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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Update?

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the appropriate sanction for all the melee participants is to make them wait indefinitely (not infinitely) for the proposed decision to be rendered. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, although perhaps that doesn't apply here. On a serious note, while I can quite sympathetic to the complexity of the case, and the need to take the time to get it right, the last we heard (IIRC) is a notice on the 19th that it would be 48 hours. Surely an update is warranted, even if only to say we don't know.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

48 hours minimum. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have someone say A. We are close - we hope within a day or so but no promises or B - this is tough, it will be several days at least. --SPhilbrickT 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a contentious area in limbo is potentially harmful. There was a recent incident where some well-meaning Arbs (including one of the drafters of the PD) started making unilateral proposals for some pretty sweeping sanctions and remedies on one of the case talk pages, and a recused Arb started suggesting out-of-scope directives to case clerks. An Arb declared that "The Climate Change Topic board, AN/I, etcetera, no matter their original intent, have been co-opted by the various members of these disputes to be battlegrounds", so we're really running out of venues in which to seek any sort of dispute resolution at all. Obviously, this is a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom will decide when arbcom decides. I suspect that behind the scenes they're negotiating and arm-twisting on, um, a "certain issue." Anyway, don't get too invested in this stuff -- it's only a website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not sure why that "certain issue" (and I know what you're talking about) prevents them from posting a proposed decision. If the whole thing is just going to be a presented as a fait accompli, there's no point to having a PD — we should just go straight to voting. Getting some community input might be helpful; it could tell them what points they've missed (this is a big and complex case). Finally, it would give us an idea of what the Arbs think this case is about. There's been a great deal of reluctance to limit or even describe the case's scope. Meanwhile, strict evidence length limits have left large gaps as editors try to guess what the Arbs will decide to look at. Once the Arbs actually tell us what is important to them, we might be able to address their concerns or present relevant evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that it would take ArbCom of the order of 90 days to carefully examine all the facts, deliberate, and draft proposed decisions. When I saw the 48 hours notice, I was very surprised. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they're stalling intentionally, waiting for the ice caps to melt and make this whole conflict moot. ;-) ATren (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that Global Warming Arbcom Decision Denial?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop the presses. ArbCom's e-mails have just been leaked on the Internet. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They're up on Wikileaks.org. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Encyclopedia Dramatica which is the most reliable source on such matters, has not yet reported anything yet.... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, owing to circumstances not under their lack of control they are still sober and unable to find any aspect that can be tenuously linked to anal sex; or they are now off school for the summer and do not have anonymous internet access... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw them here, but maybe they've been oversighted or reverted or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody up for a beer and a plate of onion rings? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No alcohol here.. but make it some fried clams and a soda, I'm in :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

that would really hit the spot. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't believe MastCell rickrolled me! May the flees of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the best such line I've ever heard is: "May you bite the southbound end of a northbound Camel". SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just lost my appetite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm really impressed with the parties' (with one glaring exception) willingness and dedication to observing the voluntary topic ban until the PD is posted. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are either not very observant or easily impressed. On the other hand, given that the "voluntary topic ban" has been invented in some remote corner of some remote talk page somewhere I don't remember, and has been communicated at best using some variant of Chinese whispers, any level of observance is surprising. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision timing

Finalization and posting of the proposed decision has been somewhat delayed because I have been on vacation for the past 10 days. I had understood that I would have ready internet access during this time period and had planned to work on my portion of the decision, but this turned out not to be the case.

I am sorry for this delay and especially that I did not anticipate it beforehand, as it appears that there is some inaccurate speculation going on about reasons for the hold-up. I am now back home and anticipate that I will be finalizing my portion of the proposed decision and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Up

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too.--*Kat* (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Que sera sera. Jimbo gave the broad outlines of the decision a couple months before the case opened, so it's no great mystery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That was posted on April 1. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Jimbo has advocated anything about this case in public or private, and this is the first time I've seen that diff (which, incidentally, does not mention climate change). Cool Hand Luke 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of posts later in the same thread, Jimbo explicitly states "climate change as a subject area was very much on my mind as I was writing that."[2] This is the reason I offered almost no evidence in the case and made only a few workshop proposals: why bother, when the outcome appears to be preordained? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What was that "extremely unpleasant experience" Jimbo is referring to there? Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the time that he waded into Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy declaring that the "-gate" name was his personal preference for the article title, despite specific WP:NPOV reasons why Wikipedia articles generally avoid "-gate" namings. Some editors heralded this as the gospel come forth, while others (rightly) simply considered it the same as any other editor's opinion on the matter, counting no more or no less. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

His edits to the above mentioned page were late March so I'd agree that that was clearly the experience he was refering too.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because it's not at all preordained to the arbitrators? Several arbitrators are working on this decision; if it were preordained, I imagine the decision would have been written in advance, at least in principle. It is not. Your conspiratorial theory is news to me, and I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you. Cool Hand Luke 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct and I am reading more into Jimbo's comments than he intended. Time will tell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. But would you consider addressing the original question? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm recused on this case. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Just a couple of posts above, you said "I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you," and now you're saying "I wouldn't know, I'm recused." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The arbcom mailing list is open to all arbs, regardless of whether they are recused or not. I suspect that the mailing list is not being used for specific discussion for individual cases, which would nicely explain why CHL has a good idea of the general state of mind of the arbs without knowing exactly when they will put up a proposed decision. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the apparent contradiction. I did not realize this was how the mailing list worked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Several of the arbitrators are a sort of drafting task force for this case. I don't know what they're up to, or what their plans are (although it's plainly obvious that the decision is not written yet, let alone preordained). As for Jimbo emailing arbcom-l about AGW or this case, it hasn't happened. I suppose you couldn't rule out covert individual lobbying, if you really insist on assuming bad faith, but I haven't seen any evidence of it whatsoever. Cool Hand Luke 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo did make a ruling relevant to climate change and the editing of Wikipedia see here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

