Statements

An innovation for this case, intended to be similar to the statements made at requests for arbitration, but made here in the closing stage of a case rather than at the start. This is particularly intended for those named in the proposed decision, but is also for arbitrators and others to make more formal statements if they wish to do so. Once the proposed decision has been posted, if you want to make a statement please add it below as a subsection of this section. One single, signed statement per editor (can be revised but only within the word limit). No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration).

Statement by Lar

Precis: Great principles. Good findings, as far as they go, but they needed to go much farther. Remedies, not so much. First, not enough parties sanctioned. Second, we will be back at ArbCom before the year is out, as the GS/CC/RE replacement sanction regime proposed won't work. I will expand later. ++Lar: t/c 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements of my view dated before 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) should not be taken to endorse the below material which has been just added.

This case has been a great disappointment to me and I suspect to many others. It has been a huge effort, apparently wasted. Much evidence submitted hasn't been reflected in findings at all. ArbCom seems to have suffered a failure of courage here, which they should be rather sheepish about.

The case mechanics have been handled very poorly. Stifling discussion, hatting things prematurely, closing pages and worst of all, distorting the workshop function. Waiting a month for the PD with no discussion allowed was a travesty, and the particular PD presented is sorely lacking. Further, the total lack of guidance on what the Arbs were looking for in the way of evidence, feedback on how things were going, and thoughts on what should be done next to move the case along, for such a large and important case, is a sign of mismanagement by the lead arbs. Perhaps Kyril would have been a better choice for lead arb as I suspect things would have been organized better.
The findings are greatly lacking in that a) they do not acknowledge the disruptive behavior of the blocs that are mentioned in the principles. It is as if ArbCom shies away from naming names, for some reason. Why mention a principle at all if you're not going to use it? b) they strain at gnats and swallow camels. The collection of things that are mentioned include some cases that are very small beer. Meanwhile much more egregious violations of basic site policy go unmentioned.
The sanctions are unbalanced, like the findings, in that they throw the book at a couple of editors on one side, while watered down sanctions are proposed (and tellingly, subsequently not supported by NYB) for WMC, the most problematic editor of the whole case, the one whose behavior is defended by a large bloc of aligned editors (and some who are acting in good faith but regrettably are confused) and who is a role model for bad behavior by many other folk. Further, by focusing on specifics, the sanctions are not likely to solve the actual problem here, that there is an unlevel playing field. Different editors are held to different standards, depending on ideological bent. Different sources are held to different standards, sometimes in both directions at the very same time, depending on what view they support. Different BLPs end up as puff pieces, or attack pieces, depending on ideological bent, with fierce edit wars to keep them that way. Why are the editors doing this not being sanctioned, en masse? It's not just WMC who is the bad guy here, his many defenders and fellow edit warriors hold responsibility too.

An aside: there is a significant misrepresentation of something I've said going on which needs clearing up. When I say the playing field is not level I am NOT referring to content, or to the weight that various views should be given, especially not in the science article area, which by and large has the right balance in my view (as an "alarmist", or "warmist" if you prefer). I refer to the process, and to the treatment given to editors based on ideological bent. All editors should be held to the SAME behavioral standards, regardless of any perceived POV they may hold. All sources should be evaluated using the SAME metrics, free of any use of what POV the source espouses, focusing only on reliability, verifiability, how notable the source is and our other principles. All material should be measured against the SAME criteria when deciding inclusion, including of those of undue weight, and relevance to the topic. Most importantly: All editors should be held to the SAME behavioral standards, regardless of any perceived POV they may hold.

That has not been happening. Editors who are in the bloc aligned with WMC are treated much more gently than those who are skeptic, or, most tellingly from a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective, than those who happen to be warmist as well but who abhor the factionalism they see. Anyone who claims that I mean something else than this... is likely part of the problem, the very bloc of editors that ArbCom is afraid to name and who is being let off far too lightly.

I recognize that the above is not a popular view, and that holding it renders me unfit for further office, at least in the view of the WMC bloc. They have tried hard to have me removed from the field because I am willing to state what I believe, while still acting impartially. Further, they will not forget, and they will have their revenge at the polling booth, as they have before, by manufacturing trumped up reasons. But I don't care any more. It needs to be said. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I somewhat agree with Lar here, which is rare enough. I don't see how this proposal will lead to any substantial change in the CC field. It does nothing to address the on- and off-wiki POV pushing. In particular, I have the following comments (short and incomplete, as I'll leave for the plane in an hour or so) Clerk, if the structured discussion proposal I made is accepted, feel free to move these to the corresponding sections. Thanks.:

Purpose of Wikipedia - while I like the idea of "cameraderie and mutual respect", I don't think that this should get equal footing with "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia". WP is primarily an encyclopedia, nor a social network. Also, I would like some clarification that honest but vigorous discussion is not in conflict with this (while dishonest behaviour, no matter how sugar-coated, is).
Role of the Arbitration Committee - historically true, but the committee should be aware of the fact that "good-faith content disputes" are not the primary problem, but that there are significant politically and ideologically driven disputes, some of which masquerade as content disputes.
Neutrality and conflicts of interest - I share NYB's concern that this is problematic. There has been no significant COI problem in CC articles, unless one assumes the counterproductive notion that experts inherently have a COI and that editing to properly reflect the considered expert position on a topic is inappropriate editing.
Sourcing - this is unclear. I fear some editors will read this as a general equivalence of sourcing (as in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is equivalent to PNAS on scientific topics).
Disputes regarding administrator involvement - actually, a clear definition of involvement was at least given, if maybe not broadly accepted.
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped - the sanction of WMC at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute was explicitly overturned by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, and I'm surprised to see the overturned sanction here, but not the overturning.
Discretionary sanctions - this essentially adopts the community probation, which has been a mixed success...
William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change) - this looks purely punitive to me.
Uninvolved administrators - this is very problematic, as it seems to indicate that any content dispute in one part of CC disqualifies an administrator from acting as an administrator in the CC area at all. It inherently assumes the notion of strong factionalism. I don't see why a discussion on radiative heat transfer at greenhouse effect (where we have some really really persistent and really really not educated editors time and again) should disqualify an administrator from administrative action one.g. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Moreover, while new administrators are welcome, they are also hard to come by. The topic area is a complex one, with vast scientific literature, and vandalism is, by now, often subtle. I have some doubts that an administrator with enough interest to understand the domain well enough to recognise these problems will be able to (or should be expected to) refrain from editing for a purely tactical advantage.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Polargeo

