Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 5

MN

I think this tells us all we need to know about Mark Nutley's attitude to editing restrictions:

• Self reverted, got the time wrong, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some further cluification is needed urgently.

Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas

Viriditas has accused someone of being an SPA[1] but did not indicate who was the SPA. I asked Viriditas who he/she is accusing of being an SPA[2] but he/she has deleted this section at his/her talk page.[3] What are editors supposed to do when other editor makes accusations but don't want discuss the accusations they make? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So, V writes in an edit summary 'SPA' but you don't know who he means - his edit is reverted, so the article has not changed over it, he hasn't made a specific alegation against a specific person, he hasn't repeated the alegation and he is not using this opportunity to hound anyone or make long talkpage rants. So basically it is like it never happened, and you still don't know if he meant anyone in specific, or even just made a mistake.

The situation resolved itself, V hasn't named anyone and hasn't pursued the matter. So why are you? The answer to your question, in this case, is simply, get over it.

If someone uses alegations against unnamed persons to alter an article, that probably wouldn't be acceptable. However all you have here is a single (reverted) edit summary, and nothing else. Come back when you have observed a pattern that you can illustrate with diffs. Weakopedia (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar's comments in uninvolved section

With the strength of the Lar/WMC issues running at arbcom. Can someone please move Lar's comments to the involved section. Polargeo (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only call Lar's further posting in the uninvolved section as I plainly see it as arogance and bullying. Polargeo (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, he is uninvolved. Just because a bunch of editors scream involved and take issue with him does not make him involved. Bozmo has had the same accusations levelled at him, is he also involved? Just leave it for Arbcom to decide mark nutley (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No MN this is not so simple as that. As I have said on the main page [4] it is a major case at arbcom currently running with many serious and valid points that need to be answered. This is not a standard ATren "I say you are involved" or even a simple Lar "you have edited a CC article so you are involved" case so please do not dismiss this in the usual way. Any admin worth their salt should recuse themselves in these circumstances or face some serious come back Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The nwhy are you not asking Bozmo to do the same? It is the same thing for both. In fact any admin who posts over there would now count as involved. Just let it go, Arbcom will be handing us all our butts soon enough. mark nutley (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No. There are specific reasons why Lar should not comment in cases involving WMC at present. Polargeo (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar's last attempt to take an administrative act regarding WMC was immediately overturned by another admin on the basis of Lar's clear involvement ([5]). I expect that any future attempt by Lar to take similar action will be similarly overturned, and I also expect that he knows this as well as everyone else does. In other words, while it is inappropriate and borderline-POINTy for him to continue to comment in the uninvolved admins' section, I doubt that anyone will bother to do anything about it unless he actually tries to take a further action. Other editors realize that trying to get Lar to acknowledge his erroneous interpretation is, at this point, futile, and it probably will take an ArbCom finding to get him to see the inconsistency in his position.

I believe that in general the other editors on the CC probation page are well aware of Lar's biases and degree of involvement; his continued insistence on misplacing his posts probably diminishes the credence given his statements. A concise, clear, and civil advisory note describing Lar's biases and involvement and reminding uninvolved admins to take his putative lack of involvement with a suitably large grain of salt would not be out of place, reminding genuinely uninvolved administrators that they should not construe Lar's comments as contributing to or obstructing consensus among them. (Place the note in the 'Comments by others' section, of course — it's not appropriate to meet his misuse of the probation page with more of the same type of abuse.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is just plain misrepresentation. Lar has taken several actions against "skeptical" editors -- he sanctioned Mark several times. This only comes up when he tries to evenly enforce both sides. The environment is so skewed in this enforcement area that even-handedness is made to appear like bias. Admins like TOAT and Stephen enhance this skewed environment by making unsupported assertions as if they were fact, as above. ATren (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@ATren. Why do you always try to bring this back to WP:Battleground when it is not necessary? Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that since the CC probation came into effect at the start of this year, the only use of admin tools (at least, of blocking or protection) in the CC area by Lar has been his block of WMC. I've amply supported my statements about Lar's bias and involvement through diffs and log entries at the climate change arbitration. For that matter, I even provided – in the very comment to which you replied – a link to a block log entry where another admin overturned Lar's action on the basis of Lar's apparent involvement. While you're free to weigh the evidence differently, it is quite false to claim that my statements are unsupported. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, look at the archives of the cases. He was frequently involved in the discussions which led to sanctions or warnings to several "skeptical" editors, and he was usually supportive of those sanctions even if he didn't close the case. In particular, IIRC, he's been very strong in his opinions on Marknutley, TGL and GoRight -- in fact, GoRight filed an enforcement request against him alleging bias the other way.

The block on WMC was a one hour block, and it was a direct result of disruptive behavior by WMC which had every appearance of baiting. In fact, 2/0's overturn (with literally minutes remaining) says much more about 2/0's bias than Lar's.

As is usual for WMC's supporters, you amplify the response and ignore the trigger, including the multiple warnings Lar gave before blocking, and you ignore all other evidence of evenhandedness by Lar. ATren (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @TOAT: They're misleading, though. First, acting as an admin doesn't only mean using the block button... imposing sanctions or restrictions after a consensus among uninvolved admins was reached is also acting as an admin. All of us uninvolved admins have done that more often than we've actually blocked or protected. Second, you and others make much of that block being overturned but you neglect to mention the circumstances around that overturn, namely who overturned it, what their relationship to other parties is, and the result of the discussion at AN/I. It's not nearly as clear cut as you paint it, and you mislead when you leave that out. I stand by that block, it was the right thing to do, even if it got overturned. That's not a sign of anything other than an admin trying to do the right thing for this project as a whole. This whole thing is a last gasp, I have a great deal of confidence in ArbCom's ability to see through the smoke this faction has been laying down. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, have you considered the fact that your "defenders" all come from one side? That usually indicates that that's the side you are playing for... EdChem (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And have you considered that his attackers all come from one side? That usually indicates that the complaints themselves are frivolous and biased. ATren (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think either one of those assertions is true. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar, a number of previously uninvolved and "unaffiliated" editors agreed with concerns that Lar had become inappropriately vested in the personality politics and content disputes in this area. Similarly, a number of previously "unaffiliated" users opined that Lar had been unfairly targeted. Neither Lar's "defenders" nor those who have raised concerns about his actions in the area are limited entirely to one "side" of this topic, as best I can tell. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would draw attention to the case main page, where it states (in part, 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 do not see any restriction on any party acting as they were immediately before the case was activated. I have commented on several requests made since the case opened, involving editors I have commented upon on the ArbCom pages, and my "uninvolved" status has not been questioned. Therefore, it seems that this notion that involvement in the ArbCom case makes an admin involved for the purposes of enforcement has not been applied previously - although the contention that Lar is not an uninvolved admin was made prior to and was part of the case for a RfAR - and is based upon the individual and not the principle. In summary, I do not think a claim that participation in the ArbCom case makes an admin involved can be sustained. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even uninvolved admins should not close threads when challenged

This [6] is not accetable by normal wikipedia rules. Seek consensus amongst admins first. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if acceptable it has now been challenged so it is now unacceptable to edit the close back again without consensus. Polargeo (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ChrisO's self enforcement request

Whoever closed it maybe should sign their close, it's common practice to do that. For the record I agree with that close, this isn't the place for reassurance. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the reminder! --BozMo talk 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove uninvolved admin section

In lieu of the arbcom decision the uninvolved admin section should be removed altogether. We cannot have individual admins moving the comments of other admins based on their own interpretation of the rules. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What interpretation is that? Do not comment if your A not an admin B Involved, stephan is and t osay he is not is ludicrous. He was being disruptive even posting in there mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And many times Lar has been disruptive posting there in my opinion. Also in my opinion Lar moved my comments when I was backing you up and I was not directly involved in the situation at all. Therefore the "uninvolved" admin section is currently nonsense and held only by Lar's tactics of ever so carefully never editing a CC article and using this as his trump card. It is clear that this section holds no weight whatsoever at present except what can be gained through muscle and bullying. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The probation page still states:

"For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)."

and by that criteria Lars move was in error. But he seems to think otherwise, however, he hasn't made any attempt to change the stated criteria that I'm aware of. Maybe arbcom will void that or whatever... patience :) Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That needs changing to match how things actually operate here, and we've been remiss in not doing that sooner. (policy here at WP is mostly descriptive, so where it's inaccurately describing how things are, it should be updated) May I suggest a separate section below where we hammer out an acceptable wording? ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The stated "definition" of involved has been simply ignored and "how things actually operate here" may be the problem. When admins knowingly ignore stated "policy" for this area and redefine things to suit their own views without seeking to clarify or even discuss the "definition" given, there is a problem. Seems one of the 3 arbcom requests leading to the current case directly involved this "definition problem" and yet the admins working this probation area have not seen fit to discuss or modify the "definition" given even after repeated disputes over it and some 7-8 months of ignoring it. But, likely rather late now and the current overdo arbcom decision may prove it moot — although if arbcom doesn't replace this or clarify things relating to it, then we should "hammer out an acceptable wording". Vsmith (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Lar was in error as he was with his previous move of my comments. His success that time seemed to ride on the fact that I had attempted to defend WMC against his obvious bias (therefore I was cabal!) and that I had protested a little too pointedly against him. Let's hope the arbcom decision comes really quickly and puts a stop to this ridiculous nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As the current sanction under discussion is site wide related to CC articles then according to what you just posted VSmith then Stephan is involved mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case it includes all people involved in the CC arb case so that gets us nowhere. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The arb case is not a CC related article and i doubt anyone is about to slap NPOv tags on it :) mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about placing a {{Expand}} on the ArbCom PD page? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It got reverted. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins section has previously been notable for polite and respectful discussion between the parties regarding the enforcement of the probation as regards the specific request. It has only become an area of contention when parties not considered uninvolved have posted there, or otherwise have posted there in regard to issues not specific to the request, or have subsequently been subject to allegations of non-uninvolvedness, therefore to remove that preserve where sysops can discuss the request without distraction is to allow the recent efforts at "modifying" the process to succeed in destroying it. The only drawback, until recently, to the section was that it lead to prevarication and delay before enactment was agreed - although it had also largely stopped the claims of biased unilateral actions by sysops. The uninvolved admins section had worked very well and instead of removing it there should be the decision to allow it to continue as before the Lar RfC where, it should be strongly noted, that no consensus that Lar was involved was found. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

LHVU, I think you are right. I have a question for the other admins active in this forum: BozMo and NW, and any others who drop by, why is it only Lar and LHVU who are enforcing the restriction on involved admins from acting as admins in these enforcement actions? Why aren't you two helping move Stephan and Polargeo's comments from the "Results" section? If either one of you were to do that, even once, it would end the entire dispute immediately, because Stephan and Polargeo would realize that they weren't going to be allowed to get away with disrupting the forum. If you two, BozMo and NW, have moved Stephan's and Polargeo's comments from the section, then I apologize for my presumption. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely two of Lar's strongest supporters and offwiki chums (Cla and LHvU) put their particular spin on things. I think you must be having your own little joke between yourselves that you have managed to stick a cabal label on truly independent editors whilst you act so strongly together. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Presuambly because they don't believe Lar's assertions of non-involvement, or don't accept his assertions of Stephans involvement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just a load of nonsense it is based on Lar backed up by his regular supporters setting the standards. That is why an arbcom case judgement is needed. If any of them had actually looked at my edits instead of just having a knee jerk reaction that because I had a major disagreement with Lar's position with regard to WMC plus some article overlap I was therefore obviously "cabal" then they would have seen a neutral independent editor who was not primarily on wikipedia for climate change edits in any way. Unfortunately the inevitable CC battleground reaction kicked in from Lar and his supporters (ATren, Cla, The locust and LHvU being the prime candidates - don't ask me to provide diffs the page isn't long enough). Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Franamax Involved

