→Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz: two simple issues |
→Suggested issues to examine by Lar: break into one sentence questions but retain numbering for ease of reference (2 -> 2a and 2b, etc) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
1) Should the [[WP:SPOV|Scientific point of view]] be used in the GW/CC area instead of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]? |
1) Should the [[WP:SPOV|Scientific point of view]] be used in the GW/CC area instead of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]? |
||
2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was? |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case? |
|||
4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later) |
4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later) |
||
5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately? |
|||
5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied? |
|||
6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be |
6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets? |
||
Submitted for consideration. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
Submitted for consideration. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:19, 14 June 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
In addition to the usual guidelines for arbitration cases, the following procedures apply to this case:
- The case will be opened within 24 hours after the posting of these guidelines.
- The drafting arbitrators will be Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Risker. The arbitration clerk for the case will be Amorymeltzer, but all the active arbitration clerks are asked to assist with this case as needed.
- The title of the case will be Climate change. Participants are asked to bear in mind that case titles are chosen for administrative convenience and do not reflect any prejudgment on the scope or outcome of the case.
- Notice of the opening of the case will be given to all editors who were named as parties in the request for arbitration, all editors who commented on the request, and all editors who commented on either of the two pending related requests ("Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar"). If any other editor later becomes a potential subject of the case, such as by being mentioned extensively in evidence or named in a workshop proposal, a notice should also be given to that editor at that time.
- The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
- Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
- Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
- "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
- "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
- "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
- "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
- The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
- All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
- Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
- The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence. For example, an editor may present evidence in a form such as "event A occurred [diff 1] and then event B occurred [2], which led to event C [3], followed by a personal attack [4], and an uncivil comment [5], resulting in a block [6], an unblock [7], and an ANI discussion [8]." It sometimes happens that the editor is asked to shorten his or her evidence, and it is refactored to read something like "there was a dispute about a block [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]." This does not make life easier for the arbitrators who have to study all the evidence. Editors should take this into account before complaining that other editors' sections are too long.
- All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
- The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
- Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
- Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (We hope that it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
- This procedural notice shall be copied at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. Any questions about these procedures may be asked in a designated section of the workshop talkpage.
- After this case is closed, editors will be asked to comment on whether any of the procedures listed above should be made standard practice for all future cases, or for future complex cases.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Sub-issues to be addressed
As requested, please list your concise, one-sentence, neutrally worded question(s) here
Suggested topic(s) by LessHeard vanU
1) Is the scientific communities consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as evidenced by reliable sources, the encyclopedic neutral point of view? 00:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
2) In determining NPOV should the fact and content of claims denying or skeptic toward AGW be weighed by their prominence in general media reliable sources, irrespective of it being a minority and challenged viewpoint within the scientific community or not being made from a sustainable scientific basis? 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
3) Have some editors who subscribe to the scientific consensus regarding AGW acted in such a manner to restrict viewpoints outside of that consensus from being represented in the main articles, contrary to WP:DUE? 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
4) Is there evidence of a concerted effort, including off site media, to diminish or deprecate the scientific consensus presented within AGW articles, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:V? 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
5) Are the interactions between contributors who edit toward the scientific consensus and those who edit in a manner to more widely represent the AGW denial or skeptic viewpoint generally in accordance with the preferred WP policies of consensus through respectful discussion and use of established methods of dispute resolution, or more example battlefield mentality? 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
6) Is the widely (but not universally) adopted practice of seeking consensus between uninvolved administrators at the AE/CC/Enforcement Requests page appropriate? 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Issues by Hipocrite
1) When evaluating the prominence of a scientific argument, what is the appropriate weight given to various media types?
2) How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?
3) Are all editors appropriately following sourcing policies?
4) Are all adminstraotors appropraitely following involvement standards?
5) Are current involvement standards appropraite?
Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber
1) Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles be modified by having the Arbitration Committee appoint the administrators who would deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page?
2) If the Arbitration Committee decides to appoint administrators to deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page, should it ask the community in a year's time to suggest to ArbCom whether WP:GSCC is still needed in any form, and if so, whether that new, ArbCom-appointed set-up should be continued or revert back to the present set-up, and in either case, whether it should be modified in other ways?
Suggested question by Tryptofish
1) Should the Committee provide a definition of "uninvolved administrator", for purposes of aiding Arbitration Enforcement in the future? --17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggested issues to examine by Cla68
1) Has there been any extended abuse of BLP articles by a group of established editors, including one or more administrators?
2) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, employed incivility including personal attacks, bullying, baiting, sarcasm, and insults over an extended period of time on the talk pages of any of the climate change articles?
3) If so, did the behavior result in decreased cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in expanding or improving the content of those articles?
4) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, displayed contempt, derision, or indifference towards Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and/or article-improvement forums such as WP:Good Article or WP:Featured Article?
5) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?
6) Have any established editors who may have a conflict of interest, such as having a close personal or professional relationship with BLP subjects involved with climate change controversies, edited climate change articles in a way that could be interpreted as a violation of NPOV?
Suggested issues to examine by Lar
1) Should the Scientific point of view be used in the GW/CC area instead of NPOV?
2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was?
2b)Further, is Global Warming such a dire threat to mankind that Wikipedia should take a position on it or at least modify normal standards to ensure that the articles adhere to generally accepted scientific consensus at all times and in all ways?
3a) Should the definition of "uninvolved" as used in the CC/RE pages be modified to conform to the generally accepted definition elsewhere? (taking into account editing in the general area as well as editor interaction)
3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case?
4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later)
5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately?
5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied?
6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets?
Submitted for consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo
1) Should the fact that an admin has not edited a Climate Change article give them carte blanche to deal with an editor in this area no matter what the admin's past history with the editor may be? Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggested Issues to examine by ATren
- Is it appropriate for editors with a strong POV to be editing the biographies of people with whom they disagree?
- Is it appropriate for editors to add blog-sourced criticism to BLPs, and in particular, when the editors have prior association with those blogs?
- Should editors be banned permanently based on little or no evidence? I've seen cases where editors were labelled as Scibaby socks with as little as 2 innocuous edits and no checkuser. Whether they are Scibaby or not, how does it reflect on this open encyclopedia when editors can be banned so easily? And what about the false positives? Is a few non-damaging edits from a sock worth the damage of falsely accusing new editors of socking?
- Should editors be held to a basic standard of civility?
ATren (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz
1) Is climate change a field in which "expertise is irrelevant", because Wikipedia only "reflects what reliable sources say"? In other words, is this a field in which Randy in Boise can be as productive as a published PhD researcher specialising in climate change? Or is climate change a large, complex scientific topic in which a general understanding of the topic is necessary to achieve due weight, especially when moving from reliable overview articles to more and more specialised sources?
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5
- 1) Should William M. Connolley be topic banned for civil disruptions?
- 2) Should Stephan Schulz be admonished for enabling William M. Connolley?
-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Template
1) {text of issue 1}
2) {text of issue 2}
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:X
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Y
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: