Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification

Elonka notified

Statement by Orangemarlin

Elonka has chosen to interpret Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist in a high-handed and unfair manner. First, she added my name to a "list" of editors who, in her singular opinion, were disruptive to the article here. I had made merely one edit to the article here, because I believed that fairly POV edits were being made to the article. In a good faith attempt to stop edit warring, I requested page protection, which fairly quickly.

Elonka then decided I was some disruptive character, performing the following heavy-handed actions:

1. Adding me to the admin log for the article
2. Placing a warning on my user talk that I might be subject to Arbcom restrictions in editing this article. The warning was inaccurate and included several falsehoods as discussed by myself and discussed directly with Elonka by MastCell.
3. Adding my name into the log of warned editors
4. She has then gone on to warn admins of their activities with regards to her personal interpretation of this arbcom decision with rather pointed remarks to B here and to KillerChihuahua here.

Elonka's list is subject to a MfD and her actions are being discussed in this ANI.

Several issues:

1. She claims she is uninvolved in these articles, but that's a specious argument. She has had a vendetta against me, since I published her threatening and defamatory email to me. Since one arbcom member John Vandenberg has requested that I not publish her email for reasons that don't make sense to me (and to be clear, I have already publicly shown that email on my user talk, and anyone can find the diff in my User talk history in about 1 minute), I have forwarded that email to Arbcom through User:Casliber.
2. She has left rude messages about me to other users such as this one, and this one (and helping a pro-pseudoscience editor, User:Ludwigs2). Since the arbcom ruling states, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. 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 sanctions.", and I have shown that she has both a direct and personal conflict with me, her actions should be disqualified.
3. I contend that the arbcom ruling also states, "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions." Nothing I have done with article in dispute, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts violates those standards.

Does she have the right, as an admin, to make an arbitrary decision as to who should or should not be logged as a disruptive editor in pseudoscience articles?

I respectfully request my name be deleted from this log and that a full interpretation of how admins may administer the pseudoscience ruling. I also request that Elonka be sanctioned and desysopped for her violation of same Arbcom ruling. Because of Jvdb's support of Elonka with respect to the threatening email sent to me by Elonka, I ask that he immediately recuse himself from this discussion.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

Elonka has in the past attempted to micromanage talk pages for fringe science or pseudoscience articles and has drawn criticism for this. Chiropractic is one example. Editing ground to a standstill. What seemed to work, under the guidance of User:Tim Vickers, was enabling expert medical editors such as User:Eubulides to lead discussions and establish a proper understanding of balance, in writing and in finding sources. One problem with Elonka's technique is that it fails to recognize the distinction between experts and civil POV pushers, with the result that those representing the fringe point of view can appear to be unduly favoured. In what she has written recently, Elonka seems to imply that mainstream science and fringe science are two warring factions and have to be sorted out. The error in this statement, which underlies the inappropriateness of her approach, is that wikipedia hopes to represent mainstream science faithfully; it is in fact wikipedia itself that is trying to keep in proportion the promotion of the claims of fringe science and pseudoscience. Elonka's actions towards those writing in mainstream science like me has been combative and aggressive. When I raised exactly these points twice on the talk page of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, objecting to her use of a list of frequent contributors to the talk page, she added me to that list, claiming that I had contributed "multiple" posts. The use of the word "multiple" instead of two, which in modern parlance does not normally mean multiple, many or frequent, was a combative act. It showed that she was unwilling to discuss the flaws in her strategy. I was careful not to bring up the problems with her particular approach in the latest fringe science ArbCom, although in my evidence I obliquely alluded to the difficulties of handling articles on fringe science. I have explained what I see as the fundamental flaw in Elonka's approach. This approach has been criticized by an increasing number of reputable administrators and editors during the current discussion on ANI. She has not yet given an adequate response. It has led to the perception that she favours those pushing a fringe point of view, that civility should take undue precedence over content. Although it is clear that these methods work well on controversial articles that attract rival groups of nationalists, there is absolutely no reason to draw a parallel with nationalistic disputes: that would place mainstream science on the defensive. ArbCom is currently producing a series of principles that make it very clear that mainstream science does not have to "fight its corner" on wikipedia. Her attempted classification of individual editors has been quite unhelpful - what she has very recently written to KillerChihuahua for example implies that only with her months of experience can the "bad eggs" pushing mainstream science be recognized. It is ironic that at the same time she describes herself as WP:UNINVOLVED, a case of wikipedia policy being misused. Principles from unrelated ArbCom cases have similarly been used to justify her actions. In fringe science, in particular matters concerning minority viewpoints on dysgenics and eugenics, she has gone to the extent of labelling those representing the mainstream point of view as a "tag team" or worse still a "lynch mob". Elonka seems to be the only administrator acting in this way at present. Although she makes a great point of remaining civil, her methods are combative and aggressive. In the case of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, a minor hodge-podge article full of outlandish Professor Branestawm curiosities, she has created yet another storm in a teacup which was quite unnecessary. She should politely be asked not to conduct further experiments of this sort if they are so counterproductive and cause so much offense: there is no virtue in appearing to champion the cause of fringe science or pseudoscience on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

Since Elonka defines anything she does on those articles, whether involving the administrative tools or not as "an administrator is taking actions pursuant to an ArbCom ruling". [1] Essentially, she claims that she should be unrevertable. That's a dangerous attribute to give to anyone.

Whether Elonka at one time or another was "uninvolved", meaning, that she was sufficiently neutral to make administrative decisions in this topic area free from editorial interests or user interests, I don't know and don't care. If she was uninvolved, that ship has long sailed and she is clearly involved now. --B (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

I received a warning almost identical to User:B's; afterward, Elonka used that to add my name to User:Elonka/ArbCom log as # KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) notified to not reverse admin enforcement actions. - Please note that B was not added, which gives weight to the argument that this is a "hit list" or not even-handed, as we both committed the same "error" and both received the same "warning" - and I agree with B that her taking that power to herself is dangerous in and of itself. As she dismisses concerns from those whom she has "warned"[2] (difs being added) claiming, in effect, it is "political" or "personal"I suppose she has now discounted any and all concerns B, I, or any other editor to whom she has given "warnings". This has the clear appearance of disenfranchising people in order to dismiss their concerns. She is, and I am borrowing content from another editor here "using that system the power to block editors they are having personal disputes with, and to ignore advice from other admins" ("that system" being AE). Elonka is almost always within the letter of civility - yet her ABF and general attitude of I am the uninvolved admin simply doing AE while accusing others of bias, false motives, "listening to gossip", and all manner of other ills (difs avail, see prev. note) has had a chilling effect and is intimidating others. She has been informed, by many, of this - here is my attempt in which I expressed concern that You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. - this was a day or so before she "warned" me and listed me as such. She is giving the distinct impression of editing by proxy. By intimidating editors and supporting those whom she approves, she can shape an article without ever making an edit. Add to that the AE club she wields at every turn, and I am appalled at the overall effect on articles Elonka chooses to "enforce" and on Wikipedia in general.

- thanks in advance for your patience on the difs.

• Comment about the list: pls note that I did not remove the list, which might be implied by Elonka's expanded statement which she linked to ("Then admin KillerChihuahua came in and deleted things again"). Her statement "very disappointing to see administrators edit-warring with administrators in this way. I'd also contacted KillerChihuahua and B to advise them of the SV motion, but they were less than cooperative." does not recognize that it was her list which was causing the disruption and strife and divisiveness; that no editor removed any part of the list more than once, and most only stated their strong opposition to the list on the talk page or Elonka's talk page; that Elonka in discussing her "warning" states that "KillerChihuahua and B ... were less than cooperative" which frames our difference in interpretation of the SV ruling as B and myself not "minding" or bowing to her authority, based on her interpretation, rather than allowing for any valid disagreement; and lastly she seems more concerned bout how civil I was in an edit summary which criticized her actions than in addressing the actions themselves. Unfortunately this is fairly standard for Elonka - when criticized she cites CIVIL and does not address the concern.
• Comment about Elonka's extended statement in general: IMO a bad idea to have the bulk of a statement elsewhere, especially as Elonka has a history of deleting her sub-pages. Either she should trim or simply post her statement here as is, so it is in the history of this page.
• On the list and edit war: After Elonka added the list, it was removed by editors: QuackGuru[3], ThuranX[4], Cameron Scott[5], B[6] and restored by Elonka twice[7] [8] and Jayvdb once[9] I removd one section which was replaced by Penwhale; Verbal removed his name in protest, which resulted in the hostile "What exactly are you trying to do here?"[10] on his talk page from Elonka. It has been discussed to the tune of 3,155 words on the talk page there[11] in addition to Elonka's talk page, including sections she has blanked, ANI, etc. I'd say its fairly clear the list has been a problem.
• Elonka's assertion - you're joking, right? If your edits are not "protected" you think it is encouraging you to block or ban? I have no words for how bizarre I find this assertion. Don't block or ban any more than before, and don't petition ArbCom for rulescreep to give you more authority. Really. Just warn when its appropriate, and only block or ban when that's appropriate. You don't need a bigger stick.
• Comment to Shell: I have no idea what you're talking about. I was concerned about the interpretation Elonka had given the SV ruling. You're talking about something else.

Specific question from MastCell

I prefer not to comment on the larger issues at this juncture, but I would like to ask the Committee to clarify one technical point.

The Committee has ruled that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy." I understand this to mean that admins are not to reverse each others' administrative actions (blocks, topic bans, 1RR, etc) - that is, it's a formalization of the standard that we should discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking. Elonka has interpreted this to mean that any edit which she deems "pursuant to an active arbitration remedy" may not be reverted or otherwise altered ([12]).

In order to nip this in the bud, could the Committee please clarify whether the ruling in question applies specifically to reversal of administrative actions, or whether it is indeed intended to render edits unrevertable if an admin deems them pursuant to an ArbCom remedy? MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

One of the arbs below asked if there are enough admins involved in dealing with this. The answer to that is clearly no. We need more admins active in dealing with this particular mess. One group of battling edit warriors in this mess has adopted a strategy (whether or not they are conscious of doing so I have no idea) of attacking essentially all active admins in the area. Elonka has been more willing than most to ignore these partisan attacks on her, but it would clearly be better if there were more admins involved. GRBerry 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Orangemarlin.

Statements here are to inform the ArbComm. Members of last year's committee are already aware of the relevant evidence presented about one particular individual multiple arbitration cases ago. Your own behavior also offers plenty of examples of the use of the tactic, in particular your behavior towards FT2 following last summer's fiasco and towards Elonka on multiple occasions, including this request. GRBerry 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on first motion.

I understand the clause "that are not specific actions applied to specific editors" in the second sentence to limit each and every item in the list preceeding it. A standard requirement in the discretionary sanctions the committe has passed is a requirement that warnings be given prior to the imposition of any discretionary sanctions, e.g "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and ..." from the 9/11 case, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBAA2, and with a period where the semi-colon is in the quote WP:ARBMAC - which are all the cases that I looked at. With that interpretation, the proposal is unsurprising. I know of two topic area sanctions that are consensus supported and not editor specific, one is some form of 1RR across The Troubles and the other is a contingency plan for handling one of the Mantanmoreland articles if and when needed (having announced the contingency plan is itself part of the plan for avoiding the need to implement the plan). Any admin that would overrule them is going to ignore the special restriction anyway... GRBerry 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

The basis of the issue is that, at my last glance, there were only two admins listed on the list that was being contested for removal. How, in the world, could we have only two administrators looking over these?

I've personally advised Elonka that since her neutrality is contested to build a list of what happened where so another administrator can independently look into the matter. OM's calling for de-sysop of Elonka is absurd, as this is 1) a single incident, 2) she did NOT perform anything of what we relate to as normal administrative actions (deletion/blocking...)

What FloNight said below may be a temporary way to diffuse issue-- but only if it is while the issue is being looked at. I do not think it is fair to explicitly disallow Elonka from performing any discretionary sanctions since that would involve other situations. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:Shot Info, you should know that editors are allowed to compile their statements for RFAR uses. Has she provided it? No. Then it's not presented, and you're attacking her on a statement that she hasn't made. Think about that for a second. What I see, from glancing at pages, are people who are challenging her. I've advised Elonka to seek second opinions from other administrators before she takes actions (or allow others to take those actions). Your comments do nothing to solve the problem; rather, you are making Elonka's life harder when she needs a space to compile and see what she's going to present while she said, clearly, that I will post a summary statement when it is ready, with a link to additional information (such as a list of the few ArbCom notifications or discretionary sanctions I've ever placed). Think about that for a second. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again.. she hasn't provided anything. Therefore, there's nothing to comment on. She's free to scrap in her own userspace, as long as she provides something within a reasonable timeframe lest someone MfD's it. I may change my statement once she provides her evidence, but until then, I'll only voice that I am not happy with how people are not assuming good faith here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell's clarification question, as it may be argued over and over and clarity is important here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Struck out some of my response to Shot Info, as Elonka has presented her statement. Agree with the beginning of her statement asking for clarification. It also seems as if there was edit-warring over the lists, and maybe it may be worthwhile for the ArbCom to look into it. I agree with the factual evidence of what happened at the talk page of the list that the addition/removal of the names were being wheel-warred over, and for the rest, I do not and will not comment on. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:KC, she felt that her statement would otherwise be too long, so she elected to do so, I believe. But I agree with you that the list was in contention by various people on both sides, and you can't exactly say that both me and jayvdb were not looking at things neutrally. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re arbitrator comments below: The issue here is that there were wheel-warring by different people. If people still feel that after *two* other administrators restored it that it needs to be removed, we have an issue that needs to be addressed, regardless of what Elonka's position is. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us clarify this again: there is underlying problem because there was wheel-warring. Calling for Elonka's head (or de-sysop) or restrict her from enforcing any and all discretionary sanctions without a full case is a grave error. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

The core things which it would be helpful for ArbCom to clarify, are:

• Does the SV motion preventing overturn of ArbCom enforcement actions, also apply to messages posted by an administrator at an article in dispute? Or can these be reverted just like anything else in an edit war?
• If an article is in longterm dispute and an administrator attempts to help stabilize it, but several editors at the article protest strongly that they don't trust the administrator, should the admin back off, even if there is no other admin monitoring the page?

In terms of Orangemarlin's rather bizarre comments about my actions: No, I am not "involved" in this topic area; no, I do not have a history of overturned decisions; no, I am not pushing a POV; no, I do not have a vendetta against him; and perhaps most importantly, no, the "List of editors" that I provided at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts was not just of "disruptive editors", but was of all editors on the talkpage, simply to try and keep track of who was who.

Administrative presence at the pseudosciences article was definitely not greeted with open arms by all the editors there, but this is par for the course in ArbCom enforcement matters. Ultimately though, an administrator's presence should be judged not by the short-term drama that may be caused when they enter a dispute, but by the longterm effect on the article. Does the administrator leave the situation in a better state than when they found it? I would argue that some short-term instability is worth it, to bring longterm peace, and in most cases that I know of, administrators who enforce discretionary sanctions have a positive impact and are able to stabilize articles that had previously been in longterm chronic dispute. Usually all that's needed are a few well placed warnings, and even the most complex dispute can be brought under control within a month. It is very rare that I've ever had to go as far as an actual sanction. In fact, in the pseudoscience topic area, I have only placed a total of four discretionary sanction blocks or bans. The rest of my efforts are usually simply in providing structure to a dispute, identifying the source of the disruption, and issuing clear instructions to certain editors on how their behavior needed to improve.

For an expanded statement and a more detailed timeline, see User:Elonka/Pseudoscience statement, and for a complete list of the discretionary sanctions that I have ever placed, in any topic area, see User:Elonka/ArbCom log. --Elonka 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(amendment) At the time that I wrote my statement, I had been under the impression that KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) was an uninvolved administrator in the pseudoscience topic area. However, I recently became aware that my assumption was incorrect, and that she has been involved in both edits and edit wars in pseudoscience articles. I apologize for the error, and have amended my comments to clarify her status as an involved editor. --Elonka 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(followup comment about the #Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification motion) I would ask the arbitrators to give careful thought to what they're saying here. As the consensus seems to be forming, the clarification is saying that the SV motion only applies to direct administrative actions such as a block or ban. What this clarification may cause as an unintended result though, is that if an administrator wants their action to "stick", the admin will be quicker to block or ban a user, since other admins can't reverse it. Because if the admin chooses to simply warn a user, that that can be reverted. This is not a good way to be encouraging administrators to address disputes, since it may result in more severe admin actions than necessary. A better clarification to come from ArbCom right now might be one that expands upon the SV motion to state something like, "Administrators should refrain from reversing each other's actions taken in an administrative capacity. When there is disagreement between uninvolved administrators on how to deal with a situation, the administrators should engage in civil and collegial discussion to determine a consensus on how to proceed. If and when administrators disagree, they should demonstrate by example how disputes are to be dealt with, by engaging in discussion and consensus-seeking – not by edit-warring." --Elonka 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(further clarification) I may have been unclear above when I talked about warnings being reverted, so to clarify, this has nothing to do with users removing warnings from their own talkpages. Users are of course allowed to blank pretty much anything they wish from their talkpage, per WP:BLANKING, as by removing a warning, a user is also acknowledging that they have read it. What I was talking about was situations where one administrator warns a user, and then a different user or administrator comes along and removes the warning. For example, when I posted a formal notification about Orangemarlin at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, QuackGuru deleted it,[13] it was then restored by me, then KillerChihuahua reverted most of it,[14] then arbitration clerk Penwhale restored it again. Another incident took place on Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts where QuackGuru deleted OrangeMarlin's notification,[15] I restored it, then KillerChihuahua deleted,[16] Penwhale restored,[17] then ThuranX (talk · contribs) further escalated by deleting not just the entire list, but the entire discussion thread, with comments from multiple editors (including myself).[18] Jayvdb restored, Cameron Scott deleted,[19] I restored, and then B deleted again.[20] I'm also having other (non-warning) troubles now with KillerChihuahua, where she is following my contribs to revert me in multiple locations, sometimes with extremely uncivil edit summaries."Ye gods, Elonka, not everyone thinks that toting out the Big Guns is how to deal with disputes. Lets not encourage new admins to cause the kind of chaos you've been causing lately" This kind of "admin harassment" is just another tactic being used by disruptive editors who are seeking to intimidate administrators away from dealing with a particular dispute, which in this case is the battleground pseudoscience topic area. What the arbitrators must do here, is be clear that unless there is a clear and substantial consensus from uninvolved editors, that administrators working in these complex arbitration enforcement can take an action or make a statement or other warning, and that the administrator has the authority to make their statements "stick". --Elonka 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hans Adler

I believe the situation at the article is more complicated than just the familiar pseudoscience conflict, mainly due to additional questions such as whether a list's name must reflect the inclusion criteria precisely, and how to deal with various degrees of certainty that various proportions of various fields are pseudoscientific (using headlines? explanatory text? footnotes? dropping all but the strongest cases?). The division of opinions about these questions does not at all follow the usual lines of conflict, and there are complex dependencies between them. I think although it makes resolution of the problem of stabilising the article very hard, this is a sign that things are working as they should.

I am not convinced that admin involvement was even needed in the situation, and I still have hope that after some tedious discussions with many unnecessary distractions a generally acceptable framework for the list will emerge. ScienceApologist's false claim of an earlier consensus was an early such distraction. Elonka's involvement was such a distraction. The overreactions to her dubious methods was another. This request is yet another.

Statement by User:Shot_info in response to Penwhale

With respect to Penwhale comment above OM's calling for de-sysop of Elonka is absurd, as this is 1) a single incident, 2) she did NOT perform anything of what we relate to as normal administrative actions (deletion/blocking...) it should be noted that Elonka is providing the very evidence (see here) that will display that it is not a single incident - but instead is a long standing and consistant abuse of process by an admin. Likewise it can be agreed that she is not abusing "normal administrative actions" instead she is abusing her role as an administrator by making up and utilising her own policies that clash with a large and growing sector of the Community (as her RfC clearly showed). Being a so-called lightning rod isn't a badge of being correct. Its a clear sign that the Community is getting fed up with you. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Orangemarlin in response to GRBerry

You stated that, "One group of battling edit warriors in this mess has adopted a strategy (whether or not they are conscious of doing so I have no idea) of attacking essentially all active admins in the area." This comment smells like the old IDCab meme that has been thoroughly discredited, especially since you provide no proof whatsoever that there is a problem. Elonka is the problem here. Not editors. Please note few (if any) science admins get involved in these disputes, because they know that the science supports the removal of fringe or pseudoscience edits. But, you need to support your comments. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Coppertwig

I suggest that the Committee provide clarification as requested. Many of Elonka's actions are neither use of tools nor imposition of a sanction on a user, but other related actions such as stating that a page is not under discretionary sanctions; stating that a page is under discretionary sanctions; stating that specific conditions apply to editing a particular page; notifying users of potential sanctions, and maintaining lists and logs. My reading of the actual wording of the discretionary sanctions is that sanctions may be applied to a user; I don't see anything about applying sanctions to a page.

I suggest dividing such actions into two categories: those which the Committee considers to be part of a reasonable interpretation of the discretionary sanctions; and those about which the Committee states that it is making no comment because they are considered to be other actions by an admin, actions not contained directly within the act of applying such sanctions.

Coren has wisely said that these issues are complex. I realize that the Committee has a long agenda to work on, and that it's not easy to provide clarifications since anything the Committee says may have unintended consequences. However, I seem to remember decisiveness and speed being mentioned during the election, and I agree with FloNight that a quick response would be useful; although I think asking Elonka not to apply discretionary sanctions would be unnecessarily heavy-handed; if Elonka is not applying them as envisaged, guidance should be sufficient. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see an answer to MastCell's question. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Shell Kinney's interventions at the Chiropractic article, based on my limited experience as an infrequent editor at that page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I was also about to file a request for clarification of "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy." As MastCell writes above, Elonka has been using this to define her actions, whatever they are, as inviolable — unless overruled by consensus on AN/I — because she says she's enforcing an ArbCom remedy. During the recent situation, where she was keeping a list of editors on a talk page, several people asked her to remove it, but she refused, citing this ruling, saying that not even another admin could revert her. It would therefore be appreciated if the ArbCom could clarify — for example, by making clear that the ruling applies only to blocks, protection, or revert restrictions, and not to more imaginative remedies, which may be quite wrong-headed.

I would also ask the new ArbCom to consider whether the ruling is a healthy one to have at all. Admins have to be allowed to exercise their judgment. To be forced in every case to wait for consensus to emerge on AN/I, or for permission from ArbCom, no matter how much drama or unfairness the enforcement is causing, is to ask us never to use our common sense or initiative. But this remedy says no, ArbCom always knows best, and admins acting to enforce our remedies magically know best too. That attitude violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Yes, most of the time, it's best not to revert other admins without discussion, whether the ArbCom is involved or not, and that's a position I have always argued for. But sometimes, even if rarely, it might be important to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher: Admins reversing each other is nothing new. It used to happen a great deal more than it does now; when I became an admin in March 2005, it was a routine occurrence. My recollection is that the definition of wheel warring always excluded the first revert, something I recall arguing against, but the consensus was clear that admins had to be allowed to exercise their own judgment, which was seen as part of our checks and balances, providing a check against any one group or individual assuming too much power. The ruling we're discussing shifted that balance in favor of the ArbCom. My hope is that the new ArbCom might see that as not necessarily a good thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

• Regarding the Restriction_on_arbitration_enforcement_activity, I see this as another symptom of the accelerating deterioration of the admin corps. Admins should never reverse each others' actions without meaningful, informed discussion involving multiple points of view. Assuming such a discussion has taken place (the venue is largely irrelevant) and there is a consensus for reversal, there should be no dispute about modifying or reversing the original actions. Over the years the committee and the community have adopted ever-looser standards in this area, to the point that reversals of blocks and deletions without discussion are almost routine unless the subject is particularly notorious or the admin makes a stink. (One time, an admin reversed a checkuser block of mine without consultation, re-enabling the template vandal.) It is now written policy that reversing an admin is not wheel warring. It implicitly assumes bad faith on the part of the first admin and places the onus on the first admin to justify his actions rather than on the second admin to justify the reversal. Wikipedia in general, and AE in particular, is not going to climb out of the hole it is in until there is a sea change in people's attitudes.

• Claiming that an admin is involved in a dispute and is therefore banned from taking enforcement action at WP:AE is a timeworn and tired tactic.

• Placing a notice on someone's talk page, whether characterized as a warning or a notice, is not an enforcement action, it is a bit of bookkeeping intended to prevent the party from claiming ignorance when and if discretionary sanctions are applied. It is a courtesy. If Elonka has not actually issued a page ban, 1RR limit, or block to OrangeMarlin, then there is no issue here to be arbitrated. Frankly, OM or anyone else can remove those notices and it will have no effect on future enforcement, the point is that he has been made aware of the situation.

