Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin/Elonka's expanded Pseudoscience statement

This is an expanded statement to what was posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist

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?

Getting to some of Orangemarlin's other comments about my actions, to keep it simple: I think he's making some rather bizarre charges, but to be clear: 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.

To go into a bit more detail: The dispute at the pseudoscience articles is extremely complex, as the Arbitration Committee already knows. Some editors are treating articles such as List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts as battlegrounds, with extensive edit wars, team reverting, sometimes by editors who just show up to revert even though they are not engaged in talkpage discussion, and other disruption. The talkpage at the above article has also been extremely busy, drawing hundreds of messages per week, from many different editors.

I first noticed this dispute in early December, when there was so much disruption from anonymous editors, that I semi-protected the talkpage for two weeks, and noted that more administrative action might result if disputes continued.[1] I then kept a casual eye on the discussions, offering a comment here and there,[2] but taking no other substantial action. On January 14, things further escalated when Orangemarlin joined the edit war, reverting without discussion,[3] and then immediately requesting page protection on his version.[4] Administrator SoWhy (talk · contribs) placed indefinite protection on the article, but without offering any other comment or assistance. So I stepped up my own efforts, to see if discretionary sanctions might help stabilize the article and allow protection to be lifted. I asked the editors at the article if they had any suggestions for sanctions.[5] A few editors immediately objected to my presence, some even fabricating reasons that I should stay out, with bizarre claims such as that I was an involved editor, I had a POV, I'd edited the article heavily, or that I had already "blocked two editors, capriciously, both overturned immediately" (I've never done such a thing, and have never had a block overturned). I'm used to these kinds of false claims in this topic area, so I didn't take them personally, though the false charges definitely contributed to the chaos. In order to try and provide more structure to the discussions, I provided a list of all the editors on the page.[6] This technique has been used with success at other complex disputes (see my list at User:Elonka/ArbCom log). However, Orangemarlin objected and announced that he was going to delete the list,[7] and QuackGuru (talk · contribs) deleted the "admin log" section,[8] I restored things, and things calmed down for about a day. Then admin KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) (an administrator who is involved as an editor in this topic area) came in and deleted things again, with an uncivil edit summary,"Remove, NO reason to have this here unless you are trying to poison the well. I've stayed out of your little powerfest, Elonka, but this is getting well out of hand."

I contacted Arbitration clerk Penwhale, and he restored the section, saying "Consider this as my independent endorsement of the restrictions." Orangemarlin then re-deleted it, saying "Bad faith, uncivil accusations". Penwhale restored,[9] and again, things calmed down for a bit, until the next day when Verbal (talk · contribs) chose to remove his name from the list, saying "I do not recognise this list, removing my name", and Orangemarlin tagged the entire thread for deletion,[10] and started a thread at ANI.[11] ThuranX (talk · contribs) (who I had blocked several months ago for a different matter,[12] but had not previously been involved with the pseudosciences article), opted to start a new round of "delete the thread": "hit list removed. Elonka refuses to participate meaningfully in the AN/I and instead continues to add names to this vendetta advertisement." Jayvdb then restored it, but Cameron Scott (talk · contribs) deleted it again.[13] I restored it,[14] but then administrator B (talk · contribs) reverted me.[15] It was 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. (addendum) At the time, I had been operating under the impression that KillerChihuahua was an uninvolved admin, but I have since learned that this assumption was in error, as she has been involved in editing in the pseudoscience topic area. I apologize for the error, and have amended my statement.

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 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 a complete list of the discretionary sanctions that I have ever placed, in any topic area, see User:Elonka/ArbCom log. --Elonka 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (amended 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC))