Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) m →Climate change probation: fix link |
→Edit warring on Climate Change related articles: yet another one |
||
Line 377: | Line 377: | ||
*[[Robert Watson (scientist)]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Watson_(scientist)&diff=373870003&oldid=373864018 23 July 2010 for one week]) |
*[[Robert Watson (scientist)]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Watson_(scientist)&diff=373870003&oldid=373864018 23 July 2010 for one week]) |
||
*[[Soon and Baliunas controversy]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=382163598&oldid=382160295 31 August 2010 for 4 days]) |
*[[Soon and Baliunas controversy]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=382163598&oldid=382160295 31 August 2010 for 4 days]) |
||
*[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&action=history 03 September 2010 for 2 weeks]) |
|||
Four of the |
Four of the eight articles involved in the ten edit wars are [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. Almost 30 editors were involved in the nine edit wars that resulted in these page protections; of these editors, ChrisO was involved in six of the edit wars, Marknutley was involved in eight of the edit wars, William M. Connolley was involved in nine of the edit wars. |
||
:Support: |
:Support: |
Revision as of 11:16, 3 September 2010
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) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- On rereading, the third sentence here may be understated and a bit of a negative pregnant. "Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group," without more, provides no real evidence at all of bad-faith editing; usually, it simply reflects that one is in agreement with the views of that group. It is only when an editor consistently fails to duly consider the viewpoints, or closedmindedly refuses to address them even in accordance with the principle of due weight, that a problem arises. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Casting aspersions
6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- I would add that merely believing that a controverted proposition is true or false, without more, does not constitute a conflict of interest in editing an article on that proposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Biographies of living people
8) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would add that as a general matter, some of our most troubling BLP incidents (putting aside blatant defamations and the like) have arisen when articles about subjects of borderline notability have been created or principally edited by the intellectual or ideological opponents of the BLP subject. Experience has shown that this is one way that undue weight becomes given to negative or controversial aspects of the subject's life and work, even when it is remote from the subject's primary areas of notability or expertise. (This problem is by no means limited to, or even primarily found in, the climate change area; it is a more widespread issue.) That is not to say that the BLP of an intellectual or a commentator should be a whitewash, nor certainly that BLPs may only be edited by the subject's friends and family. Nonetheless, it is my view that the practice described in my first sentence should generally be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Encyclopedic coverage of science
9) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- In this context, a distinction is to to be drawn between an article or portion of an article that sets out to describe the current scientific consensus on an issue, and one that sets out to describe popular attitudes or political aspects surrounding the issue. In a hypothetical example, if 100% of qualified scientists believe X, but 50% of the general population believes X and 50% believes not-X, the science article or discussion should concentrate on X but the more general article should report that some people believe not-X and discuss why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Related discussion to this comment on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Undue weight
10) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sourcing
11) The verifiability policy is 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruptive editing
12) Disruptive editing, which can include persistent vandalism, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Blocking and Banning
13) The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated with good faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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 this; 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)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Administrator involvement - general
15) The purpose of defining involvement is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Bias in a topic area can result from things like editing the topic and having strong views even without editing the topic.
Editors are expected not to 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 "active" 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A valid issue raised by several commenters on the talkpage is whether "has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict" is too broad. What if the content dispute was not on the particular area in dispute, but on an unrelated aspect within the broader area of climate change (or whatever), and it occurred long ago? I am open to the need for a rewording of the principle, but since it is founded upon formulations that we have used before, solicit input from my colleagues before doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Administrator participation in enforcement
17) There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate on arbitration 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 handle the requests, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions.
- Support:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have considered the point made by several commenters on the talkpage that "self-selection" of administrators to work on AE matters can lead to problems, especially when only a small number of admins choose to work in this area. (That is not a criticism of those who have done so to this point.) However, I haven't seen a good solution offered to the problem; despite one suggestion made by a commenter, we have no mechanism for "drafting" administrators or anyone else to work on one area of the project rather than another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Second choice, prefer 1.1 per Rlevse, and see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose:
- 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 imposed 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:
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disputes regarding administrator involvement
4) During operation of the Climate change sanctions noticeboards, bitter disputes have arisen concerning whether administrators Lar and Stephan Schulz are "involved" in the global warming/climate change topic area to the extent that they should not participate as administrators in ruling or commenting on sanctions requests.
- Support:
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area
5) Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.
- Support:
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) During the course of this arbitration case, the following articles required full page protection due to edit warring. [2]
- Lawrence Solomon (10 July 2010 for one week)
- Hockey stick controversy (10 July 2010 for one week)
- The Hockey Stick Illusion, (15 July 2010 for one week, 1 August 2010 for one month)
- Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (21 July 2010 for one week with protection lifted on 27 July 2010, then 27 July 2010 indefinite but got changed to one month and then 29 August 2010, 1 1/2 days after protection ended, for two months)
- Michael E. Mann (5 August 2010 for one week)
- Robert Watson (scientist) (23 July 2010 for one week)
- Soon and Baliunas controversy (31 August 2010 for 4 days)
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (03 September 2010 for 2 weeks)
Four of the eight articles involved in the ten edit wars are biographies of living people. Almost 30 editors were involved in the nine edit wars that resulted in these page protections; of these editors, ChrisO was involved in six of the edit wars, Marknutley was involved in eight of the edit wars, William M. Connolley was involved in nine of the edit wars.
- Support:
- Factual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reviewing per a request on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Factual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
7) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole - which was later overturned by the Committee here) and 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:
- 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)
William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
8) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16])
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [17], [18], [19]) 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. [20]] 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.[21] 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 Dr. Connolley found the desysopping unfair and unsupported; in his view, he had simply been defending another scientific article (Cold fusion) from unscientific POV pushing, and the other party to the case had, to an extent, been deliberately provoking him. In any event, my take on the situation is that Dr. Connolley reacted to the desysopping with something of an air of "nothing left to lose." Since then, he has given much more direct and frequent vent to some of his feelings about those he regards as unscientific editors than our civility norms suggest is appropriate on-wiki. That needs to stop, or at least be toned down significantly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley has shown Ownership
9) William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment. (Selection of representative examples: [22] [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])
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley BLP violations
10) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements. (Selection of representative examples: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] BLPN discussion [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68])
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Polargeo personal attacks and disruption
11) Polargeo requested enforcement against himself regarding editing in the topic area on April 29, 2010, However, he soon continued to make disparaging remarks about others. [69], [70], [71], [72]. 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: [73], [74]
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Thegoodlocust long-term disruption
12) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) has engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing across a range of articles. These behaviours include, but are not limited to, personal attacks (PA), use of 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: [75] (admin only, BLP violation), [76] (PA, soapboxing), [77] (soapboxing), [78] (PA), [79] (PA), [80] (soapboxing), [81] PA, failure to assume good faith), [82] (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: [83] , [84], [85] (see collapse box mid-thread))
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Marknutley disruptive behavior
13) Marknutley (talk · contribs) has committed 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: [86] (BLP), [87] (BLP, sourcing), [88] (BLP, sourcing), [89] (BLP, sourcing), [90] (POV fork), [91] (PA), [92] (PA), [93] (PA), [94] (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), [95] (PA), [96] (assumption of bad faith), [97] (copyright violations), [98] (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 ([99], [100]) [May 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]
- Civility parole ([101]) [June 2010, following WP:GS/CC discussion]
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Lar blocks William M. Connolley
14) 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, [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]
- 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)
- The problem is the unblock was pointless and only served to exacerbate an already highly contentious area. Sixteen minutes were not near worth the problems this caused and it all could have been easily avoided. This finding of fact is needed for the remedy. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (comment copied from related remedy below) It was an isolated incident from four months ago, and 2over0 is no longer even involved in this topic area. See relevant comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Abstain:
Lar and Jehochman revert war
15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman revert-warred over the closure of an enforcement request at WP:GS/CC/RE:
- 19:11, 24 Feb 2010 Jehochman closes enforcement request
- 00:25, 25 Feb 2010 Lar reverts the closure without discussing it with Jehochman
- 17:13, 25 Feb 2010 Jehochman re-closes the request, some discussion had occurred
- 17:26, 25 Feb 2010 Lar re-reverts Jehochman's re-closure
- 06:34 ff, 26 Feb 2010 Related thread here; Lar concluded: "So did I set an example? Yes, a good one, in my view."