As User:Franamax has been busy telling arbcom that I am involved based on the fact that I have ever edited CC articles ([7],[8]) I thought I should point out that he has added more text specifically on CC than I ever have. See his addditions [9], [10], [11]. These make him clearly involved by Lar's standards. I think Lar is wrong with his standards but we cannot have admins setting restrictions that just benefit themselves. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to Lar moving his comments up a section. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[12], [13] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

redacted stuff removed Jesus man just give it a rest mark nutley (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to MN's WP:PA a personal attack by me against MN has been narrowly averted by a rare injection of common sense , oh and the fact that I let personal attacks slide off my back like water off a duck rather than starting RFE's every time. Or adding lists of dubious diffs to Arbcom cases. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Come on. If I move Lar's or Franamax's comments I will be punished by Lar's supporters. Lar should not continue as uninvolved with regard to WMC (at least until the arbcom judgement) and Franamax should not be commenting as uninvolved at all by Lar's self defined standards. Let us have some consistancy here. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Diffs of a single substantial edit from last September? Any signs of that edit being part of a controversy along factional lines? Come on, this looks like a bit of a POINT violation. If you yourself think the criterion that would stamp him "involved" on this basis is wrong, then it's not much use pressing for it here, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is the whole point. I do have a problem that Lar seems to have defined where the boundary lies, and it is at a place that suits himself. If you can find such a substanital edit directly on climate change from me such as Franamax has made then I would be very impressed. Some consistancy is needed here to prevent this becoming a Lar fiefdom. Can you find a single one of my article edits that comes as close to peddling climate change views as this single edit by Franamax? I actually think on this particular issue Lar is involved and Franamax is not but if we apply the Lar criteria that he uses regularly to remove opposition to himself then Franamax is involved. I just notice Lar does not apply this criteria when an ally comments on any situation. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I guess that is the whole WP:POINT then. Your argument may well be right (or not, I have no idea personally, I'm neither familiar with your history in this domain nor with Fran's), but whatever the merits of the argument, this way of pursuing it is sorta the textbook example of WP:POINT tactics (i.e. arguing an issue not because you're convinced of it but in order to reduce ad absurdum somebody else's position). Please drop that, it's not productive. That said, I've gone on record myself saying that Lar shouldn't act as an admin here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not presently here on the talkpage based on WP:POINT, if I was trying to disrupt I would be moving Lar's comments myself so please do not dismiss my arguments based on POINT. I am here trying to argue a case that is being consistently ignored whilst admins allow Lar to move other admin's comments on whim and define who is uninvolved himself whislt commenting on cases he should clearly not be, without so much as a peep from other admins. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you think it`s a PA, it`s not. It is pointing out that these continued rants against lar are pointless and reflect badly on you. Leave it for the Arbcom case to sort out mark nutley (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mn: Of course it was a personal attack, so you might please consider stopping it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It was no more of a PA than ChrisO's comment - and it is unseemly for you focus only on issues coming from one side of the argument, and ignoring the same from the other side. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn it. I will back you up a hundred percent that WMC should not have refactored your comment, he was completely wrong. Please don't fight every battle with a partisan hat on. Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec - to Polar)You and I appear to agree on a number of issues -- other than thinking that "involved" is a magic word here. You have made your point often now (reaching "quite enough" status), and adding more is unlikely to convince anyone at all of much <g>. (appending to MN) - the term "quite enough" applies to this entire topic. Collect (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall also pass on the supplying of diffs, but there are other "uninvolved admins" who have edited CC/AGW pages in the past; 2over0 and BozMo. They were also the admins in situation when I first started adminning, and I found them helpful and courteous. When, later, the practice of discussion between uninvolved admins became common, they were neutral and fair in their commentary and were proactive in working toward a consensus. Thus I never had reason to question their status. (It should be noted, however, that some editors have questioned their neutrality, including the current Arbcom case.) I suggest that uncontroversial edits, plus an apparent desire to work together with other admins to find consensus does not disqualify an admin from participating in that section - but being a major contributor and editing toward a recognised viewpoint, or being being disruptive and combatative otherwise does. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally support your viewpoint. But I must contend that it should not be applied or decided upon by Lar (or you) and it should not rest upon a few article edits. For instance I was never given the opportunity to show that I was fair because when I tried to be so I was opposed Lar. I was put firmly into the involved category simply because I had opposed Lar about his obviously involved status with regard to WMC. Therfore this needs arbcom not LHvU judgement. Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my internet is back on. What a time for it to quit! Polargeo, I don't think you're being helpful here. If you disagree with definitions, it's much better to raise them in a general fashion, rather than engage in point-scoring exercises. I did indeed add text on the relation between ozone depletion and Antarctic temperatures, I saw it in Nature and asked an editor about it before adding it. An editor who I knew had expertise in the area, it was, let me think - oh yes, Polargeo. But why didn't you include this, where I added the section on ice mass balance? You must remember it, you made 12 edits just after, adding sources and rewording it. (And it was a pleasure working with you BTW)

My assessment of you as "involved" revolves largely around two factors. First, you are a researcher in the field (literally) thus I have a reasonable apprehension of bias. That may not be totally fair, I'm sure you'd rather be judged by your on-wiki actions only, but nevertheless going by my "personally willing to sanction" definition of uninvolved, I think it would be a bad scene if you were to block someone in the CC area. The second factor is similarly nebulous: your vocal and continued opposition to the sanctions regime itself. You have expressed your opinion that the regime is illegitimate and was foisted on the community by a small group manufacturing local consensus. I'm not particularly comfortable with the way the sanctions were finalized, I just did my best to give input on the structure at the time. It's unfortunate that you didn't know what was coming down the pipe, it would have been nice to have much more input at the time - but it is what it is and we need to make it work. I don't feel that you have sufficient commitment to upholding the sanctions regime to add input in the "uninvolved" section. Your initiation of this very thread casts doubt on your motives - do you wish a declaration that I am "involved" or do you wish to discuss what "uninvolved" means? Your title indicates you wish a judgement on my status. Your content however seems to be more digging at Lar. Incidentally, I raised the issue of my edits to Antarctica on the very page where the sanctions were discussed and enacted, no-one had a big problem at the time. [14] I think this is closable as: I'm uninvolved; you think Lar is involved; in retrospect, the definition could have been written better in the statement of sanctions. Franamax (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax. You are completely wrong. I am a glaciologist not a climate scientist. Please look at my GA which is based on my research Pine Island Glacier and try to find anything about climate change in that article, or for that matter any one of my newly created articles on glaciers ([[15]]), there is nothing. However, you put in loads of text on climate change into an Featured Article (Antarctica) without citing a single reference. As an Antarctic glaciologist and wikipedian I then had to tidy up these additions, hence my edits, which you were very pleased with at the time. I think this proves that I am here to improve wikipedia not to add a POV. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I say you were a climate scientist? I'm well aware of your work. The PIG has seen increased ice flow in recent times, and this is intimately bound up with global warming. The increased flow may or not be a consequence of AGW, or maybe it's that volcano. It's still an interconnected field, more so than, say, running a machine tool or cutting hair. Please don't rewrite history, go back and look at our discussions on Talk:Antarctica, we were trying to clarify which Antarctic ice could contribute to sea level rise and how likely it is that the ice cuold turn to water. I was very clear at the time that I wrote the section as "free verse" so as to properly outline the concepts, and I sought your input as to veracity and where it would be appropriate to use some of the 2 dozen or so sources I'd assembled on the talk page. Later I added verbiage about the relation between ozone depletion and measured temperature, in the same fashion. Every single word was backed by sources of impeccable quality, which sources I clearly noted on talk. It was a collaborative effort, a successful one that I'm proud of. I think it very much improved a featured article which to this day gives the world accurate and neutral information. I certainly didn't anticipate that you would retrospectively claim you "had to tidy up". Should I simply avoid you in future? I think you are a great editor, I just don't think you should be acting as an admin in climate-related areas. This seems to be straying off-topic, or I'm not sure what exactly the topic is. What resolution do you wish from this thread? Franamax (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All great stuff. But why exactly aren't you "involved"? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I've never expressed an opinion on the "A" in AGW, never added material subject to any dispute whatsoever, never taken a sustained interest in articles remotely close to the issue (save Antartica, where I added facts gleaned from Nature), never had editorial disputes with the main players in the CC arena? Franamax (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If "never expressing an opinion on the A" is a criterion, nearly all qualified editors will count as involved. But note that Lar has expressed such an opinion - so why does that not make him involved? More generally, the requirement to chose between improving articles or administration means we lose every knowledgeable admin for one task or the other. That leaves the ignorant ones, who, not recognizing problems, are under less compunction to fix articles, but also are less able distinguish between constructive and destructive contributions. I do not find this a healthy recipe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, you should know that their definition of "involved" is "having any opinion whatsoever that is counter to their own, including opinions on enforcement". So naturally, in their eyes, you are. ATren (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what you reply to? If yes, read again. If no, please indicate this so that people are not confused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz: That's quite an ironic comment considering ATren's post was addressed to Franamax. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually tend to resist linear thinking along the lines of "If A is B, then C must be B as well" and try to look at this kind of thing as "on-balance". IMO Lar is a known quantity and has expressed a consistent and cogent viewpoint. I can deal with that. On the general issue, it seems to be the nature of the beast. You go through a week of hell at RFA, then it gets worse. It's distressing enough to have to sit back from fixing an article because you are riding herd on squabbling editors. Then you have the attempts to paint you as involved simply because you have become familiar with a dispute and take a stance on the underlying behaviour. I think it just comes with the territory of adminship beyond page moves and deleting CSDable articles. I know that right now I'm thinking of calling Telus up and asking them to re-disconnect my DSL line. :) Franamax (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@F: that is nice. When has PG done these things? @AT: do you think you could leave out the waste-of-time snarking? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've outlined quite clearly above the main factors I consider to arrive at my definition for Polargeo. On balance, I find it much preferable that he not act as an uninvolved admin in this area. Yes, my definitions are flexible - I try to be guided by common sense. Franamax (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You've totally failed to produce a convincing case for PG's involvement. You've invented an arbitrary criterion (research in a related field - so what?). Your own rather un-nice behaviour is in stark contrast to the arbs on this case - see CHL at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Re-Up William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, people... drop this stuff and go do something else. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very worried if the definition of 'uninvolved' (or 'neutral' for that matter) became, "From what I know, I just can't decide if man is contributing to global warming or not". That sounds to me like either a very biassed or a very uninformed view of the topic. An uninvolved, neutral (or ignorant) point of view is not what we need, it's the application of WP editing policies to the existing, verifiable body of knowledge, and, where relevant, to its critics. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I consider myself an "alarmist" with regard to the likely impact, and consider the science pretty settled at this point. That has absolutely no bearing on my involvement or lack thereof, nor should it. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral actions versus consensus.

JEHochman has just decided to unilaterally impose a sanction on WMC, in the face of a consensus just about arrived at to do something rather different. I'm not sure that's a productive approach. I've moved my comments on his action from there to here on talk: ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you have consensus for either of these unilateral actions. The latter, especially, seems to be imposing a much more severe restriction on WMC than the consensus here before you decided to act unilaterally. I suggest you participate in the consensus finding process on an equal footing with other uninvolved admins instead of trying to impose things. That's not helpful and might well lead to wheel warring. The sanctions found here using consensus tend to stick. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not severe to give WMC a break of a few days from the CC melee. ArbCom will post their decision soon, I think. I am planning to give a similar restriction to anybody else who persists in argumentum ad nauseum, wikilawyering, battling or similar behaviors. (I cast my eye towards you. Take the hint.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not the sheriff. No one of us is, we use consensus. Stop trying to be one. I suggest you participate in the consensus finding process on an equal footing with other uninvolved admins instead of trying to impose things. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The probation says "any uninvolved administrator". It does not say "a consensus of uninvolved administrators". We already have a severe problem of administrators who's status is ambiguous, and who's participation here is not accepted as objective. Considering that your actions are under scrutiny by ArbCom, that much evidence has been posted alleging bias on your part, I think it is untenable for you to continue participating here as an administrator. Actions by you only breed more conflict, which is not good for the encyclopedia. If you are wise, you will recuse. These pages will not fall apart if you leave. Somebody else will take your place. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have to remind you, that you yourself are not without critics in this area (raises hand). Glass houses and all that. Arkon (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to the relevant section of evidence in the arbitration case? Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That may have been the worse 'hey look over there' I've ever seen. The only reason you aren't there is because you ran for the hills the first time you came under fire. Arkon (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@JEH: I think it's rules lawyering at this point, after months of successfully using a consensus driven process, to insist that you can suddenly come in and unilaterally act. That's true regardless of whether I continue to participate in the uninvolved admin section or not. You are not Mighty Mouse, flying in (without context) to save the day. Stop trying. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think past performance of this board can be held up as a model of success. We'll have a short time to wait until ArbCom renders a ruling. Pressure is building and people are acting even worse than usual. We need to keep a lid on this for just a few more days. (I'd appreciate if you'd do your part by removing your personal insults. It is not acceptable to call somebody "Mighty Mouse".) The insidious thing about these conflicts is that people get excited and say and do all sorts of things the normally wouldn't, but they have trouble seeing themselves objectively. Please, please, please trust your friends when they tell you that you're getting overwrought. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it an insult to say that a person is not a particular thing? That seems rather an odd request on your part. I'm not aware of any of my friends telling me I'm overwrought, although I wouldn't be surprised if you got such input yourself. This is, I think, the third time you've acted unilaterally here, and each time it has been singularly unhelpful. You really ought to stop. I'd be happier to step away for a while if you were participating the way the rest of us do but this sort of thing is worrisome. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I consider it an insult the way you worded it. Is it expensive for you to upgrade the civility of your comment? Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, the probation rules permit administrators to act unilaterally without consensus. That is a subtly different thing from acting unilaterally against an obvious consensus of administrators. This is a minor enforcement request with little actual disagreement about the appropriate sanction. I believe you are needlessly multiplying the drama here. It is not helpful and you should stop. Thparkth (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you involved or uninvolved in the conflict? Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am as uninvolved as they come (and not an administrator). Thparkth (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, so your opinion needs careful consideration. It doesn't matter whether you are an administrator (to me, anyhow). Perhaps I should make clear that my restriction is not based narrowly on the instant thread. It is based on the nature of comments I've seen WMC making around wiki, and the entire history of this conflict. I will consider modifying or removing the sanction if WMC asks me to do so. He may very well see the wisdom in removing himself from the battle for a short time. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So you first unilaterally impose a sanction against the developing consensus of what to do, followed by unilaterally unimposing it if asked by the sanctionee? I think you're getting farther and farther afield now. You are not the boss of all the other uninvolved admins, who have been working here peacably. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(@Jeh) I think in practice several people would benefit from taking a voluntary few days off from CC articles and enforcement at this point. The dramaometer is pointing to "overload". Nothing productive is going to happen until ArbCom publishes the proposed decision. It would be better for many people's wiki-careers if they just backed off of the whole topic area for a little while. The question for those of us who feel this way is, how to offer that advice in a way that does not seem like an attack on those people? And how can they accept it without feeling that they are conceding wrongdoing in some way? Thparkth (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. That's exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps we could give out some "no fault" restrictions saying, "while you may have done nothing wrong, we want you to disengage from the fight on these pages until ArbCom posts a final decision, and we are ready to block you if you refuse to do so". Would you like to assemble a list? Other clearly uninvolved editors are welcome to comment on how we could best implement this (and improve the initial implementation with respect to WMC). Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the suggestion but a couple caveats, both of which I think are reasonable.

First, Timing. Identify an end time, and include a calendar date, with a whichever comes first clause. While I anticipate Arbcom results in a few days, and could support a freeze on CC editing for a few days, if a few days turned into a month or more, it would be untenable. So after defining the event triggering the end of the restriction (whether first or final draft), add a clause that says if that event hasn't occurred in say, 30 days, something else will be considered.

Second Scope. I've voluntarily adopted a no CC article editing ban, but not CC talk. You obviously intend this to cover CC articles. What about talk? What about this sanctions page? What about WP pages such as ANI? (Would it make sense to create special page just to give people a place to vent, and a page that might be archived later, with the ability to mine it for useful comments, should any occur?)

Finally, and independently of how this proposal is structured, please ensure that there are sysops on call when the proposed decision is revealed. It isn't hard to imagine that an editor seeing a proposed long ban might decide to make the most of the time until the ban starts.

As to the list, add me to the list. While I've worked hard to be neutral, and hope I've been a positive contribution to the CC area, I predict that if editors are allowed to self-decide their status, the list will be quite short. SPhilbrickT 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing not to edit CC articles and talk pages (excepting ArbCom discussion) provided that everyone else (in both factions) are under the same restrictions. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've highlighted this problem before. We have a probation that is specifically intended to encourage administrators to take action in this area, yet some administrators have persistently misinterpreted the clearly worded probation so as to mean the opposite: to wit, that no administrator may take action in the area without first jumping through extra bureaucratic hoops. This is wrong, and I do hope the arbitration committee will say so clearly and provide clarification. Actively hampering administrative action in an area that badly needs it is very counter-productive. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the question of unilateralness and all that for the moment, just a question of clarification to Jehochman: do you intend this ban (or the others) to last all the time until the final decision of the arbs? Because you were talking somewhere of "a few days". But the way Arbcom has been working, "a few days" is a realistic timeframe until the first draft. Until the posting of the actual decision, we are probably talking several weeks, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as until the decision, not until the first (or subsequent) draft. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should apply a "no fault" sanction to a list of editors (including WMC), asking them not to touch any CC pages (except arbitration) until a decision is rendered. If it takes ArbCom too long to reach a decision and this restriction becomes more onerous than we had intended, we can lift the restrictions. We do our part to end the conflict, and ArbCom should be expected to do their part. How about we allow a voluntary sign up. If need be, uninvolved administrators may add names to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly uninvolved in the whole climate matter though I started following it a week or so ago, and FWIW, I think the whole matter is currently miles beyond ridiculously out-of-hand. It looks like Jehochman's sanction is a bit of a shift in gears, as far as administration. If so, then it does suck that there has to be a "first victim", but I think the project is better off if it becomes known that decisive administrative actions (such as Jehochman's) could become the new norm. BigK HeX (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also .... I think it's kinda nuts that there's not more solid information on when ArbCom's decision will be rendered since the last update (AFAIK) seemed to indicate a decision was imminent two weeks ago. The "pending" decision seems to be a reason cited for people to wait on a lot of things. BigK HeX (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Define "reasonable time", when that is cleared, i'll sign up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks should be more than enough. I hope it would be much shorter. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is reasonable - i've signed myself up. [btw. you may want to clarify whether talk pages in CC and GC/CC pages are included] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the arbitration committee moves enforcement to WP:AE then some folk will be in for a very rude awakening. The history of this page is one of slow decisions resulting in insufficient and ineffectual sanctions. Moreover, the willingness of some administrators to engage in protracted debate with overtly factional editors and to indulge rather than sanction the continuation of battleground behaviour during enforcement requests is largely the cause of those administrators' current and recurring difficulties. I completely support Jehochman's recent action and the principle that he may take similar action without any requirement for debate prior to such action. CIreland (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish my comments above would had said it as well as you've done here, CIreland. BigK HeX (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign up for the CC restriction

I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation.

1. --GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the conditions have changed - with the restrictions not be in effect on WMC, I'm not willing to remove myself from editing on CC articles. Subject to my completing a GAR on one article that I was otherwise uninvolved with. Completed GAR, am now completely off CC/GW pages. 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Since some of the AGW group are going to game this and use it to change assessment based on improper reasoning, I withdraw my agreement. 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
2. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
4. User:Sphilbrick --SPhilbrickT 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
6. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
7. I may work on a draft CC article in user space, but I won't touch main space. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
8. TS 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Moral support, though I disengaged several months ago and don't intend to return.
9. I pledge ZERO reverting. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Subject to the qualification Climate articles that are not part of the CC conflict are not included as noted below William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) [Addendum: I've just edited misc talk pages, having noticed that others have been. I'm opting out of this restriction for talk pages, until this matter is clarified William M. Connolley (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)] Struck. See new section William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Noting that I do not edit CC article pages, and very rarely CC article talk pages, I am very keen to again step away from acting or commenting on the Probation enforcement pages and those ArbCom case pages that still allows input (if any). My talkpage remains open for other editors to use, even for CC/AGW related comment, because my understanding of the admin remit will not permit me to close that avenue for providing assistance, and I may comment at Lar's page if I feel the hectoring is becoming too onerous. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Suspended until further notice, although it is my intent to restrict my commenting and acting as far as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
12. I've been avoiding controversial areas, so will continue to do so and will specifically meet the clarifications currently given below. There are a couple of other points of clarification to be raised in discussion, but not a deal breaker. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
13. This is a good idea. Just stay away from the articles about the polemics, the notorious CC BLP articles etc. Other articles are ok., provided the edits are directly about the science. When you see that a text needs to be backed up using a citation from anything other than a non-controversial peer reviewed climate science journal article, don't put that text in a Wiki article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Sure, all should sign on to this. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Just found this. I'm going to de-watchlist everything related to climate change (although I'm not particularly active). Wake me up when something happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Placement on the list is not an admission of fault. Voluntarily placing one's own name on the list may be viewed as a sign of good faith.

Clarifications

• Talk, template, file, and every type of pages (except userspace) are included. A nice peaceful break is what you are signing up for.
• Editing of articles about meteorology, geography, or climate in ways that do not provoke climate change controversy are allowed. Follow the spirit of your pledge by avoiding controversy.
• Working on content drafts in one's own userspace is fine.

Discussion

• Question, is this until the case closes or until a proposed decision is posted? Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It would be simplest if it was until the case closed, but I don't think that will be two weeks. I would suggest the voluntary restriction should be until a proposed decision is posted or two weeks (whichever is sooner). Once a proposed decision is posted, some people will be too busy discussing that to do much else. Some will drift off and want to get back to whatever they normally do. At the point the proposed decision is posted, I would suggest re-visiting this voluntary agreement and extending it until the case closes for those named in the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of those signatures are meaningless. TGL is already banned. GJP has never shown any interest in improving any of the articles, ditto ATren William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please retract. I have very clearly shown an interest in bring balance to the articles that is currently sorely lacking. You are not AGF. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My role in this topic area is and always has been to highlight your abuses, and in that sense my involvement has been a net improvement. See Fred Singer, for example, where the article was improved significantly by others after I revealed evidence of your POV pushing there over the course of 2 years. ATren (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This can make it possible to stick to a more limited restriction where you don't edit the articles on the front line of the dispute with sceptics and edit other articles instead. If e.g. you don't have to argue that the "hockey stick illusion" is a bad source (because Cla68 won't raise this), then that leaves you with more time to work on articles that are about the technical aspects of climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate articles that are not part of the CC conflict are not included, as Count suggests. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a potentially valuable initiative. But let me make it perfectly clear that I will not even consider signing up until JEH lifts his purported obligatory ban on me, which I reject as invalid. Enforced consent is not "voluntary" and I cannot meaningfully partipipate in the above at the present time William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has. [16] and [17]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I signed up for the list under the understanding that WMC was placed on an editing restriction. If this is not the case, i will remove my name from the list. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Participation should not be conditional. You are doing the right thing to help Wikipedia solve this problem by joining the list. That reflects well on you. The choices somebody else makes should have no bearing. WMC is free to join the list, and he may do so, or he might just avoid the conflict, or he might make provocative edits. Whatever choices he makes, we will deal with them appropriately. I undid his restriction because I thought it was unfair he didn't have a chance to join of his own free will. Please let him have time to consider his options without applying any pressure. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is sanctioned or joins voluntarily, I'll re-add my name. When someone is sanctioned, it should stick, but he doesn't accept anyone's authority to tell him anything, and when defiant, he gets away with it. Sorry, but that's the way I view it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You should reconsider, GJP, and re-sign the pledge. Jehochman has done an absolutely superb job of forcing Connolley into a position where he is forced to either (a) submit to what Jehochman originally demanded of him either explicitly by signing the pledge himself or implicitly by avoiding conflicts as Jehochman points out below, or (b) showing he remains his own man by continuing to be provocative. The arbitrators will take note of any decision he makes in this regard I am sure.

Either way he demonstrates his true colors and now that Jehochman has acquiesced to the consensus on the talk page and lifted the restriction he had imposed, Connolley's decision will be of his own free will. If you wish to insure that Connolley has to comply the best thing you can do is resign the pledge yourself so that you don't give cover to Connolley for not signing. --174.42.215.32 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Since I notified WMC, he has not made any edits that I would consider provocative. You should do what is right for you, without regard to what is right for him. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Greg. It shouldn't matter what WMC does or not. You should voluntarily refrain from editing the CC articles out of a sense of honor, ethics, and the self-knowledge that you are here to build an encyclopedia, not fight over the perceived editorial slant in any topic. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. When a supposedly uninvolved admin that only warns or sanctions the side that is trying to bring balance to the articles and ignores incivility and other actions on the activist faction side, and then threatens to block me because I point it out, and the de facto leader of the activist faction skates on his conduct, I note that conduct. Where I come from, that dog won't hunt. Cla68, I know that you mean well, but I don't worry about my sense of honor and ethics. I know who I am and what I stand for, so I'll go my own way on this, and, unlike some others, I will pay the consequences for my errors and will fight for what is right. My people are used to doing that, often outnumbered, often losing, but never losing sight of who they are. None of my people have ever rolled over and played dead when they knew they were right, from Tomah to Oshkosh to Shu'Nuni'U to Deer. I can do no less. GregJackP Boomer! 03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit soap box-y. How about toning that down. Minor4th 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY ;p (as to not feeding, not as to vandalism) GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

;p yourself! Minor4th 23:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan: thank you, yes JEH now has, I agree [18] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question, from what I've seen it's apparently ok to continue somewhat controversial discussion on user talk pages, and some editors who've not signed up yet have been voting on an article merger proposal. Are these sort of edits acceptable? Confirmation in the clarification section would be helpful. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions appear entirely voluntary, so it seems to me that if you sign up, part of what you are agreeing to is that if others don't sign up and carry on, say by voting on a merge proposal, you will have to grit your teeth and sit back. Remember it's not possible to permanently damage the encyclopedia, it can all be fixed later. Part of this initiative is that it will become more clear who is willing to work in a spirit of cooperation and who will carry on regardless. Not sure about user talk pages though, maybe that could be an additional opt-in? If it's voluntary, it's pretty much up to you, isn't it? Do your own edits stir up trouble, or help to calm it? Franamax (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, just a question that puzzled me but no doubt it will all work out. My edits have aimed to calm troubles,[19] with some success, so my motto remains "Abwarten und Tee trinken". . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it just meant mainspace, Dave, but if you'd like a stricter interpretation, such as on others user talk pages, I'm fine with that. Like I said though, I may work on a CC article or two within my own userspace and think that it's fine for anyone else to do so also. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla68, sure, that's good. I'll just avoid discussing controversial issues on user talk pages, and am content that there's some flexibility in this. . . dave souza, talk 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

dave souza: I suspect no one is going to post "My edits have aimed to stir up troubles, with some success". :) Even if they had the introspective ability to realise that is what some of their edits did. So, perhaps you won't be surprised to hear that there is not universal agreement that your edits have been universally helpful. For example, this one making unfounded accusations against others, set off quite a wrangle. But if you've turned a new leaf since then, great. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Lar that is just completely unneccessary mean spirited sniping against one whom you regard as "faction" and you wonder why people don't think you should admin this area. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's value in pointing out unhelpful sanctimoniousness. You may not agree. Doesn't make it mean spirited to do so. You ought to broaden your focus, instead of always swiping at me. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this last comment. Lar, perhaps you can elaborate exactly how "there's value" in 1)your first remark directed at Dave and 2) your second remark, responding to Polargeo, especially your labeling of Dave's comment as "unhelpful sanctimoniousness." If you decide to address this, I'd request that you focus on relating your comments to your self-professed role as an "uninvolved administrator." Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Count Ibis. I don't believe that this meets the intent nor the spirit of the voluntary restriction. It allows one side of the equation to edit, without providing anything to balance it and eliminate a AGW POV position. As was shown by the Climategate emails (and which were not addressed by the investigations), there has been a concerted effort to keep counter-claims out of peer-reviewed articles, so that allows one-sided editing. It's your choice of course, but my view is that your disclaimer nulifies the purpose of the voluntary restriction. JMO. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In practice, there hasn't been any dispute about specific texts based on the peer reviewed climate science literature here on Wikipedia, except for a few incidents over the last few years when someone editing from an environmentalist activism perspective with a poor understanding of the sources had to be reverted several times by William, Stephan and the other regulars. The dispute here on Wikipedia is actually quite narrowly focussed around the articles that make meta-statements about the science.

E.g., as you point out, there are claims made by sceptics that the peer review process has been perverted. And you can then have counterclaims on e.g. the Real Climate Blog. What I'm saying is that if we avoid any edits that would require sourcing from anything other than regular climate science articles, you won't get these sorts of polemics in Wikipedia. Another example: what has been one of the largest flashpoints on the Global Warming article from 2004 to 2008 leading to perhaps 100 pages of talk-page discussions, was the use of the word "few" in a sentence that says that there are a few climate scientists who disagree with the consensus on climate change. This is again a meta statement about the science. Although one can cite this from a peer reviewed essay by Oreskes, this is not a regular climate science article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, with all due respect, I disagree. The problem is not over the peer reviewed articles as sources, it is about the fact that the activist AGW group wants to ban all other RS (print media for example) as WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE to exclude any significant minority view to the point of using the no-longer valid WP:SPOV standard. The articles in general no longer have a WP:NPOV. If the purpose of this is to shut down the controversy, it means no edits to the articles and talk pages in question. Your statement just gives control of the articles to the activist AGW group and silences those of us that believe in NPOV. Otherwise, it would be just as simple for me to put in my signing statement that I agree not to edit the articles with the exception of adding statements from media sources that are generally accepted in the rest of Wikipedia as a reliable source, including the WSJ, NYT, Fox, etc. All I would do with that is to negate the purpose of signing up, and make it pointless. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Greg's right. If you're going to stay away, stay away. Don't try to slip in something counter to the spirit into your pledge. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Greg's right. He just had to complete his GA review and pass an article on perhaps the most prominent skeptic book (The Real Global Warming Disaster) first whilst many other people were sworn off editing and now he is really off climate change and criticizing others for not being true to their vows. To quote Lar just three minutes before he made the comment above this I think there's value in pointing out unhelpful sanctimoniousness. Yes true Lar but only if it is "THE FACTION". Polargeo (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I thought you took the pledge? That included these pages, I thought, based on the narrative (everything except ArbCom). To be sure this is a more widespread comment as it applies to others as well... whether this page is exempt or not is unclear. Or did your pledge not include taking swipes at me? Really, widen your focus from your somewhat unhealthy obsession. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a Wikipedia policy that prevents a "skeptic book" from being a GA? Or does that go against the unwritten rules somehow? Can only pro-AGW articles make GA status? If you disagree with the review, please let me know where it went wrong. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Polargeo was objecting not to the fact that the book is skeptical, but to the idea of people signing in and out of the sanction depending on the needs of the moment. Polargeo can clarify which of us better understands his intent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I understood that, and I've explained it above. My original signing in of the sanction was with the understanding that WMC was under a similar, but involuntary sanction. When that sanction was voluntarily lifted by JEH, I made it very clear that I would not voluntarily stay on the list if WMC was not also on the list (voluntarily or involuntarily). While off the list, I started the GAR, which had been languishing for a couple of months. On WMC voluntarily signing up, I signed back up for the sanctions, with the proviso that I would complete the GAR that I was in the middle of - it is not fair to the article creator, the editors that worked hard on it, and the article itself to start that process and then put it on hold indefinately. As soon as I finished that, I noted it here, and I might note that I could have just not signed back in at all until it was complete. I did it the way I did for transparency, to have everything in plain view - which I knew would likely bring some criticism. I don't have a problem with that, and Polargeo has the perfect right to point it out and to criticize me for that. I accept that criticism as a constructive effort and I certainly don't bear any ill-will over it. As to the comments I made on the GAR, it seemed to me that he had an issue with the GAR since it was a book on the other side of the issue so to speak, and I felt that needed clarification. Further, although I didn't mention it earlier, I have not said that anyone wasn't true to their vows, and I didn't bring up anyone that had violated what they agreed to do (or not do). I pointed out what I felt was a proviso made by Count Iblis that negated the purpose of the voluntary restriction. It is up to him to decide whether my point is valid or not, and I clearly stated that it was "just my opinion" - he has not, as far as I know, violated anything that he has agreed to. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is why i did not sign up to this, i know i am going to get a topic ban from arbcom but until that actually happens i intend to stop abuse like this He is one of the foremost internet global warming denialism|global warming denialists that`s nice and neutral for a BLP right? or how about using blog posts and twitter as a source? this is exactly what will happen once all those whom edit from a NPOV are banned, until i am i shall continue to stop such abuse mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the entire world isn't going to come to a screeching halt simply because a questionable claim remains in a article for a few days. The voluntary sign-up isn't forever, and it isn't much of a restriction if it means one refrains from editing, except when one wants to edit. The twitter source issue is more nuanced than you imply—Twitter is allowed in certain circumstances. While I don't think this circumstance meets the standard, I can understand why others might hold a different opinion. Mark, one of the problems is that I think you are right on the merits, but a bull in a china shop approach makes it tough to support. --SPhilbrickT 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i am to bull in a china shop but then again had i used a forum post or a twitter post i know full well what would happen to me, and SA should have known better than to use those as sources for BLP information. I know as soon as i am topic banned these articles will be ruined, the POV pushers will destroy any semblance of neutrality in them, we have seen it done on plenty of sceptic BLP`s now for years and the rest will follow suit. Look at the talk page of the hockey stick illusion for instance, you have editors there demanding that anyone who gave a review is identified as working for big oil or some right wing think tank, for no other reason than to try and discredit those people. It is wrong, plain and simple. I did an article about mike hulmes book, yet you see nobody there demanding the people who reviewed it get labels planted on them, i wonder why that is? mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to note two things. The first one is that William would not have signed up if he was supposed to stop editing all climate change articles. Then he could have continued editing the articles that are generating the trouble here, perhaps leading to this deal to collapse. Another thing to note is that we don't have a conflict here where e.g. William edits some technical article and sticks purely to the science which then leads to someone else editing a response to that by sceptics in that or another article.

If this were the case, then GregJackP would have a point about this deal allowing one side to "continue to fight under the cease fire". But this is not the way the conflict here on Wikipedia manifests itself, partially because the real world conflict doesn't play out this way either. E.g., you won't see FOX NEWS on WSJ directly challenge some particular Nature article or e.g. the Arctic Oscillation. Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say singling out one editor for making clear what he is signing up for is wrong since others have also made comments about what they plan on editing if they sign up too. Second, is it possible to get a list of the hot articles that shouldn't be edited? Looking at the contributions of the editors who are commenting here, it's hard for editors to tell what articles are involved in this timeout request. I comment occasionally with hopes of helping but I am not involved at all. I cannot tell if anyone is breaching their promises by signing the above or not without a list of articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one who lurks or comments occasionally who are having the same problem. Third, when does or did this go into effect? Just some thoughts I hope might help, at least I hope so.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• marknutly's right. The list is a bad idea because there is factional editing taking place, so it doesn't matter if an individual signs up on the list when others in the faction remain unhindered in their POV edits. SA is trying to get a good article delisted based on his misapplication of WP:FRINGE and making up new criteria for good article review, all to push a POV and suppress discussion and legitimization of views that question the "consensus." This has to stop. Minor4th 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th, your point of view suggests there has to always be a continuing battle. Yes SA has very strong views on fringe, but he is not primarily a CC editor, he is an anti-fringe editor and I have crossed paths with him myself before. I would advise MN not to fight with him as everything can be sorted out in better more constructive ways, why not set an example? Maybe a midway point between MN and SA would be a good outcome (I'm not suggesting a genetic mix of the two though!). Polargeo (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The list would be a bad idea if it were permanent or even long-term. One doesn't enter into a negotiation by permanently conceding something valuable without getting something in return, but one can enter a negotiation with a show of good faith which only creates a temporary disadvantage. I'm as anxious as the next editor to see the ArbCom decision, but what's the worst case outcome if one side does more editing than the other for a few days? A GA loses its status for a few days? Think longer term. Five years from now, editors will still be talking about the epic ArbCom CC issue, but will anyone remember that some GA lost its status for a few days? That wouldn't even make a good trivia question.--SPhilbrickT 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to set a better example by discussing it on the talk page where it is taking place, and I have tried to edit these articles in a neutral way -- I've made edits that could be seen as supporting both sides. I'd like to see the extremes eliminated in these articles on both sides, but marknutley's point is a good one in that you cannot allow one extremist to run roughshod over articlespace while the countering extremist views are all voluntarily on a stand down. Minor4th 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure people are getting the idea here. The list is a voluntary commitment for one's own part to do something else for awhile, to step back, disengage, regain perspective, etc. If you want to do that, sign up. If not, don't. Saying "Well, I would sign up, but if I stop editing then the other team goes a man up"... that's a continuation of the kind of thinking that the list is designed to correct. If you really feel that your presence on these articles is indispensable to Wikipedia as a counterbalance to abuse, then don't even bother messing around in this section. I would rather see zero discussion and just a simple signup, rather than a lengthy section in which people try to play the angles. If you want to attach conditions, then you don't need to go on about them here - just do it. Set your own conditions and hold yourself to them. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just do what you're going to do and there's no need to announce it or negotiate. Minor4th 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuck work items

We have a couple of stuck work items:

• NW's announcement and subsequent discussion seems stuck. There seems to be a consensus (one I'm not part of, I opposed it, but I think it's there) but not an actual wrap up.
• The proposal regarding WMC, which I recused from further participation in, so forgive the meta comment, seems stuck as well. I view it having a potential consensus there, maybe.

