Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Dreadstar		9 March 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	18 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	18 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	19 July 2024

Requests for arbitration

Dreadstar

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Dreadstar, 06:39, 9 March 2011
• Ludwigs2, 06:40, 9 March 2011

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• None; this concerns an unauthorized reversal of an arbitration enforcement action.  Sandstein  06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

At 23:27, 8 March 2011, I blocked Ludwigs2 for 72 hours as a response to threats they made at WP:AN against another editor in the context of a dispute concerning the pseudoscience article (State of the AN thread at that time). I labeled this block as an arbitration enforcement action pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, and applied the {{uw-aeblock}} template to Ludwigs2's talk page, which warns administrators not to unilaterally undo it except as per WP:AEBLOCK (Current state of the respective section of Ludwigs2's talk page).

Following my announcement of the block, it was criticized by five editors at WP:AN (Slimvirgin, Hans Adler, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, The Four Deuces, Xxanthippe), of which several, as it appears to me from their statements, had been involved in disputes related to the editor threatened by Ludwigs2 and/or the topic of pseudoscience. Two editors, on the other hand, appeared to agree that Ludwigs2's statement at issue had been disruptive (Collect, N419BH).

At 02:41, 9 March 2011, about three hours after the block, Dreadstar unblocked Ludwigs2 without entering into discussion with me. Later, on his talk page, in response to a query from another user, Dreadstar declined to undo his reversal of my arbitration enforcement action.

I submit that the discussion at WP:AN did not constitute at the time of the unblock, or indeed now, the "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" that is required, per this Committee's prior decision, to undo my AE action. I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to take the steps it considers appropriate to prevent Dreadstar from continuing to unilaterally revert AE actions. At the same time, I welcome any advice or criticism by the Committee about whether my AE action was appropriate or what other action, if any, would have been better.  Sandstein  06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Stephan Schulz

Your assertions are incorrect. As I noted at the AN thread, Ludwigs2 had previously been warned about the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. I also did not break any self-imposed deadline. I asked Ludwigs2 to respond to my concerns about his threat, noting that I expected them to do so within two hours of their next edit, which they did, albeit without addressing their threat. Moreover, Ludwigs2 is an "editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)", as per the discretionary sanctions remedy, and therefore discretionary sanctions can be applied to him in reaction to threats made in connection with that topic area.  Sandstein  07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

The threat was made here, and reads in relevant part: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." I read this as a threat to cause unspecified serious disruption unless administrators take action against the other editor, and it appears even Dreadstar agrees with this interpretation.

As to why I believed a short block was more appropriate than a topic or interaction ban: I considered the block to be the most appropriate measure to prevent Ludwigs2 from making such threats in the (near) future. I would have lifted the block myself had Ludwigs2 shown that he understood the problem and agreed to withdraw the comment. A topic ban would have been too broad, as the problem here did not involve article editing, and an interaction ban would almost certainly have had to be applied to both editors in order to work, but there was no actionable case (as I saw it) for an interaction ban against QuackGuru at the time.  Sandstein  08:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jclemens

I am not aware of anything that would disqualify me from taking action as an uninvolved administrator in this case.  Sandstein  08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the facts are sufficiently clear that addressing the matter via motion should suffice; there is no need to open a full arbitration case as far as I am concerned. I suggest that the scope be limited to Dreadstar's unblock (and my block, if it is deemed problematic). There are cleary unresolved underlying matters surrounding Ludwigs2 and QuackGuru, but I believe that these still need "normal" prior dispute resolution (such as a RFC or AE request).  Sandstein  15:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 states that "that he and I have had words in the recent past, on an editor-to-editor basis". Diffs for this would be helpful, because I recall no such interactions. It is possible, I suppose (although I can't recall it either) that I took admin actions against Ludwigs2 at some time in the past, but such interactions do not matter with respect to WP:UNINVOLVED.  Sandstein  17:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg and Casliber

I would appreciate advice about the form of dispute resolution that you believe I should have undertaken with respect to Dreadstar, in view of his statement that he is unwilling to reverse his reversal of my AE action.

