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

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

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.

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

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

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is not clear, this has not been the case in this topic area. How many of those involved in this case can honestly say that they have been promoting an "atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect" among contributors? Provocation and mitigating circumstances can only go so far. When people resort to the same sort of behaviour they condemn in others, and argue incessantly rather than following dispute resolution, a line has been crossed from engaging in disputes to battleground behaviour and disruptive conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With an implicit emphasis on good faith. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And equally we can't compel people to behave nicely while editing, but we can sanction those who seem to be here to argue rather than edit an encyclopedia and build good-quality articles without (intentionally or otherwise) driving away other editors by degrading the editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

User Conduct

3) Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors are expected to follow. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I must say I preferred the more concise version. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then start drafting cases again. :P Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I agree with Kirill that this is overly verbose, even if still correct. Brevity? Wit. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above. Especially the bit about not responding in kind. When editors imitate (consciously or otherwise) the bad behaviour they see in others, it is a downwards spiral that usually ends up here if not resolved earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

4) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC) First choice. Risker (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Newyorkbrad's comments as well. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this doesn't go far enough. Have people forgotten the ideal where a Wikipedian leaves prejudices and preconceptions "at the door" when they work on Wikipedia? Too many people now arrive at Wikipedia to work on a small set of articles (and in the overall scheme of things, the climate change articles are a vanishingly small part of Wikipedia), and fail to understand the difference between a generalist and a specialist. The ideal Wikipedia editor will be dispassionate about the article they are working on, though it often takes those with a passion about a topic to drive work forward. Having only those who are passionate about a topic working on that article is a recipe for trouble. A mixture is needed: of the passionate, and the dispassionate; the generalist and the specialist; the layperson and the expert; of readers, writers and editors; and so on. Those who cannot recognise that their feelings about a topic are compromising their editing of that topic need to be asked to edit elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

They key words of this principle are "in a manner that contravenes [policy]". 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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to propose an alternate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collective behavior of blocs of editors (alternate)

4.1) It is harmful to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Support:

Alternative that focuses on the problem without the risk of conflating an editorial position that is defended within policy with its problematic version. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine with me, in the case that both are passing, this would be my second choice. Shell ^babelfish 11:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as well, though as I said it doesn't go far enough. I think the difference between the two versions here are minimal and rather than quibbling over that, this principle should be recast as a strong reminder that Wikipedians need to ensure that where polarisations exist on an issue, and there are passionate real-world debates going on, they need to either be dispassionate themselves when editing and discussing the topic, or find others who can be dispassionate and let them guide the editing of the article and the tone of the discussions. In one sense, scientists are dispassionate when investigating and querying the world around them, and in a similar sense encyclopedia editors also need to be dispassionate when assembling and editing articles. And that same calm and rational tone should carry over to discussions as well, where the aim should be to produce something workable for article text, rather than argue over any controversy, manufactured or real. The focus should be on the articles, not on whose philosophical position is "correct". Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred this as a part of the "Purpose of Wikipedia" principle. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This bears repeating. And saying again. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added P21 to supplement this, Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in case it is not clear, this is a direct reference to people active outside Wikipedia on matters concerning this topic area, using blogs and other media to be advocates or activists about climate change. Mixing that sort of activity with editing on the climate change topic on Wikipedia is, again, asking for trouble. Not only because it is easy to lose perspective and end up using Wikipedia as a vehicle for other objectives, but because it is all too easy for disputes elsewhere to get dragged on to Wikipedia and, again, end up degrading the editing environment for those trying to work on the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casting aspersions sufficiently blatantly/often is also a breach of WP:NPA, Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is surprisingly difficult to balance the avoidance of casting aspersions with engaging in proper dispute resolution. One of the problems being large group discussions where accusations are sometimes flung around that are better resolved in more limited discussions on user talk pages (except for the fact that everyone then follows the disputants to that talk page and add their two cents to the discussion). If you are trying to resolve a dispute with someone, it is acceptable to ask others to stay out of the discussion to enable those talking to reach some amicable conclusion without things escalating. I also noticed the talk page comment that noted that 'casting aspersions' is almost never sanctioned, probably because it would have a chilling effect, but there does need to be a way to identify and deal with this sort of behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

7) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Support:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell put it perfectly: "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." That is similar to what I was saying about about passion and being dispassionate in editing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to propose an alternate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Advocacy

7.1) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Support:

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 ^(talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as well, though I disagree with the assertion that a conflict of interest cannot make advocacy worse. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It certainly makes it more likely, but how worse? — Coren ^(talk) 11:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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. Conflict of interest, however, should not be confused with editors working in their field of expertise. Shell ^babelfish 11:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Shell, though editors working in their field of expertise do need to be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Shell. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The target of principle #7 is indeed conflict of interest, not advocacy. An editor who works on the article of a subject who has publicly criticized the editor has a conflict of interest. Risker (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Biographies of living people

8) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor c/e: "disinterested" > "dispassionate". Please revert if you disagree. Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Shell pointed out, I have expanded on this elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad and Coren both made important points here. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to consider the converse. Encyclopedias shouldn't be in the business of excluding significant alternate viewpoints, though one of the problems with not being paper is that there is "room" to mention an awful lot of nuanced viewpoints on a topic. Sometimes I think it might have been better if we were limited to what could be put on paper. Clearly, though, the focus needs to be on the mainstream, and coverage should diminish after that, with some topics left for "further reading" (though not excluded completely). Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm sure there is a simpler way to phrase this. Cover what is relevant and inform the reader and don't mislead them as to the state of current information on a topic area. If things are still in flux, take the reader to a certain point and then tell them that they need to do further reading on the topic, rather than try and do the entire explication here on Wikipedia. After all, any Wikipedia article should only be a starting point, not the be-all and end-all, or a place to teach or manufacture controversy. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing

11) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although verifiability is not technically one of the five pillars in its own right. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to fix (added "at the heart of"); does this help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is crucial, when consensus among editors is not found, to resolve things the right way and not go round in circles, or game the system to "win" the debate, but rather to broaden the discussion to bring in further independent opinions, or even refer to other sources to settle the question about reliability of a source (this is sometimes the best option). Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that though this doesn't explicitly cover disruptive conduct on talk pages, that is also a concern in this case and misconduct on talk pages should also be considered disruptive. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is particularly important when that viewpoint is one that is widely held in the population (regardless of accuracy). — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. WP:DUCK is useful to a point, but it can be overused and mis-used. Where there is doubt, it may be better to ask new editors or suspected meatpuppets to step away from a topic area, rather than calling for WP:DUCK behavioural blocks. Genuine editors will then have the opportunity to establish a track record in a non-controversial area, and those with an agenda to push will soon become apparent from their behaviour. But excessive and premature blocking based largely on the content of what editors are saying, rather than how they are saying it, is not acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

14) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Second choice, defer to 14.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a formulation combining both elements of 14 and 14.1? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Second choice. Prefer 14.1. Roger Davies ^talk 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine, though this principle feels like it is past its sell-by-date and the language could do with freshening up. Admins with clue will know how they are suppose to conduct themselves. Those without, most likely won't even when pointed to this reminder. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators working in contentious areas

14.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community, are expected to follow Wikipedia 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:

First choice. The thrust I think is clearer here, I think Roger Davies ^talk 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment under 14. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considerably clearer alternative. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine, though this principle feels like it is past its sell-by-date and the language could do with freshening up. Admins with clue will know how they are suppose to conduct themselves. Those without, most likely won't even when pointed to this reminder. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With trivial c/e. Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, though this is little more than a wordy recapitulation of policy. I get the feeling that the language used here, and in the policy, has for some time been overly complex and verbose. It should be relatively simple, if good-faith discussion is allowed to take place, to establish whether an administrator can dispassionately follow policy without being biased, and whether an adminstrator can be effective in an area or not (these are sometimes two separate questions). What really needs to stop though is long-running and unresolved arguments of the sort we have seen here. One thing I will point out is that an administrator who choses to step back in the face of opposition (even if only temporarily) shouldn't be seen as admitting they are involved. They may chose to step back to prevent the situation escalating. But there should be ways for that admin to resolve the allegations without feeling the need to remain there, drawing criticism. The key seems to be to ask other admins to get involved, and to work with other administrators rather than said administrator working alone. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Involved administrators