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

I initially requested enforcement against myself for a very good reason, not to disrupt. I wished to show that I was not trying to act as an admin. The reason for this is that I got a lot of flack from Lar's supporters when I started to criticise his actions. People attacking me because of my admin status even though I hadn't tried to use that status to influence any decisions at the time. I was trying to absolve myself of the responsibility rather than to disrupt. I understand why this failled and I am wiser now but it was not disruption. The continuation of the special flack one recieves as an admin even when not acting as such has been in evidence in this case by the submissions of User:JohnWBarber against me.
Disparaging remarks. This is an extremely heated area. The first supposedly "disparaging remark" was after Lar had said to me, "it was a joke son" I took this as a put down, a patronising pat on the head if you like. Put in the context of the RfC/U I had started on Lar I request that you realise what a harsh environment I felt myself in. I already felt I was being attacked by Lar's supporters and I had observed for some time that Lar was extremely patronising in his comments. The second one is an observation which I back wholeheartedly and am simply disappointed that arbcom has not been able to see the negative longterm effects of Lar's involvement in this area, if we are banned from making remarks such as this I fear for wikipedia. The third diff was reflective of my despair and was a response to another tiresome "you are the cabal" putdown where there was an attempt to discredit CC editors en masse because of supporting the same viewpoint in the RfC/U on Lar. The forth one is a legitimate observation during this arbcom case and I can make a whole watertight case for the observation with plenty of diffs if required, it is a sad day when we cannot make frank observations during an arbcom case on a case talkpage, a sad sad sad day indeed for wikipedia.
The claim that two other uninvolved admins stated they felt it should be closed is stretching the significance of those statments a fair bit. There had been no discussion between admins, certainly no consensus had been reached, I simply acted to keep the case open so concensus could be reached rather than having Lar's supporters shut the case down with no concensus and no credible argument. No edit warring was involved. This is a far far weaker action by me than you are making out and is certainly not good evidence of disruption. Polargeo (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further

I am extremely disappointed with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Uninvolved administrators, it completely fails to address the personal involvement an administrator may have had with a user such as I outlined in the case relating to Lar. I stress this involvement was not the result of provocation or due to his previous admin duties. Also "content dispute" generally construed on any article, no matter how minor will ban a user for ever acting as admin on any CC article is a terrible judgement from arbcom and not well thought out at all. This will simply end up with the status quo of the regular enforcement admins deciding where the line is drawn to suit themselves. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZuluPapa5

Good work! I can see why this took some time. I especially like the purpose statements. This may be presumed; however, the role Wikipedia has in civility producing great content should be clearly set for community benefit. That is, the content is expressly created for the benefit of the community. This is why we serve Wikipedia. As such, it becomes clearer how obstructing NPOV content can actually be harming the community. In addition, it may become clearer how bias content may not be beneficial. NPOV is the best way to serve a diverse community. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collect

Most appears in order. (comments refer to issues roughly in the order they appear in the proposal) I would have liked to see the good principle about collective editing reflected in the findings about individuals. The bit about "encyclopedic coverae of science" appears likely to cause more problems than it could solve, by appearing to negate NPOV as far as some editors may be concerned. WRT administrators, I would have suggested that those who are administrators and who have specific collective editing interests in an area, should be enjoined from acting as administrators in those areas. I would remove "however" in one of the administrator sections as being unneeded.

Concerning proposed remedies, I would have suggested that parallel choices as to results be rovided for each person listed, lest it appear that some users may be more equal than others. Let the discussions as to relative levels of culpability be patent. I would, moreover, add that any articles not currently obviously in this sphere, but where material is added or sought to be added, would place them in the shere of climate change related articles, be considered as being in this sphere. [1] from just last week is here proffered as an example of an edit which causes this concern. Collect (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Minor4th

I expect to update my statement after thinking through this PD's in more detail, but initial impressions are that the Proposed Decisions do a pretty decent job at identifying general problems but the findings are not specific or detailed enough. The remedies are wholly lacking and are essentially a restatement or reminder of Wiki policies, which everyone involved knows by heart anyway. For each finding, there should be a corresponding specific remedy.

Factions:

Particularly concerning is the fact that factions are recognized and the harm caused by factions are recognized, but there is nothing addressing how to deal with this or prevent it or enforce against it. In general the remedies are very weak and do not indicate that even the problems identified will be remediated going forward -- we simply have a new venue in which to bicker.

Involved/Uninvolved:

I think the editors involved in this topic area really want a clear answer about who is an involved admin and who is not and for which purposes, as well as clearly stated reasons for the characterizations. If this is not settled decisively one way or the other with respect to the admins who have been enforcing sanctions and participating in enforcement discussions, it will continue to be the problem that it has been. At the moment, Lar cannot impose sanctions as a practical matter, even though he is uninvolved by definition. LHVU has expressed that he has not sought sanctions when he thought appropriate because of the backlash he expected, and so on. This needs to be settled so admins are not handicapped and rendered ineffective -- now there seems to be some internal contradiction about what actually constitutes involvement, so that perhaps certain admins who were previously considered involved would no longer be in that category. Please clarify this and make a decision about the actual admins who have been participating so that every enforcement discussion is not overrun with debate about which admin can participate and in what capacity.