snort Well Played, sir Iblis. Though I agree with SBHB, the proposed decision will be lots of year long topic bans, a couple of instructions for the type of probation and monitoring of it, and perhaps a special review panel for 'scibaby' issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how large ClimateGate's carbon footprint is.--*Kat* (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that more Arbs haven't had first hand experience in the area like Jimbo. I had half a mind to suggest they sock in the area for a bit to get some first hand experience on what it is like and I would've provided a few suggested edits so they could see the reaction they'd get. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several arbs have first-hand experience. I think we're recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

At editing the articles? No you don't. Unless you really were socking (which would indeed be a good idea) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as Jimbo has. Cool Hand Luke 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was somewhat cryptic. Let me be clearer: neither you nor any other arb has experience in the area, as far as I'm aware, to the extent of making recusal plausible. By contrast, Franamax, who is claiming to be an "uninvolved admin" over at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Franamax_Involved. Do you think any of the recused arbs here have more involvement that Franamax has? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, you and Vsmith have blocked people you were edit warring with - on articles about themselves! [3] And you think Frannamax is "involved?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment from arbitors - please review

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, and I know I've asked this three times, but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Can an arb please provide a response to Hipocrite's question which was asked 3 days ago? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Since they rarely have in the past on questions of proposed decision timing, I do not expect they will now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Before the heat death of the universe, and some time after lunch. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC) When you admit to being rude and pushy. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Moi? Jehochman Talk 17:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Soon after that. "That" being defined to be this past weekend. [4] Since we've gotten past the "that" stage, we're now into soon. :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I'm curious too. --*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I'm at a loss to understand why some editors are so anxious for a decision. The danger is a misreading or failure to explore the quality of the evidence. What's the rush? They should take their time. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I doubt anybody is going to get a barnstar or "thanks". More likely the des(s)erts being served will be rather sour. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC) If not arid and sandy... MastCell Talk 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) ScottyBerg: Hipocrite didn't ask for a proposed decision, he asked for an updated ETA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I know, but that could be construed as putting pressure on the arbiters. My advice, for what it's worth, is to cool it. If they're taking their time, so much the better. My only concern is that the arbitrators hear both sides of the story, especially for last-minute workshop proposals, and that they read all diffs provided on the evidence pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) The thing is, we still don't know what the case is actually about — at least, not in detail. The Arbitrators have given very little feedback to the parties on which proposals they might consider, and we don't even have a clear statement of the case's scope. We have a large number of statements from parties – from the very general to the excruciatingly specific – about what needs to be done, but no specific guidance to speak of from the Committee. Aside from a few comments by Carcharoth (and a very few notes from Rlevse), I see no comments by Arbs on the workshop proposals. Whatever comes out of the sausage mill will be a proposed decision, not a final one. I expect that there will be (and hope that the Arbs will be receptive to) room for modification of the draft decision once it is revealed to the community. I sincerely hope that there will not be a rush to voting on the proposals, and that there will be an opportunity for parties to respond to (and rebut, where necessary) findings that are proposed. The combination of 'massive case', 'unspecified scope', and 'negligible feedback on workshop proposals' with 'strict enforcement of evidence length' means that parties' submissions (especially of evidence) are scattered and incomplete, and I think that's a poor basis on which to build a final decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) ^^^^ That. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC) True. I've been mystified by this entire process. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Thirded. (Fourthed?) I can't recall ever seeing an Arbcom case that was this nebulous; even the Abd-WMC case had a specific issue at its core. No wonder the evidence and workshop turned into a scene from a western movie with stuff flying in every direction and people hiding under tables. My guess is that the arbs are just going to throw up their hands and decide "something," anything, based on broad impressions of who the good guys and bad guys are. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'd say that the problem is that while the evidence is decidedly against your side, the political winds favor you (a microcosm of the bigger picture in fact). I suspect in an attempt to look even-handed they'll be harsher than they should be on people like Lar while milder on your group as a whole, which would mean relatively equivalent sanctions. However, since your group is larger, and there are fewer people on the pro-wikipedia side they can really apply sanctions against, then I suspect my smaller side will have harsher sanctions against fewer people while your side will have milder sanctions distributed over more people. Alternatively, strict(er) general sanctions may be applied in the climate change arena with only a few individuals specifically targeted for bans. Unfortunately I do not have access to any high quality computer models to help determine the outcome. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) TOAT et al, when Arbcom remanded the prior case to General Sanctions and then it returned here, it sure seemed this case scope would include the recurring GS issue(s). I would be surprised and disappointed, if the GS issues were not front and center in the PD. Ignoring the obvious repeated disruptor, is what got us here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) NYB said "finalizing... and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that."(emphasis added) He said soon after the weekend, not during the weekend. The New York weekend ended 16 hours ago - give the folks a little more credit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Who are you responding to? I don't see anyone that said NYB said it would be posted over the weekend.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Maybe it's just me, but when I read "updated ETA" twice in one day I think the implication is that the previous one has proven to be false. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I think a far less hostile interpretation is that the request is that since the weekend is over he's hoping for an ETA a little more specific than "soon". And there are two threads because the first degenerated on a tangent.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Cube lurkers inptrpretation is correct, and I believe I made that clear when I wrote "but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else." It would be really nice if an arb would give us an update on the estimate time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC) This is all like one big "are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet?" Srsly, go find something else to do and just relax. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Some editors have started feuding at multiple locations. Perhaps they think this will speed the committee's deliberations. I've got a bad feeling about that tactic. Jehochman Talk 03:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) If I'm the victim of a very serious personal attack on me which damages my reputation, what do you expect me to do? I'm well aware that the decision is due, but is all enforcement of normal civility to be suspended in the meantime? Do I have no recourse any more? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You have excellent recourse. Simply ignore any provocations, and let your "opponent" dig himself into a very deep hole. Don't fight with him over the shovel. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (This is a hypothetical comment. I have no opinion on the instant conflict.) Let me clarify - so because of this case, in which I'm not even a party, I can no longer ask for intervention to resolve abusive behaviour towards me by other editors? Doesn't that give them free licence to go after me, and others, for that matter? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Let him do exactly that until the evidence is so convincing that nobody will object to the resulting sanction. You are reacting too swiftly and vigorously; onlookers cannot tell who the trouble maker is. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Jehochman's advice is sound. The way to keep him from going after you is not to let him know that he's getting to you. I've seen Cla68 in action before; the more you react, the harder he will push. It can be frustrating to feel like you're not defending yourself but as Jehochman says not reacting to provocation really is the best way. Notice the respondents at RS/N are less than thrilled with how Cla68 has approached the issue, proving Jehochman's point that onlookers can tell what's going on if you're careful not to join in the digging yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Fortunately, my post at the WP:RSN has, in spite of all the drama, actually produced some helpful, outside opinions on an ongoing content dispute which I think will help decide the matter. SlimVirgin's suggestion in that regard I think was a good one. So, some progress is being made in the CC articles, for what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It is an incredibly amusing argument in general due to the hypocrisy. I've said that I didn't think the book should be used for the most part, even though policy is on your side, because they use books like Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming in the Soon and Baliunas controversy article (I recall them arguing to not use the word "controversy" in the climategate article's title, but here I guess it is okay) - be better than them, don't stoop to that level. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Climate Cover Up is a reliable source and I would defend its use in most articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As I said, policy favors you in this regard, but I'd rather IAR regarding these types of partisan sources and avoid them for the most part, but at least we are both being consistent with our position regardless of which side it favors - if this was the norm then we likely wouldn't be at ArbCom right now. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) OK, let's try this out...I notice that Climate Cover Up is still being used as a source in the Soon and Baliunas article. I just added some information using Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. Lets see if the Hockey Stick Illusion information gets removed while Climate Cover Up is left. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, my edit lasted all of 11 minutes before being reverted by Tony Sideaway. Notice that he removed the Illusion source but left Climate Cover Up in the article. I've asked him why on this talk page, and will notify him of this discussion here. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You are very obviously trying to make a point and engage in further baiting by engaging in provocative actions. Please knock it off. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Check my edit, Chris, it was a legitimate addition using a legitimate source. Now, will you go restore the Illusion material or remove the Climate Cover Up material? Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It really is too bad you did this experiment out in the open due to the Hawthorne effect, which greatly limits the experiment. Kudos on the results so far though. I would think that the next logical step would be to try reverting the "Climate Cover-up" info and see if it got reverted back in, but since they know what you are doing now the experiment will likely have no more significance other than to imply (but not prove) that TS isn't privately communicating with the other AGW editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Done with a clear edit summary. Lets see what happens. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I suspect they will eventually remove both sources, conceding your use of the HSI would be too much of a precedent I think, but I'm not sure if this will happen while being watched so intently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, editing of the climate change articles have suddenly gone quiet, too quiet. I did a search on Wikipedia and noticed that Climate Cover Up is being used as a source in the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a CC skeptic, article. I'm not sure how long it has been there. If it has been for awhile, I assume that it's ok if I use Illusion as a source in another BLP, like say, Michael E. Mann? Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And to say that he has "no training in science" no less. Yes, well, generally speaking I've always loved looking at the sources and what they actually say. It is incredible how many articles say things that aren't in their sources and how many claims are sourced to partisans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) [Outdent]Progess is being made, I think. Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As I predicted, the Hawthorne effect has temporarily changed the behavior of the subjects. There is a high probability of atavism when they don't feel they are being observed closely anymore. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) This kind of behaviour is obvious disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, specifically by conducting a breaching experiment. I hope the arbitrators are taking notes of what Cla68 is up to. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I thought the "pro-science" editors would appreciate the value of a good old fashioned experiment. I know it isn't like your favored post-normal science, but it certainly has its charms. Regardless, I think the point Cla was demonstrating was that you guys make up your own rules and then don't even follow them when they are inconvenient. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oops, maybe I spoke too soon. Cla68 (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And ChrisO just removed the text as it was being discussed on the article talk page, with the usual wikilawyering. Notice that none of them recommend alternate wording, they just argue that it shouldn't be included at all. No collaboration, cooperation, or compromise is attempted. Arbs, this is what editing the CC articles is like. Can you do something to fix it? Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You just got caught by another editor making a subjective interpretation of a source, using it to cite something that is not asserted in the book. The issue is being discussed at Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy#As a result... There's nothing wrong with the normal process of fact-checking, which is all that's going on here. If you add speculative or inaccurate citations to articles, you can hardly complain if someone disagrees with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oh I liked this one: "Scientific criticism is a specific description, and doesn't come implicitly from it being scientists that criticise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)." So if he really felt that wording was inaccurate then why didn't he change "scientific criticism" to something like "some scientists have criticized?" Good grief. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, since no one would suggest alternate wording on the talk page, I tried to change it to something simpler. Let's see how that works. Cla68 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I looked briefly at your initial paraphrase and the full text and your wording seemed fairly accurate. I'm not sure why Chris is falling over himself to side with KDP's interpretation since not only is english not his first language, but KDP has pushed exxonsecrets.org into articles in order to slander skeptics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (ec) @Cla68. It would be helpful if when you stir the pot you didn't add a running commentary here. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are attempting to get certain editors annoyed with your additions of a poor source all over the place and mild rudeness like this then you wait for the reaction and fish caught. Keep the arbs watching if you can and demonstrate how uncivil your "opposing" editors are. Quite horrible stuff really. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) [Outdent] Well, the storm seems to have abated. After a good dicussion which included comments like this on the article talk page, here's the resulting text in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It would be nice if you could note who came up with that compromise (i.e. me), particularly as it disproves your claim that "No collaboration, cooperation, or compromise is attempted". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (ec)@Cla How about congratulations to ChrisO for putting aside the abuse and wikilawyering type obstacles you have given him in the last 24 hours (e.g. on the RS noticeboard) and for sorting out the initial text that you added, which was not backed up by the source. And congratulations to Kim for checking the source and finding out that your addition was not supported by it. Because you are a very experienced wikipedian other editors really should be able to trust that what you add is backed up by the source. I made the mistake of trusting you had checked that the very same book (The Hockey Stick Illusion) backed up your addition just a couple of weeks ago [5], I will not do so again. Polargeo (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Chris and Polargeo, all the drama you're referring to occurred in response or chain reaction to a single question I asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and a single sentence I added to an article. During the events in question, comments of mine were hatted and/or deleted. I was taken to ANI and the Wikiquette board, and a comment was left on the AGW enforcement board. Angry comments were left on my user talk page. I was spoken of badly, including being accused of baiting and malicious lying, on ChrisO's talk page. I was attacked on an article talk page. Content that I added was reverted without discussion, once 11 minutes after I added it, and in the middle of a discussion another time. I have been told several times, most recently by Polargeo just above, that my ability to summarize or paraphrase what a source is saying is lousy and that I am untrustworthy. I'm sure that you two sincerely feel that I am to blame for 100% of it. I think this episode illustrates what the AGW article environment is like as well as any evidence presented on the evidence page. The thing is, it was like this before I got involved in it around the end of last year. I hope the impending Committee decision will resolve it. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Why don't you consider for a minute that independant editors are independently coming to the conclusion that your represention of what a source (or a diff for that matter) says is very often not adequate. Why does it have to be represented as an attack on you or a symptom of the climate change area? I have particularly noticed you popping up here there and everywhere with provocative battleground comments over the last few days. It is just not welcome. Polargeo (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) My editing isn't perfect, Polargeo, but I am willing to correct my mistakes, facilitated by constructive criticism and with a dose of collaborative spirit. At the beginning of this thread, I stated that I believed that both sources in question, Climate Cover Up and Hockey Stick Illusion are reliable sources. Notice the angst that my comments about Illusion as a source are causing you and a few others, but not about Climate Cover Up. In my opinion, the fact that you object to one of the books but not the other means that you and a few others are taking a side. You feel so passionately about it that you see me and other editors who disagree with you as the enemy, not as fellow editors who have a difference of opinion. Today's events illustrate this as well as any sterile diffs could have shown. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) @Cla that is yet more spin. I don't object to any book just your use of certain sources for certain statments, so you now try to make that look like a conspiracy. I was not even aware of you adding anything from the other source because I don't follow you about (what is Climate Cover Up? I have never come across it before, does it have an article?). Because of me not objecting to a source that I have never heard of you now try to paint me as someone who is being selective. You say I am passionate about this source, this is one statement you will struggle to support with even tenuous diffs. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Jehochman wrote that [s]ome editors have started feuding at multiple locations... I think the word missing there is "again". I bet the arbitrators will not only be thrilled by this recent eruption of unwarranted and unwise bickering, but will also be overjoyed to see that the other open case has had an incident of idiocy involving an editor comparing an opponent to the unabomber. My guess is that some members of ArbCom must log in and wonder why they got bothered to get up at all.  :( EdChem (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion cannot be stopped, merely redirected