If you decline this case, you in effect overturn the decision cited at WP:AEBLOCK that AE actions may not be unilaterally undone. If that is your intention, I recommend that for the sake of clarity you also propose a motion to that effect. (I think it would not be advisable to overturn that rule, but that decision is up to you, since it affects the authority of your own decisions).  Sandstein  10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment with respect to Ncmvocalist's comment

I welcome any community or ArbCom review of my AE work. To my knowledge, I am among the few administrators who regularly engage in AE, and as a consequence I have issued a great number of AE sanctions (see the enforcement logs of the cases listed at {{uw-sanctions}}). It is unfortunately to be expected that this leads to much grumbling by the editors so sanctioned and their friends. But as far as I recall, none of the (probably) dozens of the AE sanctions I have imposed have ever been overturned by the Committee or by the community on appeal, and I submit that this is a more useful benchmark of my enforcement practices than any individual disagreements. While it is a statistical certainty that some of my decisions (like those of most people) were not optimal, I have always attempted to act as fairly, predictably and as close to policy as possible within the time and resource constraints imposed by the volunteer nature of our work. To those who believe that the job could be done better, I say that they are very probably right, and invite them to stand for administrator and do some of this better enforcement work themselves.  Sandstein  16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jmh649

It does appear dreadstar is involved in wheel-waring. One should not revert another admins block without discussing it with them first or at least obtaining consensus at AN. The comments by Ludwig2 where uncivil and do not improve the atmosphere of editing in this difficult area. Sandsteins block was not unreasonable given the comments. I am sure all Ludwig2 would have had to have done was simply acknowledge that a) what was said was inappropriate and b) agree to remove it and he would have gotten unblocked. Having another admin come in a revert things especially one who is favorable towards pseudoscience was not appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Stephan Schulz

This request is as hasty and ill-considered as the original block. Quite apart from the fact that the block was disproportionate to begin with, and that it was even more disproportionate to claim AE protection for it, it also had several technical problems (insufficient warning, failing to adhere to the self-set deadline), and it should have been removed under WP:IAR anyways. Moreover, there was substantial support for the unblock at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#QuackGuru_again_-_what_do_I_do_now.3F - in my opinion enough to support consensus. Trout Sandstein and reject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved The Four Deuces

Other editors complained about the block on both Ludwigs2's and Sandstein's talk pages: User: PPdd,[1] User:Volunteer Marek[2], and User:Ocaasi[3] And Sandstein should have allowed Ludwigs2 the two hours he said he would allow for a response.[4]

I think too that the block should not have been made as an arbitration sanction, because the comments were not made in a pseudoscience article talk page but at AN. Also, even if Dreadstar had been wrong to remove the block, the suggestion that he re-block for procedural reasons is unreasonable, as it would seem unfair to Ludwigs2.

Therefore I do not see any reason for Arbitration action against Dreadstar.

TFD (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Let's be clear: Sandstein's block was deeply problematic for a number of reasons:

1. The statement in question (in the last paragraph of this diff, since self-refactored) could hardly be construed as a threat against another editor: yes I was frustrated with a difficult situation, and probably spoke out of turn, but the last line clearly notes that I don't want things to go down an unpleasant route. How could that constitute a threat?
   • besides, by comparison to other things I have seen on AN, ANI, and talk pages that have never received sanctions, this is milquetoast.
2. I was happy to retract the statement, but was never allowed the opportunity. Sandstein warned me [5], I asked for clarification [6] (because I really wasn't sure what he was talking about), and he immediately blocked me [7] without explanation or the opportunity to address the issue. He was clearly on a beeline to blocking me, and only left a warning as a pro-forma exercise
3. Sandstein is applying the pseudoscience arbitration result to discussion wp:AN, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a pseudoscience article. that's just bizarre, and apparently designed to punish me for complaining about QG's behavior
4. There was no trouble on the article talk page, no trouble on the article itself, I was engaged in a RfC about removing synthesis from the article (so I couldn't possibly have been pushing a viewpoint): In short, there was no actual, foreseeable, imminent, or even theoretical threat of any unpleasant behavior.

In short, the block was at best purely and completely punitive, and at worst vindictive in response to recent confrontations I've had with him. This block should never have happened, and since it did happen, appropriate actions should be taken to limit or remove sandstein's administrative powers. I will open a second arbitration thread on that issue in a couple of days.

Arbitration rulings were never intended to create petty tyrannies in which administrators could sanction editors with impunity according to irrational whims, momentary furies, or personal grudges. Sandstein went off the deep end on this, and Dreadstar ought to receive the committee's thanks for redressing a significant abuse of the committee's delegated authority.

as an final though, I apologize for any part of this bureaucratic confusion that may be my fault: I placed an {{unblock}} template on my talk page, as well as notifying the committee by email. I've never been blocked under arbitration rulings before, and I was unsure about proper procedures, so I wanted to cover all my bases, but this may have confused things. My ignorance, my bad. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

response to Jclemens

No, I'm not asserting anything as strong as ineligibility due to prior interactions. I'm merely noting that he and I have had words in the recent past, on an editor-to-editor basis. It was nothing particularly significant, but it was sufficient to demonstrate a level of personal animosity. My main point is that there was no reasonable, rational explanation for his actions regarding me, so I have to assume his motivations were unreasonable and irrational. I am being kind by asserting that he was looking for a reason to block me due to being miffed at me; the other alternatives I have considered are far more cynical and callous and would call for immediate desysopping. --Ludwigs2 17:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary comment by Hans Adler

Three major issues have come together here:

(1) Sandstein's inclination to make essentially arbitrary draconian blocks. In this case Ludwigs2 reported extremely disruptive behaviour by QuackGuru that had been going on at Talk:Pseudoscience for weeks. QuackGuru has been communicating along the lines of "'No, it is a well established fact that penguins can't fly, and it is well known that your source is an April Fools' joke. There is even a video about how the fake documentary was made. [8]' – 'I provided V, you did not provide V. You cannot provide V. Will you stop adding OR?'" (completely made-up example for clarity). Normally this would be easy to deal with, but not if such a user is getting massive support due to (3). Ludwigs2 described a natural reaction, the aim of which is to gradually get the supporters of the non-communicator to realise just what they are supporting, with these words: "So, you guys want to keep QuackGuru around as an editor - okayfine. Now, tell me how to get him to use even a modicum of common sense and reason so that we can have a proper discussion on the page. I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so give me another solution." (The background was an earlier AN thread in which Ludwigs2 had asked for a QuackGuru ban, and a general feeling seemed to be that QuackGuru is a serious problem but nothing should be done for the moment.)

It would never have occurred to me to see this as a threat. Sandstein, however, contacted Ludwigs2 on his talk page, asked him for a reason why he should not block Ludwigs2 for making a threat, while pointing at his statement in the AN thread where he gave more details. Ludwigs2 then apparently made the mistake of responding to what he thought was the substance of Sandstein's complaint, rather than the surface. (Both at AN and on his own talk page.) Instead of engaging in discussion and making clear to Ludwigs2 that as far as he was concerned the surface was the substance, Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 55 minutes after the clock for his two-hour ultimatum was started, i.e. 65 minutes before the ultimatum ran out. Predictably, this arbitrary and draconian action has led to editors such as Short Brigade Harvester Boris, who is generally very critical of Ludwigs2 and had contributed to the derailing of his AN report against QuackGuru, finding themselves defending Ludwigs2.

Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 for very little reason, essentially for being frustrated with the inefficient handling of a long-standing problem (look at the date of WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru; nothing has changed since then), as his last action before going to bed. To make matters worse, he declared this as an arbitration enforcement block to make sure it would not be reverted. Surely he was aware how controversial this block would be.