BLP problems:

The BLP problem is not adequately addressed and the findings do not go far enough in recognizing how the BLP policy is manipulated, not just to denigrate BLP's but also to keep negative information out of some BLP's despite impeccable sourcing and notability. A recent example that comes to mind is ChrisO removing content under BLP policy because the content was "cherry-picking" from a journalist's views. See,for example, [2] at Diane Francis It has also been a recent practice for an editor to remove negative information from a BLP whose views the editor supports, and claim that BLP policy requires immediate removal of controversial content (even if well sourced and no dispute about its accuracy) and further claiming that the negative information must remain out of the BLP article until there is a consensus -- and in this context, consensus is said to occur only when every editor agrees that the content should be included in the article. See for example [3] on Michael E. Mann and this [4] as justification for removal of Washington Post referenced content.

More later ...

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

The proposed remedies make some solid steps forward toward resolving the dispute, however, the problem is much bigger than the three editors being sanctioned (and the fourth being admonished). In my evidence section, I presented very compelling evidence that demonstrated a clear and repeated pattern of misconduct by six editors, half of whom are unaddressed by the proposed decision. I don't see these editors magically changing their conduct especially when at least one of them edit-warred to include contentious material in a BLP in the middle of this very ArbCom case. Regrettably, this misconduct is unaddressed by the proposed decision and the resulting silence by ArbCom can be used as proof by these editors that their conduct is appropriate. But perhaps more importantly, in my issues suggested section, I asked the question, "What's the best way to restore the editing atmosphere at the CC articles to being based on civility and cooperation?" In my view, the proposed decision does too little, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere will resume unabated by the very same editors whose misconduct has gone unaddressed by this proposed decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am concerned that there does not appear to be a functional roadmap for the better editing of Climate Change related articles provided, despite there being the usual reiterations of how Wikipedia is supposed to work and the difficulties that may be encountered within the principles section and findings of fact on how the proper processes were not followed by a small number of individuals in that section. The proposed remedies are perforce restricted to those issues which are exampled in the the finding of fact section, and does not address the general major issues in trying to create content in an area - that is, stopping the formation of confluences of editors with the apparent purpose of promoting one particular pov, and (mis)using process to try to deprecate the insertion of content that relates to a differing pov and the diminishment of the ability of such minded editors to do so. Removing a couple of the totems of the two schools of POV, although in most cases there is reason enough to have them banned and otherwise sanctioned, is not sufficient to discourage "confluent" manners of editing and conduct. Neither is there a clear definition on whether the two named administrators (Lar and Stephan Schulz) are involved, and to what degree, or not, and nor on the detrimental effect on the ability of admins to enforce policy in the face of persistent - and continuing - questioning on the perception of their involvement. Without clear consideration upon these aspects of the editing and adminning environment that is particular to Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming subject articles, and the methods of addressing them, I fear that there will not be the hoped for resolution.

I shall be suggesting ways to address these concerns in the spaces provided below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnWBarber

I hope every ArbCom member will reread LHvU's comment at 22:44, 23 August [5]. Carefully. These are the pressures and problems that the current ArbCom draft is handing over to admins at Arbitration Enforcement, who will find that the editors LHvU is talking about will be loudly supporting overturning and lessening of sanctions on appeal at A/N and AN/I. The last overturn of sanctions against William M. Connolley just last week will be repeated, probably with William M. Connolley at some point, but with other editors too. The draft sets up a situation where excessive drama and ugliness will result, with editors getting angrier than they would be otherwise, and probably getting blocked for it. Although we're here to build an encyclopedia, we'll be spending more time arguing than we need to, and arguing more about behavior and personalities and less about the merits of sourcing or coverage decisions. This is because behavioral policies are violated right and left without effective enforcement. It's very depressing.

We need more editors sanctioned by ArbCom itself and we need to help administrators in the face of a phalanx of editors who will fight to overturn sanctions brought against their allies. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of SirFozzie's statement. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I think the proposed decision is well-written, well-thought, and very appropriate in helping resolve some of the issues involved with the topic area. I think, however, the decision doesn't go far enough. I was hoping for something more similar to the latest Palestine/Israel case in which a large number of editors were topic banned for not trying hard enough to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise (my interpretation of that decision).

I think you really hit the nail on the head on the issues that WMC has caused in the topic area, but he's just one editor (leaving the behavior of Polargeo, Marknutley, and thegoodlocust aside as separate issues for this discussion). If he was the only one acting that way or facilitating that type of behavior, as described in the findings, then it wouldn't have been so much of a problem. Unfortunately, you have a bloc of editors who have taken turns supporting his edit wars, who wiki-lawyer on his behalf on BLP talk pages, and sometimes join in with him in belittling, bullying, and insulting editors who make unwelcome edits to that blocs' articles. For example, please look again at the articles that have been fully protected since June and I think you'll see one editor in particular involved in almost all of those articles, and his name isn't WMC or Marknutley.

Your statement of what "involved" means appears to vindicate Lar. But, how do we avoid the same situation from happening again, in which a bloc of editors baits and bullies an admin they don't like and insist that he is involved even though he has never engaged in a CC content dispute? If you would, perhaps, name some names and find fault with their behavior, it might help in this regard.

I think if more names aren't named in the findings, even if no accompanying remedy is proposed, then we will be back here again in six months. The reason is that many of the editors mentioned on the evidence and this talk page are engaged in what they see as a righteous struggle, a struggle they will continue because they are unable or unwilling to stop on their own. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree 100% with the statement by Stephan Schulz. Reading also the comments on this discussion page, I think the "uninvolved Admin" issue needs to be dealt with. My opinion on the PD in general is that it fails to recognize that the source of the problem is that the people sceptical of the results of climate science are also sceptical of the reliability of the scientific processes like the peer review process. This leads to disputes about e.g. Reliable Sources and the application of other Wiki/policies far more than in case of the other contentious topics on Wikipedia. Then because the disputes spill over to the level of the Wiki-policies, it makes them more difficult to resolve.