It would appear that the prohibitions on new workshop items, new discussion on the workshop page, new evidence, and new discussion on the evidence page are not having the desired effect of stopping discussion. We are a talkative bunch, and we will talk. The thread just above this one is probably more properly placed somewhere else, but as those are blocked, it squirts out here. I have suggested to Risker that with the continued delay, that those prohibitions be amended or removed. Note also that there is a robust and wide ranging discussion on my own talk as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been thinking as well. The discussions haven't stopped, but are simply being redirected to different venues. It's not helping that editors continue to keep editing these articles (even to the point of creating brand new articles). Everyone should just chill out and wait for the PD, methinks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. People are not going to sit waiting for an undefined period waiting for the voices from On High. particularlry when it has been delayed several times already. As for editing the articles: there is no reason not to, if we have productive things to do. I;m baffled as to why you think adding refs [6] isn't a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While article/topic bans are sometimes an unfortunate necessity, in reality there are only two reasons to be here - to edit articles, or to serve as support staff for the people who do. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The longer this delays, the worse it gets. The unfounded accusations, personal slurs and bad faith overreaction are spiraling out of control. Post the proposed decision already, whether you're done with it or not. Or lift the restriction so that the discussion occurs in venues where your clerk has a mandate to maintain order. He exceeds his mandate if he intervenes in unrelated topic areas. So bring them back in. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. ArbCom may topic ban a few editors and issue a ruling along the lines of "We instruct editors to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, engage in normal editorial processes and behave according to expected standards of decorum". So, we may then just as well start to behave in such a way right now, instead of waiting for ArbCom to tell us to do so. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Though it would be nice to get some sort of comment from Arb about the progress so far. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any special insight into when the proposed decision will be ready, but I can predict that even when it arrives it will only be the prelude to yet more intense discussion, so a break of a week or so is not that bad an idea. I've also commented in a section below to the effect that I'd be willing to carry on commenting on the workshop if that was opened up again, or propose injunctions if things boil over again in any of the various venues where things happen. Please also remember that some arbs make most progress with their tasks at the weekends, so please allow at least a week between asking for updates. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Open up the W and E pages (and talk pages) again. Then we all can steer discussions there if they start elsewhere. Amory will have a mandate to maintain order there, let Amory exercise it. If the arbs don't like that new parties are pointed to, new evidence is presented and new proposals are being made, well too bad. They have an easy fix for that, get something out into the proposed decision instead of waiting... If NYB doesn't have his part done, post what you've got with caveats, but get this moving. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what the other arbitrators think about this. Need to do something else tonight (it's still arbitration work, just not this case) so it will have to wait at least one more day. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you still waiting after several days? See the discussion about vandalism, below. Open up the W and E pages (and talk pages) again, please, or post the decision. This case is like the ArbCom of 3 years ago except at least they left the workshop pages open. You guys made massive strides in the last few years but you're backsliding. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, I am still waiting. I can say, though, that progress has been made on the proposed decision. I'll leave the drafting arbitrators to give more details on that if they chose to do so. Currently, the voluntary agreement signed up to by various people is the status quo. I'm not going to disturb that by opening up the case pages, not at least without other arbitrators agreeing to it and clerks being ready to handle the opened pages. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been the better part of 3 weeks now. This really is starting to get ridiculous. Fish or cut bait. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind

Not everybody has a wide screen monitor. Please out-dent on a regular basis. Thank you! --*Kat* (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a big fan of outdenting at random spots. It's better to try to find a logical break point if at all possible as otherwise it throws off who is responding to which comment unless folk use the "@*KAT*" construction to show it. But ya. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interim restriction

Please to prevent any more drama can the arbcom make an interim ban on all admins who are heavily involved in this case from acting as uninvolved on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an interim motion is needed as well but something a bit more precise might be better suited. I suggested ( at my talk )something about eligibility criteria, and something naming specific names as "heavily involved" is too subject to misinterpretation. I think an interim motion is needed because this page appears broken... it seems to only have three edits. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Lar. Something is needed Polargeo (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I could propose some interim injunctions, but they are likely to be broad and sweeping and very restrictive and may include restrictions on editing not just admin actions (and will last until the case ends). It will also require rounding up arbs to vote on the injunctions, including the arbs who are currently trying to get the proposed decision ready. We would prefer that the parties to the case play nice while they are waiting, but a few more episodes like the one above and it will be time for injunctions. The alternative is to open up the workshop again and allow discussion to resume there. I could commit to resuming my comments there (I was really the only arbitrator commenting there to any great extent, and I had intended to continue before it got shut down), but only if that would help. Remember that an individual arbitrator's comments may not reflect what the final decision will end up as. Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What is needed (not the whole solution but it would help a lot) is what was asked for back in May... A motion that settles the uninvolved/involved question so we don't have Stephan Schulz repeatedly violating WP:POINT. If ArbCom ends up deciding I'm involved, overriding the consensus of the uninvolved admins that exists now, so be it. But surely they will revalidate Stephan and Polargeo as inextricably involved in this and without standing to pretend otherwise or I much miss the many hints given already. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that such a motion might be useful, I do not agree with Lar's other claims. We do have a definition of involvement at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, although that has been largely ignored in particular by Lar, who seems to use a completely orthogonal one based only on lack of contributions to the topic area. I stand by my edits on the probation pages, both in content and place. I have only commented as an uninvolved admin in cases where I am uninvolved per the probation definition (and, of course, by the more general definition of not holding a strong prior opinion on the substance of the issue). I strongly reject Lar's claim that there is a consensus of uninvolved admins that support his uninvolvement. What is there is his forceful announcement of his opinion and a general resignation of going against it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, didn't you just try to participate again as an uninvolved admin on the enforcement page and complained when Lar stopped you? Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did participate as an uninvolved admin. Lar disagrees and take it upon himself to force his view of the situation on the rest of us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You were reverted. It stuck. That's our "rough consensus" in action. You need to drop the stick and back away from the horse, slowly. Apparently nothing but a motion will suit? And maybe not even that, you're not willing to assert that you'll try to abide by it. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
Strike that, you did. Took three tries to get you to answer though, oddly. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) If you ask lousy questions, don't blame me for not falling for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth -- Please open the workshop pages and continue your comments. Tension is very very high. Relief is needed. Minor4th 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See: WP:50kg ban-hammer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I'm slowly becoming active again and watching the RFE noticeboard more closely. My opinion is that Stephan Schulz and Polargeo can both be considered "involved" in the topic area and should be commenting "up there". Regardless of the wording that established the sanctions, a common-sense definition of uninvolved is whether or not you personally can close a discussion and enact a sanction which you yourself are willing to enforce - and get away with it without incredible fuss. Lar is a special case, he has been clear on where he thinks the problem lies. I think he's actually right, insofar as he has identified one of the problems. I also think his solution is too simplistic. I've yet to see Lar actually take action in a prejudicial fashion, he states his POV and waits for admin consensus. I'm fine with that. I'll state here my intention to move any comments at the RFE page made by SS and Polar out of the "uninvolved" section, in lieu of an ArbCom motion. The whole point of that section is to permit clinical discussion of proposed execution of dissidents, whatever their stripe. Lar is not involved in the topic area, he just has a position on the behavioural issues, which position is clear to all and weighed as such. Franamax (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. That makes a lot of sense. For clarity and understanding, can you please identify the other problems that you see that you think Lar has missed? Do you have proposed solutions for dealing with whatever those additional problems may be? Thanks again. Minor4th 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Lar has correctly spotted (IMO) some of the "rally-around" behaviour on the "pro" side. That viewpoint sacrifices proper wiki-quette on the altar of truth. However, as an expensive attorney on the 57th floor told me once, "you have to understand, for a judge there is no such thing as truth, there's just two sides presenting their own version of the truth". The "pro"s go too far in shutting down the "anti"s and skirt the community rules here in doing so. This behaviour must be curbed if we are to be credible as the place where anyone can edit. What Lar doesn't address directly is the equally bad behaviour on the other "side" which consists largely of dogged insistence that some point or other simply must be included or the whole thing is a shambles. Witness the continual arguments over {{POV}} tagging of articles - people have deduced that so long as they continue to object, they can keep a banner up there. That is a wedge that lets editors defy consensus and pursue appeasement of their own viewpoint. The reality is that much of the opposition to AGW comes from the right-wing blogosphere and industrial ineterests. You can spot this when people raise huge objections to individual data-points in the evolving (and never exactly right) science. There is a distinct possibility that some editors get their talking points from heavily-biased sources and, unwittingly or not, bring those notions here. I can't name any names, I think those involved in this ArbCase are all acting from genuine motives, but I think they have all developed a battleground mentality on the issue. Lar has only spotted one side. The social aspects of a scientific issue do need to be covered, especially one so economically important - but not at such exhaustive length as the blogosphere would have it. Franamax (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) @Franamax. Unfortunately you are seeing things through a filter. This is a very poor filter that allows all red light through but no blue. Your proclaimations of your individual opinion are not helpful in any way to getting any sensible interim decision here. In fact they should be striken from this page because you are making judgements on evidence and this is not what this page is for. Polargeo (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) @Carcharoth. Yes sweeping interim restrictions are needed and they are desperately needed. Polargeo (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) @Franamax: Lar does address problems on the "skeptic" side. He has supported lengthy sanctions against Marknutley, for example, and has been critical of the actions of several others (TGL, me). The reason why his actions appear one-sided is because the problems on the "pro" side never get properly addressed and so they fester. There have been something like 15 requests against WMC and the most significant sanctions he's gotten were civility parole and a restriction from editing talk page comments. Those are slaps on the wrist. Everything about Lar's actions so far suggests he views the primary problem as the tilted playing field -- which must be dealt with first and foremost -- but he is also willing to deal with destructive behavior on the "skeptic" side, as evidenced by his tough stance on several "skeptical" editors. Furthermore, Franamax, if you examine the debate and its "sides", you will find that the "skeptic" side is now filled with prominent editors who have no history in this debate. Cla68 and SlimVirgin are two of the most prolific editors in the history of the project, neither has any history in this topic area, and nobody could ever reasonably accuse them of collusion. Yet both Cla68 and SV have had significant difficulties editing in this area, and have been grouped into the "skeptic" faction simply by virtue of their opposition to the current status quo. SV, in particular, had such extreme difficulty with WMC (and others) while fixing the Fred Singer BLP mess, that she has been hesitant to take on the other problematic BLPs. It's no longer the "pros" vs the "skeptics" -- it's now become the "pros" vs everyone. ATren (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Multiply wrong. Cla has history, as you know. And SV isn't really "skeptic" as far as can be told William M. Connolley (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I think you've ably demonstrated why, contrary to what others in your faction allege, this matter is not about the science, but rather about the behavior of both factions in this topic area. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Please please please can an arb or clark remove this partisan stuff that is making judgements on evidence based on factions. Polargeo (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I suggest rethreading rather than hatting. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) This appears to be simply because you wish analysis of the evidence that favours yourself to be shown even in the wrong venue. Another indication of your partisanship. No it should be hatted. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Interim restriction discussion has been diverted Please can an arb or arb clerk remove all judgements and detailled discussion of evidence from this section. This section is purely for calling for an interim restriction until the proposed decision is made. Unfortunately this is now being used to discuss evidence. Polargeo (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary conflict reduction

