< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Climate change

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 30 August 2010 (→Edit warring on Climate Change related articles: update stats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:00, 30 August 2010 by Rlevse (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring on Climate Change related articles: update stats)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk)

Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

User Conduct

3) Misplaced Pages's code of conduct, which outlines some of Misplaced Pages's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages that all editors are expected to follow. Even in difficult situations, Misplaced Pages editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, unjustified failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

4) It is potentially harmful to Misplaced Pages when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Misplaced Pages policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Misplaced Pages policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

5) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. It is not acceptable to further off-wiki disputes on this project.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Casting aspersions

6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

7) Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Misplaced Pages only if they comply with Misplaced Pages's key policies.

Support:

Please note that although the committee's including a general principle in a decision suggests that we consider the principle in general to be relevant, it is not itself a finding that every aspect of the principle has been violated by one or more parties to the case. (This general observation applies to some other paragraphs as well.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living people

8) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Encyclopedic coverage of science

9) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Undue weight

10) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing

11) The verifiability policy is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editing

12) Disruptive editing, which can include persistent vandalism, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Misplaced Pages behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blocking and Banning

13) The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated with good faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

14) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators working in particularly contentious areas should model the behaviour they expect of editors whose actions they are reviewing, and should also be open to the need to periodically step away from contentious areas.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator involvement - general

15) The purpose of defining involvement is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Bias in a topic area can result from things like editing the topic and having strong views even without editing the topic.

Editors are expected not to act as administrators in disputes in which they are involved. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Involved admins. For example, an administrator may be deemed too "involved" to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue, or if the issue arises from a content dispute and the administrator is active in editing the article that is the subject of the dispute.

However, the policy also notes that "one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement consists of minor or obvious edits that do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." There will always be borderline cases; in general, if an administrator is not sure whether he or she would be considered "active" or not, the better practice is to draw the situation to the attention of other administrators to resolve, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Added first para about the purpose of defining involvement. Feel free to tweak or make an alt proposal to this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator involvement - enforcement matters

16) In the context of arbitration enforcement, which is analogous to enforcement of the community sanctions at issue in this case, the Arbitration Committee has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Of course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered "involved" with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor.

However, an administrator's taking enforcement action against an editor under an arbitration or community-sanctions decision is not considered to be participation in a dispute that disqualifies the administrator from addressing later misconduct by that editor. It also is unacceptable for an editor to deliberately pick a quarrel with an administrator for the purpose of provoking the administrator into saying or doing something that will make him or her "involved."

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Noting that I may propose a slightly edited version of this to address some concerns raised on the talkpage. (The same goes for a couple of the other paragraphs.) As a general note, I will be tied up tomorrow (Monday) night, but anticipate spending Tuesday and if necessary Wednesday nights to finalize my comments, add any new proposals, and finish my voting on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator participation in enforcement

17) There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate on arbitration enforcement versus having a larger number of administrators do so. Having a handful of administrators handle enforcement requests helps ensure that these administrators are familiar with enforcement policies and procedures and come to learn the issues associated with enforcement problems that arise in a particular case. On the other hand, as the same administrators handle multiple enforcement requests, they may increasingly be subject to accusations of "involvement" or bias and prejudgment based on their earlier actions in the same case.

In general, as more administrators participate in enforcement of a decision and develop the relevant expertise, the less necessary it will be for an administrator who might be arguably or borderline "involved" to handle an enforcement request. Conversely, it is understandable that if other qualified administrators are not available to handle the requests, then those who are willing to handle the requests, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions.

Support:

(General comment: I have voted on the proposed principles, although my votes are subject to revision based on comments that may be received. I will hold off on voting on the proposed findings and remedies for a couple of days to allow time for comments, on the talkpage, from parties and others.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute revolves around Misplaced Pages's coverage of climate change. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favorably by both internal and external mechanisms, the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes requiring the Committee's attention. The dispute has also spilled into off-wiki venues, especially blogs, which in turn have been brought on-wiki.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) This dispute revolves around Misplaced Pages's coverage of climate change. While article content on the topic has been reviewed favorably by both internal and external mechanisms, the editing environment is a contentious extension of real world disputes and has resulted in a range of intractable disputes requiring the Committee's attention. The on-wiki disputes have also become intermingled with off-wiki venues, especially blogs.

Support:

First choice to incorporate real world roots. Feel free to tweak. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nature and extent of dispute

2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Climate change probation

3) Following numerous disputes regarding user conduct in the area of conflict, the community developed a series of community-based discretionary sanctions that administrators were authorized to apply to editors who edited disruptively or violated user conduct policies within this topic area. A special community sanctions noticeboard was created for this purpose on 1 January 2010 and has to date addressed more than 120 reported violations of behavioral or core editing policies. This general approach to addressing conduct issues in a particular topic area has been utilized in several Arbitration Committee decisions in the past, but was an innovation here when imposed at the community level. In its months of operation, this sanctions noticeboard has successfully resolved many of the reports brought before it, but questions have been raised from time to time about procedural and other issues concerning its operation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disputes regarding administrator involvement

4) During operation of the Climate change sanctions noticeboards, bitter disputes have arisen concerning whether administrators Lar and Stephan Schulz are "involved" in the global warming/climate change topic area to the extent that they should not participate as administrators in ruling on sanctions requests. The disputes were exacerbated because no clear definition of "involved" had been agreed upon for this purpose.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

5) Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring on Climate Change related articles

6) During the course of this arbitration case, the following articles required full page protection due to edit warring.

