Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Robert Watson (scientist) edit war - evidence extension

This article was the subject of an edit war today by several parties on the Climate change arg case. Hipocrite reported it on the talk pages of Rlevse, Risker, and Newyorkbrad. I've prot'd the article for a week and am looking into it. This sort of behavior by several parties to an arb case on a BLP topic is part of the arb case is most disappointing. Therefore, it is okay to post evidence and workshop proposals on this one issue, the edit war, and evidence directly pertinent thereto, as well as directly related workshop proposals. Be advised the drafting arbs are planning to post the PD on Sunday, probably in the evening, eastern US time. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be an accurate summary of what took place. Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oversimplified and fails to note that "get the refs and formatting right" refers to blatantly defamatory material unsupported by the references. This summary is more complete and accurate. . dave souza, talk 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is excellent work. Tks. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for that table. What WMC removed was actually a BLP violation (as well as a textbook case of SYN). --JN466 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would have been nice if he'd said that at the time, perhaps avoiding this whole conflict. ATren (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was clearly a BLP violation is obvious to any editor with a basic understanding of the science and the BLP policy. The fact that a significant number of editors apparently either didn't get this or didn't care does not show them in a good light, to say the least. (My own reaction, as an uninvolved editor, was "what the hell are they thinking?") I fully expect this episode to result in strong sanctions against several of the editors involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not at all obvious. At quick glance it looked like any other well-sourced criticism that WMC commonly removes. He should have identified the issues -- he's required to do so, in fact. This does not completely absolve those who restored it impulsively, but it does exemplify the underlying distrust between editors, which has been building through years of abrasiveness. ATren (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It was clearly a piece of synthesis arguing a conclusion that put the subject in a bad light (falsely, as it turned out). Even if you knew nothing about the science, the fact that it was synthesis is obvious - it's a textbook example of an "A+B=C" synthesis. You are right that it exemplifies the underlying distrust but in this case the distrust went one way. WMC made the editorially correct decision, but because it was WMC who removed that addition, his detractors reflexively started reverting - basically, I think, to spite him. That is a very unhelpful dynamic and deserves strong sanctions against the people responsible. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The distrust is due to years of WMC (and others) making these kinds of reverts without comment, even when not justified in policy. And spite? Really? You think that's what this is about? This is an incredible example of assuming bad faith.

It comes back to this: why didn't he simply say "BLP" or "SYN"? Even after that first editor reverted, WMC still held back his reasons. Why? He finally did explain his reasoning as SYN (not mentioning BLP), but only after the war was raging. This again goes back to the ownership issue on these articles: WMC doesn't feel he has to explain his actions. It's like a parent telling a child "because I said so", and it's been happening on these articles for years, and that kind of behavior instigates reflexive reverts like we see here. Now, to be clear, I've stated plainly that the reverts were bad, and in fact I've expressed support for a topic ban against MN because of impulsive edits like this. But there are underlying issues as well that can't be ignored. ATren (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO's assessment. It was obvious calumny. That should have been apparent to anyone competent to edit the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It appeared to me to be obvious vandelism. An attempt to smear the BLP subject in the article. ChrisO's conclusion looks reasonable to me. WMC revert was apparently undone to harrass WMC. This idea that wp:AGF is not reasonably possible is an interesting assertion. I think it may be one of the key issues that ArbCom will have to be deciding on if not ruling on. My uninvolved view is that WMC has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. He's a subject matter expert in a very complicated field. He does not go out of his way to be diplomatic but I don't consider many of his responses rude even though they are described as rude by the other "faction". I think part of the reason for this is the soccer analogy that I read elsewhere. In soccer they sometimes flop down when touched by an opponent, in an attempt to draw a call from the ref. It was a good analogy and I think explains much of what may be going on here. (Sorry, I should give credit for this great analogy but I have forgotten who made it.) Bill Huffman (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A newbie is unlikely to understand Wikipedia's complicated rules on WP:BLP, WP:SYS or the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and the appropriate uses of each. Even now, there's quite a lengthy discussion going on elsewhere on Wikipedia between some very experienced editors on the difference between primary and secondary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was Mastcell's wonderful analogy. I used the wrong term, Flop (basketball) and Diving (football) Bill Huffman (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a shot in the dark, but does anyone want to check to see if the IP, 211.28.194.74, whose edits started the edit war, is an open proxy? Cardamon (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s in Cheltenham, Victoria OZ mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but I was wondering if the IP might possibly be an open proxy Cardamon (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look and I don't think it is. It's probably a dynamically assigned IP. That's not to say that the host machine might not have been compromised in some way, but there's none of the usual indicators of an open proxy. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was on an open network given the position. Does anyone here live in Victoria? Do the local parks have open networks? mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another BLP issue: Christopher Monckton

Those who expressed concerns about the above BLP issue might be interested in this one. Someone restored an unpublished critique of Monckton's climate change position [1], Marknutley reverted [2], WMC reverted Mark [3], and I reverted WMC [4]. WMC started a discussion on talk, where I detailed the apparently straightforward reasoning that this was self-published. But despite this, several editors have fought to include this controversial claim: see this section. The source in question is only published on the professor's website (unpublished) and has been so contentious that Monckton has threatened legal action (see the extend of the hostility from both sides of the debate, here - Google search result).

The claim that this is non-controversial enough to be included in a BLP cited to an unpublished source is completely unsupportable in BLP policy, but even so it has spurred a huge debate on the talk page from those who wish to include (mainly, KDP). This kind of wikilawyering happens constantly on skeptic BLPs, where unpublished controversial material is pushed into the article by a few editors. And it's happening again, during the arbitration. ATren (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Intriguing. Since the source meets WP:SPS and is noted only as having presented a mainstream response to the good Lord's works, not a commentary on the individual, it's very dubious if this is a BLP issue any more than it would be in an article analysing denialist presentations. The article has well established that Monckton is out of line with scientific views, and this provides an informative example. A journalist at the MinnPost has noted the story,[5][6] so perhaps that's a better source. Monckton's initial response has been covered by Monbiot in a publication meeting WP:BLPSPS,[7] so Monbiot's opinion can be summarised carefully in the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No it can not. That entire piece by monbiot is an blp breach, it is nothing but an attack piece. mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of splitting of hairs that occurs regularly here. This was a posting by a professor on his university webpage, a post devoted to criticizing Monckton's views and which was never published, a post so controversial that Monckton has threatened legal action against the professor, and it was used as a source in Monckton's BLP -- this is considered acceptable per BLP to these editors. ATren (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton has threatened (which is not the first time), and the University has responded, via their lawyers, that this is a regular part of academic discourse - with the counter-claim that he (Monckton) should cease and desist in making ad-hominem attacks, or they will sue. Disagreeing with someone isn't libel (Abraham) - attacking persons on the other hand is (Monckton). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And he has responded back, they reached for the lawyers as soon as the bad publicity hit them. No surprises there really mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course they did... If you do not ask your lawyers when you are threatened with a suit - then you are foolish. But this is all something for the talk-page - not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right, it is for the talk page, but it should not have been. It stuns me that you have kept three editors arguing with you for hours over this, content which is obviously undue and not fit for a blp. mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, the whole point is that this material is contentious and unpublished! That Monckton is willing to sue over it is clearly evidence of the former, and we already know the latter. The fact that we are still debating this point reveals the underlying problem in this topic area: that what would be a simple revert on the rest of Wikipedia, is endlessly drawn out with hair-splitting argumentative wikilawyering here. ATren (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to file an enforcement request on it. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP by WMC and Kim. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on the University site, written by an expert on the topic, with the University stamp on it, and the University has stated that it won't take it down, since this is part of regular academic discourse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished. That's all that needs to be said about it, and you should know this. ATren (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave souza has apparently provided some reliable sources. Why is the article not being complemented with these new sources instead of making accusations like wikilawyering? Is this not just another exhibition of inability to assume good faith? Or is it another example of Flop (basketball) and Diving (football) in front of the refs (ArbCom) to try to get a call? Bill Huffman (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, i think that ATren acts in good faith. While he may be assumíng bad faith, i think he is entirely honest to his views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith of you either, Kim. I just don't agree with your arguments. ATren (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know this probably isn't necessary to say, but the BLP policy is written as it is to prevent this very thing, which is to keep BLPs from being subject to additions from unsubstantiated, single sources. There should be no tolerance at all shown for this kind of behavior. It violates not just Wikipedia's policies, but general human ethical norms as well. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was clearly a BLP violation as inserted and defended. The BLP policy is clear - contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources is to be removed immediately. It was a self-published source that is obviously contentious, and should have been removed. This is a textbook example of BLP, without any need for spliting hairs or nuance. GregJackP Boomer! 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Violation of WP:BLPSPS. Not as bad as in the Watson article perhaps, but still a clear BLP vio. --JN466 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Various CC editors have been repeatedly uncivil; express no agreement or desire to improve

I want WMC and other editors here to get due process as is their right. however, I'm concerned by the number of editors who disingenuously assert that there is no conduct issue here whatsoever, every time this issue is brought up; this is even after they are repeatedly asked to explain and improve their conduct towards others. This includes WMC, and other similarly-aligned editors.

I used to edit Israeli-Palestinian articles frequently. the way we achieved resolution there was by continual WP:Compromise and flexibility, and most importantly, repeated use of WP:AGF; not by wearing down editors of other viewpoints until they went away.

I am posting my comments here mainly because I want to make sure these issues and concerns are addressed, and are not summarily dismissed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. As an long time student in the deal making arts, these skills are necessary to move articles forward. The most significant part of my formal training in negotiations, was journaling to help better recognize and control my own conduct in the face of dispute. The best alternative to negotiation should avoid blocks and bans. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What did ZP just say? Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It took me two passes, but he said that he likes to write things down in a journal because this helps him in his ability to negotiate with others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption since the evidence deadline

I would like to submit evidence for recent disruptive activity that has occurred since the evidence deadline, mainly from WMC, Hipocrite and Polargeo. WMC has made suspect edits on three different skeptic BLPs, while Hipocrite and Polargeo have been pointy and disruptive (example: [8]). I realize proposed decisions are imminent, but all of these activities support and enhance workshop proposals, so I think they are relevant. ATren (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My pointy disruption was admitting I made a mistake and owning up to it? If only everyone was as pointy and disruptive as I was. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You admitted it was pointy! See the link. ATren (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And apologized. String me up! Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You call this, "Honestly, I probably shouldn't have posted my pointy recusal in the uninvovled admins section - just moved both of your pointy recusals up. For that I apologize - for the pointy recusal, not for the move-up." an apology? Perhaps you can apologize to Lar for his low IQ in your gracious "did you beat your wife today?" style of apology. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou ATren. This is related to a case involving Lar that I had already informed the three drafting arbiters of. It does appear that Lar has been incorrect to comment as uninvolved. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am really disappointed by your actions here Polargeo, while before I didn't think you should be desysoped and defended you as simply being misguided, now I can no longer honestly defend your behavior. As for Schulz, his gaming enforcement request against Lar should cover the last bit of wood that was still visible on the coffin - he needs to be de-toothed and topic banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's flare up

• Admin Stephan Schulz files an RfE against Lar.[9]
• Admin Lar recuses himself from RfE.[10]
• Admin Polargeo recuses himself.[11]
• User Hipocrite pointedly recuses himself. Hipocrite is not an admin.[12]
• Admin The Wordsmith suggests speedy closing.[13]
• Admin BozMo supports speedy close.[14]
• Admin CIreland speedily closes.[15]
• Admin Polargeo reverts even though he's already recused himself from the RfE.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I support other admin decisions but not your rather trivial representation of them though. This is the normal out of context I'll get you banned whatever it takes sort of stuff that has to be dealt with on a day to day basis. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use the adjective "speedy" as it has an additional unwanted connotation that the request was in bad faith. I'd also add that if this were an arbitration enforcement request, the time-frame would not have been thought unusual; requests are best not left to fester. Polargeo's reversion was an incidental hiccup of, in my purely personal opinion, no lasting significance. CIreland (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: I could be wrong on this, but to the best of my recollection, I don't believe that I've interacted with you at all during this entire arbitration case, and certainly not on a "day to day basis" as you suggest. However, if you can provide evidence that I've been trying to "get you banned whatever it takes sort of stuff", then I think you should present it for the Arbitration Committee to examine. This way they can determine the credibility of your assertions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request a motion

To the Arbitration Committee: As the relevant pages are closed presently I am seeking permission to Request a Motion, that there is a moratorium on any party editing any page relating to Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming who has significantly either participated or been subject to complaints about within this case - with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism and socking (broadly interpreted), and also the Probation enforcement request page and its talkpage, and any talkpage of such parties in respect of these issues. If possible, I should like my request for permission to Request a Motion above to be adopted as the request for expediency's sake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather a big list, including you and I, but it may well have come to that. For what duration, though? The sooner that ArbCom starts posting the proposed decision and opens up comment on it, the better, I think. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Until the case closes - the world will not stop (not) warming up, and the interested parties outside of WP will not stop their efforts either. The articles can wait until we know what is appropriate editing and behaviour and what is not... because the interactions that lead to this case are still very much apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar, that the only way to probably stop future wars is to get a decision up and passed. Otherwise, like one of the old cartoons, we'd plug one hole, and another one pops open (for example, when the evidence pages closed, people took the arguments to unrelated areas, such as the Checkuser Block discussion on WT:AC/N. I know the decision is being worked on, and being smoothed out, and I urge editors to be patient.