We've had six editors thus far voluntarily pledge not to edit any CC pages until a decision is posted. See Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Sign up for the CC restriction‎. Habits are formed by practice. This is not a silver bullet solution, but if we can get people to practice disengaging when things get overheated, maybe they will apply that tactic in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pushing this. The science isn't going to change in a hurry, the various "interesting times" that started last Autumn seemed to die down in early Spring and show no signs of rebirth. Most of the articles are stable so there's every reason for regular editors to step back a bit. The banned trolls might give it a go but they can be reverted and blocked without serious effort, as we've been doing for a long time now. --TS 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Excellent news. Thanks, Jehochman for starting this off. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope we'll be seeing more editors from all "sides" signing up. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And that should especially include any editors mentioned in the evidence or on the workshop page. They know who they are. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those who have been active in this case should be made aware of this voluntary restriction that people are signing up for. However, no-one should be pressured into signing up. If there are disagreements over the sign-up list, please bring them here. On another matter, do you think you could possibly use preview next time you have trouble deciding on terminology? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Nice use of external links. --*Kat* (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be funny. There was a serious point in there somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of in a hurry, due to some real life stuff, to get the comment made. So, I guess that means that I shouldn't have been editing under pressure when I couldn't give it my full attention. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They tend to be very sensitive about what we call them, so I can understand Cla's reconsideration. ATren (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's try not to make this any more bloody than it need be. We all should remember that if we're really busy doing something in real life the encyclopedia will still get written. And that's what it's all about. --TS 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just notified everyone I could think of who is a party to this case about the voluntary CC restriction. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, these are the editors I notified, all of whom, to varying degrees, IMO, should be considered as parties to this case or otherwise heavily involved editors in the CC articles:

• ChrisO
• JohnWBarber
• Tony Sidaway
• Hipocrite
• Stephan Schulz
• ZuluPapa5
• Count Iblis
• Heyitspeter
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• ScottyBerg
• Dave Souza
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Marknutley
• Atmoz
• Guettarda

Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern about the vandalism at the Workshop talk

I noticed the now-reverted and protected vandalism at the talk page for the Workshop, by the now-blocked User:Amonggasside. It smells a little odd that an account would have done that as the first edit. I wonder if Checkuser should be run, in case it might have some bearing on any of the parties to this case. Sorry if that sounds suspicious. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could hazard a guess, it's probably someone involved (or at least watching) the case expressing their frustation that it's been almost 3 weeks since ArbCom accounced they were a couple days from posting their PD. As vandalism goes, it was quickly reverted and the account has been blocked. Who ever it was, they have made their WP:POINT. Unless it becomes a recurring issue, I don't think it's worth getting an editor in trouble. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, sockpuppetry, vandalizing, and calling for others to vandalize [7] would be worth getting an editor in trouble. Cardamon (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I read that as sarcasm, but with a grain of truth. Since enforcement requests haven't been going anywhere it seems to have encouraged the natural tendencies of some. For instance, Mark Nutley recently showed a diff on the RfE talk page of ScienceApologist adding twitter and a comment on a blog (not even a blog post) as sources to slam a skeptic. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior won't be solved by a few topic bans since activists will always show up to engage in this kind of behavior. There needs to be a system, perhaps a 3-strike system, with clearly defined (i.e. not subjective) rules and if you get three strikes then you are indefinitely topic banned from the area and checkusered to prevent you from socking. If someone uses blog comments as a source then that's a strike. If someone uses twitter as a source then that is a strike. If someone is afraid something they want to do may break a rule then they should take it to talk first. The hard part will be coming up with these rules, but they need to be as clear as possible to prevent activist admins from gaming the system. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Arb Clerks. Please remove the above post. This is presentation of both evidence and new workshop proposals, as such it should not be here. Polargeo (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is your side so afraid of information/questions? You are all have a habit of deleting other's posts or trying to get others to do it for you. I can't believe I once defended you, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until I know their character. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Nothing personal. I don't think the introduction of new evidence helps in any way from either side (also I reject the notion that I am on a particular side). Polargeo (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the introduction of new evidence. If I wanted to add new evidence I would've asked to add it on the evidence talk page or emailed an arb. I simply stated my opinion and then showed why I hold that opinion. I suppose I could've just said, "I agree" (disagree), like Tryptofish, but I like to base my opinions on fact rather than creating an argumentum ad populum.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That was about as helpful as "I agree." And to be clear, if it wasn't before, I think it is pretty obvious that the statement you think should get someone in trouble was not a cry for vandalism like Cardamon stated but simply sarcasm. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"[Encouraging] the natural tendencies of some" is not a valid excuse for either sarcasm or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was. I was specifically responding to the charge that Cardamon italicized since he felt it was his strongest point, which was that the editor was trying to encourage vandalism, when, in fact, it was clearly sarcasm designed to highlight the fact that vandalism would occur in the current environment and in highlighting the environment hopefully fight vandalism. In fact, it sounds like the person was trying to fight fire with fire. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Amonggasside's unblock request does not fill me with confidence that his or her purpose here was constructive. Cardamon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called satire which even the blocking admin found funny.[8] Look it's been a few days - Amonggasside hasn't repeated the offense and no one has followed in their footsteps. This account has been blocked and his unblock request denied. It sounds like all the appropriate steps have been taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I raised this because there are better ways to express concern about the time elapsed, and, therefore, I tend to disagree with your (AQFK's) last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should turn myself in for this and this :) It was your suggestion, anyway, AQFK. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish: Of course, there are better ways to express frustration. What they did was wrong, but harmless. Unless it's a recurring issue, I don't see a problem. Let's wait and find out if it happens again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind what Lar did, because it was transparent—not, in effect, hiding behind a sock account, and wasn't incivil. Anyway, I've expressed my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed Lar's little joke. I'll take this opportunity to thank him for the chuckle. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one ha ha :-) Nsaa (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