15.1) An adminstrator is usually considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute or (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Support:

First choice. There seems to be a desire for a brief distillation of policy so I offer this. Roger Davies ^talk 11:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terse, and arguably clearer, but at the cost of a little nuance. Otherwise, it's a good restatement of policy. Equal support with 15. — Coren ^(talk) 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the words "of any kind" in the last sentence, as the next phrase narrows the conditions. The new proposed general sanctions are dependent upon this definition of "involved" being passed; I will also add a parallel proposal in the enforcement section, where it will be more easily discerned by later readers of this decision. Risker (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I know that we are desperate to find a simplified version of the "involvement" principle, and this is a credible attempt to do so. (My own attempt to reformulate the definition of "involved" status while driving this afternoon wound up borrowing from my personal standard for recusing as an arbitrator—"administrator action by an administrator whose impartiality could reasonably be questioned"—a summary of what should be avoided, but hardly a clarification. The wording of 15.1, though, would need a little tweaking to be completely accurate: (i) needs to be limited to a significant or recent editorial dispute, as opposed to, say, a copyediting disagreement from a year and a half ago, and (ii) or (iii) also suffer (in my view at least) from a lack of similar qualifiers. The talkpage concerns, now archived, about my original proposals above probably apply in large measure to this version as well. It may be, though, that this committee has tried its best and further tweaking should be left to the community on a policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this wording as well, but it still doesn't feel like something that will work in practice. In the end, if someone disagrees enough with an administrator, and that administrator doesn't get the support needed, then it is often possible to kick up enough fuss to make the situation murky. Equally, it is also possible for an administrator to play hardball and for the actions of an administrator to receive insufficient review. In both cases, what is needed is more light and scrutiny, less heat, and more independent opinions. What I suspect is needed is a workable way to resolve disagreements over admin involvement on a case-by-case basis, rather than some definition of admin involvement that will be prone to wiki-lawyering. Maybe a system of WP:3O applied to administrators (similar to the unblock template), as a step to be tried before going somewhere like AN or WNI (as these venues don't always help). i.e. Get a second single admin opinion before going to a noticeboard for multiple admin opinions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. No disagreement with this in principle, but I think in this particular case more guidance is needed. Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the real root of the problem is lack of admins. Those being sanctioned would be far less able to complain if there were lots of admins dealing with this, and there was consistent actions taken by those admins. Part of the problem arises because those being sanctioned know that it will likely be the same admins over and over again dealing with this. Ultimately, that is unsustainable. There needs to be fresh eyes and second opinions provided. In other words, accusations of bias are sometimes a red herring for "can we please have someone new involved here giving a second opinion?". As long as admins are consistent in their sanctions, it helps to have more participating at arbitration enforcement and other sanction noticeboards. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I also agree that this is too widely formulated, but to the point of making it harmful. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to pitch in on the effort to reformulate satisfactorily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A better method for encouraging administrator participation in enforcement is desirable, but is probably beyond the scope of this case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though this would benefit more from community discussion (again), rather than any attempted solution being imposed from the top down. See also my comment on the previous principle. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Right to vanish

18) The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Wikipedia: 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:

Offered here for clarification. Alternatives welcome. Roger Davies ^talk 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Also c/e "new one" > "new account". Roger Davies ^talk 03:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC) First choice. Risker (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. RTV is not always permanent, though the intention for it to be permanent should be there at the time it is exercised. My view on this remains the same, that second and third RTVs should have bureaucratic hurdles to being undone, so people only RTV when they really mean it. And dealing with issues of privacy and clean starts should be done through other processes, with RTV reserved only for those leaving (or intending to leave) the project for good. There should be a formal process for undoing an RTV, with a clear record made of the vanishing and return, and there should also be some form of cooling off period before an RTV is granted. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Editors who exercise their right to vanish are expected to not return to editing in the future, near or distant. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, RTV is permanent. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors were getting the impression that RTV is a "get out of jail free" card of sorts. Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Right to vanish

18.1) The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Wikipedia. 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:

RTV is arguably one of the most misused processes on Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice: more crystallised than (18). Roger Davies ^talk 03:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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 ^(talk) 13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Though I take Newyorkbrad's point, I think privacy issues are the rare exception rather than the rule. Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, see my comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Detrimental editing

19) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. 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:

Certain actions in this dispute have proven unhelpful and need to stop, irrespective of the good faith of those undertaking them. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With minor c/e. Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

Support:

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)[reply]
True enough, although, as Brad points out, some of the fault in this case lies with us. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 11:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 12:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Battlefield editing

21) Wikipedia 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:

This probably needs spelling out (although alluded to in various principles above). Roger Davies ^talk 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is useful as a principle on its own, but it does no harm and is true enough. — Coren ^(talk) 15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a significant problem in the topic area. Shell ^babelfish 12:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Shell. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I believe this is the crux of the issue. Risker (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Standard (a.k.a. "At wit's end", tweaked). Roger Davies ^talk 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's generally true, and the rationale behind the occasional "strong" ArbCom measures (although not necessarily draconian per se). — Coren ^(talk) 15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully people will see what direction this is heading in. I will add here that even really draconian measures may be relaxed later on evidence of good conduct (as always), but the reaction to even the proposal of draconian measures can indicate whether people are overly invested in a topic area or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of disputes in this area, and the fact that even an unusually direct community attempt to address issues in this topic area in a manner very similar to Arbitration Enforcement had only mixed results, I think we are now at the point where strong measures are required. Risker (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Evidence sub-pages in user space

23) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 17:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I believe that a case could also be made for certain evidence pages being directly attached to the decision at the request of the arbitrators (e.g., pages that detail statistical information only, or analyses by third party editors). Risker (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker has a good point, but I think this can be handled within the normal leeway the Committee retains over pages under its project space. — Coren ^(talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute revolves around Wikipedia'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)[reply]

Second choice, prefer 1.1 per Rlevse, and see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equal choice with 1.1 (which see). — Coren ^(talk) 23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1.1) This dispute revolves around Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms.

Support:

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)[reply]
Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although real life pertinance may be par for the course in many cases we handle, it's still worth mentioning. Roger Davies ^talk 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this formulation. For the record, disagree with Brad's further comments. It should be easily possible to have well-written and stable pages on this topic. It is purely the battling nature of the editors, IMO, that causes the problems. On the "grave and growing threat" comment, Wikipedia is not the place to battle for the hearts and minds of the public or the governments, industries and people that can affect change here. Wikipedia should be seen as a user-edited online encylopedia, not a battleground for the issues of the day, or a PR vehicle for competing views. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

True, but not particularly relevant; almost every dispute of this magnitude that reaches us has substantial real-world significance. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[1] 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:

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:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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-related blocks (including range blocks), particularly before late 2009, were subsequently determined to be excessive or incorrect. ~~subsequently determined to be unrelated.~~ This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