I also largely agree with MONGO's statement about WMC below, this is my perspective on the WMC issue. Needless to say, I also largely agree with WMC's statement. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's statement describes the nature of the problem very well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GregJackP

Overall I agree with Minor4th, Lar, and to a lessor extent, Stephan Schulz. The principles are good, but the findings are marginal and the remedies totally inadequate. It is not serving to change nor modify behavior, nor will it as written. For example, after the PD came out stating that you have to have real evidence to identify and revert a sock, ChrisO reverted an edit here by a new user, with an edit summary of "rv Scibaby sock." It was the first edit of the user, their entire edit summary was "Edit qualifier" and they removed what appears to be unneeded puffery. Exactly what evidence is there in one edit to show that this is a Scibaby sock? I grant that they may be a Scibaby sock, but at that point there is no real evidence to support the charge, and it is instructive on why there is a 20-40% false positive on those accused of sockpuppetry. GregJackP Boomer! 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that the Wiki equivalent of ex parte communication is occurring in the case. I believe that the lobbying by WMC on the talkpage of Newyorkbrad is inappropriate. Discussion of the case and proposed findings / decisions should be here, not on the individual ArbCom members talk pages. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGoodLocust

1. Administrator involvement - enforcement matters: The rules have been gamed too long - editors/admins who should have recused themselves due to COI have not. This principal will be ignored unless it is enforced. In particular Bozmo has edited the area extensively and has edited WMC's talk page hundreds of times ([6]) - he has refused to recuse himself despite being asked several times, going so far as to use such a request as evidence against me to extend my topic ban. 2over0 has temporarily cut back from enforcement, but he demonstrates the need for something else - a DUCK rule and enforcement mechanism for involved admins. While his edits in the area have been telling they have also been minimal - the real DUCK test comes from the evidence [7].

It is essential to implement a DUCK test for admin involvement because admins, like editors, can be activists as well, but it is more dangerous due to the necessarily subtle actions and protection brought by admin status (note: WMC's block log was clear only when he was an admin). I guarantee that several activist admins will step up and continue the roles that Bozmo/2over0 have done. There will be a new WMC and they will protect him.

2. Use of blogs: Needs enforcement. WMC et all have been linkspamming his former blog for years. It is not highly regarded by mainstream (i.e. not skeptic) climate scientists like Judith Curry.

3. Checkusers: Banned/topic banned editors must be checkusered to compare with future new accounts. WMC has edited this area for many years and is clearly quite attached to it, while other pro-AGW editors have definitely socked in the past and yet avoided banning (e.g. Hipocrite). Also, as shown by the "parody" edits to the PD page and several of the editors yucking it up (e.g. Guettarda) on WMC's talk page they should definitely be checkusered to be compared to the vandal accounts. They know they won't be though since they've traditionally been able to avoid being checkusered, but it seems to me that they are bragging about their actions there.

4. Banning: Not nearly enough users are being sanctioned. Hipocrite and KDP in particular have behaved extremely poorly and will carry on like WMC has. Going by the diffs used to ban Mark and myself (I may post a defense of myself in the discussion section) far more editors should be banned. Regarding KDP, he has tried to keep a low profile during the case but he has adopted and promoted WMC's MO (this is NOT how you deal with a new user - see how he was copying WMC's behavior in the history).

5. WMC topic ban: Banning him from articles but not talk pages is ineffectual and even counterproductive. As shown by that KDP diff, a copy of WMC's behavior, his main role on talk pages is to increase the drama factor to either directly drive away other editors or bait them into saying/doing something that 2over0/Bozmo/etc can ban new editors for.

Statement by ATren

I think the decision addresses several major issues well, but it falls short in a few areas:

There needs to be a stronger statement on administrator involvement, particularly for Lar, who has been subject to relentless accusations and baiting. There was also extensive pointy behavior by others, particularly Stephan Schulz, who on several occasions disruptively asserted he too was uninvolved, to underline his opinion on Lar's involvement, even though Stephan is clearly much more involved than Lar by any definition of involvement. The Lar situation needs resolution or it will continue to flare up, more than likely resulting in another case.
The bans should be expanded to several other editors who have been disruptive. Hipocrite has been frequently aggressive and uncivil, and he even got into the BLP game by pushing a partisan opinion into the Lawrence Solomon lede. ChrisO has been very active in BLPs in the last month, with the most egregious violation being his edit-warring to keep a highly critical unpublished presentation in Christopher Monckton's BLP. Other editors were less active but supported the BLP vios (i.e. Guettarda and Verbal on Solomon's BLP). KDP has also had a history of unbalanced editorial opinion in BLPs (when comparing BLPs of skeptics vs mainstream view supporters) though he seems to have stepped back recently. Personally, I would favor a blanket ban on all the heavy participants in this entire topic area, particularly the BLPs. I would gladly include myself in that ban if it also banned all the partisans (and particularly the BLP violators).

Statement by Nsaa

Taking a look at this again makes me feel that stronger actions need to be taken against a lot of editors that removes everything they don't like by wikilayering to the absurd (and when they run out of arguments some even claim consensus: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia. So I agree with ATren above on his statement on this subject. Nsaa (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WMC

The PD is shoddy and broken; it needs to be thrown out and re-written.

The principle failing is the usual arbcomm one: the triumph of surface over substance. There is no appreciation in the PD of the importance of high-quality content, or the importance of high-quality contributors.

As we all know, there is no evidence for cabals or factions, and trying to hide this by talking about "blocs" makes it no better. People have opinions that they brought in from the outside; it is idle to pretend that people don't edit to reflect reality as they see it. Restating NPOV yet again doesn't help. Priciples 9, 10 sound great but are merely restatements of what everyone accepts anyway.

Locus: the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes is wrong. The disputes are pre-existing ones, we all know that global warming is contentious in the real world. You could remove all the snark, etc, and insist on total surfaec civility - and the same disputes would exist. Having started with this fundamental error the PD goes downhill from there.

Sockpuppetry: I don't believe that a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. is credible. If that is to be believed, a list of such accounts should be provided.

Previous sanctions: as noted by others, noting that arbcomm previously imposed a revert parole on me, but failing to note that it was overturned as an error, is evidence either of carelessness or bias. Noting two RFC's but faling to note the (positive, for me) outcome is the same.