• Thanks to all for reminding me why I quit. Thatcher 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Per Shell Kinney, arbitrators should not undermine admins who undertake difficult enforcement tasks unless they have a really good reason for doing so. Thatcher 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

So if I'm reading what the Arbs are saying correctly, when an admin steps in to difficult situations and the editors being sanctioned begin to complain, the admin should then voluntarily withdraw from assisting in that situation. Am I the only one who feels this is a particularly virulent form of lunacy? If you're not going to support the people whom you authorize to carry out your decisions, how does the Committee expect to discharge its duty to resolve these disputes? Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to OrangeMarlin - I think you may have missed the first sentence of my statement where I indicated that I was opining on the Arbs response to the situation. However, I do believe your claims are a great deal more smoke than fire, but that's good marketing, not lunacy. The fact that editors who work in disputed areas and their buddies are all upset that Elonka's involvement means they can't carry on business as usual (which has found to be lacking in more than one case now) doesn't really carry much weight with me. Claims of "bias" or "POV" or "involvement" just dial up the rhetoric a notch and of course those folks who didn't get their way don't have "confidence" that Elonka is doing the right thing. As another admin that works in difficult areas and with difficult mediations, I've been accused of all number of things, none of which have ever turned out to be true (either that or I'm both a "fringe" and "science" supporter - it boggles the mind, no?).

I have seen cases handled by Elonka where I've thought "I might have handled that differently" or "I think that could have been done better" and in some cases, I've waded in to help make changes or discuss other ways of handling the situation but not once have I thought "That was damaging to the encyclopedia". There are experiments of Elonka's that have gone well and some that haven't, but again, I've got a lot of respect that she is trying new ideas and is listening to feedback and adapting her approach. This is why we have many admins and editors - their different viewpoints and experiences make us stronger as a whole. So I'm afraid that while Elonka and I don't always see eye to eye, I have yet to see any examples of mistakes that rise near the level where I'd suggest she find another hobby. Shell ^babelfish 14:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to KillerChihuahua - I've been asked to update my statement here as I failed to address some of the specific points made by KillerChihuahua and B regarding their interaction with Elonka in this situation. So to specifically address the edit warring and finally the escalation of a dispute to a case log page - let me just say that its hard to express how completely ridiculous I find the situation. If you disagree with the manner in which another admin handles any situation, there's no excuse not to talk it out. If you and the admin can't come to an agreement, involve more people in the discussion and develop a consensus. I can't fathom why anyone here thought it was appropriate to exert their will by reverting, especially on, of all things, a case log. All of you knew better. Screw the comments about SV ruling and other misdirection, if you don't know how to properly use dispute resolution - what are you doing interfering in an arbitration enforcement area? Shell ^babelfish 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jim62sch

Seems to me that [21] is just a bit threatening, and [22] is at best unhelpful. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Orangemarlin in response to Shell Kinney

So you're calling our complaints "lunacy"? Did you read any of the links that show how counterproductive and disruptive Elonka's warnings were to good-faith editors? Since Elonka is basing her power to stifle editing completely on a rather old ArbCom ruling, then ArbCom must either update it, support Elonka, or remove her from dealing with articles and editors with whom she is involved. So, in answer to your rather bad faith accusation that this is lunacy, it's perfectly rational to determine whether admins have this type of power. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sticky Parkin

I am uninvolved in this particular couple of articles, except with an interest in scepticism. Elonka has a clear 'opinion' when it comes to how these articles should be handled, one which is more sympathetic to pro-Alternative Medicine or whatever editors than most people might be. I would prefer User:JzG to enforce these articles, but then that shows my own opinion.:) To have Elonka arbitrating them is just as POV, IMHO. At lest JzG doesn't claim to be what he's not. Those editing these articles from a pro-science viewpoint (or at least, OM, and SA) clearly do not feel Elonka is uninvolved here, nor do they accept her ability to arbitrate. I personally feel she might have some New Age philosophy of some kind which she enjoys. Either way, it's not just her decisions which are called into question, even if her decisions have been perfect in the past, her ability to work with editors with certain opinions on these articles and thus enforce arbitration effectively is now unfortunately non-existent, and she should leave anyone else to do it, they are bound to be more successful, at lest at first, as people's opinions about them, and their own opinions about editors, will not have become ingrained. If Elonka has a list of people she believes are troublemaker editors on these articles, she clearly does not lack an opinion on them now and can't claim to be an outsider merely enforcing arbitration. Sticky Parkin 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SebastianHelm

I hope that this case will not lead to instruction creep. This is an isolated case of an administrator, who for a couple of days could not stay cool when it would have been wiser to do so. We already have a policy for that: WP:DR, which recommends to “stay cool” and, when that is not possible, to “disengage”.

I wrote to Elonka to remind her of that, but she did not heed my advice. (The communication consisted of 9 e-mails and actually started with another related case. Most of my questions remained unanswered. I agree with making the communication public.)

My preferred outcome would be:

1. clarification that administrators are not exempt from the recommendations of WP:DR;
2. a reminder to Elonka to give the advice of uninvolved, experienced editors serious thought and answer their questions about the reasons for controversial actions. — Sebastian 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

The clarification given to date is welcome, but unfortunately Elonka's response "So I will do my best to adapt to the community norms, even though I think that this will result in more severe admin actions than necessary. --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2009" looks very much like a threat to engage in WP:POINTy blocking of editors on the same dubious grounds as she has been issuing warnings. As I've commented on her talk page,[23] that would clearly be disruptive, and I hope that is not her intention. As discussed at ANI,[24] her intervention under the AE banner created a new dispute over her request for suggestions about sanctions, and subsequent decision to ignore the clear majority of responses to introduce her sanctions anyway. The arbiter's comments on discussion of admin actions is significant, as attempts to discuss these issues with her are met by actions such as deciding that the concerns are being raised by an "involved editor" and can be ignored.[25] As I recall, she has shown some willingness to rotate admin attention to dealing with controversial areas, and it appears to be time for her to step back from the pseudoscience area and let others deal with it, at least for a reasonable period. . dave souza, talk 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Actually, reviewing the evidence, I've found something highly disturbing.

In this diff Elonka threatens Orangemarlin with admin sanctions - at least in part for having criticised her. The statement "You have been making threats and false statements" links to [26][27]. She then accuses him of ignoring warnings, linking to him removing her own warnings from his talk page as evidence.

This is bad. Very bad. Elonka is clearly threatening to use her admin tools in order to further her dispute with Orangemarlin, and Orangemarlin's criticism of her, while blunt, is not "threats", and her very behaviour in reaction to it gives lie to it being a false statement - she is clearly too involved to see that threatening admin action against her critics for criticising her is a very bad thing to be doing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• This request was filed as a clarification but statements suggest this may have been misfiled, but is in fact a request for a full case. Could filing party please clarify?--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If request becomes a case, recuse due to my advices to Elonka. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to write an answer to you, so I'll do it here. Actually, I don't have an answer, since I'm a bit confused by the question. Since this filing was an attempt to clear up the interpretation of the original SA/Martin case to either allow or prevent Elonka from pursuing her agenda against editors such as myself, I thought that this was necessary. If you, in your opinion (and I have none) think it should be a full case, I wouldn't be opposed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if it gets opened again, actually. If this doesn't go into a full case, recusal doesn't really matter as a clerk. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, as I have taken related administrative action in my role as an oversighter prior to sitting on the arbitration committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• This issue has been discussed at many venues with no apparent resolution so far and therefore needs ArbCom attention —especially that one of the Martinphi-ScienceApologist's case remedies refers to an appeal of sanctions in case of emergence of doubts concerning qualifications of being an 'uninvoled admin'. I can see two problems here. a) Actions and involvment of an admin —while enforcing arbitration decisions— being questioned by a one or more editors and b) possible lack of help from other uninvolved admins. And I can think of two possible options: a) Investigate both Elonka's actions and those of editors and see if there are any possible abuses from any party and b) see if there's a need to have more admins willing to help. I personally believe that the presence of one admin —in a hot area— is both insufficient and less helpful —since more views are always better than one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Two issues that need to be addressed. 1) If AE is well served by the Discretionary sanctions remedy. This question is best left to the general review that is happening now in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. 2) If Elonka's continued participation in the enforcement of this specific case remedy in the best interest of dispute resolution specific to this situation, and more generally is her further use of discretionary sanctions helpful to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The second issue needs to be resolved promptly, and can not wait for a fuller review of AE, so I suggest a motion either directing Elonka to stop participating in AE or maybe more narrowly directing her not to use Discretionary sanctions. Thoughts? FloNight♥♥♥ 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think this requires the Committee's attention, but I also thing that the problem is more complex and intricate than first appears, and certainly more complex than can be justifiably handled with a summary motion. I recommend this be moved to a request for a full case, which I would accept; stopgap measures that may be required could be made as injuctions in such a case, as the need arises. — Coren ^(talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • At the end of the last year, the Committee saw the need to get feedback from the Community about our methods of enforcement. I'm reluctant to open a new round of discussion related to the Fringe/Pseudoscience topic or issue more Discretionary sanctions remedies or substitute your new Supervised Editing sanction until the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement is finished. I prefer to do something more limited now. There is no point in opening a full case about this issue until we decide whether to make changes to AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree here and that is a good idea. I prefer waiting for the Arbitration enforcement RfC to finish since there is some considerable activity going on there. I believe a kind of an injection is necessary in order to offer the RfC a chance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse I have taken admin actions on both sides of this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with FloNight. I'd also make a general comment to those involved that there's a lot of inflammatory comments flying around and that the involved parties know quite well enough how to handle matters at the community level in a calmer fashion using the appropriate channels. Vassyana (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As regards the previous motion referred to, I am inclined to interpret it only as it regards administrative actions. Warnings and user lists quite simply do not fall under that remit. (I must admit, I more than a bit baffled and concerned to see the limited edit warring over the list described as wheel warring.) That said, Thatcher may well be on to something when he speaks about the degradation of the admin corps and the interactions thereof. There's a serious issue if admins need to be specifically instructed to exercise some sense and caution in overturning arbitration enforcement actions, or to avoid taking administrative actions that are almost assured to cause more problems than they solve. I believe that these issues could be resolved (at least in large part) by the community. This could be accomplished through the normal means of establishing and revising community norms and policy. Obviously, in cases where an administrator is not responsive to community consensus and feedback, arbitration would still remain an option. Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Brief reply to Shell Kinney: Not at all. Vassyana (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In reponse to more recent comments: Consider trout-slappings applied liberally all around, as appropriate. That said, everyone involved knows the way to user talk pages, ANI and RfC (and knows how to move on to the next step if one doesn't work). Even better, get a DR experienced editor from MedCab or MedCom to help everyone talk things out in a civil and productive manner. Mediators have experience in getting people in heated disputes to sit down and have a polite chat. This situation could use a whole lot more of people talking with each other, than at each other. Vassyana (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The request brought before us is more complex than meets the eye. There is a general question of whether discretionary sanctions are an appropriate administrative responsibility, and I agree with others that that particular discussion is better suited to the RFC. The questions specific to this issue are:
  • Was the degree of editorial misbehaviour present on the article sufficient to require that discretionary sanctions be employed? I'm seeing an article that had been protected for a short period, with relatively good discussion occurring on its talk page. The fact of the article being indefinitely protected isn't particularly relevant; that simply means it's protected until the issues are resolved. Elonka's offer to "administer" the article a few days earlier appeared to have been rebuffed. I'd like to see some commentary specifically focusing on this point.
  • Was the notice/warning Elonka gave to OrangeMarlin (and other editors) within the scope of the discretionary sanctions? Leaving aside the question of whether or not she is an involved editor or whether or not discretionary sanctions should have kicked in, the notice/warning is exactly what the sanctions require, and I would not fault Elonka for giving the warning.
  • The list of editors which Elonka placed on the talk page of the article involved was hotly contested. Is such a list appropriate? This is a more difficult question, because the discretionary sanctions as written are intended to be editor-specific as opposed to article-specific. I'm not clear in what way the list of editors falls within the scope of the discretionary sanctions; it stretches the phrase "any other measures" a pretty long way, and I am hard pressed to say that its presence on the talk page is protected by the "rules" of discretionary sanctions, and therefore removing it is probably not a violation of the discretionary sanctions per se.
  • Finally, there is the issue of whether or not Elonka is an "involved" editor/administrator. To a large extent this revolves around the fact that Elonka has chosen to focus significant administrative time and energy on applying discretionary sanctions to articles relating to and editors working in a relatively narrow topic area. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. Is there a point where an administrator's chosen interest in managing content disputes in a specific area, where the same core group of editors contribute, stops being helpful? I'm not sure that I have seen such a perception all that often before; however, Elonka's methodology is quite different than that used by several other administrators, and that may have an effect on how her actions are being perceived. Risker (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• My views here are that the general issues with Arbitration Enforcement should be addressed at the RfC, while individual problems should be dealt with by dispute resolution or a request for arbitration if all other options have failed. My view is also that the "don't overturn an ArbCom enforcement action" motion was meant to apply to specific actions about named individuals, not to broad topic or article management. Some motions clarifying that one way or the other would probably be good here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Motions

NOTE: There are 16 arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so there are 14 active on this case, so 8 the base majority. For motions with 1 or 2 abstentions, the majority is 7.

Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification

The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity is clarified to apply only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment.

Support

1. Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Per my comments below. This should be considered general guidance, not directed at any specific administrator. Risker (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Kirill 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
7. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
8. As a temporary measure until the matter is addressed at the request for comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am concerned with the issue raised in the last paragraph of Elonka's comments. I also believe that the motion previously adopted was insufficiently nuanced in some respects (including some that were addressed in my alternate motion of the time, which was not adopted). I believe that a better course of action here would be to address this issue in the context of reactions to the RfC on arbitration enforcement which, as noted in the motion, is pending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. Agree that a provisional measure is some type is needed. Does it need to be more specific about the situation presented to us by Orangemarlin? Or will the involved parties understand how this motion pertains to them? FloNight♥♥♥ 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

   I believe it is best to focus on the clarification, as this is pretty much a request for clarification. The application of these clarifications in retrospect and going forward should be readily apparent. Both are relatively simple and to the point. However, if the clarifications counterproductively lack clarity for the involved parties or AE-active admins, I would welcome comments explaining the confusion and/or unintended consequences. Vassyana (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Noting comments made in relation to this motion: No one should be reverting warnings regardless of whether or not it falls under arbitration restrictions, unless they're well outside of our communal norms. (As an obvious example, if someone is involved in an acrimonious edit war on an article and leaves a groundless vandalism warning, it's blatantly trolling and can be handled as such.) If someone disagrees with a warning, there's the warning admin's talk page, the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard and a host of other appropriate places to raise concerns or engage in community discussion about the action. However, this is not carte blanche to punish an editor for removing a warning from their user talk page. Long-standing norms permit editors to remove notes from their talk page as received and is generally interpreted to mean that the user has seen the warning (or in other words, the intended purpose of notifying the editor has been served). This motion, and all other ArbCom actions, need to be interpreted in the proper (and broader) context of the full body of relevant and established rules and norms. Vassyana (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Similar to Vassyana's comments, I'll just point out that it is not possible to "un-warn" someone. Once an editor-specific warning is given, it is given; if the editor removes the warning from their page, it is considered to have been read and understood. This applies regardless of whether the warning is related to arbitration enforcement. Warnings given inappropriately may later be redacted by the administrator or by a strong consensus, but that doesn't mean they weren't given in the first place. I would be extremely concerned if an administrator decided to block, ban, or impose some other restraint on an editor rather than warning the editor, just so it would "stick". Arbitration enforcement lowers the threshold at which administrative actions can be taken, but administrators are still expected to work within the framework of our established practices. Risker (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of administrator actions

Administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution. The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

Support

1. Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Communication is key when acting as an administrator. — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. absolutely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Despite the ongoing RFC, I believe this issue should be clarified now so that administrators working in this area are provided with guidance as they continue their activities in arbitration enforcement. This should be considered general guidance, not directed at any one administrator. Risker (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Kirill 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
8. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Relatedly, "[t]he committee appreciates the work of administrators who assist with enforcing its decisions, including by participating at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. The norm that one administrator should generally not overturn another's action without either consulting with the administrator who took the action or attaining an on-wiki consensus is especially applicable to arbitration enforcement actions." (from my prior proposed motion in November) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
10. As temp measure until the matter is addressed after the request for comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Although this rule should not be used as a weapon to hit at administrators after obviously vexatious requests for explanation of matters that have already been explained. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

1. Same comment as above. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cold fusion topic bans (February 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement by JzG

This concerns the topic ban of Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion.

Note, current dispute is here. Thatcher 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As the evidence page makes clear, Pcarbonn's agenda was supported by Jed Rothwell of lenr-canr.org - in fact, it was rather the other way round. For many months, Rothwell has promoted his site on Wikipedia through talk page postings solely related to cold fusion. He and Pcarbonn also collaborated on a knol which seeks to "balance" the newly NPOV'd article on cold fusion, see [28]. I believe it was Rothwell who published Pcarbonn's self-congratulatory article on how he had "won the battle" on Wikipedia. Rothwell's relentless promotion of his website was a factor in it being blacklisted ([29]) and since Pcarbonn's topic ban Rothwell has resurfaced several times at different IPs (he has been IP-hopping for a long time, his account JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially abandoned). I have extended the topic ban to cover Rothwell on the grounds that:

• He is furthering the same WP:BATTLE that got Pcarbonn sanctioned
• He is effectively editing on behalf of a banned user
• He is a disruptive single-purpose account
• He assiduously promotes his own website

It would seem to me to be utterly perverse to fail to do this. A restriction would be in order anyway due to trolling, WP:SPA concerns, WP:FRINGE violations, questions over linking to copyright material hosted in violation of copyright and so on; as it happens the behaviour of Jed Rothwell is also precisely analogous to that which got Pcarbonn topic-banned only less civil.

I thought this was simple and obvious, but there is some kickback. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why, but I think it's probably worth requesting clarification that, in cases where someone exhibits similar behaviour and supports the same agenda as a topic-banned user, and that person is known to be a close collaorator of the restricted user in an area where the restriction applies, and the individual is a single-purpose account, then the same restriction may be applied. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Dan: A "tight clique"? Of "well-connected Wikipedians?" I don't know whether to chide you for WP:ABF or to laugh out loud at the hilariously inaccurate idea that I am part of a clique of well-connected anything! I have been an outsider pretty much all my life, and that's pushing towards the half century mark now. Where does this clique supposedly communicate? I cannot even begin to take your comment seriously - the whole problem with Pcarbonn is precisely that he does not fit your characterisation, he was the very archetype of a civil POV-pusher, which is why it took such an unconscionably long time to get him dealt with properly. Rothwell is more uncivil, I will grant you, but even then he scarcely fits the model you describe and I absolutely cannot see how your characterisation of a clique fits in any meaningful way with this case. I think you are seeing cabals under the bed to mix a metaphor. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: Gen ato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be another WP:SPA who has piled right in with POV edits like [30] and argumentation. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Thatcher

This is obvious. The principle you want has been made explicit in many cases and I see no reason to force a long process and vote here. Apply the topic ban. Thatcher 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dan, we're not talking about getting rid of all proponents of cold fusion, and we're not even talking about the applications of discretionary sanctions. We're talking about an editor whose edits and agenda are substantially the same as an editor who was topic banned by a 7-1 vote of Arbcom in the actual arbitration case. Having a friend, colleague or business associate make edits on your behalf after you have been banned from making them is certainly grounds for extension of the topic ban to the second editor. Thatcher 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Two editors are defending that the ban does not exist because:

1. there was not enough discussion at the AN thread discussing the ban
2. the ban is not listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
3. none of his previous IPs were blocked
4. his abandoned account User:JedRothwell is not blocked
5. the banning admin is involved

It should be made clear that none of the above are requirements for a WP:BAN. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A few days before his ban, I had already reported Jed to WP:AE here with a lot of diffs showing OR, COI, wikilawyering to ignore reliable sources, etc.

Reply to Tobias: Jed doesn't need to be goaded, he can be as unreasonable as necessary all by himself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Abd: Uh, arbcom already ratified "an exclusion of COI and SPA editors from Talk, based on POV" when it banned User:Pcarbonn for his edits on the talk page. And they did the same with User:DanaUllman. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharot: I totally agree that these problems come from using WP:MEAT as one of the reasons for the topic ban. As you say, he simply should have been topic banned for the same reasons as Pcarbonn. There were enough other reasons to topic ban Jed without invoking WP:MEAT. Ídem for Gen Ato, any ban should be under its own reasons and under under WP:MEAT.

To clarify, there are two different solutions that are getting confused:

• formally extend Pcarbonn's arbcom ban so that it also covers Jed (this needs a motion)
• topic ban Jed for the same reasons that Pcarbonn was banned, with no relationship to Pcarbonn's ban other than using the same reasons (this doesn't need a motion)

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jed's attitude

Jed:

• is decided to violate his ban because he has nothing to lose [31].
• has zero repentance and/or acceptance of any fault of his own: he believes that he was not banned because of his behaviour or attitude, but because of "ignorant bullies who shred [his] reputation in public", "extremists", replacement of expert works with nonsense, etc [32]. (and this is just his latest comment)
• self-explanatory: "apparently you people are trying to ban me by banning the IP. Good luck! You will have to ban all of BellSouth. (...)I did not realize what "IP hopper" meant, but I am glad to see that I have stumbled upon a method of defeating you, and annoying you."[33] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gen Ato

This guy was making a school project to see if wikipedia had a "firewall" to prevent the insertion on articles of "other scientifically credited and published points of view", and then make his pupils discuss our reactions, see User_talk:Gen_ato#Thank_You.2C_My_experiment_was_successful.21. Totally unrelated to Jed, Pcarbonn and any of their goals. The experiment is now finished, so it's not worth doing bannign anything as the disruption has stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The relevant policy is WP:MEAT. A meatpuppet account may not be used to circumvent a topic ban. Any such accounts may be blocked to enforce the ban. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

Banning people because they have a strong opinion on one side of a contentious issue, while leaving those with similarly strong opinions on the other side with free rein, seems hardly like a good way to ensure balanced NPOV on that topic. A famous case in the past history of Wikipedia of that vein was the Naked short selling, Mantanmoreland (et al) vs. Wordbomb (et al) case, where some of the same people arguing for a tough line against Rothwell (et al) were supporters of the "Zero tolerance, shoot on sight" slanted policy in that earlier case... see where it ended up. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar sequences of events in lots of cases. When a tight clique of well-connected Wikipedians wants to marginalize some viewpoint as "fringe", the thing to do is first get a leading advocate of that position banned (or at least topic-banned). Perhaps he even deserves it; it's advantageous to pick the most uncivil, unreasonable, COI, obsessive-compulsive person as the designated target. However, it might still be necessary to goad him a little; be uncivil to him in the hopes he retaliates in kind to give an excuse to ban him; quote heaps of acronym-soup Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays at him and then accuse him of wikilawyering if he actually tries to rigorously comply with them; and keep moving the goalposts around until he gets frustrated and lashes back. Then, get him banned, preferably with a minimum of actual community discussion. If discussion is needed, present a slanted, biased account of how pernicious he is; don't worry about getting facts straight because it's your word against his, and you're the respected Wikipedian. Then, once the ban is solid, apply the "If a banned user says 2+2=4, everybody else had better say it's 3 or 5, or else they're acting in concert with a banned user to promote his agenda!" rule to suppress all other viewpoints of a similar nature, even if expressed civilly. If you can blacklist all outside sites that have such opinions in them, all the better. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by TS

I think we're going to have to go to a motion. The contrarian tendency has the bit between its teeth, so it's best to go by the book in such cases. I'm sorry, I'm a great fan of "Ignore all rules", but that doesn't work in cases like this. --TS 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For evidence, all that is needed is this edit on User talk:Phil153 in which Jed Rothwell completely misses the point made by Phil153 in the comment to which he is replying, refers to Phil153 and others as "you skeptics", and promotes an extremely partisan position (his own). This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and comments of that sort should not be made on Wikipedia. A topic ban would be appropriate, if only to spare the valuable time those who have already done excellent work in salvaging the cold fusion article. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --TS 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do your homework, Carcharoth. He was topic banned some time ago but there are some people wikilawyering over it. Do not falsely accuse Guy of acting pre-emptively. --TS 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with Carcharoth that the grounds need to be clarified. Jed Rothwell's conduct and stated purpose in editing are incompatible with Wikipedia. Whether he is or is not a meatpuppet, or sharing opinions with somebody else who has also been been banned (because of that person's conduct, not his opinions), or has or has not got a professional relationship with the other person, is not material here. The issue is that a pattern of disruption has re-emerged in the wake of an arbitration case that was supposed to address that disruption. --TS 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd take Gen.ato's claim that he was performing a "test" with a pinch of salt. It's a fairly well known face-saving device in online communities to say "I was testing you." I don't think there are any serious conduct issues with Gen.ato; he has probably simply not yet had time to adjust to the difference between Italian and English Wikipedia. --TS 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

There is no apparent meat puppetry, no evidence has been presented of that. Rothwell and Pcarbonn are unrelated, as far as anything I've seen. JzG is an involved editor and, if needed, evidence can be provided (it's blatant from Cold fusion article history). JzG is bringing this here prematurely; only the first step of WP:DR had been applied. There are many examples of abuse of admin tools in the record, in my opinion, but attempts to resolve this at a low level were far from complete. ArbComm should not decide on a ban of an editor without the necessary process protections. JzG has asserted block violation by Rothwell, but the record shows the opposite, apparently. Rothwell apparently complied with JzG's involved (and therefore improper) block on December 18, and did not return to editing except after a month. JzG appears to have blocked a different IP editor based on presumed similarity of position, when the behavior of that other editor was clearly different and there is no sign that Rothwell would partition his behavior in that way; then JzG asserted block violation as a reason for his new block. The problem is that an involved administrator has become prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, pursuing his own clearly expressed bias and POV, which apparently warps his administrative judgment. All of this could be established with clarity from the record. I was hoping to avoid that, but JzG has pushed the issue here. There are many other related issues, as well, of major import. The blacklist is being used to assert a content position, not merely to prevent linkspam; it's been applied, by JzG, to back up his edits removing sources that were considered acceptable by editorial consensus. Talk page edits by Rothwell, not containing a link but merely the name of his domain -- his title -- are the only evidence presented for linkspam, and another simultaneous blacklisting, of newenergytimes.com, was also accomplished by him -- not following the blacklist procedure -- without any evidence of linkspam, not even weak. This is a personal agenda and content position being implemented with admin tools, without consensus, and it is damaging the project.

