This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lothar von Richthofen (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 14 September 2010 (Undid revision 384873530 by 71.247.247.55 (talk) stop, child.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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 8 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Standard. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Standard. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. With an implicit emphasis on good faith. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

User Conduct

3) Misplaced Pages's code of conduct, which outlines some of Misplaced Pages's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages that all editors are expected to follow. Even in difficult situations, Misplaced Pages editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, unjustified failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Although I must say I preferred the more concise version. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Then start drafting cases again. :P Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

4. I agree with Kirill that this is overly verbose, even if still correct. Brevity? Wit. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

4) It is potentially harmful to Misplaced Pages when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Misplaced Pages policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Misplaced Pages policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   On rereading, the third sentence here may be understated and a bit of a negative pregnant. "Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group," without more, provides no real evidence at all of bad-faith editing; usually, it simply reflects that one is in agreement with the views of that group. It is only when an editor consistently fails to duly consider the viewpoints, or closedmindedly refuses to address them even in accordance with the principle of due weight, that a problem arises. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. As Brad points out, this is only a problem when editors contravene policy in pursuit of their real-world viewpoint; merely supporting a particular view is not sanctionable in and of itself. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree with Newyorkbrad's comments as well. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Brad,  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. They key words of this principle are "in a manner that contravenes ". As currently worded, it strays too far into implying that division along philosophical lines is problematic in itself; even with the tempering in the last statement. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please feel free to propose an alternate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Collective behavior of blocs of editors (alternate)

4.1) It is harmful to Misplaced Pages when editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Misplaced Pages policy or obstructs consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Misplaced Pages policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Alternative that focuses on the problem without the risk of conflating an editorial position that is defended within policy with its problematic version. — Coren  14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Fine as well. Kirill  21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Either is fine with me, in the case that both are passing, this would be my second choice. Shell 11:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Placeholder comment: Well, this may go a bit too far in a different direction; mere strength of numbers does not guarantee proper consensus as we like to use the term, but it certainly creates some kind of presumption.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

5) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. It is not acceptable to further off-wiki disputes on this project.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Preferred this as a part of the "Purpose of Misplaced Pages" principle. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. This bears repeating. And saying again. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Added P21 to supplement this,  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Casting aspersions

6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Standard. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Although having "reasonable cause" is necessary, I should point out that it is not sufficient. Accusations of misbehavior are best kept to a minimum, and to suitable (dispute resolution) venues: even if they are well founded, they stoke conflict without resolving it. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. It bears repeating "Best kept to a minimum and to suitable dispute resolution venues". This also holds true of past misbehavior which shouldn't be used to bludgeon an editor for the rest of their existence. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Casting aspersions sufficiently blatantly/often is also a breach of WP:NPA,  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

7) Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Misplaced Pages only if they comply with Misplaced Pages's key policies.

Support:

1. Please note that although the committee's including a general principle in a decision suggests that we consider the principle in general to be relevant, it is not itself a finding that every aspect of the principle has been violated by one or more parties to the case. (This general observation applies to some other paragraphs as well.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   I would add that merely believing that a controverted proposition is true or false, without more, does not constitute a conflict of interest in editing an article on that proposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Our conflict of interest guideline implies that most conflicts of interest lead to overly positive non-neutral articles; however, the opposite can be true as well. Editors who have a personal disagreement with an article subject (whether a person or an entity) need to be mindful that there is likely to be at least a perceived conflict of interest in editing such articles, and should seriously consider taking the same steps as recommended in the guideline, either by avoiding the article entirely or posting relevant information to the talk page of the article. It is not in the best interest of the project to have articles written in full or in part by an editor who is known to be involved in a disagreement with the subject of the article. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. If you can't put aside your feelings on a subject and cover all aspects, regardless of your particular views, you should find something else to edit. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not as currently worded as it conflates and confuses advocacy with conflict of interest. Only the former is a problem, the latter is suitably mitigated by disclosure and adhering to the neutral point of view and our other policies. There is, of course, a much greater danger of straying into advocacy when one is close to the subject; but that means greater care should be taken not that there is necessarily a problem. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please feel free to propose an alternate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Advocacy

7.1) Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Misplaced Pages only if they comply with Misplaced Pages's key policies.

Support:

1. Version that does not refer to COI. Advocacy is made no worse by the presence of a conflict of interest, nor better in its absence. (refer to my opposition comments to 7). — Coren  14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Equal preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Fine as well, though I disagree with the assertion that a conflict of interest cannot make advocacy worse. Kirill  21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   How so? It certainly makes it more likely, but how worse? — Coren  11:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Actually, I feel that advocacy in the face of a conflict of interest, where the editor likely has something to gain, is a significant issue and deserves an explicit mention. Conlifct of interest, however, should not be confused with editors working in their field of expertise. Shell 11:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Biographies of living people

8) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   I would add that as a general matter, some of our most troubling BLP incidents (putting aside blatant defamations and the like) have arisen when articles about subjects of borderline notability have been created or principally edited by the intellectual or ideological opponents of the BLP subject. Experience has shown that this is one way that undue weight becomes given to negative or controversial aspects of the subject's life and work, even when it is remote from the subject's primary areas of notability or expertise. (This problem is by no means limited to, or even primarily found in, the climate change area; it is a more widespread issue.) That is not to say that the BLP of an intellectual or a commentator should be a whitewash, nor certainly that BLPs may only be edited by the subject's friends and family. Nonetheless, it is my view that the practice described in my first sentence should generally be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Per Newyorkbrad and my comments in Principle #7 above. As well, BLPs should be focused on the subject of the article and should not be used as a means to document larger events or describe in detail the principles upon which their work rests; for example, an article about a scientist should briefly describe their key contributions to the field, with wikilinks and other pointers leading the reader to a more detailed explanation of the science. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. I completely agree with the ideas that Collect, Ronnotel and Carcharoth mentioned: you shouldn't edit a biography unless you're prepared to consider the article as a whole rather than simply inserting a tidbit of information or your particular viewpoint. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Encyclopedic coverage of science

9) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   In this context, a distinction is to to be drawn between an article or portion of an article that sets out to describe the current scientific consensus on an issue, and one that sets out to describe popular attitudes or political aspects surrounding the issue. In a hypothetical example, if 100% of qualified scientists believe X, but 50% of the general population believes X and 50% believes not-X, the science article or discussion should concentrate on X but the more general article should report that some people believe not-X and discuss why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Related discussion to this comment on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I concur that there is a fundamental difference between articles that are focused on a scientific principle or theory, which should focus on mainstream scientific thought; and those that discuss the social, political, or cultural perceptions and impacts of those scientific principles or theories, which may include more detail on other theories or potential responses. One must also be mindful of the fact that scientific consensus can change as well; it is within living memory that scientists proclaimed that smoking had health benefits and formula was better for babies than was breast milk. (That is not to say that scientific consensus will change on the point that the earth's climate is changing.) Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. It's important to note that "recognizing significant alternate viewpoints" does not mean giving them equal prominence or shoring up their credibility to place them on equal footing. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad and Coren both made important points here. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Undue weight

10) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Quantitatively and qualitatively. Even if the vast majority of electrical engineers believe the moon is made of cheese, this should not warrant more than a footnote in Moon (if that). — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing

11) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Although verifiability is not technically one of the five pillars in its own right. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Copyedited to fix (added "at the heart of"); does this help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

4. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editing

12) Disruptive editing, which can include persistent vandalism, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Misplaced Pages behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blocking and Banning

13) The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated with good faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. This is particularly important when that viewpoint is one that is widely held in the population (regardless of accuracy). — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

14) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with administrator status; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators working in particularly contentious areas should model the behaviour they expect of editors whose actions they are reviewing, and should also be open to the need to periodically step away from contentious areas.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Second choice, defer to 14.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   How about a formulation combining both elements of 14 and 14.1? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)First choice; I prefer the emphasis on modeling behaviour. Risker (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Prefer 14.1.  Roger Davies 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators working in contentious areas

14.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community, are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies, and are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with administrator status; administrators are not expected to be perfect. When working in stressful and contentious areas, administrators should consider periodically taking time out from the area of contention lest their own conduct inadvertently descend to the level for which they would sanction others.

Support:

1. First choice. The thrust I think is clearer here, I think  Roger Davies 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   See my comment under 14. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Second choice. Risker (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. First choice. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Considerably clearer alternative. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
6. First choice. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator involvement - general

15) The purpose of defining involvement is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Bias in a topic area can result from things like editing the topic and having strong views even without editing the topic.

Editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they are involved. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Involved admins. For example, an administrator may be deemed too "involved" to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue, or if the issue arises from a content dispute and the administrator is active in editing the article that is the subject of the dispute.

However, the policy also notes that "one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement consists of minor or obvious edits that do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." There will always be borderline cases; in general, if an administrator is not sure whether he or she would be considered "involved" or not, the better practice is to draw the situation to the attention of other administrators to resolve, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with Kirill's point. See last sentence of next paragraph, and please feel free to propose adding another sentence here or there for emphasis if you think it would help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Added first para about the purpose of defining involvement. Feel free to tweak or make an alt proposal to this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. But this is general guidance, and is not meant to empower editors to arbitrarily chase administrators away from a dispute by claiming that they are "involved". Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Indeed, this should not be used as a method of "admin shopping" by sucessively declaring involved administrators until one that is more sympathetic is found. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. With emphasis on the difference between acting in an editorial capacity in an topic area and acting in an administrative capacity. The first, regardless of involvement in content disputes is incompatible with "uninvolved" status. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6. With trivial c/e.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator involvement - enforcement matters

16) In the context of arbitration enforcement, which is analogous to enforcement of the community sanctions at issue in this case, the Arbitration Committee has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Of course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered "involved" with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor.

However, an administrator's taking enforcement action against an editor under an arbitration or community-sanctions decision is not considered to be participation in a dispute that disqualifies the administrator from addressing later misconduct by that editor. It also is unacceptable for an editor to deliberately pick a quarrel with an administrator for the purpose of provoking the administrator into saying or doing something that will make him or her "involved."

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   A valid issue raised by several commenters on the talkpage is whether "has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict" is too broad. What if the content dispute was not on the particular area in dispute, but on an unrelated aspect within the broader area of climate change (or whatever), and it occurred long ago? I am open to the need for a rewording of the principle, but since it is founded upon formulations that we have used before, solicit input from my colleagues before doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I too would consider some alternative or more expansive wording here, although this is indeed based on prior formulations. There can be a reasonable apprehension of bias if an administrator is a significant contributor to the content area, even if the administrator has not been involved in content disputes in the past. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Perhaps changing the idea of "content disputes" to the broader "editorial involvement"; especially in contentious areas, significant involvement in editing (i.e. not just minor copy editing) can lead to a reasonable concern of bias. The second paragraph is an equally important point. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I also agree that this is too widely formulated, but to the point of making it harmful. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please feel free to pitch in on the effort to reformulate satisfactorily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Administrator participation in enforcement

17) There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate on arbitration enforcement or community sanctions enforcement versus having a larger number of administrators do so. Having a handful of administrators handle enforcement requests helps ensure that these administrators are familiar with enforcement policies and procedures and come to learn the issues associated with enforcement problems that arise in a particular case. On the other hand, as the same administrators handle multiple enforcement requests, they may increasingly be subject to accusations of "involvement" or bias and prejudgment based on their earlier actions in the same case.

In general, as more administrators participate in enforcement of a decision and develop the relevant expertise, the less necessary it will be for an administrator who might be arguably or borderline "involved" to handle an enforcement request. Conversely, it is understandable that if other qualified administrators are not available to handle the requests, then those who are willing to address them, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   I have considered the point made by several commenters on the talkpage that "self-selection" of administrators to work on AE matters can lead to problems, especially when only a small number of admins choose to work in this area. (That is not a criticism of those who have done so to this point.) However, I haven't seen a good solution offered to the problem; despite one suggestion made by a commenter, we have no mechanism for "drafting" administrators or anyone else to work on one area of the project rather than another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I too note the issues of self-selection; however, as with any other administrator task, there is no requirement that administrators "rotate through" different areas, and I'm not entirely certain it would be a good idea to have an administrator whose personal area of competence is template design, AIV, or MediaWiki maintenance mandated to deal with the very different area of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. A better method for encouraging administrator participation in enforcement is desirable, but is probably beyond the scope of this case. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. There were some good thoughts about how to encourage more admins to become involved in helping with these requests; I hope the community keeps talking about these ideas (or new ones). Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Right to vanish

18) The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Misplaced Pages: the actual process is handled by a bureaucrat and is granted at their discretion. Because of the technical processes involved, it is a much more extreme step than simply tagging a user page with the {{retired}} template. Editors wishing to return to editing at some distant future date after exercising their right to vanish are expected either to notify the Arbitration Committee by email of their intention prior to their resumption of editing or prominently link their new account to their old one.