Incivility: refactoring deliberate sniping is not incivil [8]. Reaction to an admin blocking you [9] is explicitly permitted by arbcomm's own decision (remember Giano?). Etc etc. You'll also notice that 80% of that section - all the second para - ends up noting that I was blocked for what all agreed afterwards were invalid reasons. A finding that The WordSmith had pointlessly inflamed the situation would be in order.

Admin involement: The disputes were exacerbated because no clear definition of "involved" had been agreed upon for this purpose - this is not true. The probation had in fact been set up with a very clear definition of involvement - but it wasn't a defn that suited certain admins, most obviously Lar, so it was cast aside. But for arbcomm to pretend that the defn didn't exist is deceitful.

Ownership: that section appears to be a deliberate joke, presumably in order to discredit the entire judgement. Just one page? And why on earth is [10] or [11] or indeed the others "ownership"?

BLP: looks pretty desperate to me. Why is [12] a BLP vio? Could you not do any better? Perhaps [13], presumably for inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability - which misses the point. It is well sourced, undisputed, and (at the time) was one of the very few known things about him. And why is this [14] a BLP vio? That is just mudslinging by the drafting arbs. And dredging up edits 6 years old that actually pre-date the BLP policy itself [15] shows how weak this stuff is.

The climate change noticeboard: became pointless when it was hijacked by involved admins Lar / LHVU. Getting rid of it is good; failing to note *why* it failed is a failure of the PD.

William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area - thanks for the note, and then the deliberate belittling follow-up. Subtext: "yes you know what you're talking about, but we don't care, because there are plenty of people who can replace you". But you're wrong: the only other wikipedian I know of with significant climate expertise is Boris, and you know what he thinks of your judgement (oops sorrt: I forgot DF: but he doesn't really edit any more. You could ask him why).

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my 28 Aug edits to the PD from 14:17 to 15:40 UTC. I've attempted to address much of this. Still working on suggestions from you and others on the PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silently striking dodgy diffs looks dodgy; but I'll now have to trawl through the randomly-added new ones William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: some newly added stuff is valuable, in that it gives arbcomm a chance to reject it (15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.; Lar's May 18 block of William M. Connolley affirmed; 2over0 strongly admonished; Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised; ChrisO banned from Climate Change article for six months (etc). Use of blogs is bad (there are respectable blogs that should be used). OTOH, Lar comments, actions, and mindset is useful (Lar is involved would be more useful, of course).

The major flaw of the case, and of arbcomm, remains: a refusal to judge content, and a preference for surface over substance.

More interesting is the switch from FoF 1 to 1.1. This is correct (as I said ages ago): this isn't a dispute generated in wikipedia; it is an external dispute which is merely reflected in wikipedia. A corollary of that is that you can't solve the dispute by banning a few people and making everyone talk nicely: the dispute would remain as before, but with different people.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Imagine a discussion between scientific experts and laymen who are sometimes dubious about the claims of the scientists...at first, the scientists act as teachers, generally doing what they can to educate, in this case with references and examples. But the laymen are still skeptical and are unable or unwilling to "believe" the scientists, and seek out a support system to allow them to hold on to their beliefs...in this case, nonscientists. Over time, the scientists, recognize that they can't educate those that don't want an education, so they give up...why bother trying to educate someone that either won't or can't be educated. Meanwhile, the "nonbelievers" are able to find what appears to be credible evidence that the scientists may have their facts wrong or are at least off a bit...(disregarding that the publishers of such information are mostly interested in selling books, not spreading facts)...so faced with a barrage of nonscientific ignorance, the scientists are then forced to apply "due weight" to such things, even though they can easily see that the nonscientific books and, for lack of a better word, "junk science" are just that, unscientific and junk. Wikipedia, in its quest to become a reliable reference base allows great latitude to those defending against obvious junk science but this latitude has a price...sanity. Over time, the constant barrage of non-science (aka nonsense) takes its toll..the scientists, exhausted by the nonsense and knowing that they can't educate the nonbelievers, snap...they may become incivil at times, they may become possessive, they may become disgusted. I know I did...dealing with the absolute idiocy of 9/11 conspiracy theories was a whole lot like dealing with CC nonbelievers...thankfully we severly restricted those who kept trying to ramrod conspiracy theory junk science (oftentimes published by those more interested in selling books than providing facts) in 9/11 related articles...a huge success for this project. Connolley drew a line in the sand, said no, we're not going to have that junk science in this article as it is undue weight...virtually no reputable climate scientists support that premise so it is not worth considering. Eliminating Connolley from editing CC articles is the worst thing this project could do...if you must, eliminate him from editing BLP's related to CC for 1 year....recognize that the barrage has been unrelenting, that WMC has been provoked, needled and at times harassed, and DO NOT allow "uninvolved" (is there such a thing) administrators from applying any blocks against him for his "incivility"...instead, his incivilities should be shown to arbcom and they can do the blocks...finally, as in all cases, 3RR violations should result in blocks...as they normally would to any editor. For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about CC...but I am learning, thanks in no small part to Connolley and his "evil cabal".--MONGO 11:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by recused Arbitrator SirFozzie

I've had no say in the discussion or the write up in the PD I'm recused on this case due to filing an Arbitration two years ago on WMC. I get this from dealing with the editors in this area over the last couple weeks, on the Monckton page, and the WMC Sanction issue.

I see both sides have broken down into two basic ideas on the Proposed Decision. A) That the PD is incredibly harsh to editors they agree with, and incredibly soft on editors they disagree with, or B) That the PD doesn't go far enough, remedy wise to solve this issue. Put me in Camp B, but that's because of my personal opinion that the only way that this setting will die down is the following:

Every editor named as a party in more than one edit-war? Topic Banned. Doesn't matter if you're a fervent believer, a disciple, a skeptic, denalist, or even agnostic when it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change. You get in more than one edit-war? You're done. Any other editor who wants to pick up the edit-war slack? They'll be next on the list of topic bans to be handed out via neutral administrators.