Let me use a (possibly overstretched) metaphor here. All us ants (editors and administrators) are working on building the best possible anthill (encyclopedia). Right now, quite a few ants are under the harsh glare of a magnifying glass in the sunlight (this Arb case). The LAST thing ants should be wanting to do is focusing that glare upon themselves (editwarring WHILE a case focused on editwarring is going on). ((NOTE: I am recused on this case, but wanted to speak up on this, as I am following the case.)) SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The best thing is if all editors involved didn't behave in a manner that resulted in three separate RFARs resulting in a combined arb case and then edit warring twice in one week on top of that. But as it is, the behavior that resulted in this case opening obviously shows no sign of abating and only slows the PD being posted, which we are close to doing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the recent points of contention, I think BLPs and probation enforcement pages (including talk) would be enough for now. It could always be extended if problems move to other articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Looking" at the recent points of contention? Weren't you the direct source of the last one with your filing of the RfE against Lar? Very ballsy Stephan....Anyway, I don't think there should be any topic/article ban - the more rope the better. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see the source in Lar's abuse of the uninvolved admins section, but I don't expect us to agree there. But note that wether you take your (wrong) or my (right) point of view, the limited lock-down would have stopped this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, it would certainly make everyone's lives easer if there was a temporary ban. On the other hand, keeping them open is giving ArbCom real-time data about who's being disruptive and who's trying to get along. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the main case page is says, under a bullet point, "Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior." I don't think we can close down enforcement while the potential for Probation violations exist. Since enforcement is pretty hamstrung now, it seems better to just stop editing any page which is a potential issue. My view would be that it includes all article and article talk pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- support LVHU's request for emergency motion, and support the substance of the proposal in full and to the fullest extent possible. I would even suggest a lockdown on CC articles, talk pages, enforcement discussions for a period of one week or such other period as ArbCom deems necessary to bring the conflict to an end. Full protection of the entire topic, talk pages and enforcement pages. Minor4th 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. The drama needs to stop. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While it would be nice for the drama to stop, remember that that is only our secondary concern. Our primary concern is writing a good encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to do it today, this instant, and it is hard to write a good encyclopedia when you are dealing with needless drama. GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to write a good encyclopaedia. Full stop. I hope it does not need the drama, but we have very few data points. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Must be doomsday).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose pointless and unthinking. Stopping people edting global warming because of a conflict elsehwere makes no sense at all. Nothing hamstrings the current RFE process, it can still operate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I must oppose this. The global warming articles have been singled out as among the most excellent on Wikipedia, and this is in no small part due to the excellent editors who have been attracted to them and who have contributed overwhelmingly to their content (we know who they are, it's no secret). To stop them editing without reason now would be wrong, whatever the eventual decision of the committee. --TS 21:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "Most excellent on wikipedia" eh? Are you guys going to pull out that study by WMC's colleague at Real Climate, David Archer, in order to "prove" that? Repeating in unison that they are excellent articles does not make it so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• This would seem to be an excellent way to ensure that the only edits to the articles will be made by sockpuppets and by inexperienced editors recruited from blogs. Not sure that this would be an improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Due to this [17] ChrisO had already agreed on the talk page that this was grossly undue, yet puts it into this BLP even though all the discussion on the talk page was against it. And an RFE was brought about it. Christ Almighty, this has to stop mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Don't look now [18] but they are actively warring again, as we speak - ban em all. Weakopedia (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and i am on a 1r probation as well, but tell me, am i wrong? Chris0had already said this was grossly undue, yet inserts it anyway. Anything which can make a sceptic look bad, bung it in. mark nutley (talk)

• Oppose – While I support the sentiment, the effort needed to get it right—who has edited significantly; all CC or only CC BLP; is “obvious vandalism” different than “vandalism” and don’t roll your eyes, that distinction is directly relevant to one of the recent incidents—will take more time and effort than is appropriate for what may be relevant for only a short time. --SPhilbrickT 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - In addition, time for Zero Revert sanctions. The addiction to slap someone with a revert must be broken by having repeatedly troublesome editor(s) [WMC] talk and convince others without PA. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overly broad, and definition of affected editors is vague. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another edit war

How about we block only the editors who are currently edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP?

• [19] MN reverts.
• [20] WMC reverts.
• [21] ATren reverts.
• [22] ChrisO rewrites and readds section.
• [23] MN reverts.
• [24] WMC reverts
• [25] MN reverts.
• [26] ChrisO reverts.
• [27] MN reverts.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark is on 1RR - so i'm really surprised at seeing him do this.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the section following the suggestions of BozMo and NuclearWarfare, both experienced admins who have a good idea of BLP issues. I have reverted once. That isn't edit-warring. Marknutley's three reversions while on a 1RR probation rule are rather more difficult to justify though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

KDP: I think that Mark is claiming a BLP violation excemption. Without commenting on the merits of any BLP violations, editors shouldn't be restoring contentious material in a BLP without reaching concensus on the talk page or at WP:BLPN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the original dispute was that editors objected to the sourcing, which they thought was inadequate, and the wording, which they thought was POV. I rewrote the section to remove the contentious material and change the sourcing completely. Now Marknutley is claiming a BLP exemption on entirely different grounds. Moving the goalposts isn't helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of Monckton, but I don't think it is appropriate to add a self-published source from someone and uncritically repeat his claim that he "rebutted all of Monckton's claims" - especially when Monckton has provided his own response to that "rebuttal" - even if the source is acceptable then it'd be better to say that so-and-so claims to have rebutted all of Monkcton's claims and then include Monckton's response to Abraham [28]. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed that claim and the source and replaced them with more neutral language and reliable sourcing (note that a blog is likewise a self-published source - wattsupwiththat.com is not usable), as you can see from this edit. Sadly this still isn't good enough for Marknutley. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely better, but there are still some problems. Noticeably, it says Monckton wants $110k, when my understanding is that the sum would go to a Haitan charity of Monckton's choice. Also, while Abraham's critique has details, and is still worded in a way to imply it is fact (still sourced to a blog too btw); Monckton's response is not described in any detail, nor the fact (?) that Abraham apparently redid his lecture and removed some 10 minutes of material in response to Monckton's defense. Honestly though, I'm not even sure if it should be in the article since it is essentially only covered by various bloggers - not really notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was constrained by what was in the reliable sources that BozMo and NuclearWarfare identified. Monckton's response isn't described in any detail in those sources, nor is Abraham's editing of his lecture. I would have liked to have included more material but couldn't since I can't source it reliably. If there are reliable sources that expand on those I used, I wouldn't have any objection to adding them. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well that's the problem with detailing non-notable events - they aren't covered by newspapers. It doesn't seem fair that Abraham, because it is easy for him and other pro-AGW guys to get blog-space at the Guardian, to have the only "legitimate" source for inclusion in wikipedia. Anyway, the $110k to charity is actually in Monckton's rebuttal (page 84). Also, I object to describing Monckton's only defense as accusing Abraham of "malice" - that seems to be only one of bullet points and certainly not the main one - I'd say the most notable defense (as covered in several blogs) is that Abraham said Monckton said things he did not - and then attacked the straw man arguments he himself had setup. Also, since all the sources are blogs, which not only mention but link to Abraham's old and new presentations [29] then I don't see why that fact shouldn't be included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: This is not about content, this is about conduct. All I see are a bunch editors edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP. Whether the content is BLP violation is really beside the point. As far as I can see, no consensus has been reached. You're an experienced editor and should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understood it, the dispute was over whether the material should be sourced and worded in a particular way, not about whether it should be in the article at all. It's not reasonable for Marknutley or anyone else to start edit-warring on a different premise after someone's made a good-faith attempt to fix the sourcing and wording problems that others identified. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporarily topic banning all the involved parties, including me, until this case closes. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is MN the only person blocked? The faction got enough noses to turn up so no one violated 1RR except him? MN knows better and really needs to not let himself get baited here, but he's not the only bad guy. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What faction? Who got "noses to turn up"? Who was "baiting" MN? Insinuations like this are pure fantasy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What if everybody just did as Rlevse said initially and stopped acting in the ways that got us to this point? If your goal is to make this place better, than sit tight, follow Risker's advice to relax, and look forward to the impending resolution. If your goal is anything else, why be here? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So, ChrisO, you would like to claim that there are no factions here? No battleground mentality? Pull the other one. This proposed decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither evidence nor productive

Of course there's a battleground mentality, but your apparent belief that there's some kind of organised faction or cabal with WMC at the centre of it is nonsense. I've certainly never seen any evidence of any such organisation. You say that someone "got enough noses to turn up". Who exactly did the getting? And FYI, NuclearWarfare has already explained why he blocked MN rather than other editors: "a) it wasn't a BLP violation, b) they did not break an edit warring parole, and c) they did not signify their intent to continue edit warring even past that. [30] -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO: Mark merely edit-warred to exclude contentious material in a BLP. You edit-warred to include contentious material in a BLP. What you did was far worse, IMHO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Untrue and you know it. I did not restore any contentious material. I replaced the contentious material that had been fought over before with neutrally-worded, reliably sourced material. It was not the same material that had been included previously. Marknutley objected to it on different grounds from the material that had been contended before. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You failed to seek consensus on the article talk page, WP:BLPN or any other place, for that matter. You're experienced editor so I assume that you're familiar with the WP:BRD cycle, are you not? There is no excuse for your conduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Great question Lar. WMC violated his editing restriction a couple of days ago by reverting without explanation on Watson. Now he's been edit warring for two days on Monckton but nutley gets blocked for 24 hours and nothing for Connolley? Is this because every time an admin takes action against Connolley they get harassed and called "involved" and there are calls for them to be desysopped? This is a very fine representation of exactly what has been going on in these articles for years. This is why the articles are for the most part biased in favor of the Connolley POV. It's oppressive to deal with the gamesmanship and filibustering and circling of the wagons. There's actually an atmosphere of fear in here and that should obviously never be the case in a collaborative project. Are all admins either in support of Connolley or afraid they'll be sanctioned or harassed or desysopped if they sanction Connolley? Minor4th 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. WMC has been sanctioned on several occasions, as a glance at this page's archives will show you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly? Really? Any number of admins reading this know good and well that WMC has been edit warring for two days and actually did violate his edit restriction this week, and that's not even touching his persistent incivility. Do you wonder why no one has taken action? Take a look at the RfE against Lar that was started this morning in retaliation for him merely making a comment against WMC and KDP. You think that doesn't have a chilling effect on other admins? He's been sanctioned but not nearly as often as he's earned it. And how many blocks? I'm sure you recall that when he was blocked it was overturned within an hour by another admin. He just ignores his other sanctions because he knows he won't get blocked, and if he does another admin will unblock him. No, I don't think it's silly at all, and I'm guessing that most who read this don't either. Minor4th 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Moot. Article has been fully protected. Unclear if editors identified have been warring. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Full protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Because apparently people can't stop themselves from edit warring, even during an Arbitration case. I am doing this despite my recusal in this case because this does not touch specifically upon the grounds upon which I recused. I did not check the article, I do not have a preferred version, so that should settle that. Hopefully by the time the protection expires people will have it in their heads that edit-warring during an ArbCom case for editwarring is spectacularly dumb. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest that any of the usual parties in this case cease edit-warring on any articles for the foreseeable future. Even if you do it for the most noble of purposes, don't. If you're wondering "Does that mean me when he says "the usual parties".. assume I did. This is not giving first movers any advantage, however if they're taking advantage of this to slant an article to their side, let the clerks know and let them take care of it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify those instructions a bit? As it reads now, your statement seems to be empowering the clerks to make decisions about article content — which seems to be way, way beyond their usual scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was either empower the clerks to deal with article slanting (which they won't necessarily do.. they have the option of just noting the content, and letting the Committee know so they can build it into their decision), or have everyone given ollie ollie oxen free to add whatever they want to the article and have it stay in there for god knows however long until this case ends, because we've forbidden editwarring (even really BRD at this point).

It's a point with a purpose.. if it's bad enough that you feel it has to come out NOW, that doesn't mean go ahead and do it.. but let other people judge it. What's happened time and time again here is that parties are using policies such as BLP etcetera to do something they really shouldn't (edit-war while this case is going on). Kinda like "I know you said we shouldn't do it, but it was REALLY REALLY important." SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I'm still very uncomfortable with both the principle and the effect. A single Arbitrator (and one who is recused, at that), is instructing the clerks to implement what amounts to a zero-revert parole and empowering them to judge content disputes. This sort of authority seems to be far beyond the normal role of the arbitration clerks; indeed, it may brush against the limitations of the ArbCom as a whole. Further, this remedy is being enacted without a motion (and without any visible discussion) by the voting arbs on the case. By giving direct instructions to the clerks (phrased as a 'suggestion' or not), you are stepping far over the bounds of appropriate conduct for a recused arbitrator.

While I know that the hope is that this remedy will avoid giving a first-mover advantage (or otherwise unbalance the situation further), I fear that the effect will be far from this ideal. I also am greatly concerned that this action represents a serious expansion of the authority of individual arbitrators without community approval, and should be withdrawn on that basis as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be better just to temporarily topic ban all the parties, but I don't have any problem with SirFozzie's instructions to let the clerk remove "first mover" edits of contentious material. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: If the users on BOTH sides of this would BEHAVE, SirFozzie wouldn't have felt compelled to try to stop the THIRD edit war in less than a week -- which is also the SECOND in 24 hours. Therefore, I'm telling the clerks to clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides. And yes, this is being discussed on arb-l but the edit wars are breaking out faster than arbs can respond. If any editors can't shape up post haste, as far as I'm concerned the clerks and other unvolved admins can take any measures necessary to put these fires out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole aside, what is the urgent matter that compels the Arbcom to ignore its own rules and procedures? The article where the edit war was taking place has been protected for seven days, a process which deals with the immediate problem and gives all involved individuals breathing room. (And which doesn't require ArbCom involvement.) Additionally, one individual with a history of edit-warring has been blocked for twenty-four hours for violating his 1RR parole. (A process which also doesn't require ArbCom involvement.) Things are quiet, at least for now. Wikipedia is not burning down.

A recused Arbitrator should not be giving instructions to clerks about how to enforce and resolve content disputes. No Arbitrator should be enacting remedies in a dispute without allowing for discussion and passing an open motion. Period. I have asked SirFozzie to withdraw his instructions and go through proper channels, but I am very concerned that Rlevse is now jumping on the bandwagon. Parties to the case can be forgiven for having no idea who has enacted what rules, who might enforce them, or what the hell is going on here.

You guys are arbitrators. You can propose, discuss, debate, and pass motions. Individually and independently threatening, yelling, and issuing orders to clerks on this talk page is a misuse of your office, and likely to inflame and confuse rather than calm and clarify. I appreciate what both SirFozzie and Rlevse are trying to accomplish here, and I sympathize with their opinions, but the way that they are going about it is counterproductive — and sets a dangerous precedent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a middle route? I agree that the recent edit wars are unacceptable (and really stupid). Would it be a better idea to temporarily modify the existing CC probation for a period to impose a 1RR on the topic area until the arbitration is completed? Violations of 1RR are easy to spot and don't require extensive wrangling, and they can be dealt with under the existing probation arrangements. The clerks do not need to be involved with enforcement, since the probation admins are perfectly capable of doing this. I've personally been following a voluntary, self-imposed 1RR for some time now but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to make this a formal requirement for all editors in the topic area for a limited time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators: Would a blanket 1RR, BLP violations not excepted help for the next week? NW (Talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weren't most of the people involved already under 1rr? Did WMC's expire? I know KDP narrowly avoided such a sanction in the past, but I'm not sure if he had one imposed on him later. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, i haven't had such a sanction. You seem to be referring to this, where a 1RR was on the table, but with only Lar arguing for it. But of course it had the same effect, since i've been on a personal 1RR ever since (which i've managed to keep, with 1 or 2 exceptions). I do take critique seriously, and i do adhere to warnings. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) [and btw. i wasn't involved in that edit war at all. I turned to talk, as everyone should. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)]

It also says that if you participate in any future edit war then you'll be subjected to similar (1rr) sanctions. I suppose that leads to two interesting follow-up questions:

1) How many edit wars have you participated in since then?

2) How many times has 2over0 followed through and imposed 1rr on you?

Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanket 1RR won't solve this if the factions (or those that turn up) are different sizes. Whoever musters more bodies onto the battlefield wins. The solution is to break the power of the factions. Starting with the more powerful one. Which I am confident ArbCom is going to do, frankly. So maybe just chill for a week. One more BLP abused (out of thousands) for one more week (out of years that there have been problems) isn't going to be the end of the world. Or go with 0RR. ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, Lar, this is nonsense. This isn't about "factions". Nobody "mustered" people. You seem to think that there is some kind of behind-the-scenes organisation directing the shots. If there is one, I've never seen it. When I rewrote the disputed content to fix the problems that people had identified, I did that of my own accord. When WMC subsequently reverted MN, I didn't ask him to do so, nor did he or anyone else ask me to revert MN subsequently. I very much doubt that anyone asked MN to do his reverts. This is nothing more than people seeing changes on their watchlists and responding. There's no need to hint at some kind of conspiracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Factionalism doesn't require any sort of behind the scenes coordination. Just watchlists. No other communication at all. Read WP:BATTLEFIELD. Again, ChrisO... you want to suggest there aren't any factions? Pull the other one. You're dreaming if you think people will continue to believe denial at this point. It's just a matter of time now. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You said, "Whoever musters more bodies onto the battlefield wins. The solution is to break the power of the factions. Starting with the more powerful one." That seems to imply there is mustering behind the scenes. It also itself would seem to demonstrate a battleground attitude. Also seeming to target what would seem to be your most obvious target, WMC. I suggest that the proper way to look at this case is that the solution is to re-establish an atmosphere of wp:AGF, trust, and acceptance that the best way to build the encyclopedia is as a team. No factions, a team, a team made up of people with different ideas and different thoughts, both skeptics and AGW supporters on the same team with the same goal of building an encyclopedia. Language such as the "musters more bodies onto the battlefield" only fosters the battleground attitude further. Sure ArbCom may have to sanction some. I guarantee that it will not be described by ArbCom in terms of "break the power". I suggest that this kind of language needs to stop and if one isn't part of the solution then one is part of the problem. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the same nonsense Lar has pushed all along. Assuming the so-called factions are mere "confluences", is it really a problem, or remotely surprising, that the one supporting the scientific opinion on climate change (you know, the one with all the scientists and scientific organisations and national academies and published papers) is "stronger" than the one that runs several external web sites doing nothing but fuelling the Wikipedia conflict? I would think its a good thing that the wikipedia community is resilient enough to maintain a reasonable (if not perfect) coverage of a topic area against fringe views. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"All" the scientists? I'm frankly not surprised at such hyperbole and I think I'm in extremely good company. It makes me wonder though, WMC et all have been the Kings and Popes of these articles for nearly a decade now, and many scientists not in the field very likely come here to learn about the subject and which websites to go to - they've been receiving a very skewed view for a very long time and in turn make statements based entirely on the Real Climate approved message (heaven forbid they be on the "wrong side of history" eh?) WMC makes sure is "undiluted" - which can can then of course be quoted to corroborate the wikipedia article. I mean, we've occasionally seen journalists use wikipedia as a source and then wikipedia use those journalists as sources - add a healthy serving of groupthink with a dash of primitive fearmongeringand a massive black hole of ignorance is inevitable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful there, or The Computer will get you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell me again about paranoia? Of course, I'm not sure how articulating scientific fact about common fallacies people make, combined with the historical truths of the articles and how they are used is being paranoid - it isn't like I'm talking about some vast fossil-fuel funded blogosphere conspiracy meant to emasculate angelic scientists. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Make that a third Arb. Since repeated requests to stop haven't worked and we're not going to semi-protect an entire topic worth of articles because of a few, any further infractions, inflamations or other nonsense will be reverted, likely followed by block and then ignore. Everyone knew this case would be long and difficult to sort out - that's not an excuse to continue the behavior in the meantime. The fact is that the community hasn't been able to work this out and it's here now; we're not threatening or yelling, we're warning everyone involved where this is headed next. Unfortunately I don't believe 1RR is going to be helpful since "sides" can still edit war and simply draw more people in - a temporary topic ban for everyone involved might be doable. Shell ^babelfish 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Make that a third Arb for what? For a zero-revert probation? A one-revert restriction? A topic ban? The recruitment of clerks to make content decisions? (And, respectfully, Rlevse was most certainly YELLING in his post.) The reason why I'm asking you guys to follow your own rules isn't because I'm in love with rules, or because I'm a process wonk, or just because I'm a twit — it's because it really isn't clear who is speaking for the Committee and who is speaking for themselves (or who is simply assuming the authority of the Committee, whether recused or not). It's not clear what restrictions are in place, or are simply proposed. It's not clear what rules are now expected to be followed. It's not clear who is or is not allowed to enforce the rules, if any. It's not clear whether admins acting to enforce (or threaten to enforce) any of these provisions are acting under the aegis of arbitration enforcement, or simply as independent admins who are told to do their best to put out fires — and consequently, it is not clear which decisions are negotiable or in what forum questions should be brought forth. Finally, not all editors in this area necessarily have every page of the Arbitration watchlisted, nor do they necessarily check these pages every hour (or even every day); another problem with this sort of ad hoc imposition of remedies is that people affected by them may not even be aware of them.

Arbitrators, do this stuff right, or don't do it at all. Withdraw all the threats and warnings (explicit or implied), and take the night off. The page is protected for now, and the parties are aware that their actions are subject to intense scrutiny right now. Arbitrators going off half-cocked is not helping, and frankly you ought to know better than to act this way. Bring forward a clear motion stating what you hope to accomplish, and vote on it tomorrow. Make sure everyone is on the same page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Omg, you again. If the arbs have to take tough admin decisions at this point it's cos you failed to do so when you had the chance on the enforcement pages. Stop empowering edit warriors. Weakopedia (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess, my first instinct was happiness that someone was yelling “stop” and backing it up with some authority. However, after considering it a bit more, you do have some valid points. ArbCom has a lot of power, and I won’t pretend to be an expert on the extent of this power, but the ability of an individual arb to impose rules and empower clerks to carry out duties not normally considered part of their role, without going through any sort of identifiable process, sounds like over-reach. The building isn’t burning down. Yes, there’s a mess, which is why ArbCom is here, but it doesn’t rise to the level that permits such out of process mandates. Think about the precedents. In the next squabble that gets serious enough to go to ArbCom, do we want individual arbs deciding they can implement whatever measures they want, and cite this instance as precedent?--SPhilbrickT 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly not speaking "for the committee". I made it clear I was speaking for myself. As for my recusal, I recused myself in this for a very specific area of this; if I had thought of it back at the time, I would have voted to accept, and then abstained in the proposed decision upon the area where I felt it necessary. Some of this is utter frustration that in the last seventy two hours, three seperate times we've had an edit war of the type that should never happen during an arbitration case. It's like the members of the Committee can't take our eyes off this area without something happening. I think we are trying to make it so the parties can still edit these articles, but strictly in a way that doesn't promote further ill will or warring. If the other members of the Committee don't think this can happen, I guess that they'd have to convert this into a full fledged topic ban, rather than an emphatic and near-explicit "Go and edit, but don't cause any further edit-warring". SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the best advice is for everyone to relax. The good news is that most people do seem to be getting it - I see only WMC, ATren, ChrisO, and Mark Nutley participating in this most recent edit-war. Of those, ATren reverted only once, on justifiable sourcing grounds, and ChrisO was clearly making a constructive attempt to improve the sourcing and address concerns. So that leaves, really, just 2 editors who should know better.