- Support:
- Some say this is a revert war instead of a wheel-war since the technical use of the bit was not involved, either term works for me. While there was discussion in the middle portion, both parties should have left this to others after the 00:25 edit by one of the parties. Note the 17:26 edit clearly shows the issue wasn't settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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)
- Abstain:
RFC/U on Lar
16) User:Lar was the subject of an RFC on whether he is an involved admin in the Climate Change topic during April - June 2010. The debate on that issue has continued on several pages since that time.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Lar comments, actions, and mindset
17) User:Lar has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Stephan Schulz edits and admin actions
18) User:Stephan Schulz heavily edits the Climate Change articles and also carries out admin actions in the area: protects, deletes, blocks, contribs
- Support:
- Granting that it's been some months since the last admin action, he's still taken admin actions and also edits, and therefore is involved, hence this finding is necessary. He can't switch back and forth between editing and admin actions, which is the epitome of involvement and in a very contentious area to boot, and then go use the uninvolved admin sections for commenting. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll offer an alternative proposal here that hopefully will satisfy both of us. Let me give some thought to the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Abstain:
ChrisO's previous arbcom sanctions
19) User:ChrisO has been sanctioned times in four previous arbcom cases: warned for edit warring, inappropriate use of admin tools, and behavior in the Kosovo case, admonished in the Israeli apartheid case, banned from BLPs and use of admin tools within the Scientology topic, admonished in the Macedonia 2 case, desyssoped for long term editing and behavior issues in Macedonia 2.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
ChrisO has made personal attacks
20) User:ChrisO has made personal attacks against other users: [119], "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:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded
2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley banned
3.1) 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)
- Abstain:
- Comment:
- (Please note that some of the remedy proposals here are alternatives.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)
3.2) User:William M. Connolley is banned from all Climate Change articles, broadly construed, for one year. He may edit their talk pages. This editing restriction specifically includes modification of talk page edits made by any other user, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley's user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)
4) User:William M. Connolley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley restricted
5) User:William M. Connolley is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil remarks, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or violations of WP:BLP, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. This editing restriction specifically includes modification or removal of talk page edits made by any other user, including inserting his comments inside another user's comments, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley's user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Polargeo admonished
6) User:Polargeo is strongly admonished for personal attacks and disruption.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Thegoodlocust banned
7) User:Thegoodlocust is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months for long-term disruption.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Marknutley banned
8.1) User:Marknutley is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months for long-term disruption.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Marknutley topic banned (Climate Change)
8.2) User:Marknutley is banned from all Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for one year.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Marknutley topic-banned (BLP)
9) User:Marknutley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Use of blogs
10) All users are reminded that per the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs should not be used as references except in very limited circumstances.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Project-wide policies remain in effect
11) Editors and administrators are reminded that discretionary sanctions are intended to supplement, not supersede, existing project-wide editorial and behavioural policies. In circumstances where community or administrator intervention would be appropriate, such intervention remains appropriate whether or not they would also fall under the purview of the discretionary sanctions.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Biographies of Living Persons
12) Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article. Edit-warring, poor quality sourcing, unsourced negative or controversial information, inclusion within the article of material more appropriate for a different article, and unbalanced coverage within the article, are unacceptable. Similarly, material about living people placed into other articles should be held to the same high standards of sourcing, tone, relevance and balance.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement
13) The Arbitration Committee thanks administrators who have assisted with enforcement of its decisions as well as community-sanctions decisions, and encourages other experienced administrators to share in this work, provided they understand that this can be among the more challenging and stressful administrator tasks on the project.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area
14) Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area, to ensure that accounts that are sockpuppets of a particular chronically disruptive banned user are prevented from editing, while keeping to the lowest possible level instances in which innocent new editors are incorrectly blocked or would-be editors are caught in rangeblocks. Discussion of methods of identifying sockpuppet edits in this area should generally be conducted off-wiki. We note that there may be legitimate instances of disagreement and difficult judgment calls to be made in addressing these issues. However, administrators are cautioned that merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, without more, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
User:Lar and User:Jehochman admonished
15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Lar's May 18 block of William M. Connolley affirmed; 2over0 strongly admonished
16) William M. Connolley's reinsertion of material was disruptive and the 1-hour block by Lar was warranted. User:2over0's unblock with a mere 16 minutes remaining in the block was unwarranted and merely served to inflame the situation. User:2over0 is strongly admonished for unnecessarily disrupting the situation.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- I don't see this as necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is the unblock was pointless and only served to exacerbate an already highly contentious area. Sixteen minutes were not near worth the problems this caused and it all could have been easily avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was an isolated incident from four months ago, and 2over0 is no longer even involved in this topic area. See relevant comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- I don't see this as necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised
17) User: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 and Lar has also begun to show bias 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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator
18) Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator in the Climate Change topic area and should cease carrying out admin actions in this area.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
ChrisO banned from Climate Change article for six months
19) User:ChrisO is banned from Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for six months.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
ChrisO banned from BLPs for one year
20) User:ChrisO is banned from all BLPs and their talk pages for one year.
- 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 the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.
- 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.
- 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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comment
-