Support:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

As questions continue to be raised about the 20-40% estimate, I would be open to either explaining it further or dropping it from the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the modifications just made to the proposed findings (which I believe can be treated as consented-to copyedits rather than as an alternative proposal requiring a revote, unless any arbitrator objects). (Needless to say, in publishing the final decision the Clerk should include only the final agreed text without bolding or strikethroughs.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some rewording to remove the figures and provide greater historical perspective. Risker (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this doesn't say much in and of itself. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~As with other contentious areas, it's important to be careful that sockpuppets are truly sockpuppets and not other editors with similar views. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
That fixes it. Thanks for the update Risker. Shell ^babelfish 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Shell. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting here that I think Risker's more detailed account should be incorporated in some way, as the bare "20-40%" figure is causing confusion and consternation and should be further explained or simply dropped. It should definitely be noted that 20-40% is actually two separate estimates, rather than an estimated range obtained from two figures, and it should be said what they are percentages of (for example, if the 40% is 40% of 500 results examined and the 20% is 20% of 300 different results examined, then we really shouldn't be summarising that as 20-40%). Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While I agree with the overall spirit that not all new editors or editors with certain views should be treated as sockpuppets, the numbers, as stated, are misleading and have not been fixed. Shell ^babelfish 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [2]

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:

Factual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 6.1. Risker (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Unlike Kirill and Coren, I do think this level of detail can be helpful, but the point is sometimes better made on the evidence page, or in this case in the draft. The alternative wording below should be seen as supported by the diffs in this draft. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

More inclined to abstain but opposing to stop this passing by default along with 6.1. Roger Davies ^talk 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 6.1 - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill that such statistics, while factual, are of unclear usefulness. — Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Climate Change related articles

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:

First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short, to the point, and factual. — Coren ^(talk) 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better wording. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice per comment on first version above. It is also worth noting that these edit wars involved people who should have known better, and should (by now) be aware of how to handle such disputes. Possibly they have been too focused on one area of Wikipedia and have failed to gain the perspective that comes from editing more broadly and seeing how other disputes are handled, and in particular how disputes are successfully resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personalization of dispute

7) 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:

A major part of the problem here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and tends to be true in any long term conflict where some charismatic and determined editors end up entrenched. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Brad and Shell as well, but while some editors or admins may have become focal points through no fault of their own, I've seen some indication that some editors personalise the dispute both by their attitudes and by a presence that steers close to ownership. In other words, when this sort of thing happens, it is possible for an editor or admin to encourage the focus on them, or to discourage it, and both attitudes should be examined more closely, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley (various)

8. Group header

William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

8.1) 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 Wikipedia: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:

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 ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than objecting, I think it would be worth it to fix the wording per Newyorkbrad's notes. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, with Brad's corrections. Roger Davies ^talk 11:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the revised wording. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the revised wording. Risker (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the revised wording is better. I do think the fact that there was a previous arbitration case and follow-up on the issue is worth noting here (though the result of the previous arbitration decisions either way should have no bearing on the decision made here). That is definitely relevant background. The other stuff, less so. It certainly makes clear that the focus of WMC's editing has been climate change articles for a very long time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)[reply]
Not convinced that this is necessary to note. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic

8.2) 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: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17])
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [18], [19], [20]) 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. [21]] 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.[22] 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:

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 William M. 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)[reply]
Risker (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The surprise is that this conduct was never raised at an RfC previously. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley has shown Ownership

8.3) 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: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51])

Support:

Oppose:

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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other findings should be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other findings hit on the issues better. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Risker (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is not strictly speaking ownership, though there is probably another word for it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

William M. Connolley BLP violations

8.4) 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: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] BLPN discussion [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69])

Support:

I think this is a textbook case of BLP violation: editing a biography with a clear objective of discrediting its subject. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer ~~10.1~~ 8.5. Risker (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I also prefer ~~10.1~~ 8.5. Roger Davies ^talk 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, per Kirill, though some of the diffs are certainly relevant here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ~~10.1~~8.5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.5 - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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

8.5) 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:

Focusing on the overall picture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per input from William M. Connolley, I would be amenable to deleting the word "sustantial". Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair as a general sentiment. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little wishy washy, but accurate nonetheless. Equal preference to 10 8.4. — Coren ^(talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, yes, hence my support. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 11:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, Roger Davies ^talk 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Switching to oppose, though the comments remain valid Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)). Per Kirill, while noting that I was under the impression that the majority of WMC's editing in this topic area was in the science articles, but I suppose "substantial" is vague enough to cover the actual proportion of editing that has been on biographical articles. It should also be obvious that public figures (which includes those with Wikipedia articles) holding views on climate change shouldn't be editing each other's Wikipedia articles in such fashion (the talk pages should be used to make measured and restrained comments and requests for corrections). We really shouldn't have to say this. If you want to hold a debate with others about climate change or those that comment publicly about climate change, do so outside of Wikipedia, and don't use Wikipedia as a vehicle to have a debate about climate change or a debate about those holding opinions about climate change, or even a debate about the opinions of those holding opinions about climate change. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Technical oppose on the wording, as I disagree with the line "has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons". However, I agree with the rest of the finding (hence my support of the related remedy). I raised this matter with the other arbitrators and there was some support for changing the wording but not enough to justify proposing an alternative wording at this late stage. If felt necessary, this matter can be dealt with by an appeal to amend the wording. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Polargeo (various)

9. Group header

Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

9) 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. [70], [71], [72], [73]. 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: [74], [75]

Support:

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 ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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)[reply]
Per Brad; this is borderline for an arbitration finding, although there's obviously unhelpful conduct here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Roger Davies ^talk 11:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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 Wikipedia that applies only to much more severe continued misbehavior). — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo's battlefield conduct

9.1) Polargeo (talk · contribs) has contributed significantly towards the battleground atmosphere with combative remarks in the early stages of this case;[76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] repeated personal attacks on individual editors throughout it;[83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94] and many incivil remarks during it. [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]

NB: This editor has retired the User:Polargeo account and is apparently editing as User:Olap the Ogre.[103] Roger Davies ^talk 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly. — Coren ^(talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly correct; there are sufficient diffs there to persuade me to support, but the proliferation includes several that I feel are borderline at best. Risker (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Risker. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Risker. Polargeo is a well-meaning, highly knowledgeable editor on this subject whose substantive contributions I respect (this goes for many of the parties to this case, though I may not repeat this observation in every vote I cast), and I don't agree that every one of these diffs is problematic, but the sharp edges that surround his commentary on Climate change related issues reach the point that we require some sort of a finding. The "battleground" wording is not one that I would have used, but given that the case has embarrassingly been open for 17 weeks, I am not going to cast about for a better one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust (various)

10. Group header

Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

10.1) 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 Wikipedia 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: [104] (admin only, BLP violation), [105] (PA, soapboxing), [106] (soapboxing), [107] (PA), [108] (PA), [109] (soapboxing), [110] PA, failure to assume good faith), [111] (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: [112] , [113], [114] (see collapse box mid-thread))

Support:

Broadly correct. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Kirill, Roger Davies ^talk 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust's battlefield conduct

10.2) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring[115],[116],[117],[118],[119],[120],[121],[122],[123],[124] and comments that were incivil or reinforced a battleground mentality. [125], [126],[127],[128],[129],[130]

Support:

Excessive. Shell ^babelfish 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly correct; there are sufficient diffs there to persuade me to support, but the proliferation includes several that I feel are borderline at best. Risker (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Risker and per some of my comments on 9.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley disruptive behavior

11) 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: [131] (BLP), [132] (BLP, sourcing), [133] (BLP, sourcing), [134] (BLP, sourcing), [135] (POV fork), [136] (PA), [137] (PA), [138] (PA), [139] (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), [140] (PA), [141] (assumption of bad faith), [142] (copyright violations), [143] (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 [December 2009 to July 2010]
Sourcing parole ([144], [145]) [May 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]
Civility parole ([146]) [June 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]

Support:

Broadly correct. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Kirill. Roger Davies ^talk 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar (various)

12. Group header

Lar blocks William M. Connolley

12) User:Lar blocked User:William M. Connolley on May 18, 2010 for reinserting material into Wikipedia: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, [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]

Support:

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

Oppose:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Per Brad, doesn't require a separate finding. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this needs a finding either. Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isolated incident. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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 ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly was an issue but absent a pattern that this relates to, the finding probably isn't necessary. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Risker (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar and Jehochman revert war

12.1) 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)[reply]

Oppose:

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)[reply]
Per Brad. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, Roger Davies ^talk 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Per 14. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More silliness, but doesn't need it's own finding. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U on Lar

12.2) 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:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factual enough. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly as I would phrase it, but all right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factual. Risker (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though more people involved in this case should have had RfCs filed in attempts to address concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar's comments, actions, and mindset

12.3) User:Lar has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]

Support:

Broadly correct, although some of these are borderline. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct in the main. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, Lar's comments when dealing with this topic area have been less than optimal. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill and Shell, (also tweaked header) Roger Davies ^talk 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

(Recuse.) Some of Lar's comments directed to me on the talkpage, with respect to a vote I cast earlier in this case, have sufficiently rankled me that I am going to step aside here and let my colleagues address the issues related to him. (This comment itself is not to be considered as evidence or input by other arbitrators in their future voting.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions

13) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose:

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)[reply]
Offering ~~18.1~~ 13.1 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ~~18.1~~ 13.1. Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ~~18.1~~ 13.1. Roger Davies ^talk 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 13.1 - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 13.1. Risker (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer alternative finding. Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Administrator participation by Stephan Schulz

13.1) 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:

Proposed in lieu of 18 13. See also the related remedy below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but last statement stricken as it lies accidentally in the wrong section (this is a finding, not a remedy). — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
After Coren's edit. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 12:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though the striking of the last sentence doesn't mean the converse applies. And really, all admins should have enough clue not to need findings like this to be made. Admins should be able to correctly determine for themselves whether they are involved, and to respond to concerns expressed about their involvement or otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~The last sentence here is really a remedy, not a finding. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

ChrisO (various)

ChrisO's previous arbcom sanctions

14.1) 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:

For the record, Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct for the record. viz. my rationale on principle 18.1 regarding the fact that ChrisO has invoked right to vanish. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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

See also new remedy proposal ~~21.1~~ 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 14.3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Correct as background, but I'm not convinced it's particularly useful here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO has made personal attacks

14.2) User:ChrisO has made personal attacks against other users: [163], "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:

For the record. Roger Davies ^talk 04:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct for the record. viz. my rationale on principle 18.1 regarding the fact that ChrisO has invoked right to vanish. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comment on finding 19 14.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 14.3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ChrisO's battlefield conduct

14.3) ChrisO (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behaviour, including edit warring[164], [165], [166], [167], [168] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[169],[170],[171], [172], [173].

Support:

To replace 14.1 and 14.2. For the record. Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we are proceeding with findings regarding ChrisO, this one strikes me as the most support-worthy, albeit subject to some of my comments on 9.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Minor4th's battlefield conduct

15) Minor4th (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[184], [185], [186], [187].

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly. — Coren ^(talk) 01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added full sequence of four Christopher Booker diffs for clarity. Roger Davies ^talk 08:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept Minor4th's statement of the reasons that she came to this topic area intending in good faith to seek to improve the editing environment on these articles, as discussed in this thread on my talkpage. But to perform the role that Minor4th sought out for herself in such a contentious area as this, a strong measure of skill and discretion is required. Without agreeing that every one of the diffs cited constituted misconduct, I conclude with regret that the tone of Minor4th's overall contributions in the Climate change topic area served to further worsen, rather than ameliorate, the stridency and divisiveness already found in abundance on these pages. See also my comments on finding 9.1. Finally, I feel compelled to add that the off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, though not relevant to the findings or remedies in this case, is deeply deplorable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ATren's battlefield conduct

16) ATren (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were not civil; [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193] and that reinforced a battleground mentality. [194] [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 08:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit, admittedly, to a considerably lesser degree than can be seen in some other findings. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On review, I've added a few more diffs. This editor has made relatively few article edits (other than reverts) but has participated heavily in meta discussion of the topic. Many of the comments cast aspersions and, as noted in the principle above, this is unacceptable. Roger Davies ^talk 07:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

There has been a series of strongly worded comments, some less helpful than others, but the conduct here does not rise to the level displayed by many of the other editors who are the subjects of findings. I do not believe that in reaching this conclusion, I have been unduly influenced by the memory of a now-deleted essay by this editor, which he posted soon after I returned to the project in the summer of 2010 and which was very kind to me, but neither can I put it out of mind altogether; I suppose it does not matter much whether this vote is counted as an abstention or as a recusal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, WP:HEAR strongly applies to this editor. Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite's battlefield conduct

17) Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [202], [203], [204], [205] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[206], [207], [208], [209], [210].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

There have certainly been uncivil and ad hominem comments by this editor that should cease. However, I believe the diffs offered for the edit-warring aspect of the finding here are weak. (For example, I certainly would not criticize an editor for summarily reverting a contribution to a climate-change article from an editor calling himself Rush's Algore, which is as blatant an announcement of an intent to POV-push as one can imagine, and soon triggered a username block.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's battlefield conduct

18) Cla68 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring[211],[212], [213],[214], [215],[216],[217], inappropriate use of sources [218], [219],[220] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[221], [222], [223], [224].

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these are borderline, but even then, there is a pattern of borderline actions. Risker (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was borderline, but that was not helpful either. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed additional evidence to which my attention has been called, changing to support. However, I do not find this editor's misconduct to have been as serious as that as some of the other parties'. My overall view of this editor's role is much as it was when I reviewed his editing two years ago in the prior case to which he was a party. I wish that by this point, while continuing to act as a check on excesses by others, he were doing a better job at avoided excesses of his own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

(recused) Roger Davies ^talk 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker's comment has merit, particularly in light of Cla68's involvement in a prior arbitration case in which he was instructed to avoid uncivil comments and personal attacks. However, I am unwilling to describe the disagreement regarding citation of a single article as "inappropriate use of sources," which implies a more pervasive problem, and therefore cannot support the finding as written. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought to my attention that there have been other disputes concerning Cla68's use of sources; see the thread on my talkpage. I invite Cla68 to respond briefly, on the talkpage, regarding this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're aware that, for brevity, findings often don't display all of the diffs related to a problem. I'm not certain whether to ask that you assume better faith of your fellow Arbs, in that we're unlikely to present and support a broad finding based on a single incident or perhaps refresh yourself as to the evidence presented which described other such cases before voting. In case you weren't following the developments since your original posted decision, a great deal of additional evidence pertinent to these later additions was presented on the talk page of this decision and can be found in the various archives. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly aware of that, as well as the tension that often exists between having each paragraph of a decision be self-supporting with diffs (the usual practice in cases whose subject-matter is less sprawling than this one), versus simply referring to the evidence as a whole without much attempt to particularize (a less-than-desirable but sometimes necessary practice, as I discovered when I wrote the C68-FM-SV case, which ironically involved as a party this same editor). It is when the proposals fall midway between the two approaches, as is necessarily the case here, that misunderstandings can occur. I've used my best efforts to follow all the discussions that have surrounded this case all over the place, but as noted above, it's always possible that I missed something, in which case I am always entirely open to being pointed toward it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support, with comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I note Cla68's statement on the talkpage that he is leaving Wikipedia for awhile for personal reasons, and hope that he can take the comments here into account when he is able to resume editing in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey

Scjessey's battlefield conduct

19) 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;[225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236] and a series of personal attacks during the course of it.[237], [238], [239], [240]

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 10:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the wording I might have chosen, and I'm not certain that this finding is needed given the next one, but at the end of the day, there are too many uncivil and hostile remarks for me to disagree with the general thrust of the finding, and the stridency of many of them undercut rather than strengthened the substantive points that Scjessey was making. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction

19.1) Scjessey (talk · contribs) has voluntarily withdrawn with immediate effect from the Climate Change topic on the basis specified in Remedy 16.1 of this decision.[241], [242], [243]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

GregJackP's battlefield conduct

20) GregJackP (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring[244],[245],[246],[247] inappropriate use of sources[248],[249],[250],[251] and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[252], [253], [254], [255], [256],[257].

