Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Stephan Schulz‎ & Lar		20 May 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Requests for arbitration

Stephan Schulz‎ & Lar

Initiated by Hipocrite (talk) at 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Stephan Schulz‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar

Statement by Hipocrite

Lar states he is an "uninvolved" admin for the purposes of WP:GSCC. Other users say he is involved, and yet other users say he is not involved. Lar is repeatedly removing statements made by Stephan Schulz‎ from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. Stephan Schulz‎ has removed statements by Lar from the uninvolved section of WP:GSCC requests. There is no reasonable way to resolve this dispute without a direct ruling by ArbCom that one or both of them are uninvolved/involved/whatever. Please limit the scope of this case to the issue of admin involvement - dealing with the Global Warming problem is a different, but related case. Trying to mush them together would merely slow down both. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While it might seem expiditious to deal with this by motion, I suggest that ArbCom, if it intends to do so, should at the very least allow for a limited presentation of evidence from people who care (namely, not me.) Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For GWH - arbcom has already stated as such - from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Avoiding_apparent_impropriety:

...administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention...

Statement by Lar

I think a case is overkill, a clarification of this matter by attaching to the right existing case would be more efficient, I suspect. But I leave that to others to deterime

Simply put, while there are those that would find it convenient to remove me from the enforcement action, and who have labored hard to make it so, I'm not involved in climate change matters as I do not edit in the area. There is an RfC running about this, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar. I think my response is instructive. I think that all the other uninvolved admins have said they consider me uninvolved is also significant.

On the other hand, Stephan Schulz by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be uninvolved. His placing material in the uninvolved admin section is apparently provocative baiting.

I ask for a quick finding so we can get back to the real matters at hand. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie: Apparently your view that I am not involved isn't enough for some folks, who want another bite at the apple, and in taking their bite, are emitting all sorts of distortions and unfounded allegations. They should know better, but it's part and parcel of the tactics used by some in this area. Folks shouldn't fall for it. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not one to give up, I usually try hard to make things work, but you know what? Maybe JohnWBarber is right. Maybe it's time to pull the plug and knock some heads. It'll be a horrific case but maybe finally something will be done. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie II: (in regards to his narrowboat vs supertanker query) - My desire initially was for a narrow finding, to wit: "Lar is not involved, Stephan Schultz is" (As has been found before in previous requests here, talk page comments, and the like) and that would be that. But I despair of getting that, or, if I did, whether it would be enough or whether WMC, SBHB, Polargeo, et. al. would want yet another bite at the apple. JohnWBarber, Jehochman, et al. may be right and a big case is needed. I had hoped that the RfC pending on the progress of the probation so far, and the feedback and good ideas and new admins that participated as a result, might do to get things back on track. Perhaps not. If a big case is needed, so be it. It will be bloody. But perhaps it will at last level the playing field. At least for a while. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

The climate change probation explicitly spells out that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. I have not commented in the "uninvolved admin" section in any case in which I am engaged in any conflict with the user under discussion. In fact, I have contributed there rarely and usually only to correct misunderstandings. I don't think any of my contributions in that section can be considered particularly biased, either.

I have today moved an inappropriate comment by Lar on another clearly uninvolved editor only after Lar refused to amend or retract it and detached my comment on that from its context. The relevant discussion on Lar's talk page is here. I have not, to my knowledge, ever moved any other comment by Lar.

In my opinion Lar is clearly involved in the one way that is relevant: He came to the area with a strong prejudice, he has acted almost entirely one-sided, and he has rejected input and opinions from other editors on the flimsiest grounds. While any administrator who is willing to engage in that area deserves respect, Lar is not helping. He is escalating when he should de-escalate, he is sniping when he should consider his position, and he has the unfortunate habit of trying to declare "facts" by fiat without even a modicum of tolerance for other opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put down a somewhat longer statement on my problem with Lar as an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar#View_by_Stephan_Schulz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU

As this is a fairly narrowly defined request I feel it might best be dealt with by Motion, and suggest acceptance on that basis. I would also suggest that a definition of "uninvolved admin" might follow that as suggested here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resp to SirFozzie - I am with regard to the narrow question; when the big one happens nobody is going to need ask... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Coren; there is a RfC being set up by 2/0 to gather the views of participants and others in respect the perception of the effectiveness of the Probation and what are the options going forward. It may be that returning it to ArbCom, a very likely option, will be the preferred course of action. It might be awaiting the outcome of the RfC, unless there is a meltdown in the meantime, would be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by likely involved ATren

Here is a recent capture of Stephan's top 30 pages, by edit count:

Top 30 pages:

• Talk:Global warming - 1532
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science - 655
• User talk:Stephan Schulz - 630
• Global warming - 512
• Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 303
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - 253
• Talk:Global warming controversy - 243
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - 224
• Talk:Waterboarding - 212
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - 194
• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement - 150
• Talk:Jesus - 144
• Global warming controversy - 141
• Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change - 124
• Talk:William Connolley - 108
• Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy - 100
• Global cooling - 98
• Scientific opinion on climate change - 91
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - 90
• Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle - 85
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - 83
• The Great Global Warming Swindle - 81
• Effects of global warming - 78
• Talk:Medieval Warm Period - 74
• Kyoto Protocol - 71
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics - 67
• Talk:Global warming/FAQ - 67
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby - 65
• Talk:Holocaust denial - 65
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - 63

I've highlighted the CC-related pages: 17 of 30 total pages for a total of over 3000 edits, more than 20% of Stephan's total of 14,000 edits.

Lar has never significantly edited a CC page before this probation, and I don't believe he's edited any during the probation either.

I have followed this debate for some time, and I can vouch for the fact that Stephan is an active participant on these pages -- in other words, it's not 3000 vandalism reverts. Certainly, given the amount of vandalism on these pages, some of those edits will be janitorial in nature, but on the whole, editorial debate has been a significant portion of Stephan's CC edits. If this case gets accepted, I will present a more thorough analysis to justify this statement.

Stephan is involved. Lar is not. ATren (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

In the past, "involved" has generally meant "editorially involved in a topic area" - else the instant any person who had not editted significantly in the area would be accused of being "involved" as soon as he or she acted as an admin in the area the second time. Catch-22, if you will. This case, therefore, is ill-suited for an ArbCom discussion as such, though at some point in a case where the actual disctnction becomes important, it may decide to adopt a formal position as to what point makes a person who is not actively editing an area (making the normal exclusions for formatting edits, spelling etc.) become "involved" when this has not been the status quo ante on Wikipedia as far as I have been able to determine reading past ArbCom findings of fact. Collect (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

Point of information - the sequence of edits did not result in either editor removing the other's edits - they were both "move to section I believe they belong in" moves. Several intermediate edits had a section removed but in both cases they put it back in, somewhere else.

I think that this doesn't come close to justifying a real case. It might be useful to see if a wider community consensus could be developed around Sandstein's proposal wrt admin neutrality and appearance of bias, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#Outside view by Sandstein in the conduct RFC on Lar from earlier this year. Appearance of bias, even while one is completely technically compliant with the existing admin bias restrictions as written, can be as corrosive as any other real or perceived admin abuses. I don't think it's in Arbcom's remit to impose that as policy, but a good word towards discussing it might be helpful to prod things along. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

Stephan Schulz clearly knows that he is involved and shouldn't be posting in the "uninvolved admin" section of the enforcement requests. He only does so, as far as I can see, when William M. Connolley appears to be facing an imminent sanction for yet another violation of Wikipedia's policies. Thus, I submit that Stephan's interference in the admin decision-making process at that board is in bad faith and disruptive. In sum, I think this constitutes a misuse of admin privileges by Stephan Schulz. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that several people here have gone on record as stating that there are bias problems with most of the admins currently helping enforce the AGW probation forum. I think there is some evidence of this. For example, here it appears that 2/0 is hinting to Hipocrite that he should file an RfC on yours truly. I disagree, however, that the probation isn't working. Just today, in fact, WMC was banned from the Fred Singer article due to disruption and BLP violations. Actions like that will slowly but surely correct the problematic behavior involved in the AGW articles. For the probation to continue to work, however, heavily involved editors like Stephan Schulz need to be stopped from purposely disrupting the proceedings as he has attempted to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: 2/0 has stated that he was not trying to encourage Hipocrite to start an RfC in the diff I mentioned above. I believe what 2/0 is saying and withdraw my allegation of bias as regards to that example. Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mathsci

In the current RfCU on Lar, Short Brigade Harvester Boris has made a statement that many editors have agreed with concerning Lar's views on groups of editors. I think that Lar is very well meaning. However, because the same names and games recur on the CC probation enforcement page, like other administrators who have tried to police problematic pages (eg Chiropractic or Homeopathy), friction between users creates a "relationship" and various unspoken assumptions. Possibly after a while the administrator develops a mental picture of particular users or groups of users which is not particularly helpful. I don't recall that Stephan Schulz has been sanctioned so far in any way at all. Atren and Cla68 spend a lot of time themselves on the CC probation enforcement pages, so again may possibly have developed their own idées fixes. The best that could happen here is for ArbCom not to accept the case, not even to pass a motion, but gently to remind administrators to take note of complaints and, even if they don't quite agree with them, quietly to move on to something else, with no loss of face. I also agree with the view expressed by many other editors that it would be a good thing to find a way of rotating uninvolved administrators overseeing CC probation enforcement. Mathsci (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie: here's what arbitrators wrote when Cla68 filed a similar request 2 months ago. [3] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Carcharoth: That was the diff immediately prior to the case being discarded by Ryan Postlethwaite as ArbCom clerk [4]. I'm not sure I can do much better than that :) Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Popping over here to briefly explain things... The original diff you provided was the one of Rlevse accepting what became the Russavia-Biophys case. The diffs that work best for me (and all users regardless of their settings) are the following: [5] and the second one you provided. If you look in your preferences, there is an option under "misc" that says "Do not show page content below diffs". I have that option ticked. I presume you don't, and hence when you load a diff you have a table of contents you can click on to generate links like this, which combine a diff (the "&diff" bit) and an anchored link to a section on the page (the "#..." bit). For those who don't have page content shown below diffs, those sort of links won't work. Does that make sense now? Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by TheGoodLocust

Stephan Schulz (and indeed others on his side like WMC) often break/bend rules with the full knowledge of their actions. The intent is obviously to evoke in others, through constant provocation, diffs which can be used as "evidence" of bias and therefore banning. I wish to highlight another example of Schulz's insistence that the rules don't apply to him by noting this enforcement discussion (Note: Schulz was involved in the edit war discussed; Bozmo overstated my reversions while understating WMC's).

Despite being directly involved in the edit war, Stephan Schulz claimed he could comment in the "uninvolved administrator" section through WP:IAR.

On a side note, if this case is accepted then I believe it should include a review of the actions/involvement of several administrators such as Bozmo and 2over0. For example, 2over0 has been a staunch defender of WMC, unblocking him without consulting the blocking admin, while diff mining/misrepresenting and avoiding the climate change enforcement page in order to unilaterally topic ban, for draconian lengths, climate change skeptics like myself and several others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Your comment does not apply, at all, to my comment. Stephan has shown that he is willing to flagrantly violate the definition of "uninvolved." Additionally, the terms of the climate change probation have consistently been altered/ignored/extended in order to topic ban people like myself, but in contrast, regarding those you've defended for years, only a strictly literal interpretation is allowed - and even when that is violated we can be guaranteed enough shouting to drown out any presented facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo: Agreed - especially Horologium's comment. In fact, to extend his own comment somewhat, I can think of several long term contributors who've been driven off of not only the climate change articles, but wikipedia itself (e.g. rootology and unitanode off the top of my head). TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo2:Astute observers will notice that Lar's support was not "focused" on a single statement and over a few days, but spread out over a long period of time and over several comments - with a far greater sample of truly outside observers. In fact, counting everyone who supported him brings his number closer to 30. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Okip: He sounds like someone who is tired of letting people slander BLP's of skeptics as believers in "martians" and who argue that the New York Times is unreliable when it doesn't fit in with a certain agenda (proudly violating core wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFY) - all while quoting their own blogs as "sources." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@CountIblis: Incorrect. AFAIK climate change skeptics have almost all been either banned or driven away - the subjects of the current quest for ideological purity actually believe in AGW, but don't think that has anything to do with the constant BLP violations, wikilawyering, baiting and rampantly unapologetic incivility.

Comment by ZuluPapa5

This is a petty issue which can be handled by the CC Sanctions Project. The real issue is that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) has repeatedly caused disruption (20+ cases) such that Admins are siting involved as a straw-man distraction. ArbCom's time would be better invested in reviewing William M. Connolley's disruptions to determine if his involvement in so many cases is the root cause. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forming a group of appointed or elected admins at the sanctions would moot this issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Comment by Vsmith

Stephan Schulz above has quoted the "definition" of "uninvolved" from the probation page. That is the definition he is operating under in his edits to the Results section of probation cases. He has pointed that out in his comments on that page in the past. All others commenting here and in dispute with him seem to be using a more general definition of "uninvolved" - whether they haven't read the probation page or just disagree with it, I don't know. All here need to re-read the probation page. If that definition needs to be changed, then work on that - meanwhile it is the definition in effect for admins on that probation. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seeems almost everyone is continuing to ignore the definition given on the probation page. Lar has basically stated that policy is made up on the fly and what is written down is irrelevant [6]. That is a recipe for confusion and conflict and a disturbing comment directly relevant to the narrow scope of this arbitration request. Lar and Stephan Schulz are involved in a conflict based primarily on this point. I urge the committee to address this limited conflict and avoid (for now at least) the drama of a broader case. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnWBarber

Pull the damn plug already on WP:GSCC. It isn't working, and it's obvious it isn't working. Replace it with five or so appointed admins and rotate one out each month. That would ease the pressure on admins who, frankly, sometimes seem to be getting a little punch-drunk with the strain. If the admins are appointed by you, they'll have a mandate and confidence that self-selection doesn't give them, and you're more likely to select careful, discreet people than self-selection will. Appointed admins know they can be removed by ArbCom if they go to far out of line (and they can be reminded by email), but they'll also know that there will be a time for them to gracefully exit. The main problem with this request is that it's narrowly focused when the disaster that is WP:GSCC is very broad. I agree with ZuluPapa5 that you should include William Connolley in this and look into topic banning him because the constant complaints that his behavior generates are an enormous time sink. Look at Polargeo's recent disruption (an involved editor posting in the "uninvolved admins" section of a complaint) and the thinly veiled personal attacks in his comments [7] [8]. The admins at GSCC are bickering among themselves and find it difficult to come to consensus on various cases. It's an unholy mess. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68's opinion on whether or not GSCC is working is much too rosey. It's true that Wordsmith banned William Connolley from editing one BLP. This was the result of -- what? -- the 20th or 21st or sixteen dozenth complaint about Connolley at GSCC. And there was disagreement from other admins over whether or not Wordsmith's action had consensus. [9] [10] If GSCC were working, then Cla68 should not have been able to gather all these diffs about the conduct of WMC, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Guettarda and Stephan Shulz here [11] or about Polargeo here [12] No editor should have to put up with this kind of abuse. But if Lar exits GSCC, he leaves it in the hands of open to more influence from admins like the one who put this on my talk page. [13] If you think 2/0 was possibly being reasonable in his effort to intimidate me, please follow the diffs he and I provided in that discussion. Frankly, under the present set-up I don't believe any admin is likely to be able to do this job without making significant blunders. When many drivers get into accidents at a particular spot, traffic engineers are called in to see whether or not a redesign of the spot and the traffic rules for it may be necessary. We are at that point. ArbCom appointment would help: each month a new admin, to serve for five months on a five-member board. Cracking down on some repeat offenders would also help, pour encourager les autres. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)small revision for clarity -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Iblis: There are a gazillion disputes having nothing to do with the scientific point of view. I'm not a skeptic. Lar says he isn't one. Not everything boils down to outside-Wiki POV. Having a house POV would not have made WMC's edits to Fred Singer any more acceptable, or any incivility any more acceptable. Or any gaming the system any more acceptable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79

Simply put, if Lar is involved, then so are the majority of administrators who have worked in the area. Nearly all hold and have expressed views about what is responsible for the poor editing environment in this area. Some, including 2/0 and Bozmo, clearly come from within the movement of anti-fringe editors. Lar comes from the view that some "vested contributors" are also creating a problem. No claim has even been made that Lar is more involved than those editors; he is far less involved than several by any measure.

Stephan Schulz is in a completely different category, not just because of his extensive ongoing involvement in the area, but because he has also commented as uninvolved in disputes where he is involved in the dispute itself.[14] He then argues that if he is involved, then so is Lar. In my view this is part of the same gamesmanship that has been continually attacking admins who are seen to have disfavorable views in order to suggest that they are biased and therefore "involved." I would like to clarify that there was similar criticism of other admins in the area; however editors including myself attempted to play a moderating role, which unfortunately has not been reciprocated. If ArbCom did look at that issue, my best realist take is that ArbCom would find significant cause to admonish editors including Stephan Schulz and William M. Connolley for this type of gamesmanship, which would be a slap on the wrist, but may help. Mackan79 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On possible routes for an omnibus case: It strikes me that ArbCom mainly has the options of directly applying sanctions, or of empowering admins to do so. The main benefit of the first route (direct evaluation) seems to be that ArbCom could give a real look at some evidence, and make a clear statement about what types of behavior will or won't be tolerated. The weakness is that its real impact would either be draconian or mostly implied, given the impossibility of dealing with all current and future editors at once. The obvious weakness of the second route (discretionary sanctions) is that it has already been tried; nevertheless, maybe by tightening the terms, and maybe even with with some findings, ArbCom could create a better ongoing system for enforcement (maybe with broader admin input as well if it were brought over to AE). Either could help, in theory. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BozMo

I think rather than repeat things here, people should be referred to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar where many more people have thoughtfully contributed (there is a lot of duplication but as at today 21 people have endorsed Lar's defence and 23 have endorsed this summary of the issue. Good luck. --BozMo talk 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I see no merit to this case. Lar has not edited within the climate change topic area, and thus cannot be claimed to be not-uninvolved. I was briefly active in this topic area's enforcement page earlier in the week, upon being asked to comment on a peripheral issue about general philosophy with respect to enforcement requests—as were many other administrators who frequent the main enforcement board. What struck me there was the ferocity with which debate on any topic, significant or not, is pursued by many parties. Lar especially was spoken to in an abrupt and markedly unfriendly way. That kind of heat cannot be conducive to good editing.

The climate change enforcement board would benefit more than anything else from some fresh eyes. Lar, from what I gather, has been active there for some time; he may like to take a break from enforcement duties there, and have some other administrators cover in his absence. But that clearly is his prerogative, and as an uninvolved sysop with no prejudices on the topic or its contributors, he is under no obligation to do so. Irrespective of the outcome of this case, I'll be messaging a few of the other sysops who are active on the main AE board to enquire as to whether they would like to devote some attention to GS/CC.