I had been considering whether or not to take the issue of the block of Rothwell IP to AN, given that a request to JzG didn't accomplish reversal, but had not concluded that it would be worthy of the possible disruption. I was considering finding another editor to mediate the dispute, then possible formal mediation, and only if these failed would I have considered escalating. But JzG apparently considers this worthy of immediate ArbComm attention. I would strongly object to a premature decision here. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion "Apply the topic ban" implies a judgment on the merits of the claim made by JzG that alleged similarity of POV is sufficient to establish meat puppetry, a very dangerous judgment in a field where there are many with the POV, including authors being published in peer-reviewed journals. I see only two reasonable courses for ArbComm: decline the case as premature, given that all that existed is that two editors requested an unblock from JzG, no wider review had been undertaken except a little discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, and the protesting editors had not escalated; or take the case and examine it in detail, based on issues of possible administrative abuse, or, on the other hand, the possibility that JzG's allegations are true and his behavior appropriate even if outside of normal process. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion that Rothwell published Pcarbonn's article is false. The article was published on newenergytimes.com, an on-line magazine, and the editor of that is certainly not a friend of Rothwell. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The WP:SPA argument is irrelevant and specious in context. Rothwell is an expert in the field, published, and the "librarian" of the most complete bibliography and repository of permitted copies for free access of published papers on the internet, on the topic (positive and negative or neutral). As someone with a COI, he's expected not to contentiously edit the article, and he doesn't. He only comments in Talk. So, ArbComm is being asked to ratify an exclusion of COI and SPA editors from Talk, based on POV, which would seal and enshrine a general exclusion of minority opinion, no matter how notable. Rothwell is sometimes uncivil, but that's common with experts. It should be addressed directly, not complicated with matters of "fringe" and the rest. He's been treated uncivilly with, for example, false or unsupported allegations of copyright violation; if we could stop and prevent that, we might be able to engage with him more positively. Or not, and then he'd be properly blocked for that, not for merely expressing his allegedly fringe opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• No claim is made by me that Rothwell should not be banned, though it would set a bad precedent. It's moot at the moment, he's blocked, properly or not. However, a topic ban would deserve careful consideration, and the situation is complicated by long-term incivility against him, prior action against him by an involved admin that wasn't questioned and was thus assumed to represent the whole community (which appears to have not noticed it), false allegations of copyright violation (this is actually libel in context), and other issues that could easily explain incivility or rash comments in response. Normally, we wouldn't ban from an RfAr request like JzG's, without prior community process, and without opportunity for full presentation of evidence, etc. The only prior process that I can find is an inconclusive AN report, low participation, there was no neutral closing admin, no binding warning to the editor, and only an involved admin who argued for a ban, decided it, and acted on it. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I have been asked to provide evidence regarding the involvement of JzG in Cold fusion and his administrative actions taken in neglect of his involvement, I have created an evidence page at User:Abd/JzG with a record of his edits to Cold fusion and his related administrative actions (involving the use of admin tools). I conclude that JzG was an involved editor, and used his tools to further his position in disputes. He deleted a relevant Talk page, recently active; he edited a page to his preferred version and then protected it; he edited articles with links accepted by consensus to remove the links and then blacklisted the web sites to prevent reversion; and he blocked editors based on POV. And this is just with respect to Cold fusion, he's very active elsewhere. I had no prior dispute with JzG, indeed, I respected him and had been supported by him. It's puzzling and sad. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the middle of this, JzG archived his Talk page with the discussion about his block of Rothwell, which is elsewhere cited here. This is a permanent link to the discussion as it sat when archived (three relevant sections). --Abd (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Roger Davies wrote, This can be (and should be) dealt with by the community first. Absolutely. What I've presented here was simply to point out the danger of jumping to conclusions, I was concerned that ArbComm might, as hinted by some, issue a motion without going through the process of allowing presentation of evidence and adequate discussion, etc., and based on a radical bypass of normal community process by a premature direct appeal to ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:GoRight

I came into this as a completely uninvolved editor. I only became aware of the controversy surrounding the Cold Fusion case through User:Abd. I have not made any content contributions to the page because I am familiarizing myself with the topic. As part of that effort I was reading the talk page for Cold Fusion where I came upon the "reminder" that Rothwell is topic banned. As someone who is currently under an editing restriction I am familiar with the normal process for instituting such a thing. As a point of interest I decided to look into the specifics of this ban. What I found was disturbing, IMHO.

The first thing I did was check Wikipedia:Editing restrictions to verify that the ban was recorded. This seems a simple thing. As one would expect we find User:Pcarbonn listed there, but not a word about Rothwell. Thinking this might have been an oversight I went back and reviewed the community discussion where the topic ban had supposedly taken place here and here. What I found was a small handful of mostly involved editors expressing general support for a topic ban but no particular declaration thereof as one would expect. I assume that a community ban requires more than just a handful of editors complaining on WP:AN. In response to queries for additional evidence of a ban I was directed to this. This is the only place where I have found a direct assertion of a ban having been imposed. On it's face this appears to be User:JzG simply making a unilateral declaration of a topic ban. Again, I assume that a community ban requires more than just one administrator, no matter how well meaning, to institute a ban.

Even so, I did not want to assume anything so I sought direct confirmation of the ban from User:JzG who was the administrator making the assertion, and asked him to clarify whether he believed that an enforcible topic ban was in place for Rothwell and, if so, to please record that fact at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so that uninvolved administrators would have the benefit of this clear identification of such and thereby facilitate the enforcement of the ban, if it existed. This too seemed straight forward if such a ban actually existed. Failing to record a topic ban will only aid the banned user, no?

Well no such clear recording of the ban has been forthcoming, which leads me to the conclusion that the ban does not actually exist despite the best intentions of those making the claim. I have taken no particular action based on this conclusion other than to assert it and to repeat my request that, if a ban actually exists, that it be properly recorded. I have reverted nothing of Rothwell's.

I claim that there is no policy that directly makes a topic ban transitive from one use to another. The action taken against User:Pcarbonn does not mention any other users, so to assert that User:Pcarbonn's ban is actually also a topic ban for some other editor seems ludicrous. What is the basis for deciding which other users should formally have a ban on them as well? There is none. It is completely arbitrary. Therefore in my view it should be obvious that the action taken against User:Pcarbonn in no way restricts the ability of other users to express their own independent opinions. There is no disagreement that User:Pcarbonn and Rothwell are separate individuals. Rothwell is thus free to express his own opinions.

Now, WP:MEAT certainly could apply IF there is clear evidence that Rothwell is merely editing on User:Pcarbonn's behalf (as opposed to expressing his own personal views). I have requested that such evidence be put forth, but to the best of my knowledge no direct evidence of this has been provided. The fact that Rothwell and User:Pcarbonn share similar views and may even have interacted off-wiki is certainly not clear evidence that Rothwell's actions are being directed by User:Pcarbonn as WP:MEAT would require. We can't just take a ban on one user and use that as a mechanism to silence other users who happen to share similar views.

In the end, my only purpose in all of this was to get a clear and unambiguous statement as to whether Rothwell actually does have a topic ban, or not, and if so to have that recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so that all of this senseless and time consuming bickering over the point can be put to rest.

While I accept that User:JzG has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart and is acting in good faith, I also believe that he is clearly involved in the dispute and has been using his administrative tools against a user who, as far as I can see, does not have a topic ban against him. In that sense this is merely a content dispute between User:JzG and Rothwell. I am not seeking any actions be taken against User:JzG in this case, but I would certainly think that all of the following principles which were expressed in prior arbcom rulings are applicable in this case:

• Compliance
• Use of administrative tools in a dispute
• Bad Blood
• Good intentions
• Harassment is disruptive

I offer these merely for your review and consideration. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would also say that I agree with the observation below that the existing policies are sufficient to deal with this editor if his behavior continues unabated. Specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT and, if proven, WP:MEAT are more than sufficient to address the concerns here. I, personally, would not favor the introduction of a topic ban on this editor since such action is, again in my view, unnecessary. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Thatcher and other proponents of the WP:MEAT view of the situation, where is the evidence that Rothwell is acting on User:Pcarbonn's behalf or direction? Are we able to apply WP:MEAT to anyone with no evidence? --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To the arbitors, please answer the fundamental question. Does Rothwell have a topic ban imposed specifically on him? If so, should this not be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? If not, should all of his edits be removed on sight or is he free to make constructive, on-topic, and civil edits or comments on Cold Fusion (yes, I know that this is rare, apparently)? Can (and/or should) the WP:MEAT argument be applied to any and all editors who may be sympathetic to User:Pcarbonn's position (even without evidence of collaboration)? --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an example, User:JzG is now trying to expand the ban to include User:Gen ato simply because he appears to share some of User:Pcarbonn's viewpoint. Do we have evidence of WP:MEAT in this case as well or are we simply going to blindly label people in this manner? --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to be sure that I understand the facts and intentions expressed in the arbitrator votes/discussion below and that I come away from this proceeding with the right message in mind. It would appear to be in the best interests of the project over-all for everyone to do so. I think that I am hearing the following:

1. They are collectively and EXPLICITLY deciding to NOT endorse a topic ban against Rothwell, although some have expressed a willingness to do so if that became necessary.
2. They are collectively agreeing that the existing policies already in place are sufficient to deal with Rothwell and, therefore, no such endorsement of a topic ban against him is required at this time.
3. They are collectively asserting that the entire issue can and should be dealt with by the community before bringing it to this forum.

I don't presume to speak for the arbitrators so if any of this is incorrect, please by all means correct me on these points. --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

statement by DGG

There is a secondary issue here which is I think of the utmost importance. JzG is not an uninvolved editor on this subject and has no business making blocks or bans in this area. This is blatant abused of admin privileges, slightly ameliorated by his voluntarily bringing it here. I have no view on the underlying issue of what to do about Rothwell, but I think a topic ban against JzG is called for--and least an injunction of any further actions in this area that do are appear to make use of the admin bit. DGG (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Objectivist

There is no doubt that Pcarbonn and Jed Rothwell have a particular POV. There is also no doubt that other editors have a conflicting POV. But there is a lot of doubt regarding the phrase "meat puppet". To support a particular POV, there is usually a particular set of data available. Two people sharing the same POV are naturally going to reference the same data, in stating their views. To truly qualify as a "meat puppet", one would have to exhibit the same style of phrasing as another --and even then there can be doubt. How many twins or long-married couples are able to finish each other's sentences, after all? I therefore submit that the claim of meat-puppetry is a baseless trumped-up charge.

Next, regarding "link spamming", what about the classic quote: "There is no accounting for taste."? Different people have different notions about what they consider to be spam. Let us pretend for the moment that the ancient Library of Alexandria still existed in full glory, and had full access via a Web address. Most of its works would be copyright-free. How much of Wikipedia would contain links to that site, because that is where the source-data is located? If the Head Librarian posted to Wikipedia, and always included in message-signing the phrase "Head Librarian, library-of-alexandria.org", how is that a "link spam"? It is not a whole Web address! Are you going to ban that person simply because of being proud to hold that position? And will you also treat that Library the way various religions did in History? "If it holds writings disagreeing with the Holy Book, they are heretical. If it holds writing agreeing with the Holy Book, they are superfluous. Burn them all." (In modern terms, ban references to it-that-holds-the-source-data.)

Next, has anyone considered the possibility that there simply might not be an acceptable way to state certain things about "Cold Fusion" without injecting one POV or the other? Even the very definition of that name has been edited multiple times. Perhaps a phrase like "cold fusion proponents claim" could be used extensively, in order to present relevant information in a neutral way, and a similar phrase could be used with regard to claims made by opponents of cold fusion. However, those phrases would likely have to be used in so many places as to be literally (literarily?) cumbersome --yet without such qualifiers, we are left with specific-POV statements only, which leads to an edit war, and bannings, and proposed bannings.

Isn't there a famous quote to the effect that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch?" All it takes to institute a ban here, apparently, is enough users of one POV clique or the other. The "losing" POV can be decimated that way, one banned user at a time. My Statement here is: "This is what seems to be happening now."

Would it not be better simply to divide a controversial article into an introductory section (neutral POV should be relatively easy there), followed by POV-pro and POV-con sections? If clearly marked as such, why would any Wikipedia reader complain about it? So, to the extent that true neutrality may not be possible to achieve, it nevertheless remains possible to achieve balance . Then Wikipedia can ban users who mess up the "other side's" POV, when doing so is simply senseless --it could only be vandalism. V (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

This seems like a pretty basic, if important question. Can we take staightforward actions to protect the encyclopedia's goals and standards? Or have we reached the point where such action, as often as not, bogs down in [REDACTED - I can't think of a charitable way to characterize it]? Do we have to flog all the old warhorses every single time? I'm actually about to lose a $5 bet with another admin because no one has mentioned BADSITES yet - I should have bet on Mantanmoreland instead. :P

We're talking about a clear case of WP:ADVOCACY, and violations of this site's standards and purpose over more than 2 years. Blocking IPs used by this editor to commit further violations should be an uncontroversial call. If the concern is that Guy, an involved editor, made the blocks, then I propose that he contact me the next time one of this editor's IP's pops up. To argue that blocks are inappropriate because the editor's abandoned account has never been indef-blocked seems - again, I can't think of a charitable term, but I have rectified that concern ex post facto. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil153

I realize the arbs have already voted but I want to provide evidence to preempt this needless drama in future, and counter claims of suppression within Wikipedia. I think the following are clear cut:

• The ban of Rothwell is completely uncontroversial per our policies on talk page etiquette and behavior.

In addition to the points by others above:

• Rothwell does not seek to improve the article despite repeated requests and continues to post only off topic content and OR. Requests:[34][35][36][37]
• Rothwell spams text links to his site in nearly all his signatures, and elsewhere, even after being asked to stop [38][39][40](self promotion - today)
• Rothwell is unusually uncivil and disruptive, even stating that this is his intention. See contrib history, diffs above, plus intention: [41][42]
• This behavior has gone unchecked for long periods, even while JzG was aware of it. No one was trying to suppress Jed's comments. He was asked nicely to be constructive and was told he would be welcome to discuss suggestions to improve the article. He declined , both explicitly [43] and by later actions.

Given the above, the claims of some systemic suppression of particular POVs surrounding this ban appear to be nothing but dramamongering. Jed has been given free reign on the CF talk page for months, and has chosen not to change his behavior.

• JzG acted with established consensus, and not unilaterally regarding JedRothwell.

• Jed's disruptive, entirely off topic editing was noted by many editors, and the need for a ban was mentioned by other editors: Talk:Cold_fusion#Topic_ban_reminding, Talk:Cold_fusion#Jed_Rothwell, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_20#Formal_warning (there are other examples)
• Previous accounts by Jed have a history of disruption and blocks, as noted by others. See, for example:

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the corresponding block discussion

• JzG is an involved administrator with something of a POV on cold fusion.

Several edits point to this, although I believe them to be good faith if very poorly executed. [44][45]

• JzG is acting in good faith with ample clue as an administrator and despite the point above, it's obvious that nothing about this block is improper.

For quick reference, here are JedRothwell's IP contributions since Nov 2008: 68.219.153.157,208.89.102.50
208.65.88.140, 68.219.198.240, 208.65.88.200, 68.158.255.197, 208.89.102.114, 68.217.47.115, 68.219.153.139, 69.228.201.246, 68.219.153.139, 68.219.54.221, 68.19.97.69 (the above was added at 23:33, 29 January 2009 by Phil153)

• Comment on why JzG's request for clarification is important.

Arbcom previously ruled in the cold fusion case that a particular civil POV pusher who editing with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy, and caused significant disruption, should be topic banned. But what are we to do if another editor comes along who obviously and beyond all doubt fits the same profile, and is not an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Is another 20 day formal arbitration process needed? Or can clue can be reasonably applied and the other user blocked under the same general sanctions? That was JzG's reasoning, but it was pushed back hard by user Abd (who also (partly?) disagreed with Pcarbonn's banning). So he brought it here for clarification on the general scope of an Arbcom sanction, which has not been forthcoming by most of the committee. In this particular case, the issue was moot, since the user could be banned under other policies. But the general question still remains. It would be nice to see the committee either shoot down the idea and limit the scope of sanctions and clue as relates to Arbcom decisions, so we clearly know what is and isn't appropriate. Or make clear that it is sufficient to follow the spirit of a ruling in obvious cases and in good faith without needing further procedure (i.e. not a bureaucracy). It is precisely this lack of clarity which has led to this long request for clarification. Phil153 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Echoing the concerns of ABD and DGG above: JzG has edited the subject extensively and ought to recuse from administrative intervention there. It's easy enough to post a review request to one of the admin boards when necessary. Appropriate recusal is especially important at high tension subjects that have been through arbitration. Durova^Charge! 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt re: admin recusal

While I agree with ABD and DGG above that JzG seems to be an 'involved' user within this subject matter, the filing of this topic ban clarification/application here would (imo) cover the idea that 'review and/or action by others should happen' when someone is involved. Perhaps, this is not the correct venue, but seems well enough and has generated appropriate discussion of the issues and editors for any 'uninvolved admin' to act in a manner the protects the encyclopedia. As such, while I would like to see less admin action from JzG in these situations, I don't think he's been inappropriate with his actions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree with Thatcher. It is quite clear that Jed Rothwell, editing through various IP addresses, has been responsible for all the above. In the event that it is not generally accepted to be an application of ignoring rules then I would propose a motion to give the topic ban the formal endorsement of the committee but at the moment I see no reason to engage in pointless procedure on an obvious decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify something raised by Dan T., it does not matter which side editors are on; if we have a dispute where those on one side remain reasonable while those on the other side push their POV and edit-war, then the sanctions are not going to be balanced among the sides. All editors, regardless of their own POV, are supposed to write neutrally. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• I too concur with Thatcher and Sam Blacketer here. This is an excellent example of a situation where sensible application of our policies and procedures covers the issue, and a special sanction is probably not required; I'm not even sure one would have to resort to ignoring rules to do the job. Having said that, if necessary, I would support the formal endorsement of a topic ban. Risker (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: There seems to be two thrusts to this request. The first is whether or not these apparently disruptive accounts should be blocked; there is fairly strong consensus amongst the committee that this is a pretty straightforward administrative/community decision that does not need to be escalated to this level, and several members of the committee have explicitly supported such blocks. The second is whether or not JzG should be the admin to effectuate the blocks. I will point out that with 900+ active admins, this question could be made moot by any one of them. Risker (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Where is the "kickback" that JzG mentions? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• John, I think Guy means "pushback". See Talk:Cold_fusion#Topic_ban_reminding. Thatcher 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of being redundant, I'll also concur with Thatcher; this is a reasonable action that lies well within community norms. No further action appears to be needed from the Committee at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Apply the ban to the second editor, per all of the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per Thatcher and Sam Blacketer, no action needed by ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• As noted above, no action is needed on our part. Vassyana (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I have followed further replies. There is still nothing that convinces me this is beyond the remit of the community to handle. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• This can be (and should be) dealt with by the community first. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed per all preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Vassyana that the community can handle this for now. Guy bringing this to arbitration for clarification was, in my opinion, premature and pre-emptive. Agree also with GoRight's summary, as it matches my views as well. i.e. I'm not going to endorse the ban, as that would set a precedent of coming to ArbCom to endorse such things (if you are not sure, don't ban). Existing policies should be sufficient to deal with cases like this. And yes, the community should try and deal with this before we do. In addition, the correct route is for Guy to issue a topic ban (if he thinks that is the right route to go), and then for the person who was topic banned to appeal. Not for Guy to come here first and try and pre-empt such an appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some additional points on terminology used by Guy and others: care should be taken not to confuse SOCKPUPPET, MEATPUPPET, CANVASSING, SPAMMING and ADVOCACY. In my view, sustained advocacy is not the same as spamming, and a group of activists should not all be considered meatpuppets of each other (more than just holding the same views is needed). Sockpuppet should only be used in a narrow term here, to refer to the same person editing under different accounts. In addition, if two accounts exhibit the same bannable behaviour, don't ban one as a meatpuppet of the other, just follow the simpler option of banning both for the same reasons. No need to make any connection between them at all. Finally, the term "single-purpose account" (SPA) should not be used pejoratively. The qualifier "disruptive" should be used where needed (and mostly has, with a few slips above), as constructive SPAs do exist and are welcomed, though diversity in editing is also welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • To TS: my point is that Guy did not need to escalate this to RFAR clarification stage. If people are wikilawyering over it, why does Guy need the backing of the Arbitration Committee? In my opinion, there was no need to make this about any connection or not between two people. If the account is disruptive, address that first. Sometimes trying to list all possible concerns is saying too much and just makes things complicated, and opens the door to the wikilawyering you mention (which may be justified if the additional concerns are tenuous). Just stick to the clear and unambiguous stuff and deal with that first. Trying to make connections with other accounts and agendas is unnecessary distraction. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I pile-on concur with the above. Wizardman 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes (February 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Sorry, arbs, I'd hoped to see the back of Piotrus 2 and its issues after all the grief it caused. However, a concern has been raised about the attempt of User:Piotrus to close an AN/3 thread in a Polish-Lithuanian dispute nominated by a Lithuanian user (User:M.K), in light of his caution in the last Arbitration hearing not to do such things (see see here). Piotrus "warning" of the Lithuanian user (with whom he has a long history of dispute) was removed from the thread by William Connelly who pointed out Piotrus' involvement, and Piotrus subsequently renewed unsubstantiated accusations against the user (repeated from ArbEnf) of "harrassing Polish users".[46] Ignoring the serious nature of accusing another established editor of nationality based harassment particularly in light of such allegations being untrue, there is absolutely nothing the patrollers of AE can actually do about this "admin intervention". Piotrus' response to the concerns show such a complete lack of self-awareness about the issues that I'd like the ArbCom to clarify to him and the community whether such action is acceptable in light of the previous caution; and to avoid future occurrences prohibit future ad hoc "Neutral admin interventions" on behalf of friends/against "enemies" at AN/3. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tiptoety

Clarification I think (if that's the best way to classify what I have asked for in my text; change it to amend if you think that's better). Piotrus was already notified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to William and Shell

This is a simple matter, there's no need to fight over it or dramatize it, and I'm not seeking anyone's "punishment". Piotrus attempted to intervene as admin on behalf of a friend, and "warned" a content opponent in the process. This is factual. He doesn't acknowledge this nor that anything is wrong. Again, check the AE thread, this is factual. It is thus clear evidence of a threat to process in dispute resolution, and to the safety of all users likely to be opposed by Piotrus or friends in content disputes (this is where Piotrus is right, I am seeking to protect such users). In light of the previous caution it is clearly reasonable for me to request ArbCom to use their powers to prevent a threat. It is especially reasonable in light of the new committee's pledge to reduce tolerance of potential admin abuse. M.K brought this to AE. I brought it here because I know AE can't do anything. Obviously it's not a waste of time. Arbcom can either vote to do something about it as I recommended (just a ban on intervening on AN/3 on behalf of friends), or vote not to. The posts made Shell Kinney and William Connelly hence don't make any sense in these regards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren

Ah, Coren, I love you too! Maybe the argument we had a month or so ago led you to believe I am naive about Arbcom or daftly malicious or something. I'm sorry if it did, but I really don't think I am. I am fully aware that, even if I wanted to, I'd never succeed if I tried to "misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta" (you should get used to these words, as you will undoubtedly see them quoted a lot in the future). I hope, if you haven't already, you'll read through Piotrus 2 at a decent pace or at least the evidence that M.K presented on AE to see that the supposedly "tenuous possible conflict of interest" is actually clear and that the situation presented here is that the misuse stems from the context rather than the event on its own. At the very worst, I am alleging a problem exists and exercising my right to ask Arbcom to solve it. I don't think I deserve this kind of dirt thrown at me from you for doing that! It doesn't, if it means anything, bother me though. :) And even if Piotrus had killed my father as a boy and I swore thereafter to dedicate my life to revenge on Piotrus and all his family, it wouldn't detract from the problem presented, nor the fact that the problem is wikipedia's rather than mine (I still don't get where the bad-faith version of my agenda here is seriously postulated to come from?). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Radeksz' post

For the record, Piotrus and Radeksz' public assertions about their own relationship with each other, while being impressionistically contradicted by M.K's AE post, is also contradicted by this evidence of an off-wiki relationship when not so long ago Piotrus requested Radeksz' email address in Polish away over at Polish wiki where Rad only ever made two contributions. One of the snags with Piotrus 2 leading to its inertia was that while it was widely suspected much editorial manoeuvring and gamesmanship by Piotrus took place off-wiki, it could never be proved. The result is that the public distancing with users like Alden Jones and Rad which seems to have so much persuasive effect on its intended audience is believed by Piotrus' normal opponents to be orchestrated merely for "outsider" consumption (such as threads like this) which allows Piotrus to "protect" users with similar editorial inclinations without discrediting himself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re to Sciurinae

Don't know why you bothered compiling and posting this, telling though it is. As you can tell from the responses below, some have license to do whatever they like and there's nothing wrong to closing AN/3 threads to save a POV-buddy and warn an old foe (and anyone who tries to say there is will get such nonsense like Coren posted below). Get used to it! I'm just about getting used to it now myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

Let's see. I became aware of the 3RR report via my watchlist, and reviewed it as it concerned an article also on my watchlist I found the report (by MK) biased (it reported only one editor of the two editors warring) and potentially misleading an admin less familiar with the incident that would review it. As I have had already reviewed it, I decided to comment. Since the case was relatively clear (two users were edit warring and on the verge of breaking 3RR), but I was familiar to a certain extent with both of them, I would have not used my admin powers to block or unblock them, but as in this case no blocks were needed (both users are in good standing and are not known to edit war often), simply an equal warning to both sides seemed sufficient (and indeed Radek has already apologized and promised to stick to the 1RR I suggest to the parties). It is my understanding that such warnings can be issued by non-admins as well, so calling my warning "an abuse of admin power" sounds rather bad faithed towards me (and please note that whatever my past interactions with both warned editors, I have treated them equally and fairly, as their infractions were equal - I have not treated one of them better and one of them worse (which would indicate a preference)). Note that decision (to warn the users and close the case) was reviewed and approved by two other admins (Shell Kinney and William M. Connolley).

What I find more disturbing is actions of both MK and Deacon. MK was not involved in the editing of an article recently (although based on a past history I'd assume it is on his watchlist) and certainly does not have a habit of reporting people to 3RR - unless they are editors who have disagreed with him in the past. Thus instead of warning the involved editors that they are approaching 3RR, he stealthily reported only one of them to 3RR (one that has in the past disagreed with him and agreed with me, and not the one that in the past has agreed with him and disagreed with me...). Further, given that he has launched at least one RfC and two ArbCom requests against me and at least one RfC against another Polish user (I am kind of losing track here...), I have doubts if his reporting me to AE is motivated by good faith - or if by desire to stick another ball of mud to my reputation (and/or to force a block of an editor he dislikes via any means possible). How to remedy that, unfortunately, I am not sure, but if a neutral body would admonish MK and advise him to concentrate on building an encyclopedia instead of discussing editors he dislikes, this would be welcome (please note that I don't go around this project criticizing Lithuanian or other editors I've disagreed with in the past, and trying to catch them on the tiniest infractions of our policies...).

Deacon's involvement in the thread, on the other hand, resembles to me very much the actions of Irpen - appearing suddenly in any thread that is criticizing my person, and criticizing me (although I'll give Deacon that he does take things further then Irpen did - Irpen, AFAIR, has never launched threads against me, he just joined them). Incidentally, the last ArbCom involving me took place when Deacon took upon himself to defend another Lithuanian editor against "my harassment", first commenting in AE cases, then intervening in them and finally launching the Piotrus 2/EE arbcom (and then ArbCom found that editor incivil, edit warring and issued remedies concerning him).

Considering that I don't go around this project complaining about Deacon, I'd appreciate if the arbcom would consider issuing a restriction (on Deacon and me, to be fair - even through as I noted I don't go around criticizing Deacon...) similar to the one on Irpen and me (6.1A), preventing us from wasting our time criticizing one another. This would do MUCH to prevent similar wikidrama from occurring in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. In short: I did not use my admin powers; I issued equal warnings to two parties involved in edit warring that seems to have put an end to the ongoing edit war. For restoring stability to an article without blocking anyone I have been dragged to AE and now, here, forcing me to waste my time on wikilawyering instead of building an encyclopedia (good thing I've finished my daily DYK already, as my desire (and time...) to write another one today, which I was planning on doing, has somehow evaporated). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS. Thank you, Shelly, for seeing clearly through all of the dramu :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Novickas

Well, I think I'm involved, since I made this edit to Armia Krajowa on February 4th [47], and the edit war started soon afterwards. It's really, really hard to disentangle the subsequent edits and determine if 3RR was violated there or not. But I cannot see how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents at the AK article could NOT be interpreted as an admin acting inappropriately. You all have tools at your disposal to check his interests there. At the very least, could you ask him to stop talking about stalking - this expression has been disparaged when not referring to real-life harassment, has it not? Novickas (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tymek

Novickas writes: "how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents"... but Piotrus warned also the other party in a dispute. Such selective omission of the facts has been common throughout last ArbCom case. So Piotrus stopped an edit war with warnings instead of blocks - I don't see anything wrong here, instead, I think he acted wisely, as a good admin should. See also my post at AE. Tymek (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I had just closed this on AE only to find out that Deacon brought this here as well. There's no substance to this complaint - Piotrus appropriately handled an approaching edit war with as little disruption as possible. M.K.'s report on AE reads suspiciously like sour grapes that both parties were cautioned (appropriately) instead of just the one he reported. As I suggested in closing there, M.K. and Deacon may both wish to find hobbies that do not include interacting with Piotrus; it wouldn't be amiss for the Committee to make a ruling to that affect. Shell ^babelfish 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

This should be closed as a dup of AE and whoever brought this here admonished for wasting everyones time. I've commented there [48] but consider me to have said this here too if necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

I'm not sure if I even want to reply here since as William and Shell note above this is really just a waste of time. I find the amount of information that MK has gathered on me, things like when I activated my email, who sent me a Christmas card, trying to track me out on Polish wiki etc. to be, frankly, a bit creepy. Particularly since I think I've interacted with him once before if ever. When I saw the report and the subsequent discussion I had to try hard to remember who this person, who appeared to really have it in for me, was. He also misrepresents the situation in several ways. Basically MK is not only being petty, vindictive, dishonest and mean spirited but is just simply wasting other Wikipedians' time. He needs to stop. I'm gonna go back to actually working on an article now.radek (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon

While I have no wish to hurt Piotrus' feelings, Deacon's mendacity prompts me to say that in fact Piotrus is not my friend. I mean, he seems like a good guy, hardworking, knowledgeable and collegial but the truth is that I really don't know him that well. Before the whole nasty Arbcom beeswax I had like two interactions with him. And then maybe a few more since then (and those in fact, in large part due to other, bad faith, editors assuming that if two Polish editors have the temerity to edit the same Poland-related article then they MUST be part of some conspiracy). So no, Deacon, the things you say are 'factual' are not 'factual' (I don't think that word means what you think it means). Yes, Deacon, you are wasting people's time.radek (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by M.K.

Well I did not expect that this issue would be presented here. I really don't have much time therefore only few comments.

I noticed on Armia Krajowa, an article which I edited previously, violation of 3RR rule by one of the parties. I reported this violation to the proper board [49].

If the neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide, that to both parties remedies should be applied regarding this case - fine. If neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide that article should be protected – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide, that one party should be sanctioned – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide that case is unfounded – fine. All this fine, until such actions are carried by an uninvolved - neutral in specific situation administrator. While Piotrus, in contrast, was a party of the dispute and has different relations with both parties (also he invited one of the party to that page).

Therefore, in my view, such closing of 3RR report should not be done by Piotrus, but rather by uninvolved administrator (I noted this on the 3RR board [50]), also using his status by issuing "warning" to me [51] on that board, I interpret it as neglect towards Committee's remedy - Piotrus is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.

Taking into consideration this experience and to avoid similar developments in the future, it would be good that Arbiters clarify how we should understand and interpret - administrators' status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

This appears to me to be an attempt to bully and intimidate Piotrus. I don't know if it's a first offense or not for the editors who are doing it, but if it isn't, I suggest an enforced wiki-break for them. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Poeticbent

The reason why the Eastern European disputes are being revived so quickly—after their hasty amendment at New Years—is because the role played initially by M.K and Deacon of Pndapetzim was not properly examined before the case was closed. I warned the ArbCom about that in my comments to Proposed Decision. These two users are the flamers who ended up getting away free, with the assumption that they are also free to do whatever they want whenever they want.

In the interest of fairness: M.K is the editor who launched (together with his political tag-team staunch-man Ghirla) RfC against Piotrus and Halibutt, and then his first ArbCom against him (that's just citing some of his most notable attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case which in turn was initiated by Deacon. I'm still disturbed by the fact that nothing was being done to end this game. Clearly, these users remain the most adverse elements to any sense of lasting stability in the region. --Poeticbent talk 04:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Vecrumba

Per Tymek above and New York Brad below. The attempt to manufacture an illusion of bad faith at every turn and the stream of accusations only because an editor/admin is of some Eastern European heritage has to stop. I can't believe Deacon is starting this all over again so soon. Piotrus hasn't started anything, these accusations coming so soon look a whole lot more like a personal vendetta than editorial concern for Wikipedia. PetersV       TALK 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sciurinæ

I've had a closer look over the last few days and although I know it's too late to change anything, I'd still like to list the facts for future reference. Why this was completely unacceptable of Piotrus:

1. Piotrus biased in favour of Radeksz: This is Radeksz's third 3RR violation and all of Piotrus' reactions to them are interesting:
   • First 3RR violation: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (the violation wasn't reported). Piotrus couldn't contact him off-wiki to warn him and the case about his tag teaming was still on. Piotrus actually took the trouble of going to pl.wiki to ask Radeksz for his mail.[52] Piotrus also took part in the edit warring at the article before Radeksz, which resulted in page protection later after the second violation.[53]
   • Second 3RR violation: Same page one day later.[54] Piotrus then secretly warned him in Polish about getting blocked for 3RR and to have a look at his message in pl.wiki.[55] This constitutes usage of another language to conceal improper conduct (see remedy). Piotrus also supported unblocking of Radeksz ([56]), and ignored his formula (it goes: when A has 4 reverts and B has 3, only A should receive a consequence. The formula was only designed after Piotrus often had 3 reverts and Boodlesthecat 4 anyway).
   • Third 3RR violation (current one): Piotrus closes the issue himself to avoid a block.[57]
2. Piotrus biased against M0RD00R. M0RD00R had a history of reporting Piotrus's closer friends like Alden Jones, Tymek, Jacurek, Molobo, Greg park avenue and Poeticbent, eg [58] [59]. Or as I remarked in the EE arbitration: "When Tymek was reported for something else, Piotrus would turn up to acquit by equating him with the reporter [M0RD00R] ([60]) and later also opposed another ANI thread of the reporter this way.[61]" M0RD00R had also had content-related complaints about Piotrus and co before, eg [62]. He once even reported a 3RR ([63]) and a 1RR violation of Piotrus.[64]
3. Piotrus biased against M.K. M.K once reported a 3RR violation of Piotrus, which got Piotrus blocked and into the IRC unblock shopping scandal. M.K also created the first Piotrus arbitration and it's M.K's paragraph that is the foundation of the ArbCom's decision that Piotrus edit-warred repeatedly. Piotrus has now also made the PAs that M.K was just anti-Polish ([65] [66]) and a "bully" ([67]). After M.K complained at the 3RR board and at AE about Piotrus's meddling, Piotrus also tried to give him an extra slap ([68]) that didn't work out.[69]
4. Piotrus could predict drama. This was the first or one of the first 3RR threads he ever chose to decide (and just where it suited his interests. Why didn't he also close his AE thread while at it?).
5. Radeksz violated 3RR and was the only one to violate it. Here's my summary of the reverts.
6. Piotrus involved in article. Piotrus is involved in the article as the predominant editor. Piotrus was cautioned "to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent." Deciding 3RR threads is done by admins.
7. Piotrus instigated the revert war. Piotrus asked Radeksz for involvement in the edit war, who made his first revert minutes later. After all, Piotrus also did nothing but reverting and did not request a change of course before the 3RR report.
8. Piotrus took part in the revert war. Piotrus revert warred over the same sentence before Radeksz (look for "entire army as anti-Semitic").[70] [71] Sciurinæ (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Is this a request to amend prior case, a request for appeal, or for clarification? Also, please notify Piotrus of this. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm going to be blunt here: what I see is a 3RR report that was closed uncontroversially and properly (and which nobody contests on its face, for that matter), and a thread on AE that attempts to rely on a tenuous possible conflict of interest to invoke sanctions according to a particularily imaginative reading of a remedy which was swiftly (and correctly) closed as unactionable. It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta. — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I do not see an issue with Piotrus's cautioning both users against edit-warring and warning that they were approaching 3RR, and noting on AN3 that he had done so. I think Deacon is right that perhaps Piotrus should not have formally closed the 3RR report, but the solution Piotrus engineered appears to have satisfactorily resolved the issue, and I find no need for action here. (I will note that I don't think it was necessary for Piotrus's statement in this thread to criticize Irpen. If the point is to reference the remedy preventing interaction between the two of them as a precedent, this could have been done in a different fashion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I mostly agree with Newyorkbrad here; it was acceptable for Piotrus to warn both users. Piotrus' closure of the AN3 report is sailing awfully close to the wind, though, as he is far and away the most frequent editor of Armia Krajowa at 343 edits, more than 3 times the edits of anyone else. Closing of an AN3 is widely considered to be an administrative action, and I strongly recommend to Piotrus that he not take administrative actions involving articles in which he is such a major and continuing contributor. That isn't just in relation to the prior arbitration committee caution, but is right out of Wikipedia:Administrators. Risker (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Per Newyorkbrad, it might have been better if Piotrus had not been the one to take the action of closing the 3RR report, but his conduct once he had decided to do so was unimpeachable: fair, impartial and wise. This request looks suspiciously like forum-shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the arb comments above. In the future, I'd ask Piotrus to take the side of caution in acting administratively in relation to articles and specific topic areas where he is a prolific editor. That said, our normal processes and (overworked) AE regulars seem to have this well in hand to the point that this should be a completely dead issue. Comments in the AE thread indicated it was already a dead issue then. This request does not seem to be undertaken with the best interests of the project at heart, to put it gently. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No action needed by the Committee. Agree with the above comments and particularly Newyorkbrad (including his mention that bringing in criticism of Irpen was uncalled for in Piotrus's comment). FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tch. Newyorkbrad is right. Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with NYB above. Wizardman 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Everything has been said already. Nothing to add. Nothing to do here. Agree with all the above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Paranormal - Adequate Framing (March 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Refactored title [72] per page format issue. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

In articles such as psychic, telekinesis, and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To Fred: Please forgive me, I'm not quite sure I fully understand your point. It seems to be that, all things being equal, it's not necessary to rehash, say, the psychic debate in every article, but that instead we can just include individualised criticism to frame it, but I'm not sure how that applies in articles where the subject is, say Psychic, Parapsychology, Ghost, and so on. How would you see, say, Psychic's lead sentence or paragraph, if adequate framing is to be provided? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment(s) by Fred Bauder

Just as one need only identify a narrative as being based on a dream in order to frame it as not real, in many instances simply identifying a subject as being "paranormal" serves to frame it as not being based on scientific observation. Thus, it is not necessary to include extensive disclaimers in order to satisfy neutral point of view. The same principle can be applied to alternative medicine. Identifying Homeopathy as alternative medicine defines it as not being based on standard medical trials of effectiveness. It is not necessary to throw the word quackery around in the introduction. Likewise with respect to the paranormal, simply stating that telekinesis is a paranormal phenomenon is generally sufficient. It is not necessary to carry on at length regarding lack of scientific evidence. The example given about Jeane Dixon, a notorious humbug who held herself out as a psychic, is illustrative. Fred Talk 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not forbidden to point out lack of evidence of a subject's existance in close questions; it is simply bad form to continually edit war and fuss over such language when simply stating that a phenomena falls into a generally rejected category offers more than sufficient information to the reader. Fred Talk 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

This request is not actionable and should be closed, because it pertains to a decision that has not yet been made. This discussion belongs on the proposed decision talk page. Also, on the merits, is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Adequate framing, a principle enunciated by the Committee, even part of the binding arbitration decision? I was under the impression that the only operative part of arbitral decisions are the remedies. If that is so, the principle at issue is not enforceable through arbitration enforcement and the request is moot anyway.  Sandstein  19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday

@ Sandstein: They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Those attempting to understand one part of an ArbComm case should also look to other parts. In this case, it appears to me that to understand principle 6.2 "Adequate framing" and finding of fact 12 "Paranormal as an effective tag", it is necessary to also review at the least principles 6.1 "Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content" and 11 "Generally considered pseudoscience", findings of fact 3 "Status of parapsychology", 5 "Cultural artifacts", 6 "Subjects without referents", and 9 "Flat statements of fact". The numbering indicates that principles 6.1 and 6.2 are related replacements for the rejected proposed principle 6. Personally, I would expect that in articles such as Psychic or Ghost principle 6.1 would be of more relevance than 6.2, while in the case of an individual claiming to be a psychic or a claimed particular incident/location of haunting by a ghost 6.2 would be of more relevance than 6.1. However, the amount of framing to appear in an article's lead is always going to be constrained by other standards applying to article leads, so the framing in the lead is likely to be succinct with extended discussion of epistemological status in the body of the article. GRBerry 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• There is some threaded discussion above, are the arbs ok with this or should it be broken out into sections for each participant? MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Fixed - Each editor needs to comment under a separate heading. Tiptoety ^talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

• Please give notice of this thread to the former arbitrator who wrote the decision. I would welcome his input on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I thank Fred for his input. I believe that in past discussions concerning principles in the Pseudoscience case, the conclusion has been that they represent general background observations on the issues, and are not meant to unduly constrain the usual process of article development (i.e., there is a difference between the role of principles and the role of remedies). In this case, I think the principle suggests that it is well to avoid undue weight on a negative characterization of a subject or topic in the lead, but I do not think it would be valid in a content to dispute to expect to be playing a trump card by stating "your wording violates a principle handed down by the ArbCom two years ago." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Interpretation of past rulings are always, as a rule, a difficult endeavor. In this particular case, I share Shoemaker's Holiday puzzlement over the examples given since it would seem to me that describing someone as a "psychic" without qualification, for instance, begs the question of the existence of psychics in the first place. If the article on our founder began "Jimmy Wales, a 700-year old vampire", then it appears to claim not only that Jimbo might be a vampire, but that vampires do in fact exist (since he would be one). It would appear to me that the only neutral way of framing claims of belonging to a category whose very existence is disputed requires attributing the claim.

  However, I am not about to guess at intent without giving the drafting arbitrator the opportunity to clarify it themself. — Coren ^(talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• My view here is that editorial discretion is key, and ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on this sort of thing, other than to uphold the principle of editorial discretion. If there is disagreement over how best to write a lead sentence, or get the balance right in the lead section, then look at how other encyclopedias (or other Wikipedia articles) have handled this. Aim to get the balance right between a suitably worded description and one that is readable. In other words, don't tie things up in knots if the end result is an awkward and clumsy sentence or paragraph. Better to have a good piece of writing that gets the point across, than a standard approach that is clumsily imposed on all articles in this topic area. And do trust the readers more. Some of them are perfectly aware of what the issues are and don't need to be (metaphorically) beaten over the head with clarifications and disclaimers and glosses to explain things. Sometimes a link and a few judiciously chosen words alone is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Please see my comment to the related clarifiction above. I believe the same principle holds valid here. This is largely a ball in the community's court at this point, or so I believe. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience (March 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Xasodfuih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Xasodfuih

It has been recently pointed out to me that "ArbCom does not rule on content". Is this a newer policy that invalidates/vacates the pseudoscience decision which allows for the categorization (and presumably sub-categorization) of pseudoscientific claims and theories?

Diets making pseudoscientific claims are often described as fad diets by scientific associations; for instance, the American Dietetic Association has a list here. In a recent discussion however, the fad diets category has been deleted with the main argument that it's "not NPOV because what is fad is inherently POV" (not an exact quote). Surely, the same argument can and most likely was made about the more general pseudoscience category before the ArbCom previously. So, does the pseudoscience decision still stand? Is it WP:NPOV to have Category:Pseudoscience? Is it WP:NPOV to have sub-categories for pseudoscience, such as Category:Fad diet if major scientific organizations use them? Thank you for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I've read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy carefully, and I don't see a limitation on the scope of ArbCom rulings to content, but only a caveat that you usually don't rule on it: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." Since a prior content-related decision has been made in this area, I think that clarifying it will not violate the current policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Risker: User:Good Olfactory was the closing admin for the original Category:Diet and food fads discussion, and the admin who speedily deleted (G4) my (inadvertant re-)creation of Category:Fad diet. User:Jmh649, who like me has not taken part in the (unadvertised to relevant WikiProjects) original discussion, asked Good Olfactory to reopen the discussion, but the admin declined without further commentary. I don't see how the unexpressed thoughts of the closing admin override the rationale(s) given in the original deletion discussion. As for redundancy, surely we have Category:Science, but that does not make more specific categories such as Category:Fringe science or even Category:Pseudoscience redundant; I think the reasoning same applies to diet topics. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• An example (possibly clarifying the difference between this issue and the other related request on this page): Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that the potentially derogatory term "fad diet" is attributed (to ADA) in the wiki article's text, not given as a bare fact. I don't see however a practical way to do that for Wikipedia categories. I assume the 2006 decision struggled with this matter too, hence the wording "generally considered pseudoscience". I'm all for discussing whether a certain diet meets the "generally considered" standard for categorization, but the deletion of the category preempts any such discussion from taking place. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Update 2: The finding I'm citing from the famous 2006 ArbCom has been incorporated into Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. (I'm surprised that nobody pointed this out to me.) So, there's probably not much else that the Committee can do in this matter. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it was added to NPOV on Feb 12, 2009, that's why many don't know about it. Thanks, John! Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Other current discussion related to that CFD exists at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#Category:Fad diet. GRBerry 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

To be honest, this has puzzled me as well. ArbCom traditionally don't rule on content or validate policy and guideline apart from the main summary of the non-negotiables (e.g. the main gist of NPOV, BLP, and NFC). A little bit of clarification would be nice. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment to Xasodfuih: Have you discussed the closure of this CfD with the administrator who closed it? The closure of that CfD may have nothing to do with the term "fad" and may be related to the fact that the articles within the now-deleted category were all present in Category:Diets, as noted by one of the other participants. Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• My comment below in the context of the previous request for clarification of this same decision, is also generally applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• There are two clarification requests at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience that may be helpful to read. 1 2 Following the most recent of those clarification requests, the Pseudoscience section of NPOV was lifted from the FAQ. Note that a similar section was moved from the NPOV page to the new FAQ subpage in mid-2006, and the Arbcom ruling was included there in March 2007. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Controversial category names are tricky. The specific example of "fad diets" should be left for deletion review to take care of (though is it not possible to use another name for such things, or subcategorise diets another way?). The general approach to controversial categories should be to improve the articles first so that it is clearer (with source) as to whether the articles should be in such categories. And if the category is deemed appropriate, to come up with a category definition to keep things under control. Not quite sure what diets have to do with pseudoscience, though. They may claim to have a scientific basis, but that doesn't make them a science or pseudoscience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Upon reflection, I feel this is no longer a matter for the Committee to clarify or handle. The "pseudoscience" section of policy predates the arbitration case. The reference to the principle formulated during the case was added to official policy almost two years ago by normal policy editing.[73] It appears the community has taken ownership of the principle, or rather that it has been incorporated into policy by normal means. Thus, it should be handled like any other point of policy. (Additionally, I am concerned that remaining open to ArbCom clarification on the principle turns the Committee into a content adjudicator for disputes surrounding it.) Discussions about its appearance and application in policy should be discussed at the neutral point of view talk page and/or policy village pump. Requests for input and clarification regarding its application to specific cases should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard and the appropriate article talk pages. Dispute resolution should be used to help resolve any impasse. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.