Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Flagged Revisions /Jimbo Wales

Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jimbo

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Unneeded; at the most, this is akin to a veto override, at the least, this is a very divisive community issue.

Statement by Sceptre

Before I say anything: I'm holding up my Elephant in the room card. Anyway: Flagged Revisions has caused controversy ever since the extension was announced by Brion about eight months ago. Some people support it because it could improve the reliability of Wikipedia; some oppose it because it could potentially change one of our m:foundation issues. Right now, there is a straw poll taking place to trial the extension, which indicates that 59% of Wikipedians support the idea (discarding neutrals). Yesterday, in light of reports about BLP violations regarding Ted Kennedy's collapse during Obama's inaugural luncheon, Jimbo announced he would ask for the extension to be turned on, despite previous discussion on his talk page on whether consensus existed to turn it on proving to be divisive. I'm bringing this to the arbitration to committee to consider whether: a) there is community consensus for the extension, and if not: b) whether Jimbo can override the wishes of half of the community. Questions about his prior support of the extension and whether it constitutes a conflict of interest may also be need to be answered. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re CHL: WP:CON says that the Arbitration Committee can overrule a declaration by Jimbo, so I think it does fall into the arbcom's jurisdiction. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re David: This case is effectively one-third filibuster, one-third clarification, and one-third concern. So really, the cloture example doesn't work :). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Flo, Scott, Rootology: Jimbo isn't listening on his talk page. Despite people pointing out multiple times he doesn't have a consensus, he's done it anyway. Therefore, it falls to either the Arbitration Committee or the developers to override him (the likelihood that the latter may, as it falls below Brion's requirement). I fear BLP has become the statutory rape law of Wikipedia; while well intentioned, sometimes it's utterly stupid, but it's political suicide to change it. There are better and less divisive methods to protect our BLPs. Don't adhere blindly to one foundation issue so much that you forget the other. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re WilyD: but not nearly enough the level of support Brion mandated for turning it on ("at least two-thirds"). Doubly so when most of the supports are less reasoned out than the opposes. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion: Jimbo has actually voted in the poll (he's #9). It is abhorrent and against the community spirit of the encyclopedia to act as judge, jury, and executioner. I ask that any arbitrator that voted either for or against the proposal recuse themselves from the case, as it wouldn't be any better if the arbitrators who opposed it tried to overturn it. That would still leave us with, I believe, at least ten arbitrators. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: title changed, focus the same: whether Jimbo has the power to pass the proposal (based on consensus, conflict of interest, et cetera). Still urge an overruling or effect to the same, but regardless of that, the question still needs to be answered. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Sam: I do think it was very unreasonable of Jimbo to rule on the poll. He's too partisan to impartially close it, having being an ardent supporter from the start. Had Jimbo remained neutral and closed it with about a 6:4 split, I probably would've not filed this request. But Jimbo has supported the proposal and closed it in his favour, while being warned that there was nowhere near enough consensus for implementation by several established editors. You're already hearing a request into Elonka's impartialness within psuedoscience down the page. It is hypocritical to hear a possible case of partisanship but not hear a definite case, even if the latter case concerns the actions of our sole founder. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by David Shankbone

I would also like the Arb Com to hear this matter, and in particular to determine what is a reasonable number for "consensus." I know of no other voting body that expects to solve its toughest problems with 75% agreement, or else those problems go unresolved. I find this a ridiculous number for "consensus" - it's not consensus; it's not even a supermajority. It's not a two-thirds majority. It's not a double majority. It's unrealistic. It takes 60% of U.S. Senators voting to invoke cloture to stop a filibuster, and even that is difficult to muster. But somehow the community has come to think it perfectly reasonable to expect that unless 75% of us agree on something, nothing should be done. I'm unaware of the origins of the 75% number, but I and many others think it has led this website down a bad path, where we are unable to resolve our problems (or even agree enough to have enough admins run the site). On the other hand , when 100 of us agree on anything, we find it such a marvel that we create pages celebrating it. At most, consensus should be considered 66%, a two-thirds majority. But as far as I'm concerned, 60% is good enough for the U.S. Senate, it should be good enough for a website. This is a fundamental problem on the site that I think ArbCom should decide upon, as it begets many, many other problems. --David Shankbone 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DuncanHill

The discussion page for flagged revisions (at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions) has for a long time had a very noticeable message from Mr Wales right at the top dismissing opposers as being motivated by what he calls "FUD". I believe that this may have coloured the debate, and discouraged editors from expressing opposition, and that it also calls into question Mr Wales's ability to make dispassionate judgements on this matter. I also note this [1] from Erik Moeller. The "poll" does not have a two-thirds majority, so to turn on the extension would be to make a mockery of what has been said. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also add that Mr Wales's decision to make this announcement on his talk page rather than on the talk page dedicated to the issue of flagged revisions indicates a lack of proper concern for the community and its input to such matters, again suggestive that he has not acted dispassionately, but simply waited until he felt he was able to do what he has long wanted to do. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

Consensus rules are designed to prevent hasty decisions when more talk and compromise would get something with wider support. They are not designed to allow minorities an indefinite veto and to doom us to the stagnation of a status-quo no-one regards as acceptable. This has had plenty of discussion, and the current trial proposal is very measured and limited. Talking more is pointless; we won't know how this works until we try it. It should happen, needs to happen, and it will happen. Admins judge consensus on AfD, Bureaucrats on RfA, and so it is not unreasonable that Jimmy does it for high level policy discussion. Someone has to close the debate or it is never-ending, so unless arbcom want that role, I suggest they endorse the decision.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not minor. Policy log-jam has been unacceptably frustrating BLP harm reduction for too long. I call for arbcom to step up and be counted. You can wikilawyer about your scope if you choose, and boot this into the long-grass, but wikilawyering around the brokenness of the system has gone on too long. Sooner or later you will lose the popularity you currently enjoy, and the honeymoon will be over - why not lose it over something that actually matters? Six arbs agreeing with Jimmy here and we can do some real good. Step up, it is time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:WilyD

I have to urge rejectence. Their is a respectable consensus to implement a trial run on a limited set of articles as Jimbo is doing. Doubly so when one considers that we're discussing things, not voting, and the discussion is entirely one sided. The result of any arbitration case would simply empower that vocal minority in continuing to put off the writing of the encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by rootology

This is NOT about Flagged Revisions. Jimmy either has the authority to do this by fiat or he doesn't. Jimmy either still has relevance as a "monarch" or doesn't. It's clear Jimmy has no legal power, ownership, or authority over anything, beyond being a board member with the gratis Founder tag and all it's supposed magic powers from a "technical" and/or legal standpoint. He doesn't own WP or the WMF. But again, that's going "technical". The board and Sue could override him on anything and everything outside of en.wp specific to our projects. But here? Maybe a different beast.

That should be the ENTIRE scope of this arbitration if it's accepted, and I strongly, strongly, strongly urge the AC to not under any circumstances address this question as a motion but rather a full case, limited to that one specific laser-tight scope:

What is Jimmy's actual authority on en.wp?

As Jimbo has stated he defers to any and all decisions about him to the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitration Committee through a case is perfectly within their power to define the scope of what Jimmy Wale's authority on English Wikipedia is as of 2009. Is he an admin? Or something more? If Jimmy is still what he was, then he can push through FR even with 1% popular support. If not, then he cannot and his role has forever changed. That should be the entire scope of a case here. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Luke's FloNight's rejection and any similar:

Jimmy ceded that the AC has full and total authority over him for en.wp matters. This is within your purview utterly, within my proposed scope. I call on the AC that we just elected to bring about change to do just that. The borders of what the AC does is always kept deliberately nebulous for political reasons. Do the right thing here, not the political one. Arbiters never really get re-elected--historical fact--so you have to only answer for now, and to answer for doing the right thing. Scott is right, above. Let's take a frakking stand in defense of our BLPs. Take up the case here. rootology (C)(T) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest renaming the case to "Jimbo Wales"

This isn't about Flagged Revisions. rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Phil

Your link from James is from 2004, but Jimbo confirmed he is bound to the AC in 2007: [2] That is the precedent. rootology (C)(T) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding pledge upon myself:

In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final.

*This* is a significant change to our policies.

--Jimbo

Statement by Fritzpoll

Stating up front that I think trying out some of the proposed configurations at WP:FLR/P are a good idea, so judge my opinion as you wish.
Jimmy does not appear to be unilaterally turning on Flagged Revs from a social point of view - in this, he is not enforcing a new policy. He appears to me to simply be enacting the proposed configuration, which is a purely technical thing - it is just turning some software on. His preferred trial is clearly the BLP set of articles, and the rights and wrongs of that view are not at issue here - but it is still just a trial that he is suggesting.
My conclusion is that Jimmy is not enforcing a policy change but having the software installed to get us quickly onto the debate about how we might conduct trials of the software. As such, he is asserting no more authority over the site than if the devs had just installed it themselves - it is a technical, and not a social/policy issue. As such, I suggest there is no case to answer, unless someone can find me a statement where Jimmy has said "I'm turning this on, and we're flagging the pages according to some dictated policy as soon as the software is in place" (or words to that effect) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

Although the case is title "Flagged Revisions", as rootology points out this is not about the implementation of flagged revisions. It's about the question whether Jimbo should be the one to decide that there is enough consensus to do so, although it is quite clear that he is biased towards implementation anyway. Does his authority mean that he is the one to decide that consensus is enough? Or shouldn't this decision rather be made by a neutral party no matter what Jimbo wishes?