A healthy dose of calming-the-hell down is needed here. I don't think another arbitration case would administer that, by any stretch of the imagination; but the careful attention of some uninvolved administrators not previously active there might. AGK 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: In what was a moment of obvious insanity, I took the case request at face value. Silly me! I maintain my opinion with respect to both a narrowly-framed case to look at this specific incident and a case of wide scope that would re-examine the wider climate change subject area. I do, however, fear that we are headed for an omnibus case (at best, in six months or so) if things don't improve. If the Committee were to examine the wider subject area, perhaps it would be better to do so sooner, not later. I'm on the fence for now. AGK 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium

As this is a contentious issue, a determination by motion as to whether Stephan Schulz‎ and Lar are involved and in which respect may be needed. No case is needed for that determination, and I don't think that a broader case on CC is warranted, I'm pretty sure that would not be beneficial and severely increase tensions in this area. I agree with AGK that the CC probation needs more uninvolved admins. That's why I've decided to participate as uninvolved admin, funnily it seems that this specific incident was induced by a comment directed at my own (non-)involvement. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Coren made good points on the perspective of taking a general case on CC. I'd prefer that the community make a review of the probation before any arbitration. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg

I'm confused as to why this case is being brought at this time, at the same time that there is an RfC running on one of the parties. Apart from that, which is more of a question than an objection, I agree generally with Hipocrite. I also wish that this case wasn't brought.

My feeling is that there is generally too much adjudicating/beefing/whining in this area. One of the underlying issues is the personal animosity between the users, and the high degree of incivility that seems to be tolerated on both sides. I don't think that formal tribunals are the way to deal with such problems.

I think that there needs to be a greater appreciation of the appearance as well as the actuality of bias. Administrators need to show more self-restraint, not become involved in personal squabbles with editors, and not engage in name-calling or labeling. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, it is certainly possible for an Internet discussion moderator, which is what administrators here basically are, to become involved in a subject through his/her moderation as well as participation in the discussion. I don't think that this principle is sufficiently recognized. There needs to be a broader definition of involvement, and greater intervention by genuinely uninvolved administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pessimism by Jehochman

Global warming conflicts are intense, and involve teams of pro and con forces who'll stop at nothing to get their way. The lobbying, goading, and gaming is a big turn off for uninvolved editors and administrators. It is long past time for ArbCom to investigate these behavioral issues. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek (uninvolved)

Jehochman, sums up the problem well. We all have views on climate change but the extremism, aggression, gaming the system, BLP violations, tag teaming, edit warring etc on climate change articles, seems never ending and trust has broken down within the community with allegations of bias and misdeeds by admins. I feel it is time to accept a full case into climate change. I think that a case just looking into climate change probation will not be possible as climate change probation is about misdeeds on climate change articles so arbcom will end up looking article diffs to understand the background and context to CC probation actions. It is also in my mind unfair to single out a couple of admins, who don't even edit the articles, for special attention when there are teams of POV pushers behaving much worse on these articles who require looking into rather than just a couple of admins who are dealing with POV teams; look at all alledged problem editors and admins fairly and squarely. Also a full case is needed to sort out the climate change problems once and for all; rather than chop at the branches, chop at the root causes of the problem. The climate change battle field is perhaps the worst and longest lasting of chronic disuptions on wikipedia. It is time to get it sorted out. I would like to see as Sirfozzie puts it "The Great Climate Change Omnibus case of 2010".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

The driving forces behind all the trouble on the climate change related pages are the simple content disputes between climate sceptics and the people who support the mainstream scientific POV. The probation system, as it is set up now, leads to this main content dispute to dissipate into a myriad of micro disputes, each on some stupid triviality.

The fundamentals of the dispute are robust. The climate sceptics are not going to change their opinion anytime soon, nor are the other editors. So the situation is analogous to thermodynamics where you have a first law (problem is not going away) and a second law (the main dispute can either stay as it is or it can spread into a larger number of smaller disputes).

This means that the only feasible solution is to tackle the main dispute. ArbCom can simply ignore the details of the present disputes and look at the general issue of editing climate change related articles in a climate where you have many sceptics. My proposal would be for ArbCom to declare that all climate change related articles have to be edited from a SPOV perspective. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

The request as framed (is one specific admin uninvolved?) is unsuitable for an arbitration case. But as a look at WP:GS/CC/RE shows, the topic has reached Balkanic levels of contention and battlegrounding, and would benefit from Committee intervention. A case should be opened to examine everyone's conduct. Ideally, this case should result in a topic ban for the most problematic editors (although I don't know who that is), discretionary sanctions, and an expeditious means of reviewing further disagreements about involvedness (perhaps referral to a panel of one or three arbitrators).  Sandstein  06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I first became involved in editing in this area at the beginining of the month. The situation there is very bad, as Sandstein describes, and it's unlikely to be sorted out without ArbCom assistance. My main concern is that it's affecting the BLPs of scientists and others who express minority views.

It would help if, as JohnWBarber suggests above, the committee could appoint a group of experienced, uninvolved admins to enforce the probation. As things stand, CC editors who also happen to be admins are claiming to be uninvolved (Stephan Schulz and Polargeo, for example), and are causing significant disruption on the probation page, to the point where it has become difficult to follow discussions, or work out what the decisions are. For what it's worth I haven't seen any diffs that suggest Lar is involved.

Failing that, I agree that a full ArbCom case may be necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

You can choose to make this a huge case, but I (along with others including LHVU) would like you to decide on the narrow issue: just what definition of "uninvolved" should be used. As Stephan Schultz has pointed out, the probation was set up with a clear definition of uninvolved: For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Others, including Lar, have chosen not to abide by that definition. Who is right? Note also that the issue is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Involved/uninvolved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

Addressing the crux of who is an involved admin would not be too arduous for the arbitration committee and at least put an end to a few arguments for the time being (including the RFC on Lar which is split with two sets of views and unlikely to reach consensus.) I think once this is settled, the framework is there to allow matters to continue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 2over0

When the GSCC were established, several editors opined that the community should review the sanctions in a few months. I have opened Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC, which may have some bearing on this case. On the matter at hand, my opinions are set out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#View by 2over0, which venue I think is a better way to address this question. No particular opinion on the merits of opening an omnibus case except that I think it should be started as such rather than allowed to morph into one. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/3/2)

• Recuse on all AGW. Steve Smith (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse.. but didn't we just deal with Stephan Schultz and uninvolved admin section? We're back here again? Two months later after several arbs commented that Stephen should not be posting in the uninvolved admins section.... SirFozzie (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a comment, I'd like the parties and onlookers to comment on whether they expect this to be solely focused on the Stephen Schultz/Lar/"Uninvolved Administrator" issue, or if they're expecting "The Great Climate Change Omnibus case of 2010". Because I think some people are expecting one, but may get the other. Just making sure that everyone's ducks are all in a row. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Cautious recuse on AGW. Cool Hand Luke 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Providing it hasn't been mentioned previously (this is a long thread I have yet to finish reading) Could someone please provide an update on "the RfC pending on the progress of the probation so far". Is that likely to arrive soon and will it help? Mathsci, your link doesn't work for me (it is a diff on my settings which don't give the whole page version when loading a diff). Carcharoth (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to WMC for providing the link to the nascent RfC. It's only really just started being drafted, so I'd be tempted to let discussion continue there for a bit, but there would need to be signs of real progress being made there. For now, would any temporary injunctions help keep things calm in this area? Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on Coren's later comments below, as I said in my earlier comments, the RfC being drafted to allow review of the community probation sanctions board that was set up in this topic area is probably the way to go, but there needs to be wide-ranging input on the draft from all those who want to collaborate at drafting the RfC. A one-sided RfC will not help at all. Get the RfC set up to be balanced and comprehensive first, and only then open it for comments. If that fails after good-faith efforts from all involved, then come back here. As setting up the RfC will likely take some time, I am going to repeat my earlier question: "would any temporary injunctions help keep things calm in this area?" To respond to another point Coren made, I don't think it is impossible to have a case in this area and focus it on conduct and hence avoid ruling on content. It might be that the conduct of some is worse than others, but that would be on their own heads, and other (hopefully calmer) content editors would then replace them if they were asked to step away from the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And to follow up some more (retracting my earlier comments about taking ages to draft an RfC), I've commented here about the RfC that has been opened, and would encourage people to give carefully considered comments there (not knee-jerk reactions) and to try and work together to improve how things are working in the current community sanctions in this topic area. i.e. Consider the bigger picture, and don't get hung up on specifics. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the specific case at hand, I think it's fair to say that there is no question that "uninvolved administrator" means an administrator who is not involved in the editorial dispute itself, not with the editors engaged in the dispute. Pretty much by definition, any administrative action (especially arbitration enforcement) requires interaction with editors that will be seen as negative by those editors; requiring administrators to recuse every time someone is displeased at an administrative act would mean that any admin could do exactly one action at most.

  Regarding this particular request, it seems little more than judge shopping and I'm not inclined to accept it except perhaps as a motion to affirm the current definition of "uninvolved admin". — Coren ^(talk) 13:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • On a different note, I see a number of requests for ArbCom assistance in the wider dispute. It is possible that ArbCom could help there in a suitably framed request, but this would necessarily involve a long and difficult case and would almost certainly end up editorially affecting treatment of the entire topic area (and, almost certainly by extension, many other areas where a scientific mainstream position clashes with vocal and strongly expressed dissent). We are reluctant — not without good reason — to accept cases that end up making content rulings (though we have occasionally done so in the past). For us to accept such a case, it needs to be made clear that:
    1. The problem cannot be solved by the normal editorial process;
    2. the situation is unlikely to improve, or likely to deteriorate over time; and
    3. that the community actually wants ArbCom to make a ruling.
  • If those conditions are met, the parties understand that the case is likely to be arduous, and that it may well lead to a resolution that they might find unpleasant, then I would be willing to accept a case. — Coren ^(talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • To LessHeard vanU: Yes, an RfC is probably a good idea, and likely to help scope ArbCom's involvement (if it is needed). — Coren ^(talk) 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Kommentar: I think, to be honest, that everybody on this page actually knows the answer to the question that is being posed, but there is a great deal left unspoken here. So let's get down to brass tacks. It's pretty clear that the community was not satisfied with administrator or editorial behaviour in this area some months ago, which is why the community imposed sanctions. This should have told both administrators and editors in this area that behaviour must change, and that it must change to less combative interaction and reduced wikilawyering and gaming of the system. The question being brought forward at this point indicates that there are at least some who have been unwilling to change their behaviour. The other unspoken request here is "please desysop Admin XXX" (where XXX could be any combination of a number of admins), since it is well-known that Arbcom has not historically imposed topic-area restrictions on administrators. Coren's summation of "involved admin" is more or less my thinking here; administrators who have been actively and extensively editing in this topic field will generally be considered to be involved, no matter that they may not have edited the specific article that is the current locus of dispute.

  I am not willing to accept a narrow-focused case involving individual aspects of this dispute, and the initial request here is so narrow-focused as to be pointless. I note the impending RFC, and would be interested in its results, but it will only be particularly meaningful if community members who are generally uninvolved in this area voice the opinion that there have been improvements; the same voices repeating the same opinion will not indicate any significant change. A full case on this topic area will take several months, hundreds of thousands of words, probably interim injunctions prohibiting editing (and possibly administrative actions) within the topic area, and will likely result in a harsher outcome than if the individual editors and administrators would take personal responsibility for their own actions, and for actively and openly attempting to moderate inappropriate behaviour by editors with whom they generally have a shared viewpoint on this topic area. It is within the ability of those who play a role in this matter to resolve this issue short of such an Arbcom case. I hope that enough of you seize this opportunity, which is pretty well a last chance, because nobody is really looking forward to the next steps if you fail to do so. Risker (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)