. Closing time, Last call for alcohol, Time, gentlemen please. So gather up your jackets, moving to the exits, Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• @NewyorkBrad's 14:58, 2 June comment: The largest RfC responses, mostly from involved editors, are (edited to add: Actually the following should be taken with a few grains of salt. I didn't take into account the many caveats various editors gave when they endorsed these various statements, although I still think the comments by the participating editors as a whole support my conclusion; in describing these statements, I've tried to focus on implications about support for ArbCom involvement, although many of the statements did not focus on that):

1. SBHBoris (16 editors ): ArbCom should decide content matters in Climate Change articles (is that a fair reading?) Edited to add: Actually, a lot of the editors who agreed with SBHBoris' statement disagreed about whether ArbCom should take this up
2. Bozmo (14 editors ): There are various problems with various editors and admins, and some have reason to complain (this is so specific that I'm not sure how it applies to whether or not ArbCom should accept this case)
3. Me (14 editors ): GSCC has not been working well enough. ArbCom should appoint the admins who oversee WP:GSCC
4. Lar (13 editors ): GSCC has been partially successful, partially not. "ArbCom needs to come out and explicitly state that yes, there are groups here, and that their activities have been on balance more harmful than beneficial, and that enforcement needs to take that into account"
5. 2over2 (12 editors ): The enforcement board part of GSCC is not working, abolish it.
6. Mackan79 (11 editors ): Improving the editing environment needs to be admins' goal

No other statement received more than nine !votes. I think that to the extent these more popular statements reflect on the idea of whether or not ArbCom should take this up, they support your taking it up. The idea that there are significant problems with GSCC and it should be substantially changed or abolished is part of all but Bozmo's, Lar's and Mackan's statements, but those statements are not actually opposed to ArbCom taking up the case and taking control over GSCC. Note that Boris and Bozmo both endorsed my statement. I think you have enough of a mandate here to take this up and, if you think it best, to take control. While there's a lot of overlap among the supporters of these more popular statements, there is general support for you doing this and no significant opposition. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Added some qualifications in italics to this comment. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium

Premature, the community is working on the issue, and we may need some ArbCom involvement but for now not in the form of a case. And if I am listed as a party in this case I will have much less willingness to engage in probation or arbitration enforcement. Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I agree that this is premature and that it's being handled reasonably by the community. I'm not a CC editor, but occasionally comment on or watch the enforcement page. I can't see that an ArbCom case on CC at the moment would serve any useful purpose, quite the contrary, The RfC on CC probation should be allowed to run its course and everything should be taken a little more calmly and less confrontationally, with lashings of tea and cup cakes. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by TheGoodLocust

Well, I don't really have much to say, because this should be based on evidence, which space constraints inhibit to a certain extent. That being said, here are a few points of interest:

1. The admin discussion to prevent the "malicious and stupid" Lar from interacting with WMC, easily the biggest problem in the climate change articles, includes participation by Bozmo and Vsmith, both whose top edited articles are in the climate change area, and at least one of whom I know has constantly defended WMC for years.

In short, the involved admins are helping to muzzle the uninvolved admin.

2. SlimVirgin describes the tag-teaming action and policy violations that have been going on for years. I'd describe this as a introducory primer for this issue and you can see how Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, and William Connolley will tag team to keep BLP violations in articles of subjects they don't like.

Of particular note, regarding this person, WMC has posted documents revealing his address and telephone number, linked to his blog were he calls him insane (fitting since him and his friends have slandered his BLP to imply he believes in martians), and used his talk page to imply that he is committing tax fraud.

@Ncmvocalist: Where was all this so-called outrage when Connolley posted private information online about Fred Singer?

Request by NuclearWarfare

It seems that a case might end being opened after all. I have tried on and off to act as an uninvolved administrator on the probation page, and I will likely be submitting evidence around the end of the month (or the beginning of next month). However, one thing I have noticed in particular is the tendency in this are for many words and many diffs to be submitted as evidence. I would really recommend that the clerks enforce a pretty stringent set of rules on what and how much evidence will be accepted, and even consider writing summary pages of sections that go on too long. I will have no interest in participating if it looks like arbtrators will not have the time to go over the evidence in full. NW (Talk) 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by The Wordsmith

Since it appears that this is going to be the Great Climate Change Case of 2010, I might as well give my summary of events. I am involved in this as a newcomer to the enforcement area. I don't edit the articles, but Lar did suggest that I should get involved in keeping the peace, and so I did. It seems that editors have divided into factions, whether intentionally or not (I think it is just because of ideology, and not anything more devious). Though, to their credit, I have been seeing more across-the-isle cooperation, so I think that's a good sign. The enforcement process seems to be workiing for the most part, though it is not perfect and could possibly do with revising. The consensus-driven approach works for the complicated nature of the cases in this area,so I would oppose bringing it under the regular AE umbrella. More participation by uninvolved admins would be beneficial. The Wordsmith 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

If this case is accepted, as it appears it will be, the arbitrators should resist the temptation to decide it on narrow behavioral grounds and instead address the issues of content policy that lie at the heart of the dispute. Note content policy and not content as such: the dispute over content policy should not be confused with the disagreement between contrarians and those who agree with the scientific consensus, which is no more resolvable here than in the outside world. For example, one of the administrators involved in the probation has asserted that we should de-emphasize scientific aspects of global warming in favor of political and social aspects; another administrator in the probation has expressed the view that more attention be given to "blogs and 'soundbite' journalism"; a respected content contributor has opined that the popular press should be preferred to the scientific literature because reporters are best able to synthesize the contents of scientific articles. Others disagree.

Arbcom therefore must decide whether they still believe that serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought or whether "serious and respected encyclopedias" should reflect the views of op-eds, blog postings and the like and (in the interest of fairness) place more emphasis on views that are held by only a small minority of the relevant academic community. If the arbitrators instead base their decision on behavioral grounds or the conduct of a few individuals then the disputes will merely rise again as new parties join on each side of the content policy dispute. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ATren

There are those who would like to turn this into "science vs fringe", but it's not about that at all. Most of the recent conflicts are on BLPs and other pages which are only tangentially related to the science. There is a group of editors who have a strong POV in this area and who generally refuse to allow changes to the status quo, even if those changes are well sourced and necessary for NPOV.

In particular, there seems to be a double standard in the BLPs in this topic area. If the LP is supportive of the mainstream view, they are treated differently than those who oppose the mainstream view. I will present extensive evidence of this double standard, but one recent example involved a case where criticism sourced to the RealClimate blog was defended in the BLP of a skeptic, while those same editors were revert-warring to remove a New York Times blog source from the BLP of person with more mainstream views. It is inconceivable how a NY Times blog could be deemed unusable in the same context where a partisan blog would be accepted, yet this was the argument presented.

The BLPs are not the only problem but they are representative of the underlying issue: a small group of editors who are resistant to any change to the status quo, and will aggressively (and collectively, whether intentional or not) confront any attempt to make such changes, even if those changes are well-sourced and consistent with our notability and weight guidelines. I will be presenting extensive evidence of this.

Note: I am mostly dispassionate on the issue of AGW, but I generally align myself with the goals of the mainstream scientists in this area. I only oppose the way the material is presented here, and then only on NPOV grounds. A more extensive statement on my views in this area can be found here. ATren (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/3/1)

• Awaiting statements. In my view, statements should focus on whether there is a reasonable probability that an arbitration case could lead to a useful outcome (beyond what has already been attained through community processes) that in turn would result in an improved editing environment and improved articles on global-warming related topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This has been sitting, partly because of the long holiday weekend (in the US and UK) and partly pending developments in the RfC. Parties who have not already done so are requested to submit brief addenda to their statements addressing whether the RfC has helped or is helping resolve any issues that we would be asked to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. It appears to me that some input from the committee would be helpful at this time. If the case is accepted, I will draft or co-draft the decision. At the outset of the case, I will have some procedural questions and suggestions for participants in the case (instructions if acceptable to the other arbitrators) that I hope will focus the case on the substantive issues in dispute as opposed to procedural bickering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Initial comment to agree with AGK. If accepted, the list of parties would be carefully scrutinised to avoid the situation he describes. Could I also ask those making statements here to consider adding themselves as parties to the case or stating the degree of involvement. I see some people who are not parties making statements when it is possible that Ryan missed them off the list of parties to the request. For now, I would still like to see the recently started RfC run the full 30 days to see what results from that, but agree that having the option of accepting a broad or narrow case is somewhat helpful to focus the mind of the arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• I too would like to see the RFC run more of its course. Other than that, the Requests for enforcement board seems to be working fine, though the discussions could be a bit more focused. Will add more once more statements are received.  Roger Davies 08:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept, based on lack of headway at the RFC.  Roger Davies 05:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. Let's give the RfC a chance first. Also, since an enforcement board is already in place, I'm not certain what we could do here that the community hasn't already decided to do on their own. Shell 16:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. This doesn't seem to be making any headway towards being solved. Shell 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; I'd rather wait for the RfC to conclude before we intervene. — Coren  01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept; the RfC seems to be making no headway. I have no objection to Newyorkbrad handling the procedural mess. — Coren  01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Accept per Newyorkbrad. I concur that some procedural issues need to be addressed before actually opening the case so that participants remain focused on substantive rather than procedural issues. (Clerks please note that there may be variations to usual processes.) Risker (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Accept noting... this will encompass all three cases currently at RFAR, ie, become "Great Climate Change Omnibus Case of 2010". — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It hopefully will not, however, be captioned in that fashion. Nor, I am sure, does the reference to "of 2010" reflect any desire for sequels. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• I only just noticed that I hadn't yet recused on this one. Steve Smith (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

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

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration cases