< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Climate change

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.247.247.55 (talk) at 22:18, 14 September 2010 (Undid revision 384873949 by Lothar von Richthofen (talk)this is funny though. I am a supporter of socialism.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:18, 14 September 2010 by 71.247.247.55 (talk) (Undid revision 384873949 by Lothar von Richthofen (talk)this is funny though. I am a supporter of socialism.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk)

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Pillars

1) ArbCom sucks.

Support:

Self-evident, non-controversial. Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Effort

2) Coming up with proposed decisions is hella effort.

Support:

Effort that could be better spent editing New York Subway System articles or mucking about with random unblock requests. Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors

3) Misplaced Pages editors are, in general, worthless peons who are barely worth the time it takes to pretend to respect.

Support:

~~Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)~~

Oppose:

Would prefer this without the "in general" Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Prefer 3.1 - Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Switched from support, prefer 3.1 Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Would prefer something less coherent. — Coren 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors

3.1) Misplaced Pages editors are completely worthless peons who aren't worth the time it takes to type the word "respect"

Support:

Proposed. Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Prima facie - Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Still a bit coherent, but better than 3 — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Much less ambiguous Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Science

4) Science is complicated and it's all just theories anyway.

Support:

We're not here to make content rulings, we're here to do our best to humiliate already-frustrated editors with civility sanctions that make them feel like they're still in Kindergarten, or at most, 2nd grade. Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Fuck science. Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill sums it up nicely. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

People say the same thing about the New York Subway System, and I recuse from all matters vaguely relating to New York. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Truth and Battlegrounds

5) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. As most of us who have kissed enough ass to reach positions of petty power are thoroughly beta personalities who abhore conflict, when given a choice between an encyclopedia which actually educates people but occasionally has its shit stirred by halfwit ignoramuses and an encyclopedia that's of about as much value as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap but where everyone gets along we must always err on the side of the latter option.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Incoherent and rambling. FT2 would be proud. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'd disagree outright if I weren't so damn affiable, but without Flo around to whip some sense into me I'll merely abstain for now and propose my own alternative in two or three months' time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Frustration

6) When an intellectually qualified editor spends an inordinate amount of time dealing with vast hordes of anti-intellectual Randys in Boise, this editor is apt to feel frustrated.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Seems vaguely compassionate. All these "editors" are just words on my computer screen, I believe that Zero Tolerance works, despite all evidence to the contrary. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lashing Out

7) While some editors may seem to advocate a surrealistic idea of reality that seems to defy all rational, scientific understanding, there is absolutely no justification to ever dare question their intellectual capabilities, or treat them as inferiors simply for acting inferior. Any editor who feels somewhat degraded as a result of treating chattering hottentots as individuals with contributions just as valid and valuable as his is to be regarded with gentle, Christian contempt.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Would prefer outright contempt, but this will do. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my abstaination on 5 above Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Decorum

8) All Wikipedians are expected to post endlessly on Talk pages to try and justify decades of accumulated scientific research and study to a bunch of simpering shitheads who see nothing particularly ironic in the phrase "global warming is just a theory. Like evolution and 9/11". Should one or more of the aforementioned simpering shitheads take it upon themselves to revert-war over their idiotic aggravated molestations of scientific content, a Wikipedian must be prepared to disengage and let the article remain in a state of factually incorrect idiocy for as long as it takes for another editor to wander by and immerse himself in the joys of motherhood.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Standard. Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Prima facie - Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Completely incomprehensible. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) The dispute is focused around articles related to Climate Change.

Support:

It took many weeks of off-wiki discussion amongst the Arbs, but we have finally arrived at this FoF. Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Too close to a content ruling. Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Would prefer we just stick to treating editors with contempt. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

As most published theories of Climate Change state that New York would be affected by said change, I will recuse Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. William M. Connelly

2) Dr. William M. Connelly, MD Ph.D BS BA Talkcontribs, is a carebear crybaby on articles related to global warming.