Support:

1. Offered here for clarification. Alternatives welcome.  Roger Davies 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Second choice. Also c/e "new one" > "new account".  Roger Davies 03:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Kirill  16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Editors who exercise their right to vanish are expected to not return to editing in the future, near or distant. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. No, RTV is permanent. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Right to vanish (alternate)

18.1) The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Misplaced Pages. It is not intended as a temporary leave or absence, or as a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction over one's past behavior. Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied.

Support:

1. RTV is arguably one of the most misused processes on Misplaced Pages. It's the right to leave for good; if you don't, then none of the provisions (such as deleting past traces, renaming) apply and are rightfully undone. Likewise, it's not a "get out of jail free" card: any sactions that would have applied still will upon the editor's return and editors that leave in this manner should understand that decision may still be taken in absentia. — Coren  22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice. Kirill  23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice: more crystallised than (18).  Roger Davies 03:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. There may be special circumstances when a returning user's previous identity should not be widely revealed for privacy or similar reasons. (This is a general formulation, not one directed specifically at any user involved in this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
   • Although in that case, the obfuscation would have been done as a privacy matter and not as an elective application of RTV, wouldn't it? — Coren  13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
     • Put aside this case, one way or another, for a moment, because principles are generalities. It happens from time to time that an editor feels he must leave Misplaced Pages for an external reason, thinking the departure will be permanent, and later he or she finds that there is no longer a reason or desire to stay away. I don't want to encourage flippant or ill-considered announcements of permanent departures, whether designated as retirement or RtV or whatever, but neither do I want to create an atmosphere where editors who leave and return are banded as presumptive miscreants. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Though I take Newyorkbrad's point, I think privacy issues are the rare exception rather than the rule. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Detrimental editing

19) The core purpose of the Misplaced Pages project is to create a high-quality 💕. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from making them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Certain actions in this dispute have proven unhelpful and need to stop, irrespective of the good faith of those undertaking them. Kirill  17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. With minor c/e.  Roger Davies 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct on arbitration pages

20) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. The Committee has not handled this case perfectly by a long chalk, but much of the user conduct on the case pages has been wretched. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. True enough, although, as Brad points out, some of the fault in this case lies with us. Kirill  21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  11:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
5. I've got to disagree with Newyorkbrad here a teeny bit - lack of decorum and inappropriate use of case pages caused some of the delay and difficulty the Arbs had in getting the case together. Frankly, the evidence page is nigh useless with all the editorializing and it just goes downhill from there. I have greatly appreciated the more constructive discussion and proposals on the proposed decision talk page. Shell 12:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Battlefield editing

21) Misplaced Pages is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Use of the site to pursue personal feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals. and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the use of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. This probably needs spelling out (although alluded to in various principles above).  Roger Davies 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't think this is useful as a principle on its own, but it does no harm and is true enough. — Coren  15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
4. This has been a significant problem in the topic area. Shell 12:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enough is enough

22) When all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community.

Support:

1. Standard (a.k.a. "At wit's end", tweaked).  Roger Davies 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. True as a principle; a separate question is whether we will need to apply the principle to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3. That's generally true, and the rationale behind the occasional "strong" ArbCom measures (although not necessarily draconian per se). — Coren  15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute revolves around Misplaced Pages's coverage of climate change. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favorably by both internal and external mechanisms, the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes requiring the Committee's attention. The dispute has also spilled into off-wiki venues, especially blogs, which in turn have been brought on-wiki.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Second choice, prefer 1.1 per Rlevse, and see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice.  Roger Davies 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Equal choice with 1.1 (which see). — Coren  23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute (1.1)

1.1) This dispute revolves around Misplaced Pages's coverage of climate change. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favorably by both internal and external mechanisms, the editing environment is a contentious extension of real world disputes and has resulted in a range of intractable disputes requiring the Committee's attention. The on-wiki disputes have also become intermingled with off-wiki venues, especially blogs.

Support:

First choice to incorporate real world roots. Feel free to tweak. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. First choice; Rlevse's change is fine. More specifically, the primary issue at hand is the thesis that human activities leading to increases in carbon emissions have resulted or are resulting anthropogenic global warming, and what the effects of such warming have been or are likely to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice.  Roger Davies 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. First choice. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Equal choice with 1. It does not seem evident that contention in that editing area is entirely driven by the external conflict spilling over; we have our own internal personality and political conflicts that contribute. Nevertheless, both formulation are appropriate. — Coren  23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
6. First choice. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nature and extent of dispute

2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms.

Support:

1. This is completely true, but more could be said. Many scientists, political leaders, and others assert that anthropogenic global warming represents a grave and growing threat to the lives and well-being of billions of people and endangers the very physical existence of many countries and communities. Many who deny the existence of sustained anthopogenic global warming assert that existing or proposed measures to reduce carbon emissions themselves constitute a threat to human freedom and well-being. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of imperative public importance provides a powerful test of whether the Wiki collaborative editing model is viable in such an area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Discussion relating to this comment on my (not the case) talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Both true and, I think, relevant: as the relative importance (in magnitude) of the dispute in the general world increases, so will the stridentness and conviction of those who edit on-wiki regarding that topic; this is a source of much excesses and embittered battles such as we are seeing in the conflict area today. — Coren  23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Although real life pertinance may be par for the course in many cases we handle, it's still worth mentioning.  Roger Davies 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. True, but not particularly relevant; almost every dispute of this magnitude that reaches us has substantial real-world significance. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   If you think that, you try explaining the Date delinking case to an outsider sometime.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   Hence "almost"; but I think this is quite reasonably applied to the wide variety of national and ethnic disputes we handle, for example. Kirill  21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Climate change probation

3) Following numerous disputes regarding user conduct in the area of conflict, the community developed a series of community-based discretionary sanctions that administrators were authorized to apply to editors who edited disruptively or violated user conduct policies within this topic area. A special community sanctions noticeboard was created for this purpose on 1 January 2010 and has to date addressed more than 120 reported violations of behavioral or core editing policies. This general approach to addressing conduct issues in a particular topic area has been utilized in several Arbitration Committee decisions in the past, but was an innovation here when adopted at the community level. In its months of operation, this sanctions noticeboard has successfully resolved many of the reports brought before it, but questions have been raised from time to time about procedural and other issues concerning its operation.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disputes regarding administrator involvement

4) During operation of the Climate change sanctions noticeboards, bitter disputes have arisen concerning whether administrators Lar and Stephan Schulz are "involved" in the global warming/climate change topic area to the extent that they should not participate as administrators in ruling or commenting on sanctions requests.

Support:

1. I have deleted the last sentence of the proposal as posted, which stated that "the disputes were exacerbated because no clear definition of 'involved' had been agreed upon for this purpose." The accuracy of this sentence has been questioned on the talkpage, and it is not necessary to our findings and conclusions. Also added "or commenting" after "ruling" per an accurate talkpage observation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. I will note that similar but less sustained objections have been raised with respect to other administrators as well, although most of the objections were focused on these two administrators. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

5) Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

Support:

1. More concisely: Scibaby has been a big problem that we need to continue to deal with, but not everyone who agrees with Scibaby is Scibaby. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   I find bizarre the suggestion repeated several times on the talkpage that this decision is "pro-Scibaby." Absolutely nothing in it is intended by any of the drafters to be taken in that fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   A bit of explanation about the percentages noted above. The higher number (up to 40%) was calculated about a year ago, when Arbcom requested that the AUSC review existing Scibaby blocks, and includes historical information and range blocks. The lower number is the estimate from several checkusers who have carried out Scibaby checks in roughly the past six months, and also includes range blocks. In other words, following an intensive review of practices, the number of false positives was significantly reduced and range blocks were removed or narrowed, resulting in a lower but non-negligible false positive rate. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

3. But this doesn't say much in and of itself. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
5. As with other contentious areas, it's important to be careful that sockpuppets are truly sockpuppets and not other editors with similar views. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring on Climate Change related articles

6) During the course of this arbitration case, the following articles required full page protection due to edit warring.

• Lawrence Solomon (10 July 2010 for one week)
• Hockey stick controversy (10 July 2010 for one week)
• The Hockey Stick Illusion, (15 July 2010 for one week, 1 August 2010 for one month)
• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (21 July 2010 for one week with protection lifted on 27 July 2010, then 27 July 2010 indefinite but got changed to one month and then 29 August 2010, 1 1/2 days after protection ended, for two months)
• Michael E. Mann (5 August 2010 for one week)
• Robert Watson (scientist) (16 July 2010 for one week)
• Soon and Baliunas controversy (31 August 2010 for 4 days)
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (03 September 2010 for 2 weeks)
• The Gore Effect (04 September 2010 for 1 week)

Four of the nine articles involved in the twelve edit wars are biographies of living people. These four articles accounted for six of the twelve edit wars. Almost 30 editors were involved in the twelve edit wars that resulted in these page protections; of these editors those involved in four or more of the edit wars are: WMC – 11, Marknutley – 9, ChrisO – 6, Cla68 – 5, ATren – 4, Verbal -4.

Support:

1. Factual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   Reviewing per a request on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Second choice, prefer 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2. While I realize there's been concerns about this on the talk page, I think the point is that currently, there is an overwhelming tendency for content disputes in this topic area to devolve into edit wars. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   Note: Second choice. Shell 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Second choice, prefer 6.1. Risker (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. More inclined to abstain but opposing to stop this passing by default along with 6.1.  Roger Davies 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. That there is pervasive edit-warring is obvious; but I'm not convinced that counting the number of edit wars in which an editor has become involved is a useful statistic. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree with Kirill that such statistics, while factual, are of unclear usefulness. — Coren  23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Climate change related articles (alternate)

6.1) Reflecting the contentious and uncollaborative atmosphere surrounding Climate change related articles, the articles have been the frequent subject of edit-warring, often rising to the level that page protection has been necessary. Episodes of edit-warring requiring protection, including several parties to the case, have continued even while this arbitration case was pending.

Support:

1. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Short, to the point, and factual. — Coren  11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Risker (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Better wording. First choice. Shell 16:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

7) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole - which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC's regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.

Support:

1. Regardless of the omissions, this is necessary background (as Brad mentions below), if only to illustrate that WMC is well aware of the expected standards of behavior within this project. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Rather than objecting, I think it would be worth it to fix the wording per Newyorkbrad's notes. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Supporting, with Brad's corrections.  Roger Davies 11:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The formulation here is probably okay as factual background, now that some omissions that we should not have let slip through when we posted the proposed decision, such as the facts that the 2005 remedy was overturned and that the 2008 RfC was never certified, have been corrected. However, not all the matters mentioned, such as the case involving Geogre and Giano in 2008, have much to do with the issues before us; the counterargument is that mentioning that case with the others helps show that Dr. Connolley has been a party to enough cases before this committee that he is or should be well familiar with the behavior we expect to see from experienced editors. And I opposed our action desysopping him in the Abd case, but I can hardly deny that it occurred. Tentative vote pending further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Not convinced that this is necessary to note. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic

8) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples: )

This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: , , ) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page. ] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page. After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.

Support:

1. With regret, I must support the thrust of the finding here, though I don't endorse each and every diff offered in support of it. As noted above, the committee desysopped William M. Connolley last year. (Prior to that, with all his contentiousness, he had done a lot of good work as an administrator. For many years, for example, he was the most active admin on the highly contentious 3RR board; my impression, though it is purely anecdotal and I don't rely on it for my vote, is that he tended toward fairly strict enforcement of the rules limiting edit-warring.) It is well-known that Dr. Connolley found the desysopping unfair and unsupported; in his view, he had simply been defending another scientific article (Cold fusion) from unscientific POV pushing, and the other party to the case had, to an extent, been deliberately provoking him. In any event, my take on the situation is that Dr. Connolley reacted to the desysopping with something of an air of "nothing left to lose." Since then, he has given much more direct and frequent vent to some of his feelings about those he regards as unscientific editors than our civility norms suggest is appropriate on-wiki. That needs to stop, or at least be toned down significantly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
4. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley has shown Ownership

9) William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment. (Selection of representative examples: )

Support:

Oppose:

1. We shouldn't conflate the two issues here; a lack of collegiality is one thing, but "ownership" is so vague as to be almost meaningless, particularly when one is talking about someone heavily active throughout the topic area. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. That's poorly worded at best. In this particular case, it's clear that WMC is behaving in a way consistent with someone who feels he protects the articles against a specific point of view, and not against someone who protects them out of a misguided sense of ownership as author. This is not much better, as behavior goes, but it's not what this finding tries to say. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. The other findings should be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Other findings hit on the issues better. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 11:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

William M. Connolley BLP violations

10) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements. (Selection of representative examples: BLPN discussion )

Support:

1. I think this is a textbook case of BLP violation: editing a biography with a clear objective of discrediting its subject. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Second choice, prefer 10.1. Risker (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice. I also prefer 10.1.  Roger Davies 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I see little reason for us to delve into the minutiae of content here. Some of these are likely BLP violations, but we're hardly in a position to rule on each without examining the sources in this field in some detail. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Prefer 10.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons

10.1) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.

Support:

1. Focusing on the overall picture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Fair as a general sentiment. Kirill  05:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   As a note, I chose this particular wording because I felt there were more issues than obvious BLP violations. Edits over time which give undue weight or slowly skew a BLP in a certain direction are just as harmful as those we recognize on sight with a single diff. Shell 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

4. A little wishy washy, but accurate nonetheless. Equal preference to 10. — Coren  13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   The purpose of this proposal is to allow us to move forward without having to adjudicate each of the individual diffs, given that we agree about the overall trend, thereby allowing us to reach a majority determination—just as you (Coren) noted on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   Well, yes, hence my support.  :-) — Coren  11:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

5. First choice. Risker (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
6. First choice,  Roger Davies 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

11) Polargeo requested enforcement against himself regarding editing in the topic area on April 29, 2010, However, he soon continued to make disparaging remarks about others. , , , . He was advised to cease this behavior on 4 May 2010. On 21 July 2010 he recused himself from a Request for Enforcement on Lar and then reverted the closing by an uninvolved admin when two other uninvolved admins stated they felt it should be closed: ,

Support:

1. While I agree with Coren that the heading should likely be changed, there are problems here with personal attacks and problematic comments such as those seen on the talk page of this decision. Polargeo should consider focusing less on the behavior of contributors except in cases where legitimate dispute resolution requires it. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Despite the mitigating factors he notes on the talkpage, I find with regret that Polargeo has been unhelpfully uncivil in more than isolated instances. However, I do not find in these diffs sufficient evidence of "disruption," a term we typically reserve for describing long-term interference with the proper functioning of our processes, and therefore cannot support this wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Brad; this is borderline for an arbitration finding, although there's obviously unhelpful conduct here. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Brad.  Roger Davies 11:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I see what I would term clear personal attacks, and incivility, but I cannot support this finding as titled (as Brad mentions above, "disruption" is a term of art on Misplaced Pages that applies only to much more severe continued misbehavior). — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

12) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) has engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing across a range of articles. These behaviours include, but are not limited to, personal attacks (PA), use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox and battleground, edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, and abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings and blocks, as well as a prior topic ban to Barack Obama and a Global Warming ban that was to end on 8 August 2010, but was reset due to continued soapboxing and will now expire on 3 November 2010. (Selection of representative examples: (admin only, BLP violation), (PA, soapboxing), (soapboxing), (PA), (PA), (soapboxing), PA, failure to assume good faith), (PA). The next three diffs come from the current case pages and represent the use of a dispute resolution forum to forward his personal agenda; he was already topic-banned prior to the acceptance of the case: , , (see collapse box mid-thread))

Support:

1. Broadly correct. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Kirill, this is "broadly correct," though I don't agree that every one of the diffs listed represents misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Kirill,  Roger Davies 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley disruptive behavior

13) Marknutley (talk · contribs) has engaged in a long series of disruptive behavior, including biography of living person (BLP) violations, creation of point-of-view forks (POV forks), copyright violations, incivility, incorrect interpretation and misuse of source material including improper use of blogs and primary sources, edit-warring, personal attacks (PA), and attempts to override consensus content decisions. (Selection of representative examples: (BLP), (BLP, sourcing), (BLP, sourcing), (BLP, sourcing), (POV fork), (PA), (PA), (PA), (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), (PA), (assumption of bad faith), (copyright violations), (synthesis))

Since the initiation of the Climate Change general sanctions, he has been subject to multiple sanctions related to his behaviour in this topic area:

• Multiple blocks for edit-warring, copyright violation, and violation of 1-RR restrictions
• Sourcing parole (, )
• Civility parole ()

Support:

1. Broadly correct. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Kirill, though I don't agree that each and every one of the diffs cited is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Kirill.  Roger Davies 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar blocks William M. Connolley

14) User:Lar blocked User:William M. Connolley on May 18, 2010 for reinserting material into Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement's uninvolved admin section. User:2over0 unblocked User:William M. Connolley 44 minutes later (16 minutes prior to expiration) without any attempt to contact User:Lar. This resulted in an ANI thread filed by 20ver0 and spilled over into an ongoing RFC against Lar that was certified by User:William M. Connolley and User:Polargeo. WMC's block log, ANI thread, , , , , ,

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think a one-hour block from four months ago requires a finding, especially when 2over0 is not mentioned anywhere else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   The problem is the unblock was pointless and only served to exacerbate an already highly contentious area. Sixteen minutes were not near worth the problems this caused and it all could have been easily avoided. This finding of fact is needed for the remedy. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   (comment copied from related remedy below) It was an isolated incident from four months ago, and 2over0 is no longer even involved in this topic area. See relevant comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Per Brad, doesn't require a separate finding. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. I'm not convinced this needs a finding either.  Roger Davies 11:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Rlevse is correct that this was an inflammatory incident, but I also agree that it is isolated enough and sufficiently long ago that it has little relevance to the current case. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. This certainly was an issue but absent a pattern that this relates to, the finding probably isn't necessary. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lar and Jehochman revert war

15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman revert-warred over the closure of an enforcement request at WP:GS/CC/RE:

• 19:11, 24 Feb 2010 Jehochman closes enforcement request
• 00:25, 25 Feb 2010 Lar reverts the closure without discussing it with Jehochman
• 17:13, 25 Feb 2010 Jehochman re-closes the request, some discussion had occurred
• 17:26, 25 Feb 2010 Lar re-reverts Jehochman's re-closure
• 06:34 ff, 26 Feb 2010 Related thread here; Lar concluded: "So did I set an example? Yes, a good one, in my view."

Support:

Some say this is a revert war instead of a wheel-war since the technical use of the bit was not involved, either term works for me. While there was discussion in the middle portion, both parties should have left this to others after the 00:25 edit by one of the parties. Note the 17:26 edit clearly shows the issue wasn't settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unless there is more to this, I don't think we need a finding on an isolated incident that occurred six months ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Brad. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Brad,  Roger Davies 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per 14. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. More silliness, but doesn't need it's own finding. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U on Lar

16) User:Lar was the subject of an RFC on whether he is an involved admin in the Climate Change topic during April - June 2010. The debate on that issue has continued on several pages since that time.

Support:

1. Background. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Factual enough. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Not exactly as I would phrase it, but all right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar comments, actions, and mindset

17) User:Lar has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin: , , , , , , , , , ,

Support:

1. Broadly correct, although some of these are borderline. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Correct in the main. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. In general, Lar's comments when dealing with this topic area have been less than optimal. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions

18) User:Stephan Schulz heavily edits the Climate Change articles and also carries out admin actions in the area: protects, deletes, blocks, contribs

Support:

Granting that it's been some months since the last admin action, he's still taken admin actions and also edits, and therefore is involved, hence this finding is necessary. He can't switch back and forth between editing and admin actions, which is the epitome of involvement and in a very contentious area to boot, and then go use the uninvolved admin sections for commenting. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer an alternative proposal here that hopefully will satisfy both of us. Let me give some thought to the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unless I am misreading the logs, I see no actual administrator actions by Stephan Schulz in this topic area in at least the last six months. Rather, I believe the controversy surrounds whether Stephan Schulz should be commenting in discussions on the Climate change noticeboard in the "uninvolved administrator" section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   Offering 18.1 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Per Brad. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Prefer 18.1 Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Prefer 18.1.  Roger Davies 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Administrator participation by Stephan Schulz

18.1) Stephan Schulz, an administrator, has participated significantly in editing and discussing content issues on articles relating to Climate change. He formerly also performed certain administrator actions relating to these articles, but has not done so in several months. Stephan Schulz has frequently commented on sanctions requests on the Climate change sanctions noticeboard in the section reserved for discussion by "uninvolved administrators." Given his editorial role relating to this topic area, we conclude that he should not do so.

Support:

1. Proposed in lieu of 18. See also the related remedy below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Correct, but last statement stricken as it lies accidentally in the wrong section (this is a finding, not a remedy). — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I don't actually agree; it's just a matter of phrasing, as I could equally have written "even though he is not an uninvolved administrator as defined in this decision" which would come to the exact some thing. Perhaps we should make that change, but I suppose we have enough challenges remaining in closing this case without nitpicking this point, so I will accept Coren's amendment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

3. After Coren's edit. Kirill  00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

The last sentence here is really a remedy, not a finding. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO's previous arbcom sanctions

19) User:ChrisO has been sanctioned times in four previous arbcom cases: warned for edit warring, inappropriate use of admin tools, and behavior in the Kosovo case, admonished in the Israeli apartheid case, banned from BLPs and use of admin tools within the Scientology topic, admonished in the Macedonia 2 case, desysopped for long-term editing and behavior issues in Macedonia 2.

Support:

1. For the record,  Roger Davies 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Correct for the record. viz. my rationale on principle 18.1 regarding the fact that ChrisO has invoked right to vanish. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. ChrisO has recently left the project. Although we have discretion to issue findings and remedies about a departed editor (typically, in anticipation of the possibility that he or she will return to the project and especially when the user is an administrator), I perceive no need to do so in this instance. (This conclusion makes it unnecessary to raise any concerns regarding the finding's description of the prior cases.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Additional discussion of my position on the proposals relating to ChrisO is on the talkpage here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   See also new remedy proposal 21.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Correct as background, but I'm not convinced it's particularly useful here. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has made personal attacks

20) User:ChrisO has made personal attacks against other users: , "spelling this out for the hard of thinking", "pig-headed obstinacy", "reply to nut markley", "Booker is a crank, put simply" (edit summary), "Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from."

Support:

1. For the record.  Roger Davies 04:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Correct for the record. viz. my rationale on principle 18.1 regarding the fact that ChrisO has invoked right to vanish. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comment on finding 19. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Personalization of dispute

21) A number of editors involved in this dispute have—possibly through no fault of their own—become focal points for the debate, to the extent that their presence causes discussion to revolve around their personalities and editing histories, rather than the content actually being debated.

Support:

1. A major part of the problem here. Kirill  18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. That's true, and tends to be true in any long term conflict where some charismatic and determined editors end up entrenched. — Coren  00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Although this is not to be taken as suggesting that it would be acceptable to try to force a properly behaving editor out of an area by ganging up the editor and making him or her the focus of a trumped-up controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. As Newyorkbrad says, this is to say that others should not focus on these editors not that these editors should not edit in the topic area. Shell 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Minor4th's battlefield conduct

22) Minor4th (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring , , , , , , , , and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, , , .

Support:

1. Shell 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Clearly. — Coren  01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

ATren's battlefield conduct

23) ATren (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, , , , , , .

Support:

1. Shell 08:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Albeit, admittedly, to a considerably lesser degree than can be seen in some other findings. — Coren  15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   Absolutely; it's important to note in these individual findings that diffs for some editors span a period of months while for others it's a period of weeks or even days and this difference should affect remedies. Shell 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

3.  Roger Davies 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hipocrite's battlefield conduct

24) Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring , , , and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, , , , .

Support:

1. Shell 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. — Coren  15:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 12:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cla68's battlefield conduct

25) Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,, ,, ,,, inappropriate use of sources , , and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, , , .

Support:

1. Shell 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. With a note that, as far as I am concerned, misuse of sources is the graver of the three. That being said, the current diffs refer to a single incident and do not overwhelm the rest. — Coren  16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. {recused)  Roger Davies 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey's battlefield conduct

26) Scjessey (talk · contribs) has helped create the battleground atmosphere with a string of bellicose, polemic and uncivil comments in the run up to this case;, , , , , , , , , , , and a series of personal attacks during the course of it., , ,

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 10:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

GregJackP's disruptive behavior

27) GregJackP (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring,,, inappropriate use of sources,,, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality, , , , ,.

Support:

1. Shell 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

1. This may need tweaking to conform with the current wording of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy. With regard to the last sentence, I am able to support because the language chosen makes clear that any such action would be discretionary rather than mandatory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Equal preference to 1.1 on the procedural/drafting point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Note that this largely conforms to the current version of the "standard wording", but compacts it into a single remedy rather than having a comparatively unclear page that is subject to change without notice to the editors in the affected area. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. This or 1.1 is acceptable. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice.  Roger Davies 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. If we're going to impose a standard remedy, then we should do so explicitly, rather than forcing administrators to read through half a page of text to determine whether the remedy is, in fact, the standard one. Kirill  16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. In favor of the explicit alternative below. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

1.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles relating to climate change, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Make the standard remedy explicit. Kirill  16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Equal preference to 1 on the procedural/drafting point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Either this or 1 is fine. I have less concern that the wording of the page will be a problem, assuming that we won't be allowing random edits to the page. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. First choice.  Roger Davies 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As the wording on that page changes, editors in affected areas will have no way of knowing that the "rules" have changed. This will also lead to disputes about whether the current wording of the so-called standard discretionary sanctions, or the one in effect at the time of the decision, will hold sway. I don't see this as a net benefit. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   In theory, that page is an extension of our decisions and should be very static. I would expect that any change we make to it should be properly announced. — Coren  13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   Properly announced how? These sanctions cover hundreds of pages and potentially apply to thousands of editors. Most of them don't watch WP:AN or the village pumps, and even fewer of them watch arbitration pages. The "standard" sanctions have changed to some extent every time that the Committee has used them, so they're hardly standard. Risker (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I think we should be trying to solve the divergent wording problem by standardizing, then, rather than by introducing yet another variant. Kirill  20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not sure that the goalposts here would move any more than they do when policy pages change. The way forward is probably to ensure that changes to the standard discretionary sanctions pages are only made by motion of the Committee and that these are announced on WP:AC/N etc.  Roger Davies 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded

2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement (AE). However, any discussions already pending on the existing noticeboard when this case closes should continue to a result, and need not be re-started or moved to AE.

Support:

1. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who created and have worked on the separate Climate change sanctions noticeboard, but believe that at this point, it is in everyone's interest to fold it into the broader framework of arbitration enforcement. As discussed below, for best results we will of course need for a greater number of experienced administrators to participate on AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Procedural. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Good try, didn't work. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 04:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley banned

3.1) User:William M. Connolley is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for six months for long-term violations of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I have not yet finalized my thinking on the editor-specific remedies, but I will not be supporting this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Overkill. While there was significant misbehavior, it never rises to the level warranting a site ban. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Site ban not needed. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Too much. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

(Please note that some of the remedy proposals here are alternatives.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)

3.2) User:William M. Connolley is banned from all Climate Change articles, broadly construed, for one year. He may edit their talk pages. This editing restriction specifically includes modification of talk page edits made by any other user, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley's user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.

Support:

1. Since polite requests aren't going to work. Kirill  07:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Overkill in this case. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)

4) User:William M. Connolley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change.

Support:

1. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Since polite requests aren't going to work. Kirill  07:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

William M. Connolley restricted

5) User:William M. Connolley is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil remarks, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or violations of WP:BLP, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. This editing restriction specifically includes modification or removal of talk page edits made by any other user, including inserting his comments inside another user's comments, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley's user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. We have a long history of civility paroles to have been able to determine without a doubt that they just do not work. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Unfortunately these rulings are almost never used in the spirit that they were intended and subject to constant warring over their interpretation. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Polargeo admonished

6) User:Polargeo is strongly admonished for personal attacks and disruption.

Support:

1. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust banned

7) User:Thegoodlocust is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for six months for long-term disruption.

Support:

1. First choice. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Third choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No reason for a full ban, given the limited scope of the problem. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust topic banned (climate change)

7.1) User:Thegoodlocust is banned from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for one year.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust topic banned (climate change)

7.2) User:Thegoodlocust is indefinitely banned from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley banned

8.1) User:Marknutley is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for six months for long-term disruption.

Support:

Oppose:

1. No reason for a full ban, given the limited scope of the problem. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Marknutley topic banned (climate change)

8.2) User:Marknutley is banned from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for one year.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley topic banned (climate change)

8.3) User:Marknutley is indefinitely banned from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. FirstSecond choice. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice. I don't think this raises quite to the level of an indefinite remedy. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley withdraws by mutual consent

8.4) Marknutley has consented () to a binding six-month withdrawal from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. First choice, since the opportunity presents itself. Kirill  07:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. It's appreciated, but a bit too late for such a short withdrawl. If things significantly improve, Marknutley can ask for an amendment allowing him to return to editing for either of the above options. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Marknutley topic-banned (BLP)

9) User:Marknutley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change.

Support:

1. iff all of 8 fails. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Only if all of 8 fails. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Redundant to R#8.2. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Use of blogs

10) All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs should not be used as references except in very limited circumstances (such as discussions of the blogs themselves). This is especially important when the blog is cited as a source for a disputed statement concerning a living person.

Support:

1. Copyedited, added parenthetical explanation in first sentence, added second second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Just a reminder of standard policy. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Project-wide policies remain in effect

11) Editors and administrators are reminded that discretionary sanctions are intended to supplement, not supersede, existing project-wide editorial and behavioural policies. In circumstances where community or administrator intervention would be appropriate, such intervention remains appropriate whether or not it would also fall under the purview of the discretionary sanctions.

Support:

1. I'm not sure the remedy proposals are in a logical order at this point, but meh. Minor copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of Living Persons

12) Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article. Edit-warring, poor-quality sourcing, unsourced negative or controversial information, inclusion within the article of material more appropriate for a different article, and unbalanced coverage within the article, are unacceptable. Similarly, material about living people placed into other articles should be held to the same high standards of sourcing, tone, relevance and balance.

Support:

1. (Although I'm not ruling out that we might want to do some copyediting.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Again, standard policy. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement

13) The Arbitration Committee thanks administrators who have assisted with enforcement of its decisions as well as community-sanctions decisions, and encourages other experienced administrators to share in this work, provided they understand that this can be among the more challenging and stressful administrator tasks on the project.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area

14) Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area, to ensure that accounts that are sockpuppets of a particular chronically disruptive banned user are prevented from editing, while keeping to the lowest possible level instances in which innocent new editors are incorrectly blocked or would-be editors are caught in rangeblocks. Discussion of methods of identifying sockpuppet edits in this area should generally be conducted off-wiki. We note that there may be legitimate instances of disagreement and difficult judgment calls to be made in addressing these issues. However, administrators are cautioned that merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, without more, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

User:Lar and User:Jehochman admonished

15) Lar and Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my comment on finding 15. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Isolated incidents, unless especially grievous, rarely rise to the level of an admonishment. This one doesn't. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Hopefully both will take more care in the future, but doesn't rise to the level of admonishment. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lar's May 18 block of William M. Connolley affirmed; 2over0 strongly admonished

16) William M. Connolley's reinsertion of material was disruptive and the 1-hour block by Lar was warranted. User:2over0's unblock with a mere 16 minutes remaining in the block was unwarranted and merely served to inflame the situation. User:2over0 is strongly admonished for unnecessarily disrupting the situation.