  I understand the frustration expressed in this thread by the Arbs, but I guess this glass looks half-full to me - I don't see factions stepping up to edit-war. Most of the parties to this case discussed the matter on the talk page, if they participated at all. I'm all for stomping on edit wars aggressively, and if the clerks or Arbs (or any admin) wants to help with that then I don't see a downside. Of course, this is probably still the best advice. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I beg your pardon? I haven't edited it recently, certainly not during the current trouble [31] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you came to this conversation exactly one month too late :p Hint - try looking at the history you just referenced! Start with this and this. Weakopedia (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In view of the comments that have been made about my attempt to improve the sourcing and address concerns on the Monckton article, I've submitted a CC probation enforcement request against myself. Please see WP:GS/CC/RE#Request concerning ChrisO. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Geez, what is it with you guys an filing enforcement requests against yourselves? Yours appears to be more serious than the last one though. Anyway, as I said before, I think you improved the wording, but the sources were still poor, and the content not really notable enough. That being said, whether intentionally or unintentionally, your actions seemed to be the "two" in the 1-2 punch combo/implementation of the door-in-the-face technique of coercion. To clarify, the initial input was awful and edit warred in over a period of weeks, you improved it for sure and the violations in your version paled in comparison and were likely (hopefully) unintentional - which makes them more likely to be ignored and "settled" on. BLP violations should not be "settled" on because they are more subtle than previous outrages. It makes me wonder if this sort of technique is why there are so many subtle digs and BLP violations in so many of the skeptic's articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for a statement on BLP policy

Extended content

We have several admins arguing at RFE that inserting Abraham's self-published presentation, which accuses Monckton of various improprieties, in Monckton's BLP was not a BLP violation. Dear arbitrators, please make a clear statement on this. If you agree with the admins' view that this is not a violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS policy, which states, categorically, that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer", then please explain your reasoning and your reading of WP:BLPSPS of WP:SPS to the community, so that we can all learn from this. In what way was this presentation not a self-published source? If you disagree with the views of the admins involved, please impress upon them the utmost seriousness of their conduct in defending edits that break BLP policy, refusing to sanction editors that introduce BLP violations, and blocking editors who remove BLP violations. We cannot put foxes in charge of the hen house. I look forward to your comments with interest. --JN466 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I don’t expect a specific response on this issue from the arbitrators. It is largely a content dispute—is that source acceptable content according to policy? The first step is always to discuss on talk pages, which has happened, then escalate to the relevant notice boards, which has happened. While the discussion at those places aren’t exactly pretty, it isn’t clear that the entire dispute resolution process has been exhausted for this incident, To be sure, this incident is part of the fabric of the entire CC issue at Arbcom, and I hope to see proposed remedies which might be applicable to this situation, but I doubt the committee is going to issue a specific ruling on this dispute.--SPhilbrickT 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It is not a content issue. It is either a violation of a longstanding, extremely clearly and totally unambiguously worded site policy, or it is not. Violations of site policy are a behavioural issue, and I trust the committee will address this specific point in its proposed decision, including the block of the editor who removed the material. --JN466 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure you framed this correctly - specifically, it dosen't appear that the presentation is used as a source any longer, rather as a convience link - the source appeared to be [32]. I'm not taking a position on this one (personally, I feel that nearly all of the bios of "Skeptics" are overinflated, both in negative shotsand puffery, to the point that they should all be deleted and redirected to some listacle), but you should at least present the other side of the argument fairly. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) A BLP should not cite or link to self-published sources. Whether you use the SPS as a source or offer it as an external link does not make any difference in policy as written. --JN466 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Are you sure? Where is that ensconced? I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for refs. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, WP:SPS, WP:ELBLP. --JN466 12:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I don't support leaving the link to the presentation in the article, given this. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The trouble here is that one revert, which was not being made for reasons of the source happened to add back in a poor source. However, the text was not removed because of the source and it was not put back in due to source considerations. Since then better sources have been found anyway and the statements readded. This is a fairly typical situation of using a technical and unintentional BLP violation to beat up an editor or get sanctions against an editor and it is unfortunately par for the course in CC enforcement. That is what is most telling to me, the fact that CC enforcement reinforces battleground mentality. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (ec)JN, is it really appropriate to spin things like that here? inserting Abraham's self-published presentation, which accuses Monckton of various improprieties The text in question did not "accuse Monckton of...improprieties". So why how is that point at all relevant? You quote the BLP policy, saying "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". You neglect to mention that it has been argued that this commentary was a discussion of ideas. Ideas are not people - every theory is someone's idea, and we do not normally apply WP:BLP to the discussion of theories and hypotheses. While I have not looked into the issue enough to decide whether I agree with this interpretation or not, surely you should mention it if, in fact, you are interested in an appropriately nuanced discussion from the arbs. You also failed to mention that the text in question is supported by various sources which we usually accept as reliable in BLPs. Policy does not exist for its own sake. It exists to serve a purpose. If a bit of text is acceptable with Source B, but it currently has Source A (which Source B uses as its basis), which doesn't quite meet our sourcing standards, is it really an issue for enforcement? Fix it yourself, remove it and insist that others fix it...whatever. But drag it into a whole long meta-discussion? To what end? Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy? Guettarda (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) See WP:BLP#Further reading and external links, WP:ELBLP, etc. There is no problem citing the Guardian, or describing the dispute between Monckton and Abraham, but BLP policy as written categorically forbids external links in BLPs to self-published critiques of the BLP subject. If you don't like it, you are free to argue your case at BLP talk, but I would suggest you are not free to disregard policy as currently in force. --JN466 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The links you give say nothing of the sort. They say self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) So are you arguing that if you insert the external link in-text, or in a section titled "Interesting stuff", then it is somehow fine? Are you serious? --JN466 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It was as a source. It has been dealt with effectively. Why are you going to all this trouble when the situation has been resolved except to try to get an editor sanctioned for the most technical of reasons? I have come to find CC enforcement very vindictive. Polargeo (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) PG - this is not a winning battle. I was not aware of WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, which I believe makes this problematic. Exclude the link to the presentation, leave everything else. Problem solved. The Guardian links to the presentation, in case the reader feels the need to look at it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I am not trying to win a battle. I didn't think the link/citation was still in the article anyway. Polargeo (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) See, this all boils down to a communications problem. It appears there's no objection to mentioning the presentation via the Guardian, but there is an objection to linking to the presentation (as opposed to just letting people find it through the guardian). I'm glad we all were able to come to an understanding. Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) What Hipocrite says is correct. --JN466 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) WP:BLPSPS does not seem to fit very well with self-published academic work by experts in their fields. If Professor Y, a published expert in his field, publishes a detailed scholarly critique on his website of a work by Professor Z, that doesn't really seem to fit into the BLP framework. The subject of the critique is not the individual as a person but the work by that individual (a book, speech, TV show, whatever). On the other hand, if Professor Y uses his website to post biographical claims about Professor Z, that clearly would fall within the BLP framework. But I can't see how a critique of a public work, as opposed to biographical claims, would be caught by BLP. Suppose in this case that Professor Abraham had published a scholarly critique of a book by Monckton, rather than a speech. Would that make any difference? If so, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Chris, the presentation contains multiple personal statements about Monckton. It is self-published in my view and per BLP policy simply should not be linked to from Monckton's biography. We either have a BLP policy, or we don't. If Abraham puts it into a book, or a newspaper article, it is perfectly fine to use, but not if he puts it onto his university homepage. --JN466 12:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) JN, I've listened to a large part of the presentation (though not all of it), and I'm not sure what you mean by "personal statements". He repeatedly says "Monckton beleives x, but x is not the case becuase y", but that is just criticsm, which is specifically allowed by the guidance. AFAICT, he doesn't make any personal remarks about Monckton or accuse him of anything other than being wrong and his work not conforming to scientific norms. What "personal statements" are you referring to. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Well, if I say you believe in cannibalism and then proceed to explain why cannibalism is wrong is that a personal attack? If so then I think you have your answer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps Monckton is arguing that Abraham's statements are a personal attack because he can't assume good faith and is hoping that sanctions will be enforced when he files a request for enforcement? (Note: this is a joke to try to lighten the mood. This issue appears to be primarily a good faith content dispute to me anyway.), Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This seems like entirely the wrong forum for this sort of discussion. If it's still an active issue, it might be more appropriate for WP:BLP/N. If it's no longer an active issue, then everyone should probably chill. MastCell Talk 17:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This is probably the wrong forum for this, as you said, but .... Some are making the fallacious argument that it's ok to include negative information about a BLP's ideas as long as the negative information is not about a personal aspect of the BLP. That's absurd. For instance, we might all agree that Monckton's BLP should not include the poorly sourced statement "Monckton eats babies for breakfast" (to borrow another editor's hypothetical), but some seem to think it's ok to include the poorly sourced statement "Monckton approves of eating babies for breakfast" or "Monckton disavows rumors of his baby eating predilection, but the Guardian notes that footnote 82 on page 59 of this associate professor's self-published attack piece confirms that Monckton enjoys baby eating". No! They are each and every one a BLP violation. If the BLP has commented on the accuracy of negative information about him, don't include the negative information unless it is impeccably sourced in multiple sources and exclusion of the material would render the resulting BLP article misleading. Check your motives: if you are trying to have negative information included in a BLP because you don't agree with the BLP's ideas, then you are very likely overestimating the significance of the negative information. If it's controversial (hint: it's controversial if another editor thinks it should be excluded), the default position should be to exclude the negative information. We all know this! There should never ever be an edit war over negative information about a BLP. MN should not have been blocked -- Chris should not have inserted the same negative BLP info, even if sourced slightly better, without establishing a very clear consensus after broad discussion. (Now I'll go make the same comment on the appropriate forum) Minor4th 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite is not correct. Minor4th 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, your statement is floating out there in the whatever. What am I not correct about? Why am I not correct about it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the lack of context. This statement: See, this all boils down to a communications problem. It appears there's no objection to mentioning the presentation via the Guardian, but there is an objection to linking to the presentation (as opposed to just letting people find it through the guardian). I'm glad we all were able to come to an understanding. Minor4th 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC) What objection do you have to using the Guardian as a reliable source, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) One could make a good-faith argument that including this coverage in the Guardian blog is WP:UNDUE weight in this BLP. But that is another matter entirely; if it had only been sourced to the Guardian blog, it would not have been a BLP violation. --JN466 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This is a good faith content dispute and it doesn't belong here. I lean in the direction of excluding the link, by the way, but this is not the place to discuss it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Minor4th, you seem to be arguing that anyone in the world that decides to edit Wikipedia has veto power over any and all negative information in a BLP. If I'm correct in understanding the argument, it seems like an incredible argument. Please clarify. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) You misunderstand. I'm saying negative information that is controversial needs to be impeccably sourced in multiple reliable sources. I think there may even be a policy around here somewhere. Minor4th 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The word "multiple" appears in WP:BLP? Where is that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. It is informative that there is only one source that relies on a self-published attack piece of a non-notable associate professor. Have you checked your motives? Minor4th 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The word "multitude" does indeed appear in there - and it is relevant to this case. Additionally, BLP policy states, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." I find this very interesting since we're ignoring the "don't use blogs" guideline in order to include Abraham's criticism, but enforcing that rule against Monckton's self-published rebuttal even though he would get an exception since he is the article's subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Further BLP policy states: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (seeNo original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP. Minor4th 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Guys. If you want the Arbs' opinion, then quiet down and see if they offer one. If you just want to argue about specific sources or fine parsing of BLP, then take it to the relevant article talk page or noticeboard. MastCell Talk 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It certainly would be nice if the Arbs' gave us an opinion, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Sure. But the wikilawyering to twist things around so that attacks on skeptics (and defenses of alarmists) and their ideas survive even if shakily sourced and even if unduly weighted, while defenses of skeptics (and attacks on alarmists) and their ideas get deleted even if soundly sourced and not unduly weighted... that's what the arbs need to be reminded of. Shuffling it off to a talk is all well and good. If what you want is to shuffle the problem off. This playing field is not level, most of the wiki-rules-lawyers are in one faction. Even pointing that out gets you opprobium. Hopefully we'll get some proposed decision stuff soon so this all will be put to an end. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Lar, come on. You know that this thread isn't an appropriate use of an ArbCom case talk page. Help me out - resist the temptation to score points and help encourage people to rein themselves in and address this constructively, in the appropriate venues. MastCell Talk 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) That (mis)characterization of my post by you is itself problematic, if not symptomatic. Stop shooting the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Rosalind Picard was unavailable for comment. Horologium (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Curious minds wants to know what you mean? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Many of us remember. She's a victim whose article was used as a battleground among two opposing factions, one more powerful than the other, which took their battle to many BLPs, including hers, in an effort to win at all costs by smearing those who might have a whiff of once having had an opinion they didn't agree with. The irony is that in her case, she actually didn't. She just got tricked into signing a lame meaningless petition. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting, Lar, you seem privy to her thoughts that she doesn't appear to have expressed publicly. User:Moulton used to present himself as her spokesman, have you been discussing this with him at WR? . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC) And what exactly is the relevance here? Do please spell it out - since i'm not familiar with the Picard, or the conflict. And i don't think that we should be kept guessing at what is being said here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I think Horologium must be refering to attempts by "Skeptics" to use various questionable sources to call various persons "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming," including "Petition Project," various politicized lists and books, even if the individuals portrayed as opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming isn't actually in opposition to it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps. Do we have such sceptics on our list? Because in such a case they should be removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite's interpretation looks reasonable. Picard signed a petition called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. User:Moulton, claiming to be her colleague, campaigned to erase well sourced content from her bio. After a great deal of discussion, properly sourced information was found about her career and her views, and the article altered accordingly. Last reliable source we had about her position, "Although her view about the complexity of DNA "sounds similar to the intelligent design debate", reporter Mirko Petricevic writes, "Picard has some reservations about intelligent design, saying it isn't being sufficiently challenged by Christians and other people of faith", and "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice", She's still on the petition as last updated January 2010, hence still appears to be giving public support to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, but of course the DI aren't very reliable so it would be helpful to have a reliable source if she's chosen to withdraw from the list. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Please don't edit my post, link restored as my posting. Whoever did it, User:Moulton was involved in the original discussions, and is now banned but has apparently has a Wikiversity account at betawikiversity:User:Moulton . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) In 2001, Picard and 102 other scientists and academics signed an untitled 32-word 2-sentence statement. Five years later, the Discovery Institute attached the 5-word label "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" to that original 2-sentence statement, dramatically reinterpreted its meaning, and falsely claimed that the 103 scientists and academics therefore supported the political agenda of the DI as it emerged in 2006. If you visit the DI site today, Dave, you will discover that the DI's reprint of the March 2006 article, "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" by Pete Chadwelll, a commercial artist writing an opinion column for the Bend Bulletin of Bend Oregon, no longer claims the original 103 scientists and academics signed the reframed and reinterpreted statement bearing the misleading title, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Moulton 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Ah yes, Moulton, had forgotten that claim which doesn't seem to be reflected currendly in the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, maybe it should be if we can find a good source rather than original research. However, the current list "last publicly updated January 2010", download from here, includes Picard. . . dave souza, talk 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The author of that opinion column did not make any claims about who had signed what. The Discovery Institute originally attached their list of signatories, including the names of the original 103 scientists and academics who, five years earlier, had signed an untitled statement not associated with the 2006 campaigned launched by the Discovery Institute. For a while, the page with the reprint of the article by Pete Chadwell included a link to the "current list" and when I last looked at it (a few months ago) that list had been redacted to remove the original 103 scientists and academics who had never signed the retitled and reframed version that the DI trotted out in 2006. Now that link is missing entirely from the page with the Chadwell Reprint. So now, the only source you have is the January 2010 PDF in which the 2-sentence 32-word statement is in quotes, and the 5-word misleading headline is at the top, not in quotes. This would be like some tabloid picking a headline that didn't echo the actual story. Comedians do this all the time, but everyone knows that it's a joke. The DI is a joke, except that IDCab took them seriously. The DI is not a reliable source for anything other than evidence of their successful attempt to bamboozle people into believing something other than the ground truth. Oh, and Dave, while I have you on the line, please have a look at this dangling participle. Moulton 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, I think the opposite of what Hipocrite suggests is true. There was an attempt by mainstream to discredit her as a legitimate professional in her field by attempts to link her with intelligent design by reference to a petition that she did not really support. Minor4th 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Is that your original research, or do you have a source supporting your opinion? . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Is this directed at me or at Hipocrite? Minor4th 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) That's odd, I thought it was crystal clear. Perhaps it isn't the "spelling" that is the problem, but the feigned ignorance? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps because you are familiar with the case? I am not. There is nothing feigned here - i do not know what is being referred to or implied. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) TheGoodLocust, please assume good faith and don't be cryptic. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It's unsurprising that each faction (and yes, it's mind-blowingly obvious that there are two points of view in this debate) are conveniently applying my comment to the other faction. Actually, it was directed at both factions, because both are guilty, whether it's to William M. Gray or William M. Connolley, or any of the innumerable other articles in this topic. Both sides insert references which are either substandard or CoI flags (yes, at this point Real Climate is a CoI for both sides, because of WMC's editing there and here, and right-wing blogs are blogs by non-experts), and both sides working to include external links which bolster their particular points of view (repeated additions of "Exxon Secrets" links to skeptics), or removal or categories (Chris de Freitas, vice-president of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand, had Category:Climatologists removed from his article at least twice in the past 100 edits), and some of the hyperbolic jockeying for position (removal of the ISI highly cited researcher link from articles on skeptics, but not on Phil Jones (climatologist)), and overemphasis of "Climategate" on the articles of some of the individuals involved in that affair, most of which has been corrected, but should never have occurred in the first place. There's more, but this is not the evidence page (only the talk page), and I'm not submitting any proposals, but I think that about 10-15 editors need to be topic-banned because they are more interested in scoring cheap points then they are about providing factual information about the science, the politics, and the figures in the overarching field of climate-change. Horologium (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly so. It's not just one faction. It's both sides. One faction is much more powerful, and gets away with far more, but it's both sides and both sides need to be stopped. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) So, Lar, please stop taking sides and try stopping for a while. Goes off to play golf. . dave souza, talk 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not taking sides. I'm not a member of either faction. You are. Stop shooting the messengers conveying information you don't care to hear. This will be ruled on soon enough, so your distortion is only temporary, but it's still inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) @Lar: I don't think removing this to the relevant talk page is shuffling off anything. There are probably dozens of content issues reflecting on the editors involved that could be raised here. If an editor feels there is a problem, he/she can certainly raise the issue in proper detail in the talk page and then post a note here. Having a long discussion on this here seems disruptive and just adds to the drama. Again, I happen to lean toward the view that the slide show does not belong in that BLP. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) On topic, BLP applies to all articles, not just bios, and it can be legitimate to show a self-published expert critical response to fringe claims promoted by an individual. Sourcing the paragraph purely to the self-published response looks inadequate, but at least two journalists have expressed opinions about this in blogs which may be acceptable as described in WP:BLPSPS. However, there doesn't seem to have been wider coverage of the debate between Abrahams and Monckton, and so its significance is questionable under undue weight. My preference is to be cautious with opinion sources, so on balance my feeling is that this should be left out of the article until a good source is found showing significance. . dave souza, talk 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Dave, for crying out loud, have you actually read WP:BLP in recent history? Let me refresh your memory: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below);" "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources as long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." "Further reading and external links: External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail." "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." (WP:SPS) "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." (WP:ELBLP) In what way exactly do these passages from the WP:BLP policy, the WP:V policy and the WP:EL guideline support your assertion that "it can be legitimate to show a self-published expert critical response to fringe claims promoted by an individual" in that individual's BLP? --JN466 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) {ec}}I think we all know BLP by heart. Is there a reason that you are ignoring what other people are saying? (that while a biography is primary BLP material, all material in biography isn't BLP material). The active phrase here is "about a living person". Things are hardly ever black/white - they are to a large extent shades of grey. That aside - why is still being discussed here - instead of at the relevant talk-pages/boards? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Your assertion that material in a BLP is "not BLP material" is patently absurd. --JN466 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Compared to some of their declarations regarding WP:V this is sadly pretty mild. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC) As I read the rules, there is a pretty broad prohibition against self-published sources in BLPs. I just don't see any way around that. Even if one does not interpret what's in that self-pub slide show as a personal swipe, it nevertheless seems to rub up against policy. Are there no non-self-published sources that make the same points? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Two journalists Dave? Can you name these people for me please. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If ArbCom is going to comment on this section, which i'd actually prefer, since this is a problem area. And no matter what ruling is done, it is going to calm down various discussion. But of course it depends on whether this is within ArbCom's remit. But in that case, i'd like to submit some proposed principles that i didn't previously, since ArbCom stated that it wouldn't comment on content issues: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles (not formatted well at the moment - since this is just my notes put up here) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) As a general comment, I don't think that the hyperbole and righteous indignation I've seen expressed here is helpful. From this talk page it appears to me that this is a good faith content dispute. It is best to assume good faith in one's fellow editors. That means trying to understand their side of things. When a person instead expresses hyperbole and righteous indignation it will tend to disrespect and alienate one's fellow editor's. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) @Bill Huffman --I agree it was good faith in that Chris likely thought he was within BLP and could add the negative information since he found a Guardian article (that is based on the self-published attack). But this is an important policy issue and not just a content dispute -- mark nutley was blocked for doing exactly what BLP policy dictates: removing poorly sourced, controversial negative information. There is no !RR or 3RR limitation in that instance. The outcome was a failure in the application of policy and that necessarily means that the blocking admin (NW) and ChrisO who kept adding the BLP info need to get familiar with policy. The block of nutley protected a BLP violation, and that shoudn't be happening. There is a larger issue as well: NuclearWarfare, who blocked mark nutley, also unprotected the Watson page on WMC's request one day after Rlevse protected it, even though there was disagreement on the talk page that it should be unprotected before the expiry. I believe it was NW also who closed a no conclusion SPI on TheNeutralityDoctor for abusing multiple accounts as a certain faction or confluence claimed TND was a GoRight sock. Whether those actions collectively indicate anything about NW would depend on whether NW has taken similar actions of the same proportion against the other "side" or if his use of admin tools is uniformly in support of the Connolley POV and at their request. This broader issue and the BLP issue are both arguably within AC's "jurisdiction." Minor4th 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Actually the protection of the article protected Marknutley's version. It appears that the violation came down to the external link which could have been removed with the text and sources ChrisO placed being a content argument and not a BLP violation. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Well, NW did threaten to topic ban me for either this or this edit which were quite tame compared to other edits composed by more angelic hands - my magic 8 ball informs that it is unlikely that he threatened equal measures against WMC et all for similar or worse behavior.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Last I checked, the one thing Arbitration is not, is it does not address content disputes. Furthermore, WP:BLP is not a document created by ArbCom, hence is not really alterable by ArbCom. ArbCom addresses editor behaviour, not edits as such. Collect (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Thought so (though i seem to recall that they've done it in the past). Which was why i dropped the principles. In this case it is unfortunate as it could resolve some long-standing issues. Ah well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton. Would someone be so good as to explain to me why that was not a BLP breach. And why i was blocked for following WP BLP policys mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) All I know is, this is not where anything of thst ilk will get decided <g>. BLP/N is likely the best place for such discussions. Collect (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I don't agree. We have admins arguing that apparent BLP violations are not BLP violations, defending the editors who made them, and blocking an editor who tried to remove them, following clear and positive instructions in BLP policy. If these were BLP violation, then this is a question of admin misconduct, and the buck on this stops most definitely with the arbitrators. In response to the question about "personal statements" by FormerIP earlier on, here are some of the things that Abraham says in that presentation about Monckton personally, according to Monckton's rebuttal: Monckton “has money and no background in science” (29) Monckton “has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic” (4) and has “never published a paper in anything” (37) Monckton is “paid” and “employed” by the Science and Public Policy Institute (104), which Abraham describes as “an activist organization that is lobbying against dealing with the issue of global warming and trying to sway public opinion” Lord Monckton’s “deep” connections with this “ideological” organization make it “extremely difficult to believe that you can separate your results from the interests of those people funding you” (104); that many of Lord Monckton’s statements “sound absurd”, and probably are (5); that “the number of errors” Lord Monckton “makes is so enormous it would take a thesis to go through every single one of them” (74); that Lord Monckton’s talk contained assertions that were “total nonsense” (21), “just not true” (34), “sleight-of-hand” (35, 59); “a complete fabrication” (47); and “a straw man” that “doesn’t hold any water” (53); Lord Monckton “can’t get it straight” (40); Lord Monckton “either deliberately or by mistake misrepresented the data” (114),“misstated data” (81); made “a very bald misrepresentation” (85) spreads "misinformation" (115) These would all be statements about Monckton personally. The numbers in brackets indicate the relevant slides in Abraham's presentation. Whether these statements by Abraham are true or not, they were made in a self-published source, and I believe our policies tell us very clearly that we have no business citing or linking to a self-published source that makes these kinds of statements about a living person. --JN466 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Collect. This entire discussion simply doesn't belong here. I think that, since this is an ongoing nightmare, a good idea might be to bring ongoing disputes not mentioned in Workshop etc. to the attention of the arbitrators here, rather than actually fight them out at this location. Perhaps there should be a section titled "Recent disputes" with subheaders on the editor behavior supposedly at issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Also agree (content discussions belong elsewhere), though i think that ArbCom should concentrate on coming up with a proposed close, or whatever. (hopefully before Saturday 22:00(GMT+2) since i'll go on vacation then). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Why don't we hat the discussion and leave it to the arbitrators to take it into account or not, as they see fit. --JN466 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. I just noticed that this is the subject of an RFE discussion, which makes it even less apropos here. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I would like an answer to my question actually mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Understandably so. --JN466 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Well, it is partly the unsatisfactory state of the RFE discussion that led me to raise this here. The buck has to stop somewhere. By the way, the notion that the arbitration committee do not address edits or BLP violations is ill informed. There have been many findings of fact noting that editors inserted BLP violations or improperly sourced material, and sanctions were formulated on that basis. --JN466 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) To its credit, the current Committee has been active in supporting WP's BLP policy and giving little leeway to editors who abuse it. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I happen to agree that it's a BLP violation, but there is no clear-cut agreement with this among the uninvolved administrators responding to the RFE. Given that there is obviously a good-faith basis for trying to add the Abraham stuff, whether we agree with it or not, why are we here? Are we going to go to forum after forum before we find someone who agrees with us on this? At a certain point one has to say "I lose." You can't go to the mat on everything. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Easy to say when you were not the one blocked. Also the current RFE is over a different matter. In fact i have half a mind to file an RFe at both those editors for what they did mark nutley (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The trouble is you were removing information because it was "undue" but that does not seem to be the actual violation in ChrisO's edit. The actual violation was the external link which could have been removed without reverting the entire text or the reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) No the text was undue, and the external link was a blp violation. Read wp:blp any poorly sourced or contentious text must be removed immediately. This is what i did, and said in my edit summary that it was a blp exemption on the second revert. Yet Chris reverted it saying not a blp issue, when it clearly was. And i still want a reply to my question. Why was i blocked for following policy? Do i have to file an RFE to get answers here? mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, your mistake in this case imo was to edit war this contents removal under the umbrella of BLP removal, that umbrella should only be considered to keep the rain off you in extreme clear cases which imo this was not. It was imo a violation but not one so severe as to get you a bye on edit warring it out, this is just an example of how bad the issues surrounding the editing of climate change BLP articles has sunk, take some solace in the fact that at least you kept it out and the article was protected to your version, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Adding this self published derogatory presentation on Monkton was a BLP SPS violation and after Mark nutley removed it no one should have replaced it. I think this is pretty clear in policy already, if independent reliable sources have commented on the presentation to a degree as to make it notable then we could and should report those articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with what you say. The independent source that made it notable and not undue was the guardian journalist. This I believe was the main source for the text added by ChrisO. This was also backed up and balanced by Monkton's own self published rebuttal (completely acceptable in a BLP). I do see issues of neutrality arising from BLP sourcing restrictions where selfpublished rebuttals are allowed as external links but this is a fairly small price to pay. Polargeo (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob: It was a severe violation. In any topic area not currently the subject of an ongoing war by opposing factions, it would have been removed instantly, without question. It's been the subject of a tug of war here because one faction (inasmuch as you can ascribe motive to an amorphous collection of individuals who come to their own independent, but similar conclusions... that is, you really can't) doesn't want to lose this point and are fighting tooth and nail using multiple tactics... we have some folk arguing against policy, some attacking the messengers, and some arguing for a change of venue, all at the same time. Standard practice. The other faction no doubt has in the past done damage to BLPs as well, but their power is so much less they rarely get away with damage and disruption to the degree this faction consistently and repeatedly does. Wait for the reply to this post decrying the identification of what's going on here, and shooting the messenger. I predict you won't have to wait long. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The violation was the external link which is referenced in the guardian blog. The external link just needed removing. You are simply stoking the fires here and demonstrating your support for your prefered faction (as you would put it). Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Yes LAR, considering your comments it was indeed a severe violation. Looking at the edit pattern..It was replaced in a revert by User:William M. Connolley and removed again and the violating SPS replaced again in a rewrite by User:ChrisO, removed again and the violation replaced again in a revert by User:William M. Connolley.. removed again and the policy violating content again replaced by User:ChrisO..User Mark nutly got blocked for warring but he clearly was not the only one in violation of policy and imo these other two users should have also had their editing privilidges restricted for what is basically tag team edit warring policy violating content into the BLP of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) But it was not that clear because MN kept removing the text that was not a BLP violation with the edit summary of "undue" therefore he was not addressing the BLP violation which was the external link at all. It is only now after detailled painful analysis that we see that the external link can be mentioned but the link not included but can be found by going to the guardian source anyway. This is really pushing things a little far. Polargeo (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I think we can safely assume that such experienced editors knew what they were doing. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter. We can't have editors edit-warring to include contentious material in a BLP. The burden of evidence lies with the editors adding or restoring the material. ChrisO and WMC should have sought consensus at the article talk page before restoring it in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) You are right they overstepped the mark (pun not intended). But Mark saying something was "undue" was what appeared to be their consideration at the time and not the hallowed BLP violating link that we are now focussed on. Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Nor can we have admins blocking editors for correctly following policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It is only after analysis that it appears the external link was the BLP violation. MN was reverting far more than that with the comment "undue" in a way he now recieves the benefit of hindsight but at the time he was clearly edit warring. The block was therefore okay to prevent the edit war. As Off2riorob already said above you cannot be expected to be protected from all out edit warring on such marginal cases. Mark was not following Wikipedia:Edit warring policy which does not give wikt:carte blanche to revert by just stating "BLP" and in fact states the prefered option of reporting to the BLP noticeboard. Therefore NWs block for edit warring is perfectly sound. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Actually when i said undue i meant that external link. I am sorry i am not the wikilawyer some other editors are. mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) So, to summarize, you believe the inclusion of the external link was a violation of WP:UNDUE, so you removed the entire paragraph? Could you explain how WP:UNDUE prevents the inclusion of the external link, and why you would remove the entire paragraph - and then repeat that action multiple times? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Read what i wrote, thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, I have. And you've said different things at different times - I'm trying to get a definitive statement from you about what you believe. You said here "when i said undue i meant that external link." You said above "No the text was undue, and the external link was a blp violation." Which is an accurate depiction of what you believe? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I meant it was undue, all of it. Not being a wikilawyer like yourself means i forgot to also write BLP VIOLATION. My bad for getting it right but not actually saying so at the time due to my haste in removing a BLP VIOLATION from a BLP. It is a shame the other editors who edit warred the BLP VIOLATION back into the article are not being asked questions, like why did they insert a BLP VIOLATION into a BLP. Don`t try your change the subject junk on me, this is about why did i get blocked for removing violations from a blp and why those who repeatedly inserted it have not been brought to book, go ask your pals why they broke BLP mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) de re BLPia I am here assuming that the committee will regard BLP as out of its scope for any redefinition of policy. Further that acts by editors who use inconsistent views thereof do fall within the purview of the committee. And that deliberate inconsistencies by any editor based on what they like or do not like are by their nature incompatible with the fundamentals of WP. Therefore, ought any such editors not only be banned from "climate change articles, broadly construed" but from the entire project? That is, where an editor has used demonstrably different criteria for the nature of material placed in a BLP of a "skeptic" as opposed to the BLP of a "scientist" that this evidence should be specifically asked for by the committee and dealt with quickly and strongly? This is in response to Horologium's suggestion prior. Collect (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I think site bans are too harsh, and WMC for example has undoubted subject matter knowledge which I'd be loath to see Wikipedia lose. But I wouldn't mind seeing some global BLP bans, and some temporary desysops for such cases as you mention. --JN466 12:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Temporary desysops of whom? WMC is not a sysop, nor is ChrisO for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I know that and didn't mean either of them; ChrisO did his best to make the passage work within policy. I mean admins consistently defending and shielding BLP violations and BLP violators. The AC will have to sort out who that applies to. --JN466 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) You can only really mean User:NuclearWarfare then. This is getting crazy! Polargeo (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC) To respond to Collect's question, I imagine the committee will look askance at editors who violate BLP. The problem is that, in this case, the BLP issue was brought before the RFE board and there was no clear determination that BLP had been violated. The committee can't very well ignore its own enforcement process. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I include not just "BLP violations" but rather "inconsistencies by a single editor regarding BLPs" as being the problem - an area quite outside the domain of the RFE, and, hene, quite properly within this process. Collect (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) If the Committee or the wider community wishes to take action against me for what they believe to be my misinterpretation of policy, than that is perfectly acceptable. ArbCom has the proposed decision page to work with, and anyone can submit an RFC against me, which I will waive certification requirements for. If either come to a conclusion that my actions have been inappropriate, then of course I will step back or resign my adminship. However, I ask that these kind of posts that Jayen466 made above at 12:48 and 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) not be made. Either follow through or don't, but please refrain from grandstanding. NW (Talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your reasoned reply. I have no desire for your bits, I have no desire to see you put through an RfC (knowing just how much fun they are!!!). But I do think you need to step back a bit and take a look at the pattern of your actions here. You're a good admin, and a good CU, and you've done a lot of great work in the past but these particular actions (unprotecting something as soon as Rlevse left town apparently because WMC asked you to, blocking MN but not the others, and some other recent actions that also struck me as problematic) don't stand up to scrutiny and don't meet your usual standards.... they make you look at best sympathetic to one side (and not necessarily uninvolved if we apply standards that some try to apply to other admins...) if not an actual faction member. Take that for what it's worth. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Lar that is unhelpful. Maybe we could all try the LHvU tactic of just blocking everyone to make it look fair but MN had four reverts on the page all for his argument of undue. That is a perfectly fair edit warring block. Polargeo (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) No it is not right to block an editor for removing SPS links from a BLP. Nuke was wrong here, and he knows it mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Just a thought About the general restrictions Arbcom are considering placing for the bigger picture I have no idea but as regards the BLP articles in the topic field :- There has been multiple violations in this area to the BLP Climate change articles, on both sides - yes - as a general solution just in regards to editing restrictions on the biographies of living people I thought all of the active editors on both sides could/should be restricted from editing any BLP article in the general related topic field for one year.. The articles can be watched easily for policy violations by uninvolved experienced editors and if these restricted editors disagree with an addition they can discuss it and start an RFC on the talkpage so as to allow them some involvement in the articles content additions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Defining who the active CC BLP editors are is a nightmare. You are also of course suggesting topic banning editors who have never violated a BLP policy or ever been found guilty of edit warring. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I would say it is absolutely clear which editors have been involved in the general disruption and the clear violations of the BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It is crystal clear that a double standard exists as regards BLP edits. For skeptics, self-published blogs are apparently a reliable source (and if not, a single link to a major media reliable source "negates" any BLPSPS problem). For GW activists, op-ed pieces in a major newspaper are not reliable sources (even when backed up by 4-6 other mentions from major media reliable sources, the material is somehow not acceptable). GregJackP Boomer! 16:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I think you could get to a core list of "confluencers" pretty quickly, but around the edges, it's not so absolutely clear. There are people who mean well but don't see what's going on, people who might be part of a faction based on sentiment, but try hard not to be(!) or who at least try to be even handed at least some of the time, and so forth. Perhaps a bidding process? ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) That's an interesting proposal, but doesn't it belong in the Workshop? And haven't they shut down the Workshop, and also issued a warning generally on use of this page? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued introduction of new evidence and faux-proposals against the wishes of the Committee is a misuse of this page, and the ongoing infighting amongst editors needs to stop. Sit tight and let the Committee members do their job. If you are incapable of avoiding petty, immature behavior, stop editing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New day

I recently read some wise words, "the ongoing infighting amongst editors needs to stop. Sit tight and let the Committee members do their job. If you are incapable of avoiding petty, immature behavior, stop editing."

The Committee is contemplating how they can contribute to improvements in the Climate Change editing environment. I propose that today be the start where the team of editors that edit in this area try to implement improvements on our own. It's a new day in Climate change related articles. We should respect our fellow editors and assume good faith. Perhaps some of our fellow editors will face some sanctions. We need to hope that they learn from their sanctions and continue to find ways to improve their contributions to Wikipedia in the the best ways that they can. They will hopefully come away from their lesson stronger Wikipedians. The rest of us can learn as well. It is within our power to fix this problem. We've asked for help from the committee. The truth is that we really need to do most of the work ourselves. We just need everyone to make a personal commitment. Today is when it needs to begin. Have fun and good editing, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Right on. The Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign could help us all. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Septentrionalis

The following, orginally presented as evidence, may be of interest to ArbCom; although I could understand if they have no interest in widening the scope of this case. If so, they are perfectly capable of ignoring this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

ArbCom may wish to consider sanctions which extend beyond the range of this subject, because the behavior patterns of some of the political editors here extend beyond climate change: For example, Mark Nutley, who is under a sanction against contributing references without consultation, has been involved in List of wars between democracies. Almost all of his edits have removed sourced assertions. 21:17 14 July, 21:19, 21:21, 21:36 At this point the page was protected. Mark Nutley then put the article up for AfD, and has now proposed a merger. After the protection lapsed, he continued to remove sourced material, citing no contrary source whatever, merely his own somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the subject: Greeks had no democracys [sic] and that the United States had no elections before 1789. 09:28 17 July 12;27 12:29 12:30 21:11 He has not violated his sanction; this is a different behavior, on a different subject. Nevertheless: Is he likely ever to be a useful editor, contributing in readable English, and without pushing a political point of view? Why was this not dealt with before ArbCom saw it? The same general incapacity may well apply to other editors, on both sides; but this is the example which has forced itself on my attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a content dispute, and unrelated to climate change - I'm not sure why you brought this here. Weren't you accusing him of sockpuppetry too? Oh, and the first Federal election in the US was in 1788 - years after the Revolutionary War - it is a valid argument to make that the war between the colonies and Britain wasn't a "war between democracies." You can disagree with that, but I don't think you should go around making various accusations against Mark because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - he's a real nice guy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) But principally a conduct dispute; all those removals were of sourced information. He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions. I see he is also lost in that morass of conflicting ideologies, Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. However, it depends on ArbCom whether they want to consider actions outside the subject at hand. As for the content dispute: the first election under the Constitution was in 1789; but there were plenty of elections before the Constitution; see Continental Congress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Removing Or and Synth is actually kinda a rule. This is a content dispute save it for the article talk page, however the poor conduct which is happening is your constant incivility. Please remove your latest PA please mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) By which mark nutley means "removing what mark nutley doesn't agree with", even when it has a source, and his prejudices have none. That's the problem with the climate change articles as well as elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I've looked into this a bit more, and this looks to me like you are forum shopping since you've now brought this here, to Mark's mentor, and directly to an arb - and this was after several ANI's were filed against you by other editors, an open RfC against you, and an apparent history of personal attacks that was last resolved by another arb blocking you. Switch to decaf dude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I see we are dealing with the usual partisanship; not perhaps surprising this late in an ArbCom case. I would have been content with Mark's mentor, Cla68, had he done any mentoring; instead he attacked a third party, who had treated Mark with more patience than I could manage. The rest of these are a single editor - whether he is forum-shopping I couldn't say. But I repeat: if this interests ArbCom, fine; if not, fine. It seemed germane to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, if you look at the workshop page then you'll see I recommended an article space ban for Mark on the climate change articles. Also, as I said before (damn you for copying me Atren!), I'm probably done with these articles for good since I don't expect the environment in them to drastically change - even if there is a massive environmental improvement then I still may not edit them for a long time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Anyway, as I showed with diffs, this is the 3rd place you've brought this issue - you are most definitely forum shopping. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC) The thing I noticed at talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies is that Mark's comments several times appeared to indicate a poor understanding of WP:V - particularly, Mark complains of references as insufficient because they can't be easily located online, yet WP:V does not require online references only. No idea if there were similar issues in the climate change area, but I did find it interesting and concerning. EdChem (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Is no-one here actually capable of providing context? Here is what i actually said Couple of issues, that book was first printed in 1904, It isnot possible to get it from a library here, I checked the British Library website. Your source is not verifiable at all. Got anything else? mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC) so obviously i can`y verifiy it can i? mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) There is, I believe, a distinction between "This source is not verifiable" and "This source cannot be personally verified, right now, by Marknutley". In general, when we have a choice among equally reliable sources we tend to prefer to use the one which is more easily accessible — but that doesn't bar us from using sources which might be quite challenging to verify. (Older publications existing in limited numbers, stored in restricted library stacks or other controlled archives are probably the canonical example.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks so much for your ultra-polite comment, Mark. Two comments I particularly noticed: [33] "Also your source is no good per wp:v i just tried to look at it online and there is no preview available" [34] "Of course most reliable sources are online, wp:v is a fairly hard rule on WP, how am i to verify (easily) that your source says what you say?" Whether or not a source is available online has precisely noting to do with whether or not the source is acceptable for use under WP:V. The verifiability policy requires that we use "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as is stated in WP:SOURCES. Further, Mark needs to pay careful attention to WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that the "principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Note that carefully... WP:V implies nothing about ease of access to sources. So, your own "context" plus my two additional examples do, in fact, amply demonstrate that your understanding of WP:V has deficiencies. If that problem extends to other areas of the encyclopedia, as seems reasonably possible, then that is something that needs to be addressed. EdChem (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is where I post to ask to add more evidence?

Anyway, I was looking at HeyitsPeter's deleted evidence the other day and I noticed a few more examples of incredible soapboxing/battleground crap and notably from someone whose been keeping their head low, despite his long association with the CC "whatever" and very longterm activity in the area. An example of what I'm talking about is this:

Sorry, that's nonsense. The CRU "POV", as you call it, is the established POV. No amount of birthers screaming "drill, baby, drill" is going to change that. Climate change is happening, and humanity is responsible. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This was on the Climategate talk page. This is noticeable not only for the obvious shrillness, but also because this kind of crap gets skeptics to respond in similar, but usually muted fashions - the natural responses to such behavior are then collected and admins like 2over0 then unilaterally ban the skeptics for extremely long periods of time for behavior is that is acceptable for one side and exaggerated on another. Would it be alright to post a few more diffs? Viriditas and Scjessey seem to do it quite a bit and I only stumbled on these. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Seems rather late in the day. Regarding battleground behaviour, this comment and edit summary seemed extraordinary to me. I accept that it's too late to submit as evidence at this stage, but it may be something to raise in future discussions. . dave souza, talk 10:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Since deadlines and limits have not been consistently enforced in this case there's no harm in asking. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Seeing Dave's link, it is absolutely astounding to me that he still claims to be an uninvolved admin. Here [35] he uses his claim to uninvolved status as a cudgel, he says that he's in the good faction that is out to get the bad POV pushing faction (trying to treat the widely accepted POV as the fringe view, BTW). The most obvious battleground language I've seen seems to originate from Lar. My uninvolved editor view :-) is that this battleground language is the first thing that is going to have to be stopped to clean up editing in the CC area. I guess that there will be another discussion period after the proposed decisions are announced? Perhaps more evidence will called for then? Bill Huffman (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I noticed that too, as well as other things. However, it's just not clear to me at this stage if there is an appropriate forum for offering up evidence, or if even trying to do so won't accomplish anything more than teeing off the arbitrators. It may just be too late. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Absolutely incredible, Lar says the truth about the naming of the climategate article, something Jimbo has agreed with himself, and you think that is comparable to what I just posted regarding Viriditas? Hell, I should ask to add more evidence about 2over0 with his attempt to invent policy here to help your side out and I should also note how every editor involved in that esoteric area of wikipedia (8 or so?) is part of your group - this isn't the "faction" you are looking for, move along. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC) This hasn't the slightest thing to do with what anybody says about the naming of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC) And the naming of the article has nothign do with Viriditas' and Scjessey's comically extreme battleground behavior - the main reason I posted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what you're talking about. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I still have concerns about Lar's greater and greater departures from neutrality. He's welcome to hold opinions – strong opinions – both about how our articles should be presented and about his feelings regarding other editors, but he shouldn't be taking action as a purportedly uninvolved admin when he's been on one 'side' for so long. Remarkably for someone who so decries the existence and behaviour of 'factions' and the polarizing effect it has on the community, he has been recently advocating the blocking of all of the editors who disagree with him: [36]. Even when prefacing one's remarks wth "As an uninvolved admin, I..." one is not freed from any and all concerns about bias or conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Which side is he on then? Cos he has blocked me a few times, and sanctioned me so he must be on team GW right? mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Your block log shows no blocks by Lar. Perhaps the blocks were expunged from the record. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Blocks are usually issued after consensus has been reached by the uninvolved admins. Which particular admin performed the block is pretty much irrelevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, that is the theory. Lar's record in this area is interesting, however. The only time he was the one to actually declare a consensus and 'press the button' himself was an ill-considered block of one his staunch opponents, WMC. (The block was immediately reversed by a neutral admin.) As far as I can tell, in the half-year or so of the CC probation, that is the sole occasion where Lar has used blocking or protection tools in the CC area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying, to those who were unaware of your position on the subject by claiming Lar's 1 hour block of WMC for edit warring to post in an admin section was "ill-considered" and 2over0's unblock was that of a "neutral admin." That should be highly enlightening for those who don't have the time to look through your record. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yes TOAT I have no doubt that you'd have concerns. I had a few choice adjectives to describe your description of Lar's "advocating blocking of all editors that disagree with him" but I suspect if I engaged in such honesty then I'd earn a civility warning or block from one of your friendly admins - needless to say I highly disagree with the spin you put on it. I must say, you are all doing a fantastic job of distracting from the initial post though - I can expect no less from such an experienced set of editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, if this is the section for putting in links to deleted evidence, then I like [37] AWickert's. Good, wouldn't you agree? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The impression I get is that the time for argumentation in this section has come to an end. I smell a "collapse" coming. The people writing this decision have already expressed varying degrees of teeed-offedness. There is an old saying in New York courts, "don't buck the judge." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Well wasn't that the point? You all come and post a bunch of irrelevant distractions, muddy up the water, and hope people either don't read through it or that it simply gets collapsed. I was doing exactly what Amory said on his talk page and asked if I could post some more evidence and provided an example just like he asked. This was simply none of your affair and you guys haven't added a single cogent point relating to the topic. This is all a brilliant example of your tactics though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Why is it always the same half dozen-or-so editors and admins who always defend this faction and attack anyone who tries to deal with them? ATren (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Being an uninvolved editor, let me share my view of the answer to your question. The AGW view of climate change is the widely accepted view, especially within the scientific community. There are, of course, going to be a significant number of editors that share this view. With all due respect, the "faction" and "attack" words in your question are in my view, an example of the poison that permeates this whole discussion. This poison has also been called the battleground environment associated with CC editing. This poison needs to be cleansed and replaced with Wikipedia AGF. This is the task that the community has saddled the ArbCom with. I'm very interested in seeing the proposed decisions that are meant to help start this needed, asked for cleansing. My guess is that both sides of the debate will be touched by their ruling. As SB implies, we must wait for their ruling and try to learn from the lessons that they will be bestowing. The true people that will finally do away with the poison is the CC editors that will have to assume good faith in their fellow editors. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed by NW (Talk) at 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Request to submit evidence