(2) The behavioural problems of QuackGuru have long caused disruption, sometimes severe disruption. An RFC/U in mid-2007 was rather unfocused and ran out without conclusion. I don't have a full record of attempts to solve the problem, but I believe the last one is the one archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Community ban for User:QuackGuru. At the time I gave the following example that demonstrates the dimension of the problem: "[A]t Talk:Citizendium#Won't someone please think of the article? you can see how David Gerard and SlimVirgin were about to fix an article between them, and then gave up after QuackGuru made it clear that he is the owner."

(3) In the climate change arbitration, Arbcom apparently came to the conclusion that the main problem was severe polarisation, and that the pro-science side was to a large extent responsible for it. While I do not agree that this was the best point to address for solving the entire problem, I do see it as one valid point among several.

Similar mechanisms are at work in the general area of pseudoscience, but in a much purer form. The main difference is that in the climate change area we had actual scientific experts who were respected by the pro-science side. General pseudoscience-related discussions, however, are usually dominated by sectarian self-described "skeptics" who tend to adore pretended experts on pseudoscience whose expertise generally manifests in using strong words rather than strong arguments.

It appears to me that whenever a discussion at an article such as pseudoscience or list of topics characterized as pseudoscience derails, large numbers of such editors swarm in to support each other while showing very few signs that they know what is actually being discussed. (This is probably not the best I can do to describe this problem, so I may revise the description once I find the time.) Hans Adler 08:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

When an administrator blocks while enforcing ArbCom sanctions, there are more rigid rules for unblocking which are clearly set out in the blocking template. Whatever the merits or demerits of the block, Dreadstar did not follow those rules, although he was evidently acting in good faith. Even if Dreadstar broke those rules, I do not believe that warrants an ArbCom case. There is an ongoing problem with Ludwigs2's conduct on wikipedia. He must surely have been aware that if he wished to edit Pseudoscience or its talk page, he had to be on his best behaviour. Perhaps some community feedback through an RfC/U might help Ludwigs2 work out better ways of expressing himself and of interacting with other editors. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Either ArbCom rulings have effect, or they do not. As the specific admonition to all admins not to reverse the block was clearly posted, one can not then "assume good faith" in a deliberate flouting of an ArbCom ruling. This is not even a very close call. And has naught to do with Ludwgs2, and everything to do with the belief that otherwise no ArbCom ruling has any real force or effect. I suggest that ArbCom retract its rules if the rules have no force. I suggest that ArbCom strictly enforce such absolute rules if they are to have force. Collect (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

@ Elen, the mere words of Dreadstar reflect a different picture in my opinion. He is telling y'all (ArbCom) that administrators are prepared to be absurdly sanctioned if ArbCom are going to directly or indirectly authorise a single particular administrator to misuse the rulings and site policies to the detriment of the project. I'm not really commenting on Ludwig2/QuackGuru when I say that. What I am saying is that other admins (including some AE patrollers) have practically never encountered a situation where there blocks or sanctions need to be reversed in this fashion; EdJohnston's name pops to my mind as a good example. However, if a single administrator repeatedly finds his actions being subject to concerns, disputes, or even repeated reversals, that is a sign that this Community has serious concerns about that user's fitness as an administrator; whether he has the judgement and trust required of an administrator. This is not the first time this has happened with Sandstein...this is not even the second time...goodness knows if we're nearing a two digit number. To worry about whether AE blocks maintain their image is far less of a concern than an administrator imposing a block in response to a request for clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Elen I have a response to the alternatives bit but want to check a few things, and as this request is not urgent, prefer to do that before posting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's administrator review of 2009

• "I'm puzzled. Sandstein evidently felt the foolish remark was egregious enough to justify a block, but gave [user] no request or opportunity to remove the remark." - dave souza
• "I think you sometimes let strict rules get in the way of proper judgment and more importantly, common sense" - Juliancolten
• "Get out of AE and DR in general for a few weeks. Take a proverbial walk around the block. You're very by the book and you seem to have difficulty approaching situations with nuance when it is needed. Admin intervention has to be the means to an end, and that end has to eventually be content creation, and I'm not sure if you see the link in your own actions." - Tznkai
• "I agree with what User Tznkai has advised, the wiki is a place that need rules and guidlines and essays and all but it is not all so clear cut, as he says, the nuances are also important to consider. The wiki should not be a cold hard place, wield the tools with a degree of compassion, take a step back for a couple of weeks and remember that you are an editor and an admin." - Off2riob

I don't think any arbitrator can with a straight face suggest the Community has changed its stance since then because we see the same issues popping up repeatedly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kww, the fact is you cannot impose blocks in the guise of something else - be it AE or otherwise. If something does not fall under AE, but you act as if it does, then you are in the wrong and your pride will bear the consequences. If you want to block someone for inappropriate pseudoscience advocacy, you cannot act as if the block is merely for something that can be interpreted as threat by some people, otherwise the outcome will be no different. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kww

To not undo AE blocks is a bright-line rule. It's bad enough to tolerate pseudoscience advocates on Wikipedia, but having admins that condone the advocacy unblocking advocates without consequence compounds the problem. Comparing Sandstein's history to Dreadstar's is not like comparing coal to lily-white undies, either: here's a discussion of a block based on Dreadstar falsifying a 3RR report. Retaliatory blocking by proxy isn't really much better than doing it yourself, it just muddies the trail.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Ncmvocalist: I'm not saying that I'm particularly happy with Sandstein's original block, and I'm sympathetic to the view that the AE justification was a stretch. It wasn't patently ridiculous, though, making Dreadstar's unblock unacceptable, while Sandstein's block was only questionable.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin

(I am not "involved" in this incident, but I would be if I were to take action, as I've had negative interactions with Ludwigs2, and &emdash; interesting &emdash; interactions with QuackGuru. Hence, it would be incorrect to note either that I'm "involved" or "uninvolved".)

I'm not sure this block should be considered an AE block, it looks to me as a simple threat of disruption, which L2 has done frequently. (Both threats, and actual disruption by "shouting down" editors acting in good faith and with WP:COMPETENCE.) ArbCom needs to take this up, either declaring that the block should not be considered an AE block, or specifying a reason why policy that AE blocks not be overturned does not apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by completely uninvolved Thryduulf

(after edit conflicts with kww and Arthru Rubin) I've not been involved in any way shape or form with this, and I have no opinion regarding whether the block was justified or not. However, the block was made, and it was clear to all concerned that it was an AE block. Whether it should have been discussed first, I have no opinion and it matters little - the fact is that it wasn't.

Given that the block was made as an AE block, and that there is no dispute that it was an AE block, the rules for unblocking have been made clear previously. Per those rules, there are only four scenarios where the block should be removed prior to its expiry:

• With written evidence of permission from the ArbCom
• When there is a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AN or other suitable venue
• When the blocking administrator reverts their own actions
• When done by or on the explicit instructions of Jimbo

There was no permission from ArbCom, there was no clear consensus to unblock, the block and unblock were done by different users and Jimbo has not been involved (at least not that anybody has said in this request or on his talk page).

It is clear to me therefore that the strict and clear rules laid down by the ArbCom were broken. It is my opinion that the ArbCom needs to either follow through with the stated consequences of breaking its rules if it wants to continue to have these rules respected and not sacrifice the moral authority it has, or it needs to revise the rules to reflect what it is willing to follow up. A rule that is not enforced is worse than having no rule at all.

What sanctions are required (anything from a formal reminder to one or more specific editors all the way up to desysopping are at the committee's discretion) and whether this requires a full case or a motion, I don't know. Doing nothing though is a sure fire way to confusion at the very least and anarchy at the very worst. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cube lurker

If arbcom acts on this request arbcom should take a well considered (and not just perfunctory) look at all parties. There are obvious reasons that enforcement blocks recieve special consideration. This works both ways. AE blocks should not be reversed lightly, at the same time it's highly important that blocks of this sort be truly reflective of arbcoms intent.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from HJ Mitchell

This is daft. I would urge the Committee to reject this because there's no reason it couldn't be sorted out between the admins involved. Running to ArbCom every time someone reverses one of your actions is hardly the way to behave in a collaborative editing environment.

On a more general note (without casting aspersions on either part in this case), arbs, I would urge to re-examine the idea of discretionary sanctions and the rules about reversing AE actions. If you want admins to clean up the mess left after big arbitrations cases, you can't tie our hands behind our back and you can't assume that every admin making AE actions has perfect judgement all the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Protonk

Speaking as one of the editors who opposed the unblock (albeit opaquely), I think only the most strained reading of that conversation would see an obvious consensus to unblock among uninvolved editors. Even if this were not an AE block, I would expect that Dreadstar contact Sandstein before unblocking unilaterally. As it was at least nominally an AE block, the committee has a responsibility to uphold their explicit promise that reversals of AE blocks will be treated as more troubling than normal block reversals. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Becritical

Let's acknowledge that Ludwigs' statement was inappropriate. Let's also acknowledge that the block was inappropriate for reasons stated by others above. We have to consider the actual situation surrounding the statement by Ludwigs. This block was not covered by the arbitration sanctions, since the infraction was at AN. If AN is covered under ArbCom sanctions, where do users come to hash things out? You can discuss an issue outside the context of an ArbCom ruling without invoking sanctions. That is obvious: are we going to use ArbCom sanctions for infractions in user talk page discussions too? Because of this, Sandstein's block was not covered under Arbitration sanctions, and Dreadstar's unblock was not reversing an ArbCom sanction. Just because an administrator says that something is under ArbCom, doesn't mean it actually is. There is no reason for other administrators to treat a block which is clearly outside of ArbCom sanction as if it's under ArbCom sanction merely because the blocking administrator invokes ArbCom. Therefore, this request for arbitration is inappropriate; however, you should consider advising Sandstein not to abuse ArbCom sanctions in the future. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

• Questions and comments: Firstly, I am very concerned about the rapid escalation that has taken place here and while waiting for other statements have a few things I'd really appreciate being clarified.
  @Sandstein: could you please identify and quote, for ease of reference, the text you saw as a threat; perhaps characterise the nature of the threat; and please clarify why a block - as against for example a topic ban or interaction ban - was an appropriate response?
  @Dreadstar (in anticipation of your arrival here): when making your statement, could you please demonstrate that clear consensus existed to overturn the block or explain your other reasons for doing so?
   Roger ^talk 07:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I echo Roger's expressed frustration with the escalation here. Ludwigs2, you allude to negative past interactions with Sandstein. Are you asserting that Sandstein is an involved with you as an administrator and ineligible to place an AE block? If so, you need to substantiate that assertion. Oh, and you most assuredly do not need to open a second thread, as one will suffice to examine the conduct of all parties. And Jmh649, you might want to read what actually constitutes a wheel war: while certainly not exemplary administrator-to-administrator action, I do not see how this can be construed as that. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point, I am hopeful the facts can be made sufficiently clear that the committee can discuss the various deficiencies in this whole unfortunate series of events and attempt to provide clarity via motions, rather than needing an entire case. Still, there are issues here that do need to be addressed in one form or another. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Now there's a couple questions here that need to be answered. From the AE-Block Template: : In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held 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, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Please focus on the following: A) Was this a valid administrative action pursuant to an active arbitration remedy, and denoted as such? And B) Was there a clear, substantial active consensus of UNINVOLVED editors? I note the statement that this might have mitigating circumstances, (requesting a regular unblock, not an AE unblock). SirFozzie (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reject unless someone can demonstrate that there is a pattern involving one or more of these administrators that warrants a case rather than an RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: in re "the form of dispute resolution that [I] believe [you] should have undertaken", I offer no opinion at present as that would be a matter to be considered during arbitration, if there is to be a case, and only if that was a central aspect to the case. If we do open a case, the underlying problem appears to be the conduct at the pseudoscience article and how that content dispute ended up at RFAR so quickly.
  Declining this case does not overturn WP:AEBLOCK. It might erode it ever so slightly, emboldening the next person to overturn a WP:AEBLOCK more quickly. The committee would look at each mess on its merits.
  Again, with regards to your case request, which is focused on block&unblock of Ludwigs2, I'm doubting that arbitration is required if this is an isolated incident. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Decline per John Vendenberg and Roger really. A bit of face-to-face discussion and conflict resolution would be an advisable and highly prudent course to take. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, the tone adopted in the original post to me came across as one of frustration, with an exasperated hypothetical disruption suggested conditional on lack of a closer look at QG. I am in two minds - personally I don't think I would have blocked, but suggest that you are probably aware that the tone of the posting was in a sufficient grey area that blocking was a possibility and so was a risky post to make. You really need to avoid making posts that could be suggestive of disruption in delicate areas.