Perhaps some uninvolved admin could wrap these up? I thought The Wordsmith was going to but he didn't. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove all of Lar's comment with regard to WMC

All of Lar's "uninvolved" comments with regard to WMC are completely untennable until an arbcom decision is made. Yes WMC will likely recieve a ban but for the sake of drama minimisation please remove all of them. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Beat on the messenger would you? WMC is the root cause to these issues. Temporarily ban WMC now and end the disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and ban you too whilst we are at it. That has no bearing on my comment and is the usual smokescreen put up by Lar's supporters. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be no reason not to ban WMC from articles and talk pages, except for the fact he has technical knowledge in the field. If it weren't for him, the articles might not be as good, but they would be more likely to meet Wikipedia guidelines. [As an involved admin, by any standard.] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not banning anyone at the moment. Lar is not required to recuse. Sorry, Polargeo, but the answer is no. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'Article tags' was closed with summary without consensus of uninvolved admins

On August 2nd, NuclearWarfare announced a new sanction against adding or removing any tags listed here.[20] On August 6th, The Wordsmith changed NuclearWarfare's sanction to only prohibit the adding of tags but allowing the removal of tags.[21] I immediately pointed out to The Wordsmith that they changed the meaning of NuclearWarfare's sanction[22] which was backed up by admin Lar.[23] Despite these objections and without attempting to reach consensus with the other uninvolved admins, The Wordsmith has closed this RfE without addressing their significant change in NuclearWarfare's sanction.[24] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave it be. If NuclearWarfare is unhappy with this result, they will discuss it with the Wordsmith (or shoot a missile at them). Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've notified the other admins who commented in the admin section of this sanction.[25][26][27][28][29] This needs to be fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I may not agree with the outcome, I think the whole idea of making hard to add tags is flawed, but there was a consensus. TWS implemented it, even if he bobbled it a bit, it wasn't on purpose and it wasn't a big deal. But I really don't think that we need to get too worried... see below, it's being dealt with amicably. After all I DID ask that some admin come in and close these matters... ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• This Article Tag sanction is ripe for drama, cause folks may argue what "consensus" is, then overflow to the talk and a RFE here. What a nebulous sanction (on new content creation) this is, frankly it is offensive to WP:NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5: Please don't distract from the issue here. The Wordsmith misrepresented NuclearWarfare's sanction (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot say) and proceeded to unilaterally close the section despite objections and without attempting to reach consensus about this significant change with the other admins. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Err, I missed that. Since there was not a consensus to change my original sanction, can we leave it as it was posted originally? I don't really like the way it is currently. NW (Talk) 14:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like it either way, actually. As I've said all along it needs to be easier to add tags than to remove them. Removing them requires actually fixing the problem or a clear consensus there is not one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

If my close changed the meaning of NW's sanction, that was unintentional. I would be fine with NW changing it to be an endorsement of his sanction. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TW, and it's not a terribly big deal. I changed your statement accordingly. Best, NW (Talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Whilst the ceasefire is in place GregJackP has jumped in and out of it several times. He has just started up Global warming skepticism which has been a redirect for 3 years. I do not want to get into the issues but it appears he has done this in reaction to a dispute with ScienceApologist on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Whatever anyone thinks this is not a good time to be making such major individual changes. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That a redirect has existed has nought to do with whether an article can be produced. Thus the first cavil is invalid. The second cavil presupposes ESP on the reasons why an article has been created by any given editor. On the best of days, this is difficult. Lastly, this states that creation of an article is a "major individual change" which is not really shown. Time to step back on this one. Collect (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay Collect. Your sound reasoning of picking holes in my statement has convinced me that GregJackP should go ahead and reorganise the structure of wikipedia's coverage of climate change skepticism on his own at a time when we are waiting for an arbcom decision and many editors are holding back on editing CC articles. I will take your advice and step back then. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for asides here - any articles are subject to WP policies (including AfD discussions if such occur). WP policy is that any editor in good standing has the ability to write an article, and ArbCom has shown no sign of removing that right from any class of editors. This means that if you wished to write an article on someone who does not currently have an article, that you similarly have that right. Practice has been that "under construction" is protective of having an editor actually construct the article, as far as I can tell. And a single article hardly qualifies as "reorganization" of much at all unless an editor then merges other articles and deletes them as separate articles. Collect (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So by your reasoning I would have the right to write a potential WP:content fork then? On a highly controversial topic during an arbcom case on this exact matter. Okay then, maybe I will slap an under construction tag on it for a day or two as that obviously gives a force field around the article. Also GJP seems to have gone against a consensus that has lasted 3 years without any discussion. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are free to write what you will -- whether AfD keeps it or not is another matter., I would not, in any case, presuppose any outcome of a full discussion - nor would I posit that anyone should be barred from writing for WP. Nor, by the way, does a three year old redirect indicate consensus of anything more than the fact that a separate article did not exist during those three years. If your argument is that the proper venue would be at RfD - that would be odd, as almost all discussions there are for removal of the redirect and not for creation of an article. Collect (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Collect. It appears to be you alone who keeps bringing up AfD. Have you read WP:BEFORE? This page was a useful redirect therefore AfD is completely out of the question and a non-argument. Please don't try to erect a strawman AfD. Also RfD stands for Redirects for Discussion (not Deletion) so don't set up a strawman RfD for that matter either. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kindly show me where I have referred to "redirects for deletion"? Moreover, I mentioned AfD as being the place where articles get discussed - I did not "keep bringing it up" anything - indeed I suggest that keeping picking at sores does not make them heal fast <g>. Collect (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You brought up AfD here when nobody else had mentioned it. You then brought it up agin here in your next edit on this page when no one else had mentioned it. You also represented RfD as almost all discussions there are for removal of the redirect and not for creation of an article hence implying that RfD was for deletion rather than discussion and not worth bothering with based on your own view of technicalities. Please stop wikilawyering with me. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how my statement about RfD discussions can be interpreted as being anything other than referring to discussions. Nor have you shown me repeatedly doing anything at all abuot referring to AfDs where that is the appropriate comment on my part. Nor do I regard my consistent position (whether on unreferenced BLPs, on the Wikiversity todo, on the Strategic Planning pages, on Meta ad nauseam) in favor of using established WP processes as being "technicalities" and "Wikilawyering." Lastly note that I wrote on your behalf on at least one page - making this sort of argumentation against me a teensy bit ill-conceived. When you wish to reward folks for taking your side on an issue, it is outre to berate them elsewhere <g>. Collect (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze Collect. I am just a straight talker and like straight debate. I am like this with everyone. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perfect time for new NPOviews (not to be squashed by old ones). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me that starting a new article is against the spirit of the "ceasefire". However, any extensive arguing about it here would be also. I suggest letting it be for now. Whatever is done can be undone and whatever is broken can be fixed in just a little while. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that writing a new article is against the spirit of the ceasefire, but I also note that the ceasefire was voluntary, not binding, and GregJackP clearly announced withdrawal from the agreement, so it isn't as if he is pretending to be bound by it, while finding a clever loophole. I applaud the initiative goal, but it didn't work out as well as hoped. While the restriction would be better if Greg were fully part of it, I hope that we do not attribute shortcomings Greg alone—I see names on the list with qualifications, and other notable names missing from the list. (Why are we using bullets? Oh, a ceasefire - how appropriate)--SPhilbrickT 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Better use them for discussion than for shooting at people, I'd say... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, LOL, you owe me a new keyboard, or at least a cup of coffee to replace to one I just spewed all over the keyboard.... ;p GregJackP Boomer! 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the coffee where I work would get me into trouble with the Chemical Weapons Convention. But if you ever come here, I can serve you some Darjeeling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Geez, people, try WP:AGF please. The article was not started in reaction to SA's misrepresentation of sources, although he did point out that GW skepticism / GW denialism were the same thing on WP. Skepticism is not denialism, and it needs an article - that is my sole motivation. As far as the redirect and consensus, the discussion lasted one day before the redirect was made, with only 3 or 4 editors involved at that point. WMC did the redirect, and I can't fault him - the article was crap, not very coherent, unreferenced, etc. There was also discussion about other editors rewriting the article, and no one seemed to have an issue with it, they just were not going to do it themselves. So, three years later I find out about it and decide to be WP:BOLD to write the article. My action can be reverted if y'all disagree, and then we can discuss it. Or I can write the article, and if it is for crap, it will get deleted - but I doubt it will be, because I'm very good at this writing thing, and with one exception, all of my work is good. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Everybody chill! Minor4th 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Greg I already pointed out to you that the article was not directed to denialism until an IP did that recently with nobody noticing, you could have easily undone this. Also the article will not get deleted per WP:BEFORE. Polargeo (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawl

I've just struck my name from the ceasefire list, to allow me to revert MN's damage here [30]. This "ceasefire" was bound to be a fragile thing, and with GJP and MN ignoring it I think it is now untenable. If someone can lean on those two to behave, I'll be happy to resubscribe William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages?

I see that the editing restriction includes talk pages, per the clarification. However I notice that at least some people are editing talk, and AFD pages, and a number of people haven't even signed up to this (MN, GJP, M4th) and are actively editing. This restriction won't survive if that continues William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO is the most blatant -- he has been running roughshod over the article space since the ban. I was tempted to withdraw from the voluntary restriction just to counter some of the stuff he is doing, but I thought better of it, confident that the committee is watching ChrisO's recent actions and will deal with him in the decision. ATren (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is helpful or accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm confident that the committee is "watching ChrisO's recent actions", so I agree with you there, but what else did you have an issue with, accuracywise? ChrisO is indeed pretty blatantly running roughshod and taking advantage of the lull... But perhaps a request here would be handled expeditiously? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"ChrisO [...] has been running roughshod over the article space since the ban" - apart from the fact that there is no ban, the first who signed on to the restriction (and then off, and on, and off, and so on...but let's not go there) did so on August 5th, at around 20:00 UTC. Since then, ChrisO has edited about 8 (I may have miscounted by one or two) climate change articles, for a grand total of 15 edits (I may have miscounted by one or two), mostly doing trivial stuff or sock reversion [31]. That's about 1.25 edits per day. Can you give a definition of "running roughshod over the article space" that would cover that, but not, say, ordinary normal editing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you are misrepresenting. See here, for example, where ChrisO is proposing a major overhaul, and this -- 9 edits on that article on August 15th alone, including reverts of 4 other editors. I don't know what history you looked at Stephan, but your interpretations are incorrect. ATren (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do I misrepresent? You wrote "over article space", not talk space. I counted the 9 among the 15 (which tells you how necessary my caveats about exact numbers are), and Michael E. Mann is about the only article with significant activity. Your "4 editors" include two likely socks, and you forget to mention that there are plenty of other editors (including preciously unfactioned^® ones) arguing there. So how is lively activity on one sock-infested article "running roughshod over the article space"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'd say "the most blatant" is inaccurate. After all, GJP and MN creating articles like this one are especially egregious (no, "global warming skepticism" is not scientists that use the scientific skepticism model to evaluate the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity...that's the kind of nonsense that falls into the category of "not even wrong"). And MN has freely admitted that he expects to be banned from the topic area, and is doing as much as he can to before that happens. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, as Stephan said, there's no ban. It's entirely voluntary. So not only is ATren's statement misleading on the facts, it's also based on an entirely false premise. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not misleading, see above -- proposed overhaul to one article and 6 reverts of 4 editors in one day on another. Check the facts before you make false accusations. And yes, there is a voluntary ban in place (see above). ChrisO didn't sign it, so he's certainly not obligated to abide by it, but I would hope the committee members would notice the aggressiveness in his editing of sensitive topics since that voluntary ban. While we are all trying to quell the flames, he is fanning them. ATren (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ATren, yes it is misleading. There's no ban, there's a voluntary cessation of editing certain articles. Calling is a 'ban' is misleading, no matter how you choose to spin it. And calling his editing 'the most blatant' is also misleading. Again, "proposed overhaul to one article and 6 reverts of 4 editors in one day" does not make his editing "the most blatant". Not to mention that calling his editing "6 reverts of 4 editors" is also misleading, since he reverted a banned editor, and then reverted other editors who chose to reinstate the edit. So what he was doing was simply abiding by policy. Reinserting edits by a banned editor is a no-no. To focus on his edits without acknowledging the whole situation is misleading. They may just call it spin in politics, but we expect a higher standard here. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More spin from the faction. I'm done here, let the arbs decide. ATren (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys ec'ed each other! Fascinating. IIRC ChrisO was edit warring on Mann, for example. As for "sock reversion", I do find it interesting how IDs get tagged as socks after one or two edits. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep - you managed to make your edit summary sufficiently interesting to catch the eye of at least two people. As for ec'ing me - that's easy. It happens when you haven't been editing, just observing (in keeping with the spirit of the request above). Without a clear link in one's own edit history, it can take a while to find an article like global warming skepticism, when there are so many other options, like climate change skeptic and climate change skepticism and global warming sceptic to look through... Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As for labelling editors as socks - I don't presume to do things like that, but if you look around you'll see that it's not restricted to active editors in this topic area. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit outside my ban today for a special circumstance but have resumed it. I encourage Dave Souza and WMC to resume their voluntary topic bans. I'm disappointed that several other active editors did not sign up for the ban at its inception. Cla68 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not wait for Arbcom

It is becoming increasingly clear that an Arbcom decision is probably not imminent. We have no idea how many days (weeks? months?) before they do decide. Therefore, I propose that we stop waiting with baited breath and continue to use this page like the community enabled us to do. We need to see a little bit of BOLDness in order to handle our own problems, instead of waiting for a committee to fix them for us. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. What do you propose or have in mind? Minor4th 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its more the general attitude that needs to change. There are still problems on these articles, but editors aren't bringing them to this board, and when they do requests often go unacted upon. Arbcom isn't going to help us in a timely manner, so we need to help ourselves. We can't be afraid of them forever. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They're unacted upon because the admins who've been responsible for maintaining this probation don't want to act on them. That will not change unless (1) the admins decide they do want to act on them or (2) you find some new admins. Simply saying "we need to help ourselves" will not, in fact, help unless the admins re-engage with this probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what i'm trying to do here, embolden the admins to act on problems, which will embolden the users to bring problems here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to embolden the admins? And which admins? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are busy waiting around for an arbcom decision. sooner or later, they'll realize that one isn't coming quickly. Then they'll eventually decide to start doing things for themselves again, arbcom be damned. By bringing this to their attention now, I hope to make that happen sooner rather than later. If we don't take matters into our own hands, the topic area will continue to suffer. As far as which admins? Any of the ones that read this page. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If I was you, I'd seek some new admins... I get the feeling there is a good deal of frustration/burnout among the ones who've been adminning this probation up to now. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. How should we go about doing so? The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about posting a note at AN or ANI? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not AN/I. I'd suggest posting to WP:AN, explaining the circumstances and asking for fresh input. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I hasve created a new section on the request page for volunteer uninvolved admins to list themselves. If we can get a few of those, it will show editors that we have the staffing required to handle complaints. I'll also post on AN and the Village Pump. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be great to get some new admins in here, but that's going to be difficult because who would voluntarily step into this mess and subject themselves ultimately to harassment and insults and constant negativity? As seen in Lar's case, if an admin forms an opinion about editors' bad behavior, all hell will break loose and the admin will be called involved and his applications for stewardship/beaurocrat/arbcom/etc will be undermined, there will be RfC/U's brought against them and they too will be in a position of being unable to enforce in this area too. Even LHVU has been subjected to accusations and requests for desysop, and now Wordsmith is being badmouthed by Connolley for enforcing Connolley's editing restriction. It's just not worth it, but if you can find some admins who are willing that would be great. Alternatively, like Wordsmith suggests, the admins who are already active can be empowered and start enforcing the area themselves, but perhaps there should be some additional parameters about retaliatory actions by factional/POV editors and/or a rule that an admin's actions can only be overturned by ArbCom unless the admin consents to having his actions reviewed by other admins. Minor4th 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most people see through that sort of retaliation. Personally, I don't care what names anyone calls me. There are some other admins that feel the same as I do. Regarding your last suggestion for overturning an enforcement action, we can all see that arbcom moves at a glacial pace. Therefore, I would suggest thaqt a consensus of admins at this enforcement board should be required to overturn an admin action. One of my first imposed sanctions was overturned this way, and I accept that as a valid consensus. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the glacial pace and good suggestion about overturning admin actions only with consensus. I think that would work well. Minor4th 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

TWS I applaud your initiative in making this suggestion. Minor4th is right, though, one faction has been vicious (in a way that falls within the NPA envelope, mostly... funny that) in attacking admins they don't want enforcing things. I agree with the idea of only overturning actions with explicit consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a certain amount of viciousness towards admins from both sides, actually. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is a one-sided thing - it's not. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Which admins on your side have been attacked as vociferously as LHvU has been (much less myself)? That said, you are technically correct. It's technically not one sided but it's certainly nowhere near 50-50. The playing field isn't level. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

None, since I don't have a "side". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. "I've seen a certain amount of viciousness towards admins from both sides, actually." ...OK, name an admin from each of the two sides you perceive then. But I think most here know which side you're on... ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, would you please consider redacting the second sentence of your comment? I really don't think pointing fingers is going to help. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider it, sure. But I don't see my statement as mere finger pointing. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I should think that you need to advise any new admin that there is this ArbCom decision pending, that therefore efforts to re-establish editing norms through the Probation Enforcement request system may - at any time - be rendered obsolete when sanctions, restrictions and special provisions are enacted by the Arbitrators. It might also be mentioned that most if not all parties are practiced at immediately testing the resolve and aptitude of any administrator, and in wikilawyering conclusions. Some pressure, of which a larger or smaller portion may appear to be beyond what is normally permissible, will also be applied to any new sysop, and their actions will be minutely reviewed by all parties to an enforcement request, and summarisations of the individuals pov be made, and also by parties not directly involved. In some instances, third parties will suggest or request that you refrain from further involvement with parties owing to a percieved bias as demonstrated by a willingness to entertain the possibility of sanctions against them. Please ensure that the status of "uninvolved" lasts right up until an admin publishes an opinion. I would also suggest that you note that this is the initial reaction a new admin might expect, and that after this honeymoon period it usually gets a little more intense, but I suspect this might dissuade an uptake of new blood. I think being forthright about the initial phrase will suffice, any who stay beyond the first week or so will simply need support... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ... or medication. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I was about to say counselling, but I see you had the same basic idea... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for list of formal and informal sanctions since the opening of the Arbcom case

First off, apologies for the repeated delays in finalizing a proposed decision for the Climate Change case. Each of the drafting arbitrators have in turn had to address real-world issues, in addition to reviewing a huge mass of evidence, not to mention the massive discussions on the workshop and dozens of other pages where this dispute has played out over many months. We appreciate the work of multiple administrators who have been reviewing requests for enforcement on this page, and recognize that they have continued to manage conflict in this area throughout the Arbcom case itself. In view of this, I am requesting at this time that administrators please assist us by creating a list of formal sanctions that have been applied within this topic area since 13 June 2010 (when the Arbcom case opened), as well as any informal agreements on behaviour on the part of any editor, whether still in force or expired during the life of the case. Please note that this isn't a request to discuss further these particular sanctions. Thanks for your assistance. Risker (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this redundant with the log? We are supposed to (except for the informal agreements) log all actions here and I think most if not all the data you request is there already... please advise. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, curiously, what I hear periodically from various administrators includes considerably more than appears on that log. Whether that log is incomplete or inaccurate, or administrators have been acting on matters that have not specifically been raised on this noticeboard, or alternately that some administrators believe sanctions are in place that actually aren't in place, I am not sure. Hence the request to get things out on the table. There's no obligation for every behavioural issue to be brought here; people can still be subject to the usual range of behavioural sanctions for policy-based reasons without the specific issue falling under general sanctions, even if the behavioural issue takes place on a CC-related page. Risker (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear when I said "all actions" I meant those that result from a request here. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar. That has also reminded me that we would like to know of page-specific sanctions as well, e.g., pages that required protection or had 1-RR or other restrictions placed on them. Those also might not be discussed here, but those who have been adminning and editing in the area are likely to be aware of them. I've added that below. Risker (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that what you also might be looking for is whenever any CC article was hard protected from editing and who was editing it at that time. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Risker: I doubt that you will find very many sanctions for the time period specified. A couple months ago (or so) the Climate change probation grinded to a screeching halt as admins waited a ruling from ArbCom. As a result, most RfEs for the past two months ended being closed as stale or the editors worked out the issues among themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of active formal and informal sanctions

Please provide the following information:

• Name of sanctioned editor
• Description of sanction in less than 10 words (e.g., 1-RR limit, page ban from [[Name of page]], blocked for NPA, User agreed not to edit [[Name of page]]—informal sanction )
• Date and duration of sanction, and whether still in effect
• Link to the discussion of the sanction/behavioural agreement
• Also may be included: Any page-specific sanctions, (page protection, 1-RR or other restrictions), with a link (where applicable) to any discussion.

Incidents here taken and reorganized below

Risker, I've had a look at the timeframe requested. The following is what has happened on the CC enforcement page, using the criterion of action taken (warnings, sanctions etc) concerning specific named individuals. I have excluded reports that were closed without action: [32] Marknutley placed on civility parole; still in effect. [33] Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect. [34] William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect. There also was a general prohibition on adding or removing tags to articles in the CC topic area, issued a week ago today. No individual editors were sanctioned, however. [35] Hope that helps. I'm afraid I can't help with page protection or other restrictions since my visibility of the topic area is pretty limited. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any centralised record of what has happened on that score. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Chris, you don't remember that you were involved in at least three of them? I'll help you out by listing the article protections below and the editors who were involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you, ChrisO, that is exactly what I was looking for. Cla68, thank you for starting the list of article protections below; however, your comment to ChrisO wasn't particularly helpful. I'm just after facts here, and I'd prefer not to have people casting aspersions about each other, even vaguely. Risker (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC) No problem, and thank you for reminding Cla68. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Point taken, Risker, and a couple more articles have been added to the list below, one by me. Cla68 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I added below the edit war leading to my protection of Hockey stick controversy in the second week of July. Perusing my administrative log, the only other actions from me that appear to be missing are a couple semi-protections and blocks related to Scibaby. Would you like those included as well? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable with use of the term "sanction" for people who voluntarily agreed not to edit in this subject area, on the assurance[36] that this was solely to be a sign of good faith, not a consent to a "sanction." Some of us, such as myself, were active almost exclusively in the talk pages and did very little editing in the articles themselves, and/or were involved in the workshops/evidence pages only as commentators. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  The change to "voluntary agreements," and the note, fully addresses my concerns. Thanks very much. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Full article protections

Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon 10 July 2010
  • Editors involved and edits in question:
    • ATren: Removes disputed tag
    • WMC: removes "environmentalist" from article
    • Marknutley: restores
    • Viriditas: removes
    • Cla68: restores
    • Hipocrite: modifies term
    • Cla68 modifies term
    • Hipocrite: modifies term
    • Marknutley: reverts
    • Hipocrite: removes "environmentalist"
    • A Quest For Knowledge: restores "environmentalist"
    • Hipocrite: restores modified term
    • ATren: reverts Hipocrite
    • Verbal restores disputed tag
    • Cla68 modifies term
    • Hipocrite: adds NPOV tag
    • Hipocrite: restores disputed modifier with citation
    • ATren: modifies Hipocrite's text addition and modifies citation and adds another citation, and another and modifies text and removes disputed term and removes the article tags
    • Verbal: restores some text and NPOV tags
    • ATren: reverts Verbal and removes text and restores tags and restores more material and more and more

      Note, this flurry of apparent reverts was partially due to a Wikipedia software glitch. In particular, I did not intend to remove tags, and when I discovered the glitch I immediately restored the tags, and the diffs that followed the restoration were further attempts to repair the damage caused by the glitch. I explained the situation here (permalink), in the small print. ATren (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    • 2over0 fully protects for two days
  • Talk page discussions: [37] [38] [39]

Hockey stick controversy

• Hockey stick controversy 10 July 2010
  • Editors involved and edits in question:
    • Cla68 (talk · contribs) adds citation to The Hockey Stick Illusion: add citation to previously uncited text, making no change to the text, using The Hockey Stick Illusion, 22:24 2010-07-09.
    • William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) reverts: thanks, but please see the talk page, 22:26 2010-07-09.
    • Marknutley (talk · contribs) reverts: rv this is a reliable ref for this, it`s not even remotly controversial what`s the issue? 22:31 2010-07-09.
    • Dave souza (talk · contribs) replaces the source in question with one from elsewhere in the article: better source 22:45 2010-07-09.
    • Cla68 adds the book again: two sources are better than one, aren't they? Especially if they're saying the same thing 23:05 2010-07-09.
    • KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) reverts: rv Please tone down your attempts at WP:POINT. Discuss controversial items on talk *until* a semblence of consensus is reached 23:08 2010-07-09.
    • ATren (talk · contribs) reverts: rv - I agree with Cla and Mark, this is reliable. 02:48 2010-07-10.
    • Verbal (talk · contribs) reverts: Not a WP:RS, see talk 14:09 2010-07-10.
    • 2over0 (talk · contribs) protects for one week 14:53 2010-07-10.
  • Talk page discussions: Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 4#New source; see also: Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 5#Sourcing previously unsourced text from the following week.