Support:

Straightforward. Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Scientific validity or lack thereof does not excuse getting frustrated. - Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's just a theory and he should really learn to back off. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Other editors

3) Other editors have not behaved completely admirably, but as truth is completely relative and, as SlimVirgin insinuates, we're here to write stories, not decide upon what is actually correct and backed by science, this matter probably doesn't rise to the level of meriting individual sanctions.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with SlimVirgin - and shame on the science trolls who pretend to be mortified at her choice of words - Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't mind treating them like shit too, the more the merrier and all, but eh. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

...what hath god wrought... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This case

4) This case took over two months to complete, after imposing strict limits on evidence and workshop pages. The majority of this time was waiting for ArbCom to do something.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

WMC humiliated

1) Dr. William M. Connelly, MD Ph.D BS BA Talkcontribs, is to be placed under various demeaning, degrading, and preferably outright humiliating forms of nursery-school oversight. No less than 48 hours, days, weeks, or months after this case closes (whatever the case may be), ArbCom will accept applicants for the role of "Dr. Bill's 'Big Sibling'". Applicants must have a condescending, patronizing way of carrying themselves; must have no interest in or understanding of any scientific topic areas (loopy, zany, batshit insane ignorance of the new-age faith healing / crystal collecting variety is preferred, but not mandatory); and must spend an inordinate amount of time stressing out over completely ridiculous, petty stuff. Cat ownership is preferred, but not mandatory; as is a history of editing dreary shut-in topics like minor 16th century European royalty and horrible poetry which nobody in their right mind willingly reads in this day and age.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit conservative for my liking, would prefer a remedy that employs logarithmic edit counts and statistical cross-sampling of contributions to various namespaces contrasted against UTC time and day of the month, but eh. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Am I the only one who has his head screwed on straight and still actively participates in this travesty of an arbitrating organization? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Who actively participates? Probably... SirFozzie (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ibid - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

WMC topic-banned

2) Dr. William M. Connelly, MD Ph.D BS BA Talkcontribs is hereby topic banned from any and all topics with which he has academic experience or a personal interest in. After three months, he may apply via email for this topic ban to be lifted, but as ArbCom checks its email sparingly at best and is even more stingy with replies, this should probably be considered indefinite, or until the peons over at AN/I get all up in arms about it.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Time to level the playing field Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's simply not fair to the vast majority of contributors with degrees from University of Phoenix in VCR Repair, Thimble Maintenance, and Petty Squabbling that so-called "accredited experts" should be allowed to dominate Misplaced Pages's science articles with their edits. The good Doctor can easily join WikiProjects devoted to Pokemon, Astrology, or even MilHist - let him feel like the clueless one, for a change. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Someone else banned

3) A random editor from the other side of this dispute will be banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of 1 year, just so the Register doesn't completely own us again.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Time to level the playing field Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
With a note that whichever editor we choose to ban is free to create a sockpuppet or two, it's honestly not like these anti-global warming sorts have any distinguishing personality traits. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "climate change" and all closely related articles.

Support:

Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This will surely lead to another case, which will give me another opportunity to cast votes. — Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors reminded

6) Editors are strongly reminded to try and behave. This means taking disputes to the talk page where squabbling morons can easily wear down even the most well-adjusted of science advocates - it's a lot easier to make up things to find fault in than it is to come up with actual rational answers (this is called the "burden of proof").

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbcom will get right on it

7) Upon the conclusion of this case, ArbCom will solicit ideas from interested members of the community concerning methods they may employ to not have cases drag on for months. All input will be gladly received and even more gladly ignored, because lol, we're ArbCom and you're not, fuck you if you can't take a joke or jump through arcane and arbitrary hoops that we set up allegedly to help the case move quicker even though it still takes us months to post this thoroughly unsurprising and uninspired drivel. Eat shit.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Support:

Boilerplate for a reason Asiddeamong (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kirill 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of topic-bans by block

2) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass: {Passing principles}; {Passing findings}; {Passing remedies}; {Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which do not pass: {Failing principles}; {Failing findings}; {Failing remedies}; {Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comment