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept GregJackP's statement of the reasons that he came to this topic area intending in good faith to work to improve the editing environment on these articles, as set forth in this thread on my talkpage. But to perform the role that GregJackP sought out for himself in such a contentious area as this, a strong measure of skill and discretion is required. Without agreeing that every one of the diffs cited constituted misconduct, I conclude that the tone of GregJackP's overall contributions in the Climate change topic area served to further worsen, rather than ameliorate, the stridency and divisiveness already found in abundance on these pages. See also my comments on finding 9.1. Finally, I feel compelled to add that the off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, though not relevant to the findings or remedies in this case, is deeply deplorable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct

21) A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) has helped contribute to the battleground atmosphere by engaging in edit warring in the run up to the opening of this case; [258], [259], [260], [261], making comments that were incivil or promoted a battleground mentality; [262], [263], [264], [265], [266] and by making an inappropriate remark in discussions about biographies of living people.[267]

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 07:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm always a little surprised when a party to an arbitration case engages in the very behavior that led to arbitration in the first place. Certainly, by the time that a case progresses to this stage, it should be clear that the behavior is problematic? — Coren ^(talk) 03:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the role that A Quest For Knowledge has sought to serve in this topic area, but he has often done so in an excessively and unhelpfully strident fashion. The last diff cited is particularly troublesome. See also some of my comments on finding 9.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

KimDabelsteinPetersen's battlefield conduct

22) KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has engaged in battlefield conduct, edit-warring in climate-change-related biographies of living people over content;[268], [269], [270],[271],[272] and sources;[273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283] and, more recently, has continued to interpret sourcing and BLP policy idiosyncratically.[284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293]

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though the BLP issues warrant further discussion at the community level. There does seem to be some legitimate confusion over the difference between a BLP, material about a person in any article, and material in a BLP that is not directly about the subject of the article. What I think is clear is that standards applied to different articles appear to have been different, and that is not good. Carcharoth (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Still evaluating. Some of these diffs are borderline, and in light of Carcharoth's observation as well as the fact that a voluntary restriction is under discussion, this finding may be unnecessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed again, and in light of the agreement on a voluntary restriction, I am going to leave this vote at an abstention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal's battlefield conduct

23) Verbal (talk · contribs) has contributed to the battleground atmosphere with peremptory reverts to articles to which they have not previously contributed and by sometimes failing to discuss the reverts on article talk pages.[294], [295]*, [296]*, [297]*, [298]*, [299], [300], [301], [302], [303]*, [304]* This editor has also reverted to versions by an editor under a revert restriction in a manner suggestive of tag-teaming and restriction circumvention.(marked with an asterisk in the previous diffs).

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct here is not as serious as that of many of the other parties against whom findings are being made, but since the proposal is reasonably tailored and nuanced, I find that I can support it, subject to some of my comments on finding 9.1. I note with regret that this user appears not to have edited for five weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ZuluPapa5's battlefield conduct

24) ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) has in the run-up to this case helped create a battlefield atmosphere by engaging in edit-warring;[305], [306], [307], [308] by engaging in incivility and personal attacks;[309], [310], [311] and by seemingly wiki-lawyering and/or soapboxing.[312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319]

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 08:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a chronic pattern of strikingly inappropriate comments, although some of the worst sounding ones may in part be the product of ESL issues or the like rather than malice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments are off-beam, rather than malicious, IMO, but it is still not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

JohnWBarber's battlefield conduct

25) JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [320], [321], [322] and comments that served to inflame tensions and reinforced a battleground mentality [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332]. JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton (talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts.

Support:

While this may not gain a great deal of support being rather difficult to quantify with diffs, I believe that JohnWBarber's contributions to the discussion of the topic area are a net negative. Even though they are generally polite, they serve to inflame tensions and are far to focused on individual editors in an area that desperately needs cooler heads and constructive discussion. Shell ^babelfish 13:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added bit about history per suggestions. Shell ^babelfish 08:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs alone are borderline, but examining the longer term behavior pattern show a tendency to polarize and inflame issues. — Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the diffs are inconclusive. However, I do think there's an underlying pattern of stridency, of combativeness, which - as Coren remarks - helps polarise and inflame. Roger Davies ^talk 17:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I can support the first sentence, but I can't support the linking to the Noroton account, which is not needed here, nor the over-simplified summary here of that incident. If the Noroton history sentence is dropped, my vote can be moved to support. Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Carcharoth; while JohnWBarber's behaviour has been remarkably combative, enough so that I would likely support a finding in that regard, the incident of the multiple accounts is completely unrelated to this matter before us, was already reviewed, and the end result was improvement and clarification of the sockpuppetry policy. Risker (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the concerns about the second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Holding off on voting until JohnWBarber finishes his presentation on the talkpage. My preliminary reaction is that many of the diffs cited are unpersuasive, but that there nonetheless is a sharp edge to many of JohnWBarber's comments in various venues that he ought to strive to significantly tone down. As with others, writing in this fashion often undercuts, rather than strengthens, the substantive points he is making. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Changed to oppose per above; see also vote on 25.1 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWBarber's battlefield conduct

25.1) JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [333], [334], [335] and comments that served to inflame tensions and reinforced a battleground mentality [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341], [342], [343], [344], [345].

Support:

Alternative with no reference to the previous account. I agree that it was not necessary, and that it's not especially related to the current matter. Nevertheless, the generally bellicose behavior displayed in the topic area requires a finding. — Coren ^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment at 19. Roger Davies ^talk 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that JohnWBarber has, of all of the editors here, started to recognise that his tone and stridency has been problematic, and I urge him to continue that self-reflection. Some time away from contentious areas may help him to once again find the joy that he has had when editing. Risker (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine, though I do think the somewhat lengthy block history for disruption was relevant to the history and this current behavior. Shell ^babelfish 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree entirely, but prefer to see a watered down finding passing on this than none at all. Roger Davies ^talk 02:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either is okay with me. - Mailer Diablo 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will support based on the concerns about the nature and tone of too many of JohnWBarber's comments, although after having read his presentation on the talkpage, I am not as convinced about the portion related to edit-warring. I note that JohnWBarber has stated, on the talkpage, that he understands the concerns that have been expressed about the way he sometimes has expressed himself on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

FellGleaming's battlefield conduct

26) FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has long engaged in battlefield conduct within the Climate change topic, first attracting separate blocks for edit-warring and personal attacks back in April 2008[346], and has more recently been the subject of requests for enforcement.[347],[348] In the past few months, this editor has engaged in edit-warring, [349],[350],[351] including edit-warring on articles under community probation; [352],[353],[354],[355],[356],[357],[358],[359],[360] On balance, this editor's presence within this controversial topic has been more detrimental than beneficial.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 08:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In isolation, this behavior would only marginally rise to the level of a finding; given how contentious the area is, however, it's more important than usual that every editor be at their best — and this is not what can be observed here. — Coren ^(talk) 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far from the worst behavior we have seen here, but the finding is sufficiently nuanced that I can support it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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:

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)[reply]
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) Second choice, prefer 1.2. Risker (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This or 1.1 is acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of the explicit alternative below. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 1.2 Roger Davies ^talk 08:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard discretionary sanctions are not a good fit here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 1.2 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

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

Support:

Make the standard remedy explicit. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference to 1 on the procedural/drafting point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

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) Note: Prefer 1.2 below. Risker (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think we should be trying to solve the divergent wording problem by standardizing, then, rather than by introducing yet another variant. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is at all appropriate for the Committee to have the ability to change discretionary sanctions applying to hundreds of articles in a wide range of topic areas with a simple motion that will receive little if any input from the editors involved. Changing a sanction needs to require significant effort and discussion. Risker (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 1.2 Roger Davies ^talk 08:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard discretionary sanctions are not a good fit here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 1.2 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Climate change: discretionary sanctions

1.2) This remedy specifies and authorises the discretionary sanctions applicable to this case.