fish and funstuff

Extended content

To: Lar & AQFK Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. With love, --*Kat* (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ;-) Yum, trout. :) Well, I think you need to leave something similar on the talk page of all the arbs. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Hmm, good point. Howzabout WP:WHALE?--*Kat* (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Aww, I wanted to be the only "fish" in this talk thread... --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Arbitration_report which readers of this page may find of interest. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

There's going to be a storm of activity whenever you post something. Why don't you post whatever work has been completed to date, and then the rest as you have time to finish it. It is not necessary to have all the arbitrators lined up in agreement to rubber stand the proposals. We are strong enough to handle real, public debate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubber stand? :) I can't stand rubber stamping! Take a stand against it. Something like that? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a rubber stand is where you try to actually take a stand on something but you're realy, really flexible about it. --Absit invidia II (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it's my opinion that ArbCom decision hashed out internally and then voted on without more than (at best) token community input are less accepted than proposals that have had real discussion. After all, what we are doing here is supposed to be arbitration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree with my learned colleague in this particular. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Token Input Section

How do you propose to improve the "token community input"? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See the workshop pages. My suggestion is not related to gathering input. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The workshop pages appear to still be locked down. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Catch 22. Blame me, I suggested locking them. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

not a new suggestion...

(for the record, others have suggested this too) ... but it's a good one. This case's innovations so far are mostly not positive, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comment, it's like innovation has attempted to avoid the behavior root cause of disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

more an observation than a suggestion

For those who are impatient, perhaps it has escaped your notice but the recent cease fire and the attendant cessation of hostilities until such time as a decision has been rendered would seem to have removed all incentive for Arbcom to actually close this case. By proving that you can actually go for more than a day without the puerile jabs and hyperbolic posturing you would seem to have muddied the Arbcom waters and thus forced a delay.

If you desire a quick decision the best course of action to effect that result would appear to be an all out resumption of hostilities.  :) --Absit invidia II (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am not seriously suggesting this.

My guess is that the arbitrators' discussion of climate change resembles Wikipedia's discussion of climate change. Therefore, each side takes "are we there yet are we there yet" as an additional reason to be frustrated at the other side's refusal to be reasonable, resulting in even more entrenched positions. Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that they are going to permanently topic ban the last two people that post on this page. I guess that means us? Bill Huffman (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am not seriously suggesting this.

Somehow I don't see that as a problem, since nobody who has posted in this section has any history of editing the articles in question. Horologium (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am seriously suggesting this.

Well heck, let's go for the last three. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Note: You'll have to decide whether I am seriously suggesting this or not.

Hey Guys! What's happening in this thread? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Note: Everyone else was doing it and I just wanted to be cool.

I'm posting from the future. The ArbCom ruling, for me about 7 years ago, took a very long time and it wasn't all that important, because the climate sceptics changed their view on the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 11 Februari 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask if the decision took 6 years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask for a copy of the decision... In all seriousness, I'm posting here by way of an update to say that work on the proposed decision is progressing, but it will likely be a few more days to a week before anything is ready for posting. I'm not saying this as a drafting arbitrator, but as an arbitrator looking over the shoulder of those working on the proposed decision (i.e. if a drafting arbitrator posts something that contradicts this, then ignore what I said). Having said that, my proposal to re-open the workshop still stands, but I'll post about that below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. While the delay is frustrating, and unclear timelines are frustrating, lack of information is even more frustrating (at least to me). Even this limited information means I can plan to work on something this weekend that I might not otherwise have wanted to start. --SPhilbrickT 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Yesterday, Rlevse said they "should (hope ;-) ) to have have a PD up this week."[9] and Risker said "I expect we're looking at Friday night or Saturday for posting"[10] Has something changed since then? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those diffs out (I hadn't seen them). Updates are better posted here than on arbitrator talk pages (I was posting here on the assumption that updates hadn't been posted elsewhere). From what I've seen, my estimate still stands, but if you want a definitive answer, get a drafting arbitrator to post to this page. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to reopen the workshop pages over the weekend

I'm posting here to propose re-opening the workshop pages over the coming weekend (partly in preparation for discussion of the proposed decision). What is needed for this to happen is for people to propose how they would use the workshop in a constructive way prior to the proposed decision being posted. Please note that the evidence page will not be reopened - instead, proposals for new evidence would need to make clear why new evidence is needed. Please post below if you would use the workshop page if reopened, but please, please keep comments brief and don't reply to comments made by others. If anyone has problems loading the current workshop page, please state that as well (it can be archived or split if needed). If there are good reasons to reopen the workshop page, I will do so and ask several clerks to keep an eye on things. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I have a few things to add constructively. Looking forward to the ArbCom PD. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have a good argument for the usefulness of involved Admins keeping an eye on science articles that I didn't think of at the time. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)