Oh. That's the other part. It's obvious to me that a lot of the administrators involved in this area are not trusted by one side or the other. That's probably because they believe that they are favoring one side or the other. I don't know how you can prove it, after all, how can you tell what's in the heart of administrators. So, we're going to solve the problem. All the existing administrators in the area are thanked for their efforts, but asked not to continue. We're going for a clean sweep there too.(and before anyone even thinks to ask, yes, that would include me).

If the Committee has to scorch the area, pave it over, and see a new batch of editors and administrators can work on the Global Warming area without fighting. I think I can name some of the folks who would take the edit-warrior's place on both sides, but hell... Assume Good Faith and all that. Besides, if the Committee did have to skim off two generations of edit warriors, the third generation of Wikipedia editors would realize that "Discussing changes on the talk page in a collegial manner" is not optional, but mandatory.

But what do I know.

Actually, what I do know is this. I've worked in some really putrid areas as an administrator. I'm sure my fellow arbitrators have seen areas that are just as bad as the areas I'm thinking of.

But the utter lack of congeniality, the utter bad faith, and the line in the sand edit-warriors on all sides in this area is the worst I've seen in my 4+ years on Wikipedia. There's a bunch of folks who are going to treat that as a mark of pride to hear me say that. It's not. It's a damn shame. SirFozzie (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Whatever the final decision, it cannot on its own solve the problem and as arbitrators I assume you recognise this. This poisoned environment must be made fit for the editors and administrators who have stayed away, and particular attention must be paid to encouraging administrator discretion. The proposed discretionary sanctions move in that direction, providing a standard regime that has been applied with success in other problem areas.

It may well be that we'd have to go as far as SirFozzie suggests. But meanwhile it's worth giving it our best shot to encourage uninvolved admins to act on their own initiative, and to make it rather difficult to reverse admin-imposed sanctions without a well established, clear consensus to do so. The amount of bad faith, gaming and battleground behavior that has been seen in the probation forum has been quite shocking, and those who have been engaged there would not hesitate to try to do the same to the discretionary sanctions if not actively deterred. --TS 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K10wnsta's example is poorly chosen. The editor attempted to make a prejudicial statement about a living person by citing a fragment of an email which had been reproduced on the WSJ website, and adding an original interpretation of what it represented. This is contrary to several of our policies, not least that pertaining to biographies of living persons, which I cited in my revert. Unsurprisingly few editors were interested in allowing him to edit war this material into Wikipedia. A suspicion of sock puppetry apparently arose from the editor's combination of IP and logged-in edits, for which he later provided an explanation. --TS 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K10wnsta

I preface this by saying I do not envy the committee. The amount of effort required to properly assess the state of this situation is mind-numbing. Based on my analysis, the manipulation of information here has persisted for far too long and correcting it will require a far-reaching, landmark decision, something I'm afraid the proposed decisions, in their current state, are not.*
9 months ago, as an uninvolved editor, I reviewed the state of our global warming article (tl;dr – it's the 1000-word summary of a 2 week analysis). It was no easy task, nor one I took lightly. To this day, I stand behind every word I wrote there – except the final passage. At the time, I gave the 'expertise' of certain involved parties the benefit of the doubt, even going out of my way to rationalize how they could honestly be misrepresenting material in the article. I have since resolved that my assumption of good faith was misplaced.
If I have time (I probably won't), I'll comment on individual propositions in their prescribed sections, but I’d like to address a more significant and understated one with my statement:

On Sockpuppetry

Many aspects of the Scibaby ordeal are alarming. A mind-boggling number of accounts and IP addresses are being blocked over a modus operandi left vaguely defined. Of particular concern is the following practice: Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user and may be reverted on sight. (emphasis added)
Such a procedure is dangerous, even in the hands of the most neutral editors. Wielded by activists, it’s an extremely powerful tool in suppressing outside dissent in a contentious matter and stands as disturbing precedent, not just for articles related to climate change, but the project as a whole. The following incident, in addition to being one of several examples of collusion by involved editors, demonstrates why the treatment of socks warrants further assessment:

[16] – Vryadly attempts to incorporate valid, reliably-sourced information.
[17] – TS removes it, stating the Wall Street Journal is a poor source.
[18] – Vryadly reverts.
[19] – ChrisO removes it again, also citing the Wall Street Journal as a ‘poor source’
[20] – Vryadly reverts, questioning how the WSJ is a ‘poor source’
[21] – Scjessey reverts, declares the effort vandalism, and reports Vryadly for edit-warring. An accusation of sockpuppetry is leveled.

This is a case of a relatively new editor attempting to make what is, by our own standards, a valid contribution to the project, then being (metaphorically) pursued and lynched for the effort. If you were an inexperienced editor, trying in good faith to contribute to an article, would you want to continue helping the project after such an ordeal? Vryadly hasn’t. I implore the committee to examine more closely the procedures on these matters as they blatantly defy the founding principles of this project.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Not to shortchange Newyorkbrad’s efforts in proposing them – following a 10-day vacation, this would be the last thing I’d want to be plunged headfirst into.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

This decision took two months to craft and we've been told that one of the arbitrators spent 350 hours working on the PD. We should all thank the committee for spending so much effort on the case. But unfortunately the effort doesn't show in the result. With one significant exception, most of us could have scribbled this PD on the back of an IHOP placemat months ago: Put the smackdown on WMC, block an editor or two from the other side for balance, and restate the usual platitudes (essentially as summarized in the "vandal version" though the vandal version is clearer and more concise than the actual PD). The exception is that the PD finally puts the poor old sanctions board out of its misery; this is good.

The PD refers to "blocs" of editors but that's painting too broadly. Yes, there are two identifiable groups, which one could characterize as the WR/contrarian coalition on one side and the "science club" on the other. But there are many gradations within each group. The WR/contrarian group ranges from those who make good-faith efforts and try to rein in the excesses of their colleagues to obnoxious jerks who contribute nothing of value to content, and every shade between. (Perhaps the same could be said of the science club but I am too close to characterize my own group.) The PD ignores these gradations.

On WMC: He has made some boneheaded moves and I've told him so. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that it wouldn't have mattered if he had behaved himself. The evidence against him includes an RFC from five and a half years ago (!) and a second RFC that ended in his favor. The arbitrators seem to feel that merely being the subject of an RFC is a blot on one's record; strangely, no such warning appears at WP:RFC/U. There is also a note of a previous arbcom sanction – with the fact that the sanction was later overturned being conveniently overlooked. Some of the diffs purportedly showing misconduct (especially the ones regarding ownership) are perplexing. Perhaps WMC deserves the sanctions that are being proposed, but it would be nice if the arbitrators could bother to present relevant evidence.

One last point. The fruits of the PD's endorsement of Lar's behavior are apparent on this very page. Unsurprisingly, he has taken the committee's endorsement as license to up the ante, even boasting of having "pwned" an arbitrator. In light of his response to the PD, should the committee continue to turn a blind eye his behavior is likely to become worse and worse until things end very badly. He once was almost universally respected (including by me) but over the past year or two has been treading a bad path. A desysop may or may not be warranted; perhaps simply calling attention to his misbehavior will suffice. In short you have a chance to steer him away from the path he is gong down. Take it.

And my 500 words are done… now.

Statement by Woonpton

I have only once looked at any CC article, back when I first discovered Wikipedia quite by accident and was appalled by the poor quality of the articles I saw. They read to me like bad high school term papers, full of misinformation and marked by an apparent lack of ability on the part of authors to read and fairly summarize sources. Then I thought wow, if these articles are this bad, imagine how bad the articles on politically controversial topics, like climate change, must be! But when I looked at the climate change article, I found that it was solidly based on the best sources, knowledgeable, authoritative, a pleasure to read, as any good encyclopedia article should be. It was the quality of the climate change article that persuaded me to stay at Wikipedia and try to edit here, and the courage and dedication of the (ever-dwindling) group of science-literate editors that has kept me interested in Wikipedia.

Now I can see what an effort it took to keep CC the excellent article it was. Since it seems apparent from all accounts that WMC has been the guiding hand maintaining that quality, I suspect that content quality will suffer if WMC is topic-banned, but I am no apologist for or follower of WMC (despite being named by Abd as a member of WMC's "cabal," which BTW makes me extremely wary of the talk here of "factions" and "blocs;" how do I know there's any more basis to these charges than to Abd's charge that WMC and I were in cahoots with each other? I don't even like WMC; we've never edited the same articles, at least according to wikistalk, and the only conversation I can remember having with him was a disagreement over the courtesy blanking of the Abd/WMC case pages.) The fact that wikistalk lists 19 user talk pages in common between us, although we've almost never interacted, is another indication of the inadequacy of this tool as a measure of "cohesiveness". I show here and here how misleading wikistalk can be as an index of coordinated editing. AFAIK that wikistalk "evidence" was the only evidence offered that a "faction" exists here; it's poor proof indeed.

I don't think the crucial issue here is WMC, or a "faction" of science-oriented editors; the crucial issue here is more central: What is more important to Wikipedia? Providing information that the public will respect and rely on as an accurate summary of the best available sources, or providing a welcoming environment for those whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote a minority POV? You can't have both; your decision here will tip the balance one way or the other. Woonpton (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight

Users that impedes improvement of articles in CC area with battleground mentality and ownership issues need sanctions that control their conduct. After reviewing the contributions of editors involved in the dispute, I've added diffs and recommendations for several editors below. I strongly recommend that ArbCom take the initiative and clear out the most problematic editors from these articles since this area is one that admins have difficulty doing enforcement because so many of the editors are established users where sanctions are the most difficult to find agreement in the Community. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The decision, as it is now shaping up, appears to be lopsided. Many of the regular editors and administrators who edit in good faith are being sanctioned for their efforts to resist an onslaught of sock puppets, canvassed editors, civil POV warriors, and agenda driven editing. Meanwhile, those who use dirty tactics in a battle for editorial control are not being held sufficiently accountable, largely because of the difficulties in doing so. We need to think about ways to encourage good editing and good administration, rather than playing the blame game. We also need to pay attention to content. Merely counting reverts and sanctioning those who revert the most is a very bad idea. Sometimes a lot of reverting means that there's been a lot of bad editing that had to be reverted. I am all in favor of discussion, but how do you discuss editorial disagreements with throw-away sockpuppet accounts; canvassed editors, and agenda-driven editors who have no intention of ever listening to reason? Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Committee was preparing the proposed decision I convinced about 15 editors to voluntarily cease editing CC articles. This experiment was successful. It helped calm the dispute for a time. In the future I would encourage more use of voluntary restrictions, such as editing breaks, or revert restrictions. Voluntary programs may reveal which editors are willing to control themselves, and which ones are beyond reason. (Those beyond reason may need involuntary restrictions.) Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

The proposed decision was improved by Rlevse's recent changes, but I remain troubled by the punitive character of much of the PD and the talk page conversation. As presently drafted, it is tilted significantly against editors with scientific expertise, focusing on their behavior without taking into consideration the provocation of dealing with an phalanx of editors pushing fringe science. Their behavior has also been influenced, for the worse, by the omnipresent Lar, who I believe is more responsible for the negative atmosphere in the climate change articles than any other established editor. He is simply not a civil editor. That appears to be his personal style. Yet not only has he not been relieved of his official responsibilities because of this shortcoming (except for the action in Meta unrelated to these proceedings), but in the initial version of the PD he was not subjected to any sanctions. That surprised even him.