Advice for editors

Any editor wishing to edit within the Climate change topic, broadly construed, is advised to edit cautiously, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by uninvolved administrators. Editors are also urged to read and follow the principles applicable to this case. Any editor unable or unwilling to follow this advice should restrict their editing to other topics, to avoid sanctions.

Authorisation

Any administrator who is not involved or who is not mentioned by name in the decision in this case may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on any article within the area of conflict. Any repeated or serious misbehaviour which fails to conform to the purpose of Wikipedia, to community and editorial norms, is grounds for discretionary sanctions. Additionally, and specific to this case, administrators are asked to focus on editors engaging in battlefield conduct (including edit- and revert-warring in all forms, making personal attacks; casting aspersions, POV-pushing, and misusing sources) and Climate change-related biographies of living people, which have coatrack problems.

Range of sanctions

The sanctions imposed may include: blocks of up to one year in length; topic-bans applicable to any page or set of pages and their talk pages within the area of conflict; strict revert restrictions for edit-warring; interaction bans for feuding, baiting, and incivility; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Before imposing discretionary sanctions

Administrators should use their judgment to balance (i) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and to allow responsible contributors freedom to edit, with (ii) the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground.

Warning of intended sanctions

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorising sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counselled on specific steps to take to bring his or her editing into line with the relevant policies and guidelines.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

The sanctioned editor may appeal any sanction imposed under these provisions to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee.

Reversals by administrators

Administrators disagreeing with a discretionary sanction are cautioned not to reverse it without first familiarising themselves with the full facts and then engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at one of the administrators’ noticeboards or other suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations. Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

Logging

All sanctions are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page.

Support:

Specifically tailored to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Roger Davies ^talk 08:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited the Warning of intended sanctions section to add "by an uninvolved administrator". Revert if appropriate. Roger Davies ^talk 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with this. Note that I have also added an alternative specifying the definition of "involved" in the enforcement section below, which corresponds to the principle proposed above as well as the information in this proposal. Risker (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think more guidance is appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Shell. Noting that some decision needs to be made about whether editors named in the final decision should be considered "warned" already by the placing of the notice about the final decision on their talk page (since the clerks should do this for all those named in the final decision). My view is that if in doubt, warn and log the warning so that future warnings are not needed, though common sense should apply about how long a warning should apply for. Ideally, there would be a follow-up for a warned editor to say whether the warning should stay in place or be lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, equal preference with 1 and 1.1; see comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The more I consider the matter, the more I am convinced that having discretionary sanctions being consistent in application and norm is better for the capacity of administrators to effectively enforce them. Giving an opportunity to lawyer around differences in wording is a recipe for disaster on AE, and any specific circumstances can be adequately covered by separate remedies in addition to "normal" discretionary sanctions. — Coren ^(talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I will offer the useless comment that I am open to either approach (tailoring the discretionary sanctions regime to each specific case, or adopting a standard discretionary sanctions formula), as long as we use it consistently. I'll consider further my preference between the approaches if it becomes material to the result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, this vote should really be a "support, equal preference," rather than an abstention; modified accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia: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:

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)[reply]
Procedural. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good try, didn't work. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean break is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Climate Change topic bans

Scope of topic bans

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedits. I note that in the past, the scope of topic-bans has sometimes included and sometimes excluded talkpages (and sometimes not been clear one way or the other, leading to contention). This proposal is helpfully clear, although we will see if bans this broad are appropriate with respect to the editors for whom they may be proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And hopefully people won't dance around the edges of this definition of the scope of the topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Appeal of topic bans

3.2) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 3.2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Coren ^(talk) 03:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, as the alternative is better. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

Support:

First choice. Varies from 3.2 by (1) indicating that an editor may seek to have a topic-ban narrowed, as opposed to lifted altogether; and (2) allowing requests, after the initial six-month period, to be made every three months rather than every six months. (The choice between 3.2 and 3.2.1 may be governed, in part, by how many editors we wind up considering for topic-bans, and how likely it seems that any or all of them, after an initial six-month period, it would be desirable to have return to the topic-area.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No particular problems with this being the default. I have though added "unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances" to give flexibility about frequency of review. Roger Davies ^talk 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Some participants have raised the issue that not all topic bans will last more than six months; those bans will expire normally at the end of their specified duration with no possibility of early appeal. The point of this enforcement is to provide a method by which editors under a long topic ban may shorten them by good behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 03:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General remedies

Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement

4.1) 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Carcharoth's comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that stress in AE can arise from poor decision-making as well as pressure from those sanctioned. If an admin participating at AE can make a clear rationale for their decision, and be prepared to explain it to those questioning it, and recognise the difference between genuine critiques (good) and refusals to listen (bad), then that is a good starting point. But it takes time to build up the level of experience needed to handle AE requests. Any admin considering volunteering there should spend time becoming familiar with that noticeboard and should read previous and current threads to gain an understanding of the process, just as at any venue on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of blogs

4.2) 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:

Copyedited, added parenthetical explanation in first sentence, added second second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder of standard policy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Technically correct, so won't oppose, but the alternative gets more to the root of the problem here, though it also omits a certain class of self-published blog sources. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Omits self-published sources which are a source of great contention: 4.2.1. offered instead. Roger Davies ^talk 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Use of blogs and self-published sources

4.2.1) All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

Support:

Includes specific reference to self-published sources. Roger Davies ^talk 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Prefer this one. Shell ^babelfish 08:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not just blogs. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although, could an another arbitrator kindly copyedit the last clause of the last sentence. I haven't done it myself because I'm not sure precisely what nuance is intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this: changed "and about which special rules apply" to "(in which case special rules apply)", which I hope is clearer. Roger Davies ^talk 05:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this clarifies, thanks. The absoluteness of the wording may still be a little overstated, but any relaxation would apply, if at all, in non-contentious topic areas far removed from this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, and this hopefully covers guest bloggers as well (by which I mean one blogger allowing another person to be a guest columnist and using their blog as a host for what would still be an opinion piece that is arguably still self-published, though that would raise issues again of 'editorial control', a phrase I've noted being misused in discussions over sources. Ideally, something about op-ed pieces and pieces written by columnists would have been said here as well, or about how the quality of sources can vary immensely within the same publication (be it a newspaper or a journal), but that is something the editorial community should be able to handle. Essentially, sources should not be considered in isolation, but measured in context in a continuum of sources. When you look at the sourcing as a whole, it usually becomes obvious which are genuinely reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Project-wide policies remain in effect

4.3) 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:

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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. No area should receive special treatment or be allowed to become isolated from the larger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of Living Persons

4.4) 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:

(Although I'm not ruling out that we might want to do some copyediting.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, standard policy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area

4.5) 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, without more evidence, merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion of evidence sub-pages

4.6) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 07:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to my comment cross-referenced above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No memorials to dispute, thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley (remedies)

William M. Connolley banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

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)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overkill. While there was significant misbehavior, it never rises to the level warranting a site ban. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Site ban not needed. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too much. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record my opposition to this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overkill. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

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

William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)

5.2) 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:

Since polite requests aren't going to work. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Overkill in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5.6. Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

In favor of other proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)

5.3) 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:

— Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since polite requests aren't going to work. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although passage of 5.6 would supersede this anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Prefer 5.6. Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

William M. Connolley restricted

5.4) 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:

My preference might be a somewhat less draconian sanction than the committee is imposing under 5.6. Given the outcome here, it's not a sensible use of time to craft the parameters of a more nuanced sanction. Suffice it to say that while I would not adopt all or even most of this wording, it's at the core of what a nuanced sanction would provide, and therefore I will support it symbolically. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long history of civility paroles to have been able to determine without a doubt that they just do not work. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately these rulings are almost never used in the spirit that they were intended and subject to constant warring over their interpretation. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

William M. Connolley asked to disengage

5.5) 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 Wikipedia. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

~~Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

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 ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since WMC apparently doesn't get it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that won't do. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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)[reply]
Moot, since the request was declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley topic-banned

5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

To replace remedies 5.1 to 5.5 above. Roger Davies ^talk 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

(Placeholder. There is a pending thread on my talkpage in which I am awaiting some input from this editor.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo (remedies)

Polargeo admonished

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

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 6.3. Roger Davies ^talk 04:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably inherent in 6.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Polargeo asked to disengage

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

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 22 5.5 — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per 22 5.5 Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 6.3. Roger Davies ^talk 04:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 6.3 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Moot, as the invitation was declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo topic-banned

6.3) Polargeo is topic-banned from Climate Change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

To replace 6.1 and 6.2 above. Roger Davies ^talk 04:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always regret when we must separate an editor from one of his or her primary areas of interest, and in this case of real-world expertise. However, after 18 weeks, it has become apparent that no lesser measure will address some of the problems we have seen in this case. I note that I would be open to replacing this remedy with a more nuanced one or a voluntary restriction, if offered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust (remedies)

Thegoodlocust banned

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

Support:

First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No reason for a full ban, given the limited scope of the problem. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill, not necessary at this time, although I strongly urge Thegoodlocust to avoid repeating in other topic areas some of the behavior he has displayed in this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.3. Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.3 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Noting here that I can't oppose as there are indeed problems in other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with 7.3 (but the letter is what's going to pass). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 7.3. Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.3 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust indefinitely banned (climate change)

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

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Equal preference with 7.3 (but the letter will pass). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 7.3. Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.3 Shell ^babelfish 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.3 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust topic-banned

7.3) Thegoodlocust is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

To replace 7, 7.1 and 7.2. Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always regret when we must separate an editor from one of his or her primary areas of interest, but after 18 weeks, it has become apparent that no lesser measure will address some of the problems we have seen in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley (remedies)

Marknutley banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

No reason for a full ban, given the limited scope of the problem. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill, not necessary at this time, though I strongly urge Marknutley to avoid repeating in other topic-areas the types of conduct he has displayed in this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not opposing this one, as conduct in other areas hasn't been optimal. Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with 8.6, but it's the latter that will pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 8.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

~~First~~Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I don't think this raises quite to the level of an indefinite remedy. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Equal preference with 8.6, but it's the latter that will pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 8.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6 Shell ^babelfish 08:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Marknutley withdraws by mutual consent

8.4) Marknutley has consented ([361]) to a binding six-month withdrawal from all climate change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed.

Support:

First choice, since the opportunity presents itself. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

It's appreciated, but a bit too late for such a short withdrawal. If things significantly improve, Marknutley can ask for an amendment allowing him to return to editing for either of the above options. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Marknutley topic-banned (BLP)

8.5) 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:

iff ~~all of 8 fails~~ 8.1-8.4 fail. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if ~~all of 8 fails~~ 8.1-8.4 fail. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but superseded by 8.6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Redundant to R#8.2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Marknutley topic-banned

8.6) Marknutley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

To replace 8.1-8.5. Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always regret when we must separate an editor from one of his or her primary areas of interest, but after 18 weeks, it has become apparent that no lesser measure will address some of the problems we have seen in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

User:Lar (remedies)

User:Lar and User:Jehochman admonished

9) Lar and Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.

Support:

Oppose:

Per my comment on finding 15. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isolated incidents, unless especially grievous, rarely rise to the level of an admonishment. This one doesn't. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully both will take more care in the future, but doesn't rise to the level of admonishment. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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

9.1) 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)[reply]

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

Oppose:

I don't see this as necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isolated incidents, unless especially grievous, rarely rise to the level of an admonishment. This one doesn't. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren, Roger Davies ^talk 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised

9.2) 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (agree with the edit — Coren ^(talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
(Removed the bit about bias since that seems to have consensus) Agree with the wording minus the bias bit. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, Roger Davies ^talk 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound quite right to me to have a form of declaration for a remedy. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lar is in that nebulous "not entirely involved, but not completely uninvolved" area, and that this issue is better addressed by the case-specific General Sanction (1.2) and proposed definition of "involved administrator" in the enforcement section (1.2). Risker (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technical oppose, but the advice should still be noted. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I would prefer to consider a proposal that omits the reference to bias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lar is in that nebulous "not entirely involved, but not completely uninvolved" area, and that this issue is better addressed by the case-specific General Sanction (1.2) and proposed definition of "involved administrator" in the enforcement section (1.2). Risker (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per Risker. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)~~ Pending review of some current matters, provisionally switching to oppose here as the other findings and remedies are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar asked to disengage

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

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 22 5.5 — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per 22 5.5 Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 9.2. Roger Davies ^talk 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appears moot at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schultz (remedies)

Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator

10) 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)[reply]

Second choice. Strictly correct, but ~~18.1~~ 10.1 suffices. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per discussion on finding 1813 above; offering remedy ~~18.1~~ 10.1 in lieu below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill, Roger Davies ^talk 04:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 10.1 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Alternatives are better. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz administrator participation

10.1) 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:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to ~~#25~~ 10.2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

Stephan Schulz asked to disengage

10.2) 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 Wikipedia. This request is not intended to carry a presumption of wrongdoing.

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 22 5.5. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the only issue here was admin involvement, not any general behavioral problems. Not necessary. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though noting Roger's warning. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

For now, Roger Davies ^talk 04:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO (remedies)

ChrisO banned from Climate Change article for six months

11.1) 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:

~~With addition of "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing". Roger Davies ^talk 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per my rationale about the use of RTV in principle 18.1. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comment on finding 19, and see also remedy proposal ~~21.1~~ 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Risker's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctions should not be dependent on whether or not the editor participates in Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Prefer 11.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 11.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ChrisO banned from BLPs for one year

11.2) 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:

~~With addition of "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing". Roger Davies ^talk 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per my rationale about the use of RTV in principle 18.1. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comment on finding 19 14.1, and see also remedy proposal ~~21.1~~ 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Risker's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in this form. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctions should not be dependent on whether or not the editor participates in Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Prefer 11.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 11.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ChrisO restricted to one account

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

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer ~~21.1~~ 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No real reason for this. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren makes a good point here, and prefer ~~21.1~~ 11.4. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 11.4 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ChrisO instructed

11.4) 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:

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)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
iff neither remedy 19 11.1 nor 20 11.2 pass. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been added as soon as he RTV'd. Roger Davies ^talk 04:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO asked to disengage

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

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 22 5.5 — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per 22 5.5 Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 11.6, Roger Davies ^talk 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 11.6 - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appears moot at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO topic-banned

11.6) ChrisO is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Formal remedy, for the record, to complement 11.4 and to replace 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 & 11.5. Roger Davies ^talk 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the majority believes that a sanction should be voted against ChrisO, and this one is proportionate with the sanctions against some other editors, I will support it. As a general statement, I always regret when we must separate an editor from one of his or her primary areas of interest, but after 18 weeks, it has become apparent that no lesser measure will address some of the problems we have seen in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain

Minor4th topic-banned

12) Minor4th is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too note Minor4th's retirement, and the unfortunate off-wiki activities that have transpired involving her. Risker (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Minor4th has announced her retirement from the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ATren topic-banned

13) ATren is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comment on the associated finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite topic-banned

14) Hipocrite is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I would prefer a less severe sanction against this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 topic-banned

15) Cla68 is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 09:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

(Recuse) Roger Davies ^talk 10:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is close, but I would prefer to at least consider a less severe sanction against this editor (although any such sanction would likely have to include some restriction against BLP-related editing in this area, so it might amount to something approaching the same thing). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey (remedies)

Scjessey's topic ban (remedies)

16) Scjessey is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Strike as moot, in the light of 16.1 Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction

16.1) Scjessey (talk · contribs) has proposed a permanent binding voluntary restriction that he makes no edits within the scope of the topic ban, with the exception, as part of Recent Changes patrolling, of making routine cleanup-style edits and reverting cases of obvious vandalism. Scjessey is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

Support:

First choice. Much better as a voluntary restriction and without prejudice to a return to editing within the topic perhaps in a year or so's time. Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I note that this editor completed a two-month self-imposed editing restriction within the topic. Roger Davies ^talk 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice; I think this would work well. Shell ^babelfish 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; I fear that "routine" is too often open to bickering, but I'm willing to allow this. — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild re-jig of the sentence to make it clearer that the cleanups and reverts are part of RCP. I would expect edits within the topic to appear within a greater much broader range of similar edits off-topic. Roger Davies ^talk 19:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

GregJackP topic-banned

17) GregJackP is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned

18) User:A Quest For Knowledge is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Given that the bulk of the problematic conduct appears to have occurred some time ago, I would favor consideration of a less severe sanction. In fairness to everyone else, it may be best for everyone that A Quest For Knowledge take a break from this topic area. If, as he asserts (on my talkpage and elsewhere), his knowledge of and compliance with project guidelines and norms is improving, this will be reflected in problem-free editing in other areas and can be taken into account in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KimDabelsteinPetersen

KimDabelsteinPetersen: topic-banned

19) User:KimDabelsteinPetersen is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user may wish to consider proposing a voluntary restriction similar to Scjessey's that specifically excludes editing BLPs; otherwise, I cannot see an alternative but supporting the topic ban. Risker (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(switching to oppose, leaving comment in place). Though my support should be moved to a voluntary restriction if such is negotiated, but in the absence of that I am happy to support this topic ban. In my view, several of those facing topic bans are easily capable of changing their approach and getting their topic bans lifted, but I want to see evidence of that. Actions, not words. Others, who are more singularly focused on this topic area, may struggle to get their topic bans lifted, or it may become evident that problems arise in other areas they begin to edit, not just this area. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 19.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 19.1, Roger Davies ^talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 19.1 Shell ^babelfish 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 19.1. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

KimDabelsteinPetersen's voluntary editing restriction

19.1) KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that he makes: (i) no edits of whatever nature to Climate change articles, their talk pages and associated Wikipedia process pages, broadly construed, for a period of six months and on expiry of the six-month period is limited to one revert within the topic, reverts of blatant vandalism excluded; and (ii) no edits of whatever kind to biographies of living people, broadly construed. This editor is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

Support:

Explicitly to replace (19). This editor, incidentally, has just completed a two-month self-imposed editing restriction within the topic. This new proposal would help pave the way towards perhaps removing the restrictions altogether in due course. Roger Davies ^talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion by Kim. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger's comment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate, first choice over 19. — Coren ^(talk) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. - Mailer Diablo 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verbal topic-banned

20) Verbal is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I would prefer to consider a less severe sanction against this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPapa5 topic-banned

21) ZuluPapa5 is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 08:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my rationale to 5.6. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that on the talkpage, ZuluPapa5 has acknowledged that a break of at least 6 months from this topic area would be for the best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

JohnWBarber topic-banned

22) JohnWBarber is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Shell ^babelfish 16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment on the finding (where I support the first sentence) and per my comment on KDP's remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

JohnWBarber does strike me as an editor who has started to recognize how the stridency of his contributions, particularly in a contentious area, has been unhelpful. I believe some time away from this area will be of benefit to him, but not so strongly that I can fully endorse a topic ban. Risker (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FellGleaming topic-banned

23) FellGleaming is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Support:

Oppose:

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 each 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)[reply]

Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Minor copy edit. Risker (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose:

Not in alignment with the proposed general sanctions for this case. Risker (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposed below, which should be sufficient regardless of which version of the general sanctions ultimately pass. Risker (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Risker's alternative. Roger Davies ^talk 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 2.1 - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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)[reply]
I would prefer "enforcing the provisions of this decision or other normal administrative actions", and might need other tweaks. Needs more discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some tweaks per the discussion above. For example, "content disputes" is too limiting. Shell ^babelfish 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators

2.1) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic, or (iv) they are identified by name within the decision of the case. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Support:

Matches the proposed definition of "involved" in the principles, as well as including the key elements in the different proposed general sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This works for me. — Coren ^(talk) 15:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good wording. Shell ^babelfish 01:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Logging

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

Support:

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

Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 08:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Those in italics are superseded): Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15.1, 16, 17, 19, 19.1, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; Passing findings: 1 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 7, 8.1, 8.2, (8.4 → 8.5),9.1, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 12.2, 12.3, 13.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19.1, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; Passing remedies: 1.2, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.6, 6.3, 7.3, 8.6, 10.1, 11.4, 11.6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; Passing enforcement provisions: 1, 2.1, 3
Proposals which do not pass: Failing principles: 7.1; Failing findings: 6, 8.3, 9, 12, 12.1, 13; Failing remedies: 1, 1.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 9.1, 9.3, 10, 10.2, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.5; Failing enforcement provisions: 2

Proposals requiring clarification: Findings: 14.1; Remedies: 9.2, 22, 23

By my counts I believe the following changes need to be made to the above: Under "Proposals which pass"

Principles: 14 is superseded (by 14.1), 14.1 is passing, 18 is superseded (by 18.1), 18.1 is passing, 19 is listed twice, and there is no 19.1, ie it ought to read "... 13, 14, 14.1, 15, 15.1, 16, 17, 18, 18.1, 19, 20, ..."

Findings: 6 is superseded (by 6.1), 14.1 and 14.2 are both superseded (by 14.3), ie it ought to read "... 5, 6, 6.1, ... 13.1, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, ..."

Remedies: 4.2 is superseded (by 4.2.1), 9.2 is passing (3 supports, 3 abstentions), 22, 23 are passing (5 supports)

In the section "Proposals which do not pass"

Findings: 6 is not failing

Paul August ☎ 12:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R19, is no longer passing, and R19.1 is a new failiing remedy. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Paul: my count tallies with his. AGK 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates:

F25.1 is a new failing finding, R9.2 and R19 are now failing, and R19.1 is now passing. Paul August ☎ 10:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F25.1 is now passing. Paul August ☎ 20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F25 is now failing. Paul August ☎ 09:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't a satisfying decision, by far. Nevertheless, given how contentious the entire area is, this is about as good as it can get. — Coren ^(talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing, effective 72 hours from now (instead of the usual 24) to allow the remaining loose ends to be resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing ~~effective 72 hours from Newyorkbrad's vote.~~ Risker (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Changing my support to closing within 24 hours of net four votes to close or 72 hours after Newyorkbrad's vote to close, whichever comes first. I don't think we need to wait any longer than that. Risker (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing; per Risker either 24 hours or 72 from Brad's vote is fine. Shell ^babelfish 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close; per Risker. - Mailer Diablo 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment

Given my most recent comment on a finding I just opposed (due to the wording used) it would not be appropriate for me to support closing the case, but equally I can't justify opposing the close purely on that basis. As Coren said, it may not be the most satisfying decision, but I think it has the potential to be a good decision that helps reduce disruption and battlefield editing in the topic area, provided enough experienced admins with the ability to deal with situations dispassionately and fairly step up to the plate and help out. Carcharoth (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]