Lawrence Solomon (10 July 2010 for one week)
Hockey stick controversy (10 July 2010 for one week)
The Hockey Stick Illusion, (15 July 2010 for one week, 1 August 2010 for one month)
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (21 July 2010 for one week with protection lifted on 27 July 2010, then 27 July 2010 indefinite but got changed to one month and then 29 August 2010, 1 1/2 days after protection ended, for two months)
Michael E. Mann (5 August 2010 for one week)
Robert Watson (scientist) (23 July 2010 for one week)

Four of the six articles involved in the nine edit wars are biographies of living people. Almost 30 editors were involved in the eight edit wars that resulted in these page protections; of these editors, ChrisO was involved in six of the edit wars, William M. Connolley was involved in seven of the edit wars, Marknutley was involved in eight of the edit wars.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped

7) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole - which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC's regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic

8) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples: )

This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: , , ) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page. ] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page. After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley has shown Ownership

9) William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment. (Selection of representative examples: )

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley BLP violations

10) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements. (Selection of representative examples: BLPN discussion )

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Polargeo personal attacks and disruption

11) Polargeo requested enforcement against himself regarding editing in the topic area on April 29, 2010, However, he soon continued to make disparaging remarks about others. , , , . He was advised to cease this behavior on 4 May 2010. On 21 July 2010 he recused himself from a Request for Enforcement on Lar and then reverted the closing by an uninvolved admin when two other uninvolved admins stated they felt it should be closed: ,

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thegoodlocust long-term disruption

12) Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) has engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing across a range of articles. These behaviours include, but are not limited to, personal attacks (PA), use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox and battleground, edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, and abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings and blocks, as well as a prior topic ban to Barack Obama and a Global Warming ban that was to end on 8 August 2010, but was reset due to continued soapboxing and will now expire on 3 November 2010. (Selection of representative examples: (admin only, BLP violation), (PA, soapboxing), (soapboxing), (PA), (PA), (soapboxing), PA, failure to assume good faith), (PA). The next three diffs come from the current case pages and represent the use of a dispute resolution forum to forward his personal agenda; he was already topic-banned prior to the acceptance of the case: , , (see collapse box mid-thread))

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Marknutley disruptive behavior

13) Marknutley (talk · contribs) has committed a long series of disruptive behavior, including biography of living person (BLP) violations, creation of point-of-view forks (POV forks), copyright violations, incivility, incorrect interpretation and misuse of source material including improper use of blogs and primary sources, edit-warring, personal attacks (PA), and attempts to override consensus content decisions. (Selection of representative examples: (BLP), (BLP, sourcing), (BLP, sourcing), (BLP, sourcing), (POV fork), (PA), (PA), (PA), (edit against consensus, misleading edit summary), (PA), (assumption of bad faith), (copyright violations), (synthesis))

Since the initiation of the Climate Change general sanctions, he has been subject to multiple sanctions related to his behaviour in this topic area:

Multiple blocks for edit-warring, copyright violation, and violation of 1-RR restrictions
Sourcing parole (, )
Civility parole ()

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar blocks William M. Connolley

14) User:Lar blocked User:William M. Connolley on May 18, 2010 for reinserting material into Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement's uninvolved admin section. User:2over0 unblocked User:William M. Connolley 44 minutes later (16 minutes prior to expiration) without any attempt to contact User:Lar. This resulted in an ANI thread filed by 20ver0 and spilled over into an ongoing RFC against Lar that was certified by User:William M. Connolley and User:Polargeo. WMC's block log, ANI thread, , , , , ,

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar and Jehochman revert war

15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman revert-warred over the closure of an enforcement request at WP:GS/CC/RE:

19:11, 24 Feb 2010 Jehochman closes enforcement request
00:25, 25 Feb 2010 Lar reverts the closure without discussing it with Jehochman
17:13, 25 Feb 2010 Jehochman re-closes the request, some discussion had occurred
17:26, 25 Feb 2010 Lar re-reverts Jehochman's re-closure
06:34 ff, 26 Feb 2010 Related thread here; Lar concluded: "So did I set an example? Yes, a good one, in my view."

Support:

Some say this is a revert war instead of a wheel-war since the technical use of the bit was not involved, either term works for me. While there was discussion in the middle portion, both parties should have left this to others after the 00:25 edit by one of the parties. Note the 17:26 edit clearly shows the issue wasn't settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RFC/U on Lar

16) User:Lar was the subject of an RFC on whether he is an involved admin in the Climate Change topic during April - June 2010. The debate on that issue has continued on several pages since that time.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar comments, actions, and mindset

17) User:Lar has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin: , , , , , , , , , ,

Support:

Oppose:

15) User:Lar and User:Jehochman are admonished for revert warring.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar's May 18 block of William M. Connolley affirmed; 2over0 strongly admonished

16) William M. Connolley's reinsertion of material was disruptive and the 1-hour block by Lar was warranted. User:2over0's unblock with a mere 16 minutes remaining in the block was unwarranted and merely served to inflame the situation. User:2over0 is strongly admonished for unnecessarily disrupting the situation.

Support:

The unblock did nothing except inflame the situation and with a mere 16 minutes left was pointless. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised

17) User:Lar does not edit Climate Change articles and therefore nominally meets the criteria of an uninvolved administrator. However, feelings and emotions in the topic area have deteriorated extensively and Lar has also begun to show bias to a point where it is no longer beneficial for Lar to continue acting as an uninvolved administrator. Consequently, Lar is advised to take a break from the area. The Committee commends him for being willing to work in a contentious area.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator

18) Stephan Schulz is an involved administrator in the Climate Change topic area and should cease carrying out admin actions in this area.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Logging

3) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this case are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Log of blocks, bans, and sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass: {Passing principles}; {Passing findings}; {Passing remedies}; {Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which do not pass: {Failing principles}; {Failing findings}; {Failing remedies}; {Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comment