The Hockey Stick Illusion (1)

• The Hockey Stick Illusion, 15 July 2010
  • Editors involved and edits in question:
    • Cla68: Adds new info
    • Wikispan: reverts
    • Marknutley: restores
    • WMC: reverts
    • Nsaa: restores and adds more info and citation
    • ChrisO: reverts
    • 2over0 lock protects the article for one week
  • Talk page discussion

Christopher Monckton

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley One week full protection, 21 July 2010 Indef full protection 27 July 2010
  • Too many edits to list individually, but the involved editors are listed below:
    • ChrisO
    • Spiff666
    • Marknutley
    • WMC
    • Atren
    • FormerIP
    • GiacomoReturned
    • SlimVirgin
    • Minor4th
    • Nsaa
  • Talk page discussions: start here and read rest of that archive page start here and read rest of page

The Hockey Stick Illusion (2)

• The Hockey Stick Illusion 1 August 2010, fully protected for one month
  • Editors and edits. Dispute appears to begin around 29 July 2010:
    • Cla68
    • Marknutley
    • ChrisO
    • WMC
    • StuartH
    • Jonathan A Jones
    • Tillman
    • A Quest For Knowledge
  • Talk page discussion: start here and read rest of talk page

Michael E. Mann

• Michael E. Mann - one week, 5 August 2010
  • Editors:
    • ChrisO
    • ATren
    • Squiddy
    • Marknutley
    • dave souza
    • A Quest For Knowledge
    • WMC
    • Minor4th
  • Talk page: start here

Robert Watson (scientist)

• Robert Watson (scientist) - Climatology BLP - One week protection July 16 - July 23 for edit warring [40]
  • Involved editors:
    • William M. Connolley reverts edit by IP [41]
    • GregJackP reverts WMC [42]
    • Verbal reverts GJP [43]
    • mark nutley reverts Verbal [44]
    • Hipocrite reverts nutley [45]
    • WVBluefield reverts Hipocrite [46]
    • Hipocrite reverts Bluefield [47]
    • WVBluefield reverts Hipocrite [48]
    • Hipocrite reverts Bluefield [49]
    • Rlevse full protects one week for edit warring.
  • Talk page, start here: [50]

Individual sanctions

Voluntary agreements

Note: A listing in this section is not necessarily an indication of bad editing, and in fact may be a sign of the exact opposite.

Note: The original voluntary agreement clearly stated I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks) as that was now over two weeks ago for all who signed up it is clearly null and void. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The following users agreed to remove themselves from the climate change topic area between August 5 and August 10:

1. Kim D. Petersen
2. ATren (nonetheless commented on a couple of pages)

   Where? ATren (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   [51], [52], [53] NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

   The first is not a CC article. The second was clearly marked as a redaction to an obvious BLP vio, in which ChrisO added partisan smears to a talk page. The third I'll concede, though it was in error and if you'd talked to me first I would have reverted. I've just reverted it now. ATren (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Sphilbrick
4. Cla68 (on 24 August resumed talk page and BLP edits, announced understanding that this agreement had ended)
5. Tony Sidaway
6. Count Iblis
7. ScottyBerg
8. Scjessey

• GregJackP signed up, but withdrew his signature two days later.
• TheGoodLocust signed up, but was already under a topic ban that was to expire in November.
• Zulu Papa 5 said he would not revert pages.
• William M. Connolley said he would only edit talk pages after first agreeing to not edit any climate change pages, giving a reason that others had been editing talk pages as well (withdrew about 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC) citing the continued editing by others party to this case)
• LessHeard vanU said that he would refrain from acting or commenting as an administrator in the area (until appx 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC), and until further notice) (after a couple of posts, he realised he could no longer be bothered to either not refrain/comment nor to update his withdrawal comment...)
• dave souza 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC) moved here on understanding from Cla68 that "voluntary ban" had ended by 24 August (On 17 August made a minor edit to a disambiguation page, then that day edited to point out a clear BLP violation at one BLP, its talk page and related BLPN, but did not edit further when the violation was restored.)
• User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris refrained from editing climate-related articles with, I think, one slip but didn't sign up or post to everyone's talk page making a big deal out of it. (Matthew 6:1-2 may help explain.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary

• [54] Marknutley placed on civility parole; still in effect.
• [55] Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect.
• [56] William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect.
  • [57] WMC blocked for 48 hours for violation of above sanction. (said block was subsequently agreed to be invalid)

Topic-wide sanctions

• [58] Article tags sanction added by NuclearWarfare: Addition and removal of neutrality (and related) tags forbidden on August 2 for a period of two weeks. Confirmed by admin consensus. Extended until closure of ArbCom case on August 17 by NuclearWarfare.

Unilateral modification of active sanction

See this. I'm not sure a unilateral modification of an existing sanction is a good idea. Perhaps if there was a consensus for a clarification? I didn't revert it although the thought crossed my mind. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion and consensus is at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GSCC_Revision and the preceding sections. I would suggest the discussion continue there rather than here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But their may be uninvolved people there! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the right place ... the question is whether ANI trumps this board. Maybe it does. Maybe specifically asking for consensus to modify this sanction here is the way to go. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not see this discussion until just now. I reverted the modification of the sanction, and my discussion of that is on the ANI page. In short, I don't think one admin can come in and change the sanction unilaterally, I don't think ANI can overrule arb probation, the modification would have created problems of its own because it limited the sanction to CC related content, and we all know WMC is very clever about doing his thing just outside the lines so the modification would essentially nullify the sanction, and finally even if ANI is the place for that discussion to take place there was nothing that could be said to be consensus in that discussion. Minor4th 03:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rollbacked. Despite what you may think of the sanction or its modification, you have no authority to edit that page. NW (Talk) 03:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? You sure about that? Minor4th 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

NW - please explain your actions and your warning to me, and what is your rationale for saying I do not have the authority to edit that page? In formulating your answer, I draw your attention to these edits in the same section: [59], [60], [61].[62], [63]. [64]. I do not believe you issued any kind of warning to ChrisO for repeatedly editing in that section. Please explain to me why ChrisO has authority to edit that page and I don't. Minor4th 09:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because ChrisO and Ncm were merely logging sanctions that had already been agreed upon by admins. You reverted an admin. Just a little different. NW (Talk) 12:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what you said was that I did not have authority to edit that page. I guess what you meant was I don't have authority to revert an admin, right? As a matter of curiosity and because there are apparently some policies that I am not yet familiar with -- is it always the case that a non-admin cannot revert an admin? If not, where is the line that is drawn because I don't want to step over it or ever come close again. I assure you I did not think that I was doing something prohibited and I guess I am still not entirely clear on the policy. Genuinely trying to understand here and not trying to argue or fight. Minor4th 13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, NW, why did you say he didn't have the authority to edit that page? You were clearly out of line here. And since the latest wikilawyering debate, I think it's abundantly clear that every single word anyone writes in this conflict will be scrutinized for every possible nuance. You should retract your warning, which was ill-worded and ill-advised. Letter of the law is in effect here. ATren (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Where is this unsupported rumour coming from that the CC probation has anything to do with ArbCom? It's a community probation. The community has given, the community can take away. AN/I is the primary community forum for this kind of stuff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the probation. It was community imposed. And the probation does state that admin enforcement actions can be changed only by consent of the admin imposing the sanction, ANI consensus or by appeal to ArbCom. In this instance, dragon's flight did not consult with the admin imposing the sanction and flat out ignored and acted contrary to the objections of two admins who were part of the original uninvolved admin consensus; obviously there was no appeal to ArbCom. DF cited consensus on ANI, but that is not accurate. DF was took a spattering of agreement as consensus, while discounting the the disagreement. In any event, there certainly was not consensus to modify it in the way that he did, which was to limit the sanction to content related to climate change. This effectively nullifies the sanction entirely and endorses the behavior that gave rise to the sanction in the first place-- WMC's removal of GregJackP's comment on an enforcement page, and the comment had nothing to do with CC content. Seeing FutPerf's endorsement below, I have to ask if he has really thought this through because the result is an absurdity. Since NW has reverted me and warned me for something, I would ask one of the other admins to look at the effect of the modification and NW's revert and consider restoring the sanction as written until the proper modification can be worked out in a sensible fashion. Minor4th 07:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems very much like wikilawyering, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to think that your ongoing campaign against WMC is inappropriate. I suggest you just drop it and wait for the outcome of the arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, to quote one of your cabal mates. Besides, there is no ongoing campaign against WMC and it is not helpful to keep trying to fit everything into that box. Did you have anything substantive to add or just commentary on editors? Minor4th 09:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the admins who formed the consensus for the sanction in the first place, I endorse the modification. And it doesn't matter where the discussion was held; we're not a bureaucracy. Everybody who needed to be aware of it was aware of it, that's all that matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following -- everyone who knew about what was aware of it? Minor4th 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the way this has been done and the wording used set a very bad precedent. It is simply not reasonable to make a blanket statement that user talk pages are not "climate-change-related pages". Some conversations on those pages will clearly be CC-related and will have a direct bearing on the user behaviour issues this probation was set up to address. In this case I agree with the eventual outcome in WMC's favour, but I don't agree with the argument used to achieve it. A thread on WMC's talk page notifying him of a sanction under the climate-change probation is, in my opinion, climate-change-related content in its own right, and entirely within the scope of the probation. Saying it isn't opens up a huge loophole and is logically inconsistent, no matter how many administrators form a consensus otherwise. Thparkth (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, and that was the sole basis for reverting the modification in order to give time to think it through and come up with a more functional modification if that is to be the result. Minor4th 13:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

The "voluntary recusal" page has now disappeared off into the archives as Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 5, which seems regrettable, as it is an active document not an archive. I've edited today, before realising it was in the archives. Any admin that wants to fix that up in some way, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary editing agreements

Moved here from the discussion page of the arbitration proposed decision, as suggested by Dave Souza

One loose end: are the voluntary editing arrangements over? Unclear whether they expire at issuance of PD. See [65]. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think wise editors will extended their editing break until this decision is implemented. At that point our "good" editors will experience much relief, because their complaints will be heard and acted upon promptly, and not subject to stonewalling by the civil POV pushing that has frequently caused gridlock WP:GS/CC/RE. Those who engage in civil POV pushing are likely to get a rude awakening at WP:AE. That board is quite experienced at handling all forms of nonsense, and will be quick to issue sanctions.

Those who complain that this decision does not go far enough should wait and see what happens at WP:AE. Like other persistent conflicts, such as WP:ARB9/11, we will generate a lengthy sanctions log. Even if your favorite disruptive editor has not been singled out in this decision, they will most likely be dealt with at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the original notice seemed to imply that the voluntary restriction ends after two weeks. A number of editors are therefore acting under the assumption that the voluntary agreement is now void. I tend to agree with them. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing ArbCom's opinion on the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Jehochman that AE is better at quick action against POV pushers of all stripes, AE does not stand up well in AN/I appeals with lots of established users. And if anything can be shown in this dispute is that parties who do not like to follow the 5 Pillars, will appeal each and every single enforcement restriction put on. So, the log will be double length, with sanctions and repeals/modifications. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually think AE is a good idea, in theory, by theoretically exposing disputes to larger number of administrators. The problem was that the old enforcement board was overused in trivial disputes, so that may happen at AE too.

We're getting off-topic. On the voluntary restriction, I'd feel better about it if ALL editors and administrators currently involved in the pages backed off completely, just to see what happens. Since there hasn't been full compliance, I'd favor lifting these voluntary restrictions. Besides, if they really are voluntary, we shouldn't even be having this discussion and people should drift back as they wish. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just noticed that there's some language in the so-called "voluntary" agreement that threatens a block if people start editing again. See [66]: I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation. [Emphasis added]. Is this correct? Because if it is, we don't really have a "voluntary" agreement here. If it isn't, or if the agreement is no longer in effect, we need to know. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted the voluntary ban to be until the PD was posted, and then it would end for those editors not mentioned in the PD. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did too, but I don't like that language. It's coercive, and I don't recall noticing it when I signed on. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you voluntarily signed up to be banned if you edited despite signing, i interpreted that as a "protect me from myself" clause. Do remember how the agreement came about, it was simply not in any ones interest (imho) to make an issue out of what particular wording that agreement should have. As for the validity/reality of the agreement - that fell down rather fast, since it appears that people could just sign on and off as they pleased, and place their own terms on what they would agree on [which runs rather contrary to the idea - but thats a whole different issue]. I'm still keeping to that agreement (which means complete topic ban (excluding vandalism and including the GS/CC board and talk), since i've interpreted Jehochman as the "probation officer" of it, and he hasn't released it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)(User_talk:Jehochman#tick..tick..).

There seems to be a good faith dispute over whether the pledge is still valid. I don't like the idea of breaking promises, so I won't, but I'm confused over this. I signed on to this in the belief that the so-called voluntary ban would be over by now. I think that the "volunteers" should be released from our promise. I know, it's not a blood oath, but it's the principle of the thing. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Cla, I've amended the relevant talk page to note that and to remove myself from the list as of today. While my wish is to minimise my editing in the area in the immediate future, this frees me to deal with pressing BLP problems as in this case, see further discussion below. . . dave souza, talk 03:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Was the blocking clause in the agreement always there? If so then what is the point if editors can simply withdraw from it at any point (e.g. WMC)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so. It was there when I signed it. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm quite happy to continue with the voluntary restriction until the case has been closed (or abandoned). There are plenty of Wikipedia editors monitoring RecentChanges and I'm confident any egregious edits will be caught. Problem pages can be protected by administrators in various ways if things get out of hand. I continue to maintain a watchlist completely free of anything related to climate change. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on this thread

This section isn't actually about the content of the proposed decision. If the issue is resolved (is it?), then I'd suggest this section be archived. If it isn't resolved, then it might be good to move the discussion somewhere else based on Arbcom's preference that this page focus on improving the proposed decision. Dragons flight (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest move to WT:GS/CC/RE where any remaining issues can be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweaking the ArbCom proposed Enforcement Process

Although the ArbCom decision is not yet final, the arbs commented on the existing Enforcement (GS/CC/RE) process:

In its months of operation, this sanctions noticeboard has successfully resolved many of the reports brought before it, but questions have been raised from time to time about procedural and other issues concerning its operation.

If there was any ambiguity regarding whether the existing GS/CC/RE should be continued as is, the first two proposed remedies removed all doubt:

ArbCom Proposed remedy - Discretionary sanctions

Original here 1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations. Original here 2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Any future sanctions requests should be based on the discretionary sanctions imposed above and the other remedies in this decision, and discussed in the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE). However, any discussions already pending on the existing noticeboard when this case closes should continue to a result, and need not be re-started or moved to AE.

Background

First, given that Arbcom is proposing an alternative approach to resolving disputes, why does this proposal exist? The answer is while ArbCom has agreed to address the CC issue broadly, it does not intend to micro manage, and it does not intend to commit to day-to-day oversight of all editing disputes. In several instance, requests for more specificity have elicited the (paraphrased) response, "We think you can figure that out for yourself". My broad take-away is that the committee is directing a changed environment, but expects the community to pitch in a fill in the details. In my view, the message regarding the GS/CC/RE approach is that it has been inadequate, and additional authority to uninvolved admins is one way to restore an acceptable editing environment. While the proposed approach provides the broad outline of the desired new approach, it seems likely that minor modifications reflecting comity input, while retaining the overall spirit of the proposed remedy, would not only be accepted by the committee but welcomed.

In order to consider whether any modifications are necessary, it will help to briefly review why any process is needed:

There is a tension between the slogan of WP—the encyclopedia anyone can edit—and the multitude of policies aimed at ensuring quality. Policies requiring sourcing, balance, notability and a NPOV are in conflict with allowing anyone, anywhere to add anything. The community has evolved over time to resolve this tension by pushing for the BRD cycle, and empowering the community to sanction or even ban editors who fail to edit in concert with the five pillars.

In many cases, the existing process work adequately. In order to avoid gaming the system, an editor can general not be unilaterally prohibited from editing. While an editor can be blocked temporarily on the say so of a single admin, blocks can be appealed to the wider community, and stronger sanctions such as bans require consensus of the community. This mechanism helps avoid the possibility that single issue editors can effectively silence detractors. However, in some situations, such as the CC articles, the volume of reports to AN/I overwhelmed the community and alternatives were required.

Current Approach

The first attempted solution was the GS/CC/RE noticeboard. While the approach gave more authority to admins, in many respects, it simply relocated disputes from AN/I to a different board. (Not to imply this was a meaningless aspect, as it gave the possibility that participants, both editors and admins, might become acquainted with the individuals and the issues and be in a better position to render informed commentary on proposed sanctions.) Unfortunately, the continued need to propose sanction and get community consensus for action lead to uneven and incomplete enforcement. The bottom line was that the CC article editing environment was still not acceptable, so the ArbCom case was proposed and accepted.

General Goals

The goal of any enforcement mechanism is a balance between the rights of editors and the desire to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. Rights of editor includes both e right of an editor to continue editing if they are following the policies, and the rights of other editors to work in a collegial atmosphere. As long as we allow humans to edit, we need some level of bureaucracy, as some editors will invariably be accused improperly of violating policies, and the must be a mechanism to allow appeal of sanctions.

The requirement for community consensus to ban an editor provides and important safeguard, and it should not be removed without careful consideration. The ArbCom proposal simultaneously empowers admins to impose sanctions with less "red tape" and properly includes an appeal process if those sanctions are improper, but in my judgment, the appeal process (other than the originating admin) requiring an AE noticeboard or ArbCOm itself, will overwhelm the arbs. Accordingly, an additional step, allowing a consensus of uninvolved admins to overrule a sanction will help reduce the number of appeals needing arb involvement. While this proposal does include an additional step, and thus appears to increase bureaucracy, in fact, it may reduce it. Appeals reaching the AE noticeboard or ArbCom itself will invariably need substantial discovery and production of evidence. In the case than an admin unilaterally imposes a sanction, and declines to reconsider, it would be far easier for a few uninvolved admins to discuss it. Should they fail to reach consensus, then it should be subject to a more intense discussion, but should they reach consensus that the sanction was not warranted, there is no need to suffer the great bureaucracy of the AE noticeboard.

Specific Proposal

Conceptually, we could continue with this notice board and simply change the rules. However, given the substantial nature of the changes, it is best to create a new noticeboard, reflecting the new rules and the oversight of ArbCom.

Proposed Process in a nutshell:

1. Warn first
2. Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate)
3. Someone brings it to notice board if they are not themselves the uninvolved admin
4. Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction, record or update notice board
5. Appeal to: original sanctioning admin (either at notice board or at talk)
6. Failing that: Overturn by consensus of uninvolved admins (nb, no consensus implies retain sanction) at notice board
7. Failing that: Appeal to AE or ArbCom

Discussion

Can we talk about:

1. Whether this meets the spirit of the Arbcom proposal?
2. Whether the proposed modification is helpful?
3. Other details that need to be addressed?

--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Note, the proposed steps are intended to be identical to that proposed by ArbCom, except step six is added partially as a safeguard but primarily as a reduction of bureaucracy. In all other repects, the intention was to exactly reproduce the ArbCom recommendation.--SPhilbrickT 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the long writeup SPh, you've distilled the essence nicely. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Preempted?

Arbcom's proposed decision seems to preempt and replace community sanctions entirely. To avoid going through all this effort only to find it's void or needs an amendment to the decision, how about we solicit Arbcom's opinion, sooner rather than later, on whether they would let us do this. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to the PD page, so the arbs will know this is here - just to be clear, I'm not proposing a minor modification to the GS/CC/RE process, but starting with the assumption that the broad outlines of the ArbCom process will be used—this is a discussion of a minor modification to the ArbCom proposal. (I reworded the header, as it could be confusing). --SPhilbrickT 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We can do this here and now if we so choose, at this very board. All it takes is a consensus among uninvolved admins to change the approach. Has nothing to do with preemption. If and when ArbCom passes whatever they are going to pass, it would supercede this. But if we want to move things closer to what we divine ArbCom intent to be, this is a good way to do it. I think this is where SPh and I differ, I don't see starting a new board as needful, we can use this one. Even if it does have some baggage. Using this one seems more expedient than creating a new one. SO I think we should adopt this starting with all new cases as soon as consensus among uninvolved admins exists to do so. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Meets the spirit of the Arbcom proposal?

• I believe it does indeed. It's almost exactly their proposal, but a bit fleshed out to make it workable, and with an additional step to take the appeal load off already overstrained groups. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether the proposed modification is helpful?

• Yes. I think we should adopt it. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Other details that need to be addressed?

• I think details can be addressed as they arise, this is good to go from my read. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm worried about adding extra layers of bureaucracy, and more places for those with a mission to fight their causes. But I'm also worried about '1. Warn first': Warn by whom? During the heights of the 'Climategate' POV wars, I received some very pointed and quite aggressive 'warnings' on my talk page from some of the anti-science warriors (mostly from ones now blocked, barred and editing elsewhere, if I recall correctly). It seemed a standard tactic for some, if you're getting nowhere in the public discussion on an article talk page, try to split off your main opponents with ad hominem threats on their personal talk pages. I don't see why we should be opening all these doors for wide-ranging, separate, parallel discussions of a given content issue, in advance of any possible future concerted attack on the article space. Article talk pages and arbitration's discretionary sanctions ought to be enough, and if they prove not to be, surely we can work out what's missing once we've tried them out or a while. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The warning and all would be from an uninvolved admin.

This suggestion seems to be an attempt to reconstruct the original discretionary scheme as agreed on in early January. I have no faith in the commitment of the community to fully support such a scheme, which has been actively opposed by participating admins for nearly nine months. In particular I'm sure it would break down the minute a pushing point came along.

I suggest it's a little late for that and the discretionary sanctions will be better in every way. In particular a standard process that has been used in several other problem areas seems the way to go. If the discretionary sanctions pass, I expect the motion closing down this probation will also pass. --TS 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, either I'm not following your point, or you failed to understand the proposal. When you suggest that "discretionary sanctions will be better in every way", I ask, better than what? This proposal IS the discretionary sanctions proposal, with a minor modification affecting only the way in which an issued sanction can be overturned. --SPhilbrickT 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't discretionary sanctions because there's no reason to suppose that it will be followed any more than the previous discretionary regime was followed. That regime lasted less than two days before being overturned in favor of a discuss first regime. If you don't believe me, take a look at the wording of the probation. You'll have to admit that it was discretionary, but you wouldn't believe that from the way it has been operated for eight months. It's time to have arbcom order things, because the community failed to keep to its own agreed plans. --TS 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the PD is that one of the motivations for bringing disputes to AE instead of a separate board is to get a wider range of admins involved. I think that's a very good idea. In my view one of the main reasons for the failure of the GS/CC/RE board is that it became something of a walled garden. Few fresh perspectives being introduced. People might also behave better if they were in a place right next door to the arbs instead of being off in a separate corner. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Boris on this. I think the proposal might have been good if it could have been implemented right away and we might still need some kind of interim measure for enforcement while the arb case is getting settled. I think it will be quite some time until the decisions are final and enforcement is taking place under the arb decision. A month or longer. How about implementing something like this right away until the arb case is settled?Minor4th 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Implement the mechanism here, now. Move it to an appropriate AE board when the Arbs issue their final ruling. But there's no need to wait on implementing the mechanism. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything to implement it, if you're serious. Just stop discouraging admins from taking discretionary action. --TS 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is essentially the sanctions regime as originally approved by the community before it was hijacked to become a debating society and Synanon. Therefore it doesn't require action to implement. Just do it. Whatever is done here will be overridden by the arbcom decision soon enough, so there's no point in making a big deal over it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. But even if it were, the key difference is the ability to appeal to other uninvolved admins, here. That feature is important, as without it, we get into a whoever gets to the scene first regime. ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

SBHB makes an interesting point that the wording of the respective process isn't all that different. However, the practice under the GS/CC/RE approach was to post a request for a sanction, which required evidence spelled out, and then was followed by a discussion period, statements by those named, comments by others, both by editors (involved and uninvolved) as well as uninvolved admins. After some debate (and quick decisions were usually excoriated), an admin would apply a sanction generally if there was consensus or close thereto. I looked briefly to see if that discussion period and finding of consensus was required, and I do not see it. My guess is that the approach was presented as if it was copying the AN/I approach to a separate board just for CC articles, and the AN/I approach generally does include quite some commentary from various parties in all but slam-dunk instances.

So perhaps it is correct that we have the authority to follow the proposal right now. I wouldn't want to be the first admin who unilaterally topic bans an editor to see if it really can be done. However, if it really is the intention that is can be done right now, a positive word from an arb would help.--SPhilbrickT 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Boris is over-egging the pudding when he says the probation was "hijacked." However it was conceived as a discretionary system but was not executed as one. That failure, I think, is what led to the really terrible battleground situation that has brewed on the enforcement page over the months. Rather than encouraging admins to take action (as the drafters of the arbitration proposal think is necessary) the probation as executed gave an incentive to ordinary editors to pile on during the discussion phase, and the administrators did not take adequate steps in page management to stop that. The result has been growing polarization and frustration. Admins who stepped in to take action were actively discouraged and some seem to have drifted off. I don't think we have that many more active admins in the area than we had last year. --TS 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead? Or just resting? No activity in a week suggests that while there might be merit to the idea, the will to implement isn't there. The case hopefully will close rendering this all moot. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge arbitration time scales, but I think it would be perfectly feasible for the arbitration case to move through the close vote within the next seven days. The votes are substantively in for all the major findings and remedies, and only some aspects of enforcement remain as serious obstacles to closing. --TS 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like some of the arbitrators want to go for an "at wits' end" solution, which could take a bit longer when they get down to seeing which remedy to aim at whom. --TS 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)