Support:

The unblock did nothing except inflame the situation and with a mere 16 minutes left was pointless. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Especially as a general reminder to everyone, administrators shouldn't use their tools in a disruptive manner. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't see this as necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   The problem is the unblock was pointless and only served to exacerbate an already highly contentious area. Sixteen minutes were not near worth the problems this caused and it all could have been easily avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   It was an isolated incident from four months ago, and 2over0 is no longer even involved in this topic area. See relevant comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Isolated incidents, unless especially grievous, rarely rise to the level of an admonishment. This one doesn't. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised

17) Lar does not edit Climate Change articles and therefore nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator. However, feelings and emotions in the topic area have deteriorated extensively to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. Consequently, Lar is advised to take a break from the area. The Committee commends him for being willing to work in a contentious area.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I would also prefer no explicit reference to bias, but I agree with the fundamental sentiment here. A break would be beneficial to everyone. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (agree with the edit — Coren  13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
2. (Removed the bit about bias since that seems to have consensus) Agree with the wording minus the bias bit. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer to consider a proposal that omits the reference to bias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator

18) Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator in the Climate Change topic area and should cease carrying out admin actions in this area.

Support:

First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Second choice. Strictly correct, but 18.1 suffices. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per discussion on finding 18 above; offering remedy 18.1 in lieu below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Stephan Schulz administrator participation

18.1) Stephan Schulz is advised not to comment on sanctions enforcement requests relating to climate change in the discussion section reserved for comments by uninvolved administrators. He may comment appropriately on such requests elsewhere, on the same terms as any other editor.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2. That works. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Second choice to #25. Kirill  05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. First choice. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO banned from Climate Change article for six months

19) ChrisO is banned from Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for six months, to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing.

Support:

1. With addition of "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing".  Roger Davies 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per my rationale about the use of RTV in principle 18.1. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Roger. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comment on finding 19, and see also remedy proposal 21.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   I also agree with Risker's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Sanctions should not be dependent on whether or not the editor participates in Misplaced Pages activities not covered by the sanction. We would not extend the length of sanctions if an editor simply refrained from editing entirely during the sanction period, and I see this situation as analogous. Risker (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO banned from BLPs for one year

20) ChrisO is banned from all BLPs and their talk pages for one year, to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing.

Support:

1. With addition of "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing".  Roger Davies 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per my rationale about the use of RTV in principle 18.1. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Roger. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comment on finding 19, and see also remedy proposal 21.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   I also agree with Risker's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Not necessary in this form. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Sanctions should not be dependent on whether or not the editor participates in Misplaced Pages activities not covered by the sanction. We would not extend the length of sanctions if an editor simply refrained from editing entirely during the sanction period, and I see this situation as analogous. Further, there is no finding with respect to ChrisO and BLP issues (although I believe that one could be made). Risker (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO restricted to one account

21) ChrisO is restricted to one account, that with which he has exercised his Right to Vanish.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 21.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. No real reason for this. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose, but for an entirely different reason: a user who has invoked the right to vanish is restricted to zero accounts given that they are supposed to have left for good. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Coren makes a good point here, and prefer 21.1 Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO instructed

21.1) Because ChrisO retired from the project and exercised his right to vanish while sanctions were being actively considered against him in this arbitration case, should he wish to resume editing under any account name at a future date, he is instructed to contact this Committee before doing so.

Support:

1. There appears to be strong sentiment that despite ChrisO's leaving the project, some remedy should be adopted against him in this decision. If that is the majority view, then I believe this should address the concerns expressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
3. iff neither remedy 19 nor 20 pass. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Should have been added as soon as he RTV'd.  Roger Davies 04:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley asked to disengage

22) To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Misplaced Pages. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

Proposed. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I see this series of proposed remedies as an commendable attempt to defuse the conflicted area by requesting that the more volatile personalities around which the disputes tends to focus voluntarily withdraw in order to cool things off. Sadly, I believe it is now much too late for such a gentle nudge to work (positions being far too entrenched by now) and given the real world importance of the dispute area, there is no doubt that there is a ready supply of available editors to pick up the fight where it tapered off even if it did. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Since WMC apparently doesn't get it. Kirill  07:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. While it would be nice if such a wording would resolve things, given the behavior and discussion even during the case, there's little hope that gentle reminders will solve anything. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not a vote but a placeholder for now as I watch the discussion to see how affected editors (those named and others who might have been) react to this series of, frankly, unexpected "asked to disengage" proposals. Preliminary indications as to reaction, I would say, are not encouraging. I'd also welcome input from parties to the case on the following question: if you don't think it makes for you to stay off the Climate change pages, what modifications to your future editing behavior, if any, are you willing to commit to in the future? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lar asked to disengage

23) To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, Lar (talk · contribs) is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Misplaced Pages. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per 22. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per 22. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Polargeo asked to disengage

24) To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, Polargeo (talk · contribs) is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Misplaced Pages. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per 22. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per 22. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Stephan Schulz asked to disengage

25) To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Misplaced Pages. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per 22. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Not necessary for this user based on anything I've seen, even if we adopt it for one or more others. The main controversy surrounding his participation concerned which section of a noticeboard he should post comments in, and we are resolving that now. (I'm open to persuasion that there is a broader problem here, but at present I don't see it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. I think the only issue here was admin involvement, not any general behavioral problems. Not necessary. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

ChrisO asked to disengage

26) To assist with de-personalizing disputes in this area, ChrisO (talk · contribs) is asked to refrain from any further involvement with this topic on Misplaced Pages. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill  18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per 22. — Coren  00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per 22. Shell 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or 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 the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. — Coren  00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. We need to finish our discussion of what constitutes "involvement" in the principles, and then conform this to that. Placeholder for now just so we don't forget to do that (there is ample confusion surrounding this issue already.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. I would prefer "enforcing the provisions of this decision or other normal administrative actions", and might need other tweaks. Needs more discussion. — Coren  00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Needs some tweaks per the discussion above. For example, "content disputes" is too limiting. Shell 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Logging

3) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this case are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
2. The usual. — Coren  04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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