There is such a lack of interest in the actual content of these articles that there is a serious proposal to remove all the editors involved in "conflicts" in these articles over the past two years. If enacted, the effect would be to degrade Wikipedia's reputation even further, and to reverse the strides that have been made in the CC articles. This PD leaves a lot to be desired. What worries me is that this has become such a free-for-all that it may actually get worse. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't edit CC pages, and this is the first Arbitration case in which I've chosen to involve myself. Here's what I think:

When the dust of this case settles, it will be important that administrators who consider working in Arbitration Enforcement not be dissuaded by this decision, either because they worry that disruptive editors will get away with misrepresenting what the administrators will have done in good faith, or because they worry that the Committee will second-guess them.
There's an important difference between, on the one hand, having a bad day and making a mistake, and, on the other hand, displaying a chronic pattern of repeated disruptive behavior, all the more so after already having been warned about the behavior in previous Arbitration decisions.
In the latter case, it makes little sense to keep offering "second chances". It's in the best interests of the project to show them the door. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CrohnieGal

Watching this whole thing playing out as pretty much a lurker of several editor's pages, AN/i and the the sanction board along with other boards at times, I find this whole thing a bit disturbring. Sanctions against administrators like 2/0 with Lar, Lar with Jehochman is outright wrong. You want to bring in administrators yet you are are sanctioning these for minor things, a one event type of thing. Please reconsider these.

There is a lot of noise on this page I'm sorry to say. There are comments upon comments by involved editors. I hope attentions are being taken a lot more by those who are outside the area of CC. I also have to agree that a lot of the PD seem more punitive than it should be. I'm also getting the feeling that politics are getting involved in some of this. The reason I feel this way is that some of the PD missed out on being balanced about claims against editors which are now trying to be adjusted (see the history of the PD for the difs)). I sincerely think our first priority should be the articles. I'm not seeing this as being a prority. Editors do get sarcastic but let's not forget that some of these editors have been answering or trying to answer the same things over and over, add in socks and what you have is a lot of frustration. I honestly don't know if anyone reads what I say, it matters but then again it doesn't. We need to have articles for the readers, that needs to be our first priorty. Behavior is important but not more important than our readers having an article that is accurate and meets policies. I think the next priority is to get rid of spas and socks. People with an agenda that don't park it or a sock breaching policies first by socking needs to be stopped. I think I've said enough to get my points across. In closing lets please remember the reader before we do anything drastic. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2over0

Statement pared for presentation. More thoughts.

Encourage more involvement from more admins. I know that this point has been made before and that the power of ArbCom to do this is basically limited to social reinforcement, but the point bears reiterating. Encourage more involvement from uninvolved admins. At least half of this case could potentially have been avoided with another three or so "go-to" admins working the area. This would both lessen the impact of unavoidable individual biases, and provide enough back-up that we would feel more comfortable rotating ourselves out after two or three months (LHvU - I hope to see you around sometime in our mutual self-exile). I appreciate that P17 acknowledges this.
Lar makes a very good point some ways below regarding the value of positive reinforcement, which is especially valuable when coupled with MastCell's advice that we should all model the behaviour we wish to see in others. Examples of "best practice" scenarios might be helpful as a reference for admins and editors deciding the best way forward in future disputes in this and other areas.
I am not convinced that the present proposed decision strikes the best possible balance between giving every editor and every case a fair hearing while not allowing editors to choose for themselves which administrators are allowed to act. I would like to see a statement encouraging editors and admins to step aside, or at least wait a day, whenever they feel their objectivity may be compromised. One of the advantages of conducting these discussions over the internet is that they do not need to occur in real time - there is no need ever to say anything "in the heat of the moment", so the need to forgive and forget such statements should be rare.
The purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, period, full stop. We are not here to play host to interminable arguments about the topics it covers, and should have few to no compunctions asking people to direct their more fractious impulses to one of the countably infinite other websites who welcome such discussion. If there is one primary reason why I quit adminning this topic area, it is that I am simply not interested in being required as part of due diligence to continue reading interminable discussions concerning why a particular editor, source, or point is in the pay of the anti-FSM. I really appreciate the "put up or shut up" language in P6, and I hope that the principle is closely monitored and enforced in future discussions.
On the subject of P6, I think that it omits a very important counterpoint to P4. Specifically, no one should accuse a fellow volunteer of bloc editing (or any other behaviour not solely motivated by improvement to the encyclopedia) except in the narrow circumstance of providing evidence for and discussing potential sanctions. More at P6: Casting Aspersions.

2over0 public (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

I'm not clear on what the purpose of the "collective blocs" point is. You cannot stop people agreeing with each other - so as long they don't coordinate on or offline, I'm not sure what more there is to say. Local consensus on Wikipedia content can be artificially created by "blocs"; but it happens much less often than you would think, because generally it's overturnable sooner or later by a wider consensus, brought in through dispute resolution (or merely the sands of time), and partly as a result, people do tend to argue issues in good faith on the merits most of the time, albeit from maybe dramatically different perspectives. If this were not the case, Wikipedia would be a lot more screwed than it is. I'm saying this here because I feel the point, even though it doesn't really say anything, risks becoming a hostage to fortune of future interpretation and abuse (eg 2over0's point above). Either figure out what exactly this is trying to achieve, and try again to do so, or drop (don't endorse) it.

On BLPs, I'm not sure there's anything Arbcom can say that would help, unless it wishes to strengthen BLP policy in the area of climate change BLPs. Personally I would revise BLP policy to strengthen it, for example against WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM (the recent Michael E. Mann Virginia investigation a perfect example; though it's a universal temptation which policy would do well to mitigate somewhat), and to mitigate more strongly against re-introducing contentious BLP material while it's under discussion and there is not a clear written prior consensus for inclusion to point to. Oddly, we seem to have a stronger custom against removing NPOV tags when the issue isn't resolved than against re-introducing contentious BLP material while under discussion.

On WMC, whilst he clearly does not have an unblemished record, it does seem that too much of the findings in relation to him involve evidence from quite some time ago (and some of the evidence, from a brief perusal, somewhat debatable). I do not find these parts convincing right now. On a related note, I agree with finding 21. Beyond this, the proposed decision does not recognise the relationship between the underlying content issues and the expertise of contributors. Perhaps it should not. But I cannot help remarking that blog-inspired non-scientists tendentiously editing this area are cheap; dedicated scientists, even if abrasive etc, are rather more important to Wikipedia maintaining an accurate relationship with the science Out There. Getting rid of one is not at all the same as getting rid of the other.

Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Statements