I would like leave to submit evidence on revenge tagging and participation in edit wars after explicit warning by ATren and Marknutley on Aug 2 - see [38], [39], [40]. Thank you for your consideration and continued attempts to solve this conflict. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Were exactly is this edit war? And why do you think i did anything in revenge? mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Revenge tagging? That the best manufactured transgression since "civil POV pushing". ;-) Hipocrite, your constant disruption and POV editing is tiring. ATren (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask that you not engage in false, evidence free slurs against me, and would ask that some clerk take action to prevent futher disruption of this page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that request applies to you as well. Plus, when others are slurred by visitors to your talk page, you should either remove the slurs or not remove the defenses raised against them, because you give the appearance of bias by not being even handed. Your constant disruptive behavior IS tiring. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Further request to submit evidence

I would like leave to submit evidence on further attempts by Lar to unilaterally declare others to be "involved," while not accepting others attempts to unilaterally declare him "involved." CF - [41]. Thank you for your consideration and continued attempts to solve this conflict. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is an area that could stand more evidence but Hip may be surprised about what the actual evidence actually shows. Second the request. Or just issue the Proposed Decision already. This delay (while trying to cap) is starting to verge on unacceptably long. The case has many novel features. Capping discussion indefinitely probably is one that ought not to be used again. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a series of editors are playing some sort of game[...] and I believe it should be submitted as late evidence. ATren (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (trimmed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

New Dispute and Request to Submit New Evidence

Stephan Schulz, an involved admin in the CC dispute, has disruptively posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section for an RfE here.[42] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This was then moved to its proper place here.[43] Schulz then falsely accuses Lar[44] of being disruptive for moving his comment to the correct location. I ask Schulz if he is intentionally posting in the uninvolved admin section[45] but Schulz responds with a less than helpful "Ummm....?"[46] which he then changes to an equally unhelpful "What....?".[47] Now, Schulz has disruptively posted a second comment in the uninvolved admin section[48] knowing full well that he's an involved admin, and apparently daring uninvolved admins to edit war with him. As of this writing, the dispute is ongoing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I guess I was doing these requests wrong - as opposed to asking for leave to submit new evidence, I should just submit the new evidence and ask if it's ok that I just did that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence is still being accepted...but for how long?

I was under the impression closing arguments had already been heard in this matter, but this afternoon I caught wind that evidence was still being accepted. So it seems to be.

I would like to submit prima facie evidence on a couple of matters in the case but the scope of it would largely depend on how much longer submissions are being accepted (of course, it wouldn't exceed 1,000 words). I have to dig through mountains of data I compiled on the matter some time ago and knowing a deadline would dictate how much digging I could do.
(I've commenced assembly of a cursory submission to have ready within 24 hours (in case the deadline is looming), but I could present a great deal more compelling evidence with another day or two.)
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While I might not have been editorially involved, I know most names in this area....I don't know yours. Submit the evidence or don't, they will consider it or they won't. Arkon (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see you've been involved on the CRU e-mail page, please forgive my tone. Arkon (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uggh...almost done...
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary injunction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Far too late to request an injunction. Please let us finish putting the decision together and please don't add any further to the noise surrounding this case. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like to request a preliminary injunction against Lar operating as if he were an uninvolved administrator in a probation request he himself has originated, concerning an editor he is in a bitter conflict with, and in which he had immediately started arguing one side. See Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. Is this sufficient as a request or should I post it somewhere else? Where? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the circular bin <g> is the best place since the whole issue of who is, and is not, "involved" is part of the cases being discussed. You appear to be asking for a peremptory ruling on the matter here well before such decisions are likely to be made as a simple matter of following WP rules and practices. Collect (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is silliness! He is starting the discussion which others should have initiated! This injunction request is yet another example of the tactics this faction uses to drive away admins who dare challenge them. ATren (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're asking for preliminary injunctions, I think ArbCom should first act on those ahead of this one in the queue... and once (if!!!) they start I have a bunch more for them to consider. Specific response: For starters it's false to say I've started arguing one side or the other. I've done no such thing. Merely put the question before the board, and asked further clarifying questions. Per ATren and Collect, this is just another attempt to disrupt the smooth functioning of the GS/CC board. ArbCom should reject this. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting Stephan. Why didn't you fly to my defense when 2over0 collected his "evidence" plopped it on my talk page and then topic banned me for 6 months? All by his little lonesome self? By your exact reasoning 2over0 was an involved admin and his actions were of real significance. I'll just chalk this up to another example of different rules for different people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's beyond dispute that Lar is involved in an intense and ongoing feud with WMC. Whether he is involved or not is one of the issues in the arbitration. He needs to step away until this arbitration is decided. Since he won't, he should be compelled. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Feud" assumes facts not in evidence. That WMC apparently bears me significant animus is not in dispute but I bear him comparatively little, or none. I merely want the wiki to function properly. My opinion that his behavior does not contribute to smooth operation is not evidence of a feud. Raising this argument does you no favors, ScottyBerg, and I give you the same advice I gave Guettarda just now... you need to change your approach or you may find ArbCom coming down harder on you than they already are likely to. We do not let one party act the prat merely to disqualify another party by repeated baiting and jibing. Or at least we shouldn't. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it is not beyond dispute. He doesn't need to step away, until and unless Arbcom makes such a determination. Frankly, I don't expect any such ruling (although I wouldn't be stunned if some cautionary wording were headed Lar's way. Having said this, the friendly advice from Lar has the potential to be viewed as a veiled threat, and I hope Lar will clarify he was merely predicting, not implying any pull with Arbcom.--SPhilbrickT 01:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no pull whatever with ArbCom. None. Just clue. I just think I am able to predict what's going to happen, to some extent, better than the factionaries are. No threat was intended. Merely advice that it's better to change one's ways late than never. Which they ought to take. Even at this late hour. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is absurd to say it's beyond dispute. Such proof by assertion tactics are typical of this faction. ATren (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but let's come back to the original point: Is it proper for an admin to act as "uninvolved" on an action that he, himself, initiated? Lar is even going so far as to tell others not to "interfere" with the case.[49] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, let's speak the unspoken here and ask the real question:

Is it okay for an admin to act as "uninvolved" in an action he has initiated when dealing with a "pro-science" editor?

I mean, with all the comparisons to Rosa Parks going around we might as well codify that some people are more equal than others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• A few comments (from an arbitrator who tried to read the entire thread at the noticeboard and came back here to find this thread much larger). (1) We hope to deal with this sort of thing in the proposed decision that is nearly ready for posting; (2) If the proposed decision doesn't deal with this sufficiently for some, there will be the opportunity to comment then; (3) With most resources being concentrated on getting the proposed decision finished, we are very unlikely to stop to consider injunctions at this late stage (though I now think we should have done so early on in the case); (4) The more disputes like this spring up and distract arbitrators, the longer it will take to produce the proposed decision. Please take this back to the general sanctions climate change probation noticeboard and try and sort it out there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the second time you have said that - that it is everyone elses fault that the arbs are so slow. Just how much time did you all collectively spend on this issue? Stop making excuses, it is starting to sound a little childish. There is no evidence that any arb or arblet spent any more than 2 minutes on any of this - and if they did they want to get their head out from where the sun does not penetrate and get on with the darn case. Do you not have enough evidence to consider already without stopping to gaze at your navels every time a new event happens? There are going to be more events! This is an ongoing case! Each new event is only representitive of the old ones! Stop this nonsense and just get on with it, I am tired of hearing it is everyone elses fault but your own. Weakopedia (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for any of the other arbitrators, but I'm well over 350 hours into this case, between reading all the evidence, the workshops, the other relevant pages, verifying evidence, and the writing up. That is, incidentally, what an average full-time worker puts in during the same period. There will be a proposed decision posted within the next 24 hours. Risker (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2 mins referred to this event, not the overall case which would obviously take a week just to read never mind deliberate. You have my sympathies as to the difficulty of this case. Weakopedia (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just been copy-editing the proposed decision (and was doing another read-through of it last night). Please remember that we have other stuff to do as well. Risker is concentrating almost solely on the case to get it ready for posting, and the other drafting arbitrators have put in lots of time on this as well. Other arbitrators, however, have other matters to deal with as well. Look through the other arbitration pages to see what is being done and why we can't drop everything to deal with this case. It progresses (slowly) and will get dealt with soon. Please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Why don't you e-mail the PD to me? I'd be more than happy to help you copy-edit it. ;) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I appreciate that the CC case is extensive and by it's nature must take time. My point is that this is something for you arbs to do, and the process of getting on with managing the encyclopedia is that of the community. You should have enough examples to cover each of the involved parties, so new ones won't show much - and it is also partially due to the tension of waiting that disputes arise. No matter, we still have the processes to deal with the events so it doesn't have to be a distraction regarding the overall case.

One point for future cases is that it is obviously important to set out how the arbcom case affects the running of the encyclopedia while it is being decided on, and before any decision has been reached. There was some tension in this case because participants were unsure how to use existing CC/RFE measures while arbcom was in effect - that is in part because they had an unrealistic view of how long the decision would take. That could have been helped by setting a more realistic minimum time for the case to be resolved as 48 hours minimum gave them false hope. Weakopedia (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, when I said "we have other stuff to do as well" I was referring to other arbitration matters. You are correct that the "48 hours minimum" and "temporary" wording was not ideal, given the length of time that subsequently elapsed. One of the things I have on my list of things to do is to bring that wording up-to-date. Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note of absence

Unfortunate as it is, but I probably won't be able to contribute significantly to the proposed decision discussion during the next 4 weeks - I'll be on the road in California, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, and have much more access to nature than to WiFi. I may be able to pop in occasionally, but probably will not be able to keep up with the discussion. Given the time frame of the case so far, I'd suggest you all just hold out some weeks longer - I'll be back in the last week of September ;-). If not, you should know that silence signals neither consent not dissent in my case, but rather fresh air, sunshine, and great vistas. I tried to submit this via the clerk to some more central place, but noticed that he is also on vacation... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Posting here to acknowledge this post. I will pass the message to the other arbitrators as well. If this is a problem for others, can they please not discuss it here, but wait 24 hours and raise it on the PD talk page after the proposed decision has been posted. I will make a note about the clerking of the case on the PD talk page in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, the weeks before and after Labor Day are the most vacation-intense times of the year in the U.S. I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to be around. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)