There is no clear definition how much Jimbo's power extends in such questions and it would be good for a ArbCom decision to define this more strictly; the matter at hand is nothing but a situation where this question arises — a question that will arise in future again and thus should be addressed, no matter the matter at hand.
In short: If the community does discuss and vote on a matter, should the question on what the consensus is be judged by neutral people who have no opinion on the matter or can Jimbo decide to judge himself, even if he is not neutral? SoWhy 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarcasticidealist

WP:CON prevents all moderately contentious policy changes from being made on Wikipedia. If we accept the premise that moderately contentious policy changes are at least sometimes desirable, it follows that WP:IAR sometimes needs to be invoked to get them through. For want of any better justification, let's call this one of those times. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional thought: Jimbo isn't directing that flagged revs be turned on; he doesn't have that kind of power over the developers. He's requesting that they be turned on. In this regard, his authority isn't an en-wiki issue, but a Foundation issue (since it's the Foundation that has to decide how it reacts to such a request). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Random832

I agree with David Shankbone (five words I never thought I'd type) that the scope of this case should include the ridiculously high standards for "consensus" that paralyze us from getting anything done. This isn't about flagged revisions, this isn't about Jimbo, this is about the English Wikipedia community's inability to govern itself. --Random832 (contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Geometry guy

Consensus isn't a percentage, it is about discussion and good argument. Apparently some editors think that the community has rejected flagged revisions. Where? We haven't yet been asked to approve any implementation of it, anywhere. Instead, we have been asked to comment on a trial going ahead to test different implementations of flagged revisions so that the community can make an informed decision. Even looking at the percentages, 40% is not consensus to block a small scale trial. Looking at the arguments, the objections melt away further. Many of the !votes are objections on principle ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit") or against a particular implementation. One possible implementation of flagged revisions, namely flagged protection, makes Wikipedia more open to IP edits, not less. The number of objections to a trial drops even further in this light.

I accept that this request is not about flagged revisions per se. However, it has been motivated by a perception that Jimbo is acting against consensus. First, he hasn't acted, and has only commented on his talk page. Second, as I have explained, there is clearly consensus for a trial. There isn't consensus for an implementation of flagged revisions, so a trial must be followed by another community discussion. At the moment, I myself would only support something along the lines of WP:Flagged protection, and only if the trial did not reveal fundamental problems.

The only merit in hearing this case would be to assert vigorously to the community that consensus isn't a percentage. This example illustrates that point beautifully. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

This is dumb. Flagged reversions is such an essential piece of technology for reducing the amount of libel that the Foundation should just implement it by fiat and be done with it. This is one of the biggest sites on the internet and the bottom line of not having libel in articles trumps ethereal complaints. --B (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note by Crystal whacker

Vassyana writes: "I've not seen any efforts to try and reach a community consensus (no irony or pun intended) regarding" the role of Jimmy Wales or the consensus model of decision-making. Read and learn! Crystal whacker (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/1/2)

• Reject. This does not involve Jimbo's actions as an administrator or steward and I therefore think it's outside of our jurisdiction as I interpret it. Moreover, Jimbo is not overriding the wishes of "half the community" (40% < half). I note that he would be doing so if he declined to implement it, however. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  On further reflection, I recuse. I have a strong inclination that this is a moral issue. I think any decision to not conduct a trial run of flagged revisions would be abhorrent. Therefore, I am completely prejudiced on this case. Cool Hand Luke 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reject. Per Cool Hand Luke 's view that Jimbo was not acting as an regular member of the Community so a case is not the best venue to resolve the matter. (revised since CHL recused and struck his comment.) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • None of us (Community or the Committee) needs an arbitration case to talk to Jimbo about this issue. He has a talk page and active email, I don't see what is to be gained by the involved parties communicating with Jimbo and the Committee in a case. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • See Jimbo's recent comment asking for more consensus building discussion. At this time, a case is unneeded to develop a process to find consensus about flagged revisions. The other issues are not best address in a case but through discussion with Jimbo and the Communiyt, and then re-writing policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Accept, tenatively. I think this is something ArbCom can look at closely. The role of Jimbo is a case that's been inevitable. As for flagged revisions, pretty much every arb has an opinion on them by now, though if we just keep it to looking at consensus it could work. Wizardman 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just an addendum that the decision of whether or not to implement flagged revisions is not arbcoms to make, so a case based just on that won't happen. Ergo, any opinion any arbs may hold on it doesn't really apply to this case. Wizardman 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Three distinct things are being asked of us above (in my perception): 1) To specifically address the flagged revisions dicussion. 2) To review the role Jimbo on the English Wikipedia. 3) To review the judgement of broad consensus on the English Wikipedia. These are rather large issues, even taken individually. 2) and 3) seem to be the underlying issues surrounding the disagreement about 1). I've not seen any efforts to try and reach a community consensus (no irony or pun intended) regarding 2) or 3). Perhaps the results would be divided. Perhaps the results may indicate a clearer agreement that one might think. However, unless some attempt is made, we will never know (including never knowing how the community is divided on those issues). I am disclined to jump into this morass without some measure of guidance regarding the community mood and breakdown on the two underlying issues, and as such leaning towards declining this request. On a related note, I see little effort to talk this out with Jimbo (though I see plenty of message cheering or booing the decision). I'm especially concerned about taking up a case examining 3) at this juncture, as it would essentially be a request for ArbCom to rework a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I remain open to be convinced that ArbCom needs to examine this request, but I am openly wary of the prospect that we should examine these issues without clear attempts to resolve them without the intervention of ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment my feelings echo the above two users. I do have a suspicion that managing this purely by the community may not be helpful depending on how real the threat of litigation is, and developers and site owners may have to override this at some point for ite survival. Q. of Jimbo may be of more relevance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject at this time. Vassyana has largely captured my thoughts on the matter. Risker (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; unlike some of my colleagues, I'm not convinced that a constitutional crisis (such as a breakdown of agreement of what consensus means in the first place, or of Jimbo's role in evaluating or overriding it) lies outside our remit— indeed, I expect that the community would demand that ArbCom stepped in should Jimbo go suddenly nuts.

  That being said, I don't think that the current dispute goes anywhere near the level of a constitutional crisis: while there are a number of people very strongly entrenched on both sides of the issue, I see no breakdown of communication nor failure of the normal discussion mechanisms. Jimbo interpreting a 60/40 split in opinion as sufficient consensus to go ahead with testing the feature is fundamentally reasonable, and ArbCom would be going against the wishes of a clear majority by overriding him. Wikipedia works by consensus, not unanimity; and common sense, reason and the overall good of the encyclopedia are the factors we take into account when deciding "how much" is enough of a consensus— not just a set percentage picks out of a hat depending on whether one would personally prefer a proposal to fail or succeed. — Coren ^(talk) 21:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• With the disclaimer that I voted in the poll on flagged revisions, I would reject this case for two reasons. First, the committee does not make policy, but interprets existing policies (or guidance, or founding principles). This case asks us to interfere in policymaking, which is not our remit. Second, although Jimbo has conferred on us the power "to overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia", I would set a high threshold on such a decision - akin to the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" in English law. In judging whether this was a reasonable action I would note that a majority (although not a supermajority) supported implementation of flagged revisions; that it is a trial for a brief period; and that the problem which flagged revisions aims to prevent occurring is a very real and serious one. Taking all of this I would not call Jimbo's action manifestly unreasonable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. I remain deeply concerned about various aspects of what is loosely called the BLP problem or series of problems—the drive-by-vandalism problem, the POV-attack-page problem, and the invasion-of-privacy problem being three main facets of how Wikipedia's article content can harm our article subjects. (It should be borne in mind that to an extent these are Internet problems, not simply Wikipedia problems—but the unique prominence of our site and ease of accessing it give us an especial role in working to solve them.) I have written on these matters in various places around the wiki, most recently on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Instances of problems continue to come to everyone's attention (I read of one in the newspaper on Sunday morning, coincidentally the same day I gave a talk at the New York meet-up on these issues). It remains important that we continue to recognize the seriousness of these issues, and that we rapidly make progress toward addressing them (as opposed to merely talking about doing so). Substantially improving the BLP situation while preserving much of what brought all of us to edit here has been the most urgent task facing the project for a number of years, and warrants the attention of every dedicated member of this community. However, I don't see a role for an arbitration case in this process at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject for now. Like Newyorkbrad and others, I am concerned about the BLP-related issues – invasion of privacy, camouflaged attack pages, and casual vandalism – which flagged revisions are intended to address and prefer community to engage in attempting to solve them before bringing the issue here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification

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". [3] 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"[4] (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.

-note - I am suffering from a bad cold today and reserve the right to copyedit this. 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[5], ThuranX[6], Cameron Scott[7], B[8] and restored by Elonka twice[9]

[10] and Jayvdb once[11] 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?"[12] on his talk page from Elonka. It has been discussed to the tune of 3,155 words on the talk page there[13] 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.

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 ([14]).

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)

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)

Stroke 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 wheel-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)

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)

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)

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)

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. However, in lieu of a motion, I politely ask that Elonka voluntarily withdraw herself from acting as an administrator in the topic area and informally caution her to be more receptive to community feedback. (On the latter, I'm not talking about the complaints of involved parties). 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. This involves far more than this single recent incident and the complaints of warned/sanctioned users. Vassyana (talk) 20:13, 22 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)

---