@Sandstein - the tone adopted in this post was not conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. (Agreed.  Sandstein  11:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

@Dreadstar - yes there was divided opinion about the block, but it was an AE block, so warranted more discussion with the blocking admin before unblocking.

There are my three proposed Reminders. I am tempted to make them three Motions (i.e. official Reminders)...or to just leave this and move on. Really, this is a minor issue compared with some others ongoing currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Decline; disputable but reasonable block, and erroneous but good faith unblock given a misleading request. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept; tt has been brought to my attention that I erred in my interpretation of the unblock — I mistakenly believed that the unblock was made without knowledge that this was an AE block. Given that this is not, in fact, the case then it does run directly afoul of our previous directive on the subject and needs to be examined. Possibly, a simple motion might suffice, however. — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Decline per the other arbitrators who have commented here and Mathsci. PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In regard to Casliber's 3 (or now maybe just 2, following Sandstein's comment) reminders, I suggest you go ahead and propose them as motions. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • @Elen and Kirill, a full case typically takes around 4 weeks, which seems unnecessary given the conclusion - we confirm AE blocks cannot be overturned without a clear, sustained consensus - is obvious. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, this is ridiculous. You put a bright line in that AE blocks cannot be overturned unilaterally, and that admins who do so risk sanctions, and then when it comes to enforcing that, you tell the requester to open an RfC, and that it needs a pattern before you would take any action. Coren even speculates that it was 'a good faith unblock given a misleading request'. Coren - have you read what Dreadstar put on his talkpage It was a very bad block and in my opinion did not properly fall under the ArbCom findings. If this goes to ArbCom, so be it. and I was prepared for backlash when I did it. It would have nice, acutally, for the issue to have acutally been brought to WP:AE, it wasn't.. If Sandstein's block was a bad block, then there are processes for dealing with it - and it doesn't include unilaterally unblocking. I'm not saying this requires a full case, it's one incident, but it does require a statement confirming that the rule is still in place - or that we are abandoning it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist. Noted. Should an examination suggest the need to investigate Sandstein's blocking habits further, then that should be taken into account in determining "sentence" (you know what I mean) - although even then there are alternatives to unilateral action open to editors who have concerns. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept Just so its clear Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Leaning towards decline (as per my colleagues above, I don't think this requires a full case - a statement of some sort to clarify or reinforce our position on AE blocks would probably be enough), but awaiting further statements (in particular from Dreadstar; an elucidation of their position that this block did not have firm grounding as an Arbitration Enforcement block would be useful). –xeno^talk 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept per Elen. The restrictions on overturning enforcement blocks are clear and explicit, and have been for years; disagreement with the substance of a particular block is not an acceptable excuse for flouting them. If the enforcement process is to have any value, we must ensure that administrators comply with the rules governing it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Placeholder - will review and vote this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)