Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: NuclearWarfare (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 01:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

[edit]

Statement by Sandstein

[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

[edit]

First, my apologies to ArbCom, I certainly did not intend to flout their rulings, this is the very first time that I’ve overturned a block even purported to be AE-related, and certainly my last one without bringing it to ArbCom first to avoid even the appearance of disregarding their rulings. With that said, I’m unclear on how WP:AN falls under the ArbCom Pseudoscience restrictions. My comments [1] [2] [3] were meant to convey that I didn't think this was a Pseudoscience ArbCom situation as Sandstein did, but a behavioral issue outside the remit of AE. I think this comment is an excellent description of the issue at hand.

Consensus is not just a headcount, in reviewing the comments on AN, it appeared to me that there was clear consensus that the block was bad and should be overturned. This was bolstered by the comments and timing of the blocking admin who did not adequately describe what the problem comments were; compounded by giving a ‘two hour after next edit’ time frame for Ludwigs2 to respond - which was not followed by Sandstein - then when Ludwigs2 did respond with a query as to what the problem comments were,[4] the blocking admin declined to answer that question, and instead immediately blocked the user. (Ncmvocalist describes this succinctly here: [5] )

This entire situation seemed outrageously unfair to me, and to top it off, the blocking admin disappears and does not respond to the post-block comments made on Ludwigs2’s talk page or the objections raised on AN, only finally showing up to file this RFARB seven hours later.[6][7]

All the commenting editors on AN, with the exception of Sandstein, Ludwigs2 and QuackGuru, were uninvolved in the actual issue, which was Ludwigs2's statement about QuackGuru. This was not a content dispute or a dispute that directly involved other editors. The issue is not pseudoscience, but a comment made by one editor about their potential behavior towards another on an appropriate noticeboard. As Sandstein correctly points out it was criticized by five editors at WP:AN: Hans Adler: [8], Short Brigade Harvester Boris: [9], TFD: [10], SlimVirgin: [11], Xxanthippi [12], plus one more on Ludwigs2's talkpage, GoetheFromm: [13]

I think that Sandstein was rushed and sloppy in his comments and follow-up block, Sandstein should have clearly explained the situation as I did here: [14] Unfortunately, he did not. The block was not even properly logged per the Pseudoscience Arbcom decision: [15] [16] Why was there such a rush to block? And, indeed, I should have left a note on Sandstein’s talk page, that won’t happen again. Perhaps I should have given the AN discussion more time and waited for more consensus, but these things can be nebulous.

The problematic comment by Ludwigs2 was made on the AN noticeboard,[17] not on any pseudoscience talk page, so it seemed quite a stretch, if not an outright bogus claim that the block fell under AE. Although remotely and tangentially related to pseudoscience disputes, it was really about behavior on AN. I also did not perceive Ludwigs2's comment to be a real threat, but I could understand how others might interpret it that way, which is why I phrased it thusly: [18]

I believe a simple pre-block discussion by Sandstein with Ludwigs2 may have defused this situation entirely. My own intervention calmed the situation quite a bit, and led to a positive outcome and path forward.[19][20] I believe that’s what we want in situations like this. Dreadstar ☥ 00:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

[edit]

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 [21], I asked for clarification [22] (because I really wasn't sure what he was talking about), and he immediately blocked me [23] 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)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (12/1/0/0)

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Accept:  Roger talk 23:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationale for acceptance: I haven't yet looked closely at the facts of this case and have therefore formed no view on them. However, there are a number of important principles at stake and I think these could use airing, exploring and perhaps clarifying. The status quo as far as the principles are concerned seems to me to be follows:
      1). The purpose of AE blocks is to produce stable blocks in troublesome topic areas, and enshrines the principle of impartial and measured review by uninvolved members of the community. This is an important principle and one that has stood the community in good stead.
      2). If an AE block is blatantly bad, either because the provisions of the discretionary sanctions are blatantly inapplicable to the circumstances, or because the block is blatantly inappropriate or disproportionate, uninvolved members of the community will reach that conclusion swiftly enough and the block may then be safely and properly overturned by consensus.
      3). If the circumstances are borderline, or more complicated, or require further investigation, then the community will likely take longer to reach a decision. That is probably right too and it is not for administrators to second guess the outcome while the community is deliberating.
      4). Now adminstrators are not expected to be perfect. This means they will sometimes make bad blocks and sometimes bad unblocks. But if – to take the more usual scenario – an administrator is making repeatedly making bad AE blocks – or is regularly applying AE blocks in circumstances where a routine block would have been more appropriate – the solution is not to IAR-overturn their blocks but to initiate a review of the administrator's AE block record so that the problem, if one exists, may be reviewed and remedial action, if appropriate, taken.
      On this analysis, ignoring the AE block provisions is not trumped by a subsequent finding of fact that the block was bad (though that might well be something to argue in mitigation should sanctions for the unblocking adminstrator be contemplated). The conduct of all parties therefore needs to be reviewed.
       Roger talk 09:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Accept, regretfully. While the facts of this instance are straightforward, the nuances of this instance demand more than just motions or comments. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Starting to see uncomfortable parallels to the Trusilver case that was the last AE overturn that turned into a ArbCase. Reluctantly voting to Accept SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ncmvocalist: I see no reason to change the current policy regarding AEBLOCK. SirFozzie (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why the motion was put into place in the first place is that there was too many incidents of people disagreeing with an administrative action and undoing it without discussion and/or consensus, which led to a Wild West, drama-filled and heated atmosphere. It doesn't mandate that AE Blocks are holy and sancrosanct, that just people should do their best to discuss and get consensus before undoing. If an administrator has a history of placing ill-founded or just plain WRONG AE remedies, then the Committee can ask that person to stop working in that area, and as necessary, formally restrict them from doing so. We will probably review all actions taken as part of this case, but the general thoughts I'm seeing from my fellow Arbs is that it at least partially justifiable. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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) swtich to accept, mainly to firmly establish pages that are within the bounds of an AE block. This should be pretty straightforward and I don't think we need take too long on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@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))[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • Accept Just so its clear Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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). –xenotalk 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept - it looks like this is sufficiently multifaceted such that statements or motions alone may prove inadequate. I think the case should be entitle "Arbitration enforcement sanction handling" and be more of a top-down review, in line with Newyorkbrad's comments below. –xenotalk 13:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Accept, but principally to review and if necessary hone and clarify discretionary sanctions and enforcement procedures and guidelines (which there has been significant input from various sources ought to be done), not necessarily to focus on or impose sanctions for any particular administrator action (though we can't rule that out until the evidence comes in). If the case is accepted, I will have a few questions that I will ask editors to comment on and my colleagues to ponder. A reasonable timetable for the case should be agreed on and adhered to, and a different casename should probably be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: The behaviour of ALL parties to this matter, including Ludwigs2 and QuackGuru, should be examined here; I ask the clerks to advise QuackGuru of this case. Some of the other factors to consider is whether sanctions are being inappropriately classified as arbitration enforcements, whether or not sanctions being handed out at AE are appropriate to the circumstances, and whether all administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved editors/admins. Risker (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

[edit]

Decorum

[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators and arbitration enforcement

[edit]

Working in complex areas

[edit]

2.1) Administrators who address Arbitration Enforcement requests handle one of the project's most sensitive and stressful administrator tasks; among other things, they must frequently assess and resolve complex issues arising from bitter long-term editing disputes and involving intractable and strongly opinionated editors. The Arbitration Committee appreciates the work performed by these administrators, without whom long-term remedies imposed in our decisions would be meaningless. To share the workload, the Committee encourages more administrators, particularly experienced ones, to become involved in this task. More administrators are also urgently needed to handle other tasks at the front lines of addressing user-conduct issues, such as review of unblock requests on-wiki and on the unblock-l mailing list.

Passed 12 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are not perfect

[edit]

2.2.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Administrators should exercise care and judgment when using their tools and when imposing sanctions delegated by the arbitration committee. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 11 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Learning from experience

[edit]

2.3) An administrator's actions taken for purposes of Arbitration enforcement may be overturned following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors, on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard or another appropriate venue, or in rare instances, by the Arbitration Committee on appeal. When this occurs, the administrator whose action was overturned should assess why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. However, the administrator should not take the overturning as a personal rebuke; over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project will have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee.

Passed 12 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Warnings and notifications

[edit]

Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions

[edit]

3.1.2) Because of the priority given to enforcement of discretionary sanctions, administrators must be deliberate and careful in applying their discretion to impose sanctions. In general, sanctions should be imposed in situations where there has been a serious violation or a pattern of violations of a remedy contained in an Arbitration Committee decision, and a prior warning or warnings have not resolved the problem. When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or when an administrator knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action, it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally.

Passed 13 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rationales in warnings and sanction notices

[edit]

3.2) In imposing a sanction or giving a warning based on an Arbitration Committee decision, an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken. The scope of any sanction imposed should also be specified as clearly as possible. A sanctioned editor may respond by asking the sanctioning administrator, in a civil fashion, to explain or to reconsider the imposition or scope of the sanction. The administrator should respond to appropriate questions raised by the sanctioned editor, and when appropriate should also advise the editor that he or she may request a review of the sanctions by a request to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Passed 13 to 0, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case sanctions

[edit]

3.3) The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course.

Passed 9 to 2, with 1 abstention 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Overturning arbitration enforcement sanctions

[edit]

Unilateral reversal is prohibited

[edit]

4.1) Arbitration enforcement should not be reversed unilaterally: it is not appropriate for an administrator to simply substitute their judgment for another's. Even if the disagreeing administrator believes that the enforcement action was erroneous or mistaken and discussion with the enforcing administrator has not led to a solution, substantial community consensus or Committee permission must be sought before overturning an act explicitly stated to be pursuant to an arbitration remedy.

Passed 8 to 4, 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for reversal

[edit]

4.2) In March 2010, the Committee by motion specified the procedure for overturning discretionary sanctions. The applicable section reads:

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. Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

Passed 10 to 0, with 1 abstention 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) This request for arbitration was requested by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), claiming that Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) substantially overturned an administrative act of his – a block of Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – in contravention of a prior arbitration ruling.

Passed 13 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Case acceptance rationale by arbitrators

[edit]

2) In accepting this case, several arbitrators expressly did so as an opportunity to examine the general background to arbitration enforcement and to consider the underlying principles involved.

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's inappropriate remarks

[edit]

3) This dispute was triggered by a posting made by Ludwigs2 on 8 March 2011 at the Administrators' Noticeboard. The last paragraph of Ludwigs2's posting contained inappropriate remarks, which included: "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" and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly".

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

September 2008 notification to Ludwigs2

[edit]

4) Ludwigs2 had been previously notified about the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, in respect of another case in September 2008.

Among other things, the notification stated "These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions."

The notification also states: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 block warning to Ludwigs2 by Sandstein

[edit]

5) On 8 March 2011, Ludwigs2 was warned by Sandstein both in the AN thread and on Ludwigs2's talk page that a block was contemplated. The AN message stated that Ludwigs2 "had previously been warned" and linked to the September 2008 message.

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 requests clarification

[edit]

6) Sandstein's warning message to Ludwigs2 requested the latter to "show cause why [he] should not be sanctioned" within two hours of his next edit. Ludwigs2 requested that Sandstein clarify his warning at both his own talk page[24] and the noticeboard thread[25]. Sandstein did not respond further to Ludwigs2, but proceeded to block him less than two hours after his initial warning.[26]

Passed 10 to 0, with 2 abstentions 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Block by Sandstein

[edit]

7) On 8 March 2011, Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) for three days in response to comments he believed to be threats of disruption[27], clearly marking the block as an enforcement action of the Pseudoscience decision[28].

Passed 13 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock by Dreadstar

[edit]

8) A little over three hours later, Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked the editor while clearly aware that the block was done pursuant to an arbitration remedy [29][30]. While the applicability and propriety of the block was disputed and under discussion[31], there was no consensus to overturn the enforcement action at that time (nor, indeed, did Dreadstar claim there was or that he was acting accordingly).

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's redaction of remarks

[edit]

9.2) Sandstein interpreted remarks in the last paragraph of Ludwigs2's initial AN post as threats to disrupt. After unblocking Ludwigs2, Dreadstar instructed Ludwigs2 to strike the contentious remarks. Ludwigs2 duly redacted them.

Passed 9 to 1, with 1 abstentions 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar's apology

[edit]

11) In Dreadstar's evidence, Dreadstar acknowledges that he made an error of judgment, has apologised for unblocking Ludwigs2, and has promised that he will not act similarly in respect of discretionary sanction in the future.

Passed 12 to 0, 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's communications

[edit]

12) In Sandstein's evidence, Sandstein has expressed regret for shortcomings in communications with Ludwigs2 and has promised to take more care to avoid miscommunication in the future.

Passed 10 to 0, with 2 abstentions 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Dreadstar reminded

[edit]

1.1) Dreadstar is reminded to adhere to procedure, in light of his having substantially reversed an arbitration enforcement block without the requisite consensus or permission.

Passed 12 to 0, with 1 abstention 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein advised

[edit]

2) Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.

Passed 10 to 1, with 2 abstentions 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 cautioned

[edit]

3) Ludwigs2 is cautioned to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric.

Passed 11 to 1, with 1 abstention 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators advised

[edit]

4) Administrators are advised to abide by the principles above, which set out expectations for arbitration enforcement actions.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Vacated by motion 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrators reminded

[edit]

5) Administrators are reminded that:

i) Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia (cf. P2.1, P2.2.1);
ii) Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning (cf. P3.2, P3.1.2);
iii) Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case (cf. P3.1.2);
iv) Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways (cf. P3.2);
v) Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process (cf. P3.2);
vi) Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to (cf. P4.1, P4.2, P2.3);
vii) Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle (cf. P4.1, P4.2);
viii) Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes (cf. P3.1.2).
Passed 11 to 0, 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Vacated by motion 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

No enforcement proposals were passed for this case.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling&oldid=1142656466"