Template:Active editnotice

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

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

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.

Initiated by Gordonofcartoon (talk) at 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gordonofcartoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Posturewriter has been notified via Talk page [1] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Advice on general editing etiquette and standards. [2]
• Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest [3]
• Two unsuccessful attempts to resolve via WP:COIN
• Take 1 [4]
• Take 2 [5]
• Request via Wikiquette alerts to abide by WP:UP#NOT [6] and remove bad-faith Talk page diatribe about other editors. Outcome: "Stuck".
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter: strongest consensus for outcome was [7], closing conclusion here [8]

This concerns long-standing disputes surrounding Posturewriter (talk · contribs), an editor with a sole SPA interest in the article Da Costa's syndrome and a demonstrable conflict of interest (he has self-disclosed his identity as operator of a website expounding his "Posture Theory" about illnesses relating to this syndrome).

I'm asking for Arbitration attention - ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk and dispute resolution pages - on grounds of Posturewriter exhausting community patience: this involves a classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

The dispute has now been going on since the end of 2007, when Posturewriter began editing Da Costa's syndrome after his self-created article on his theory was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The posture theory. The material added is disputed, but Posturewriter's attitude to discourse has made it impossible to achieve consensus by the normal collaborative process.

This has proved insoluble over multiple forums, in large part due to Posturewriter's POV pushing exacerbated by incivility; refusal to accept consensus on matters of style and source reliability; repeated accusations of various forms of bad faith in other editors' actions; and hostile obfuscating approach to discussion.

The user conduct RFC concluded that he should find other editing interests and avoid editing articles where a COI applied. After a brief absence - though with continuing hostility on Talk pages - he's straight back to editing the disputed article, and asking that the RFC conclusion be retracted as invalid.[9] Since the RFC clearly hasn't worked, the concluding admin suggested arbitration. [10] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wizardman

This is emphatically not about content. I only mention that as much as required to show that the root of the problem is advocacy. The issues are very similar to those of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: as described here [11], advocacy (in the form of promoting original research) backed up by a variety of uncollegiate conduct (particularly, long-running accusations of bad faith like these). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly, according to Gordonofcartoon there is some hurry here. I will try to respond later today, but in the meantime please note that when I came to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome about 14 months ago it had only four lines of text and no references and nobody complained. Since then I have added 80% of the references and 90% of the contributions. By contrast a tag team of two editors named WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon have been using the guise of consensus to do 90% of the disruptive editing , and have been applying 90% of the adhominem. The current page has only 18 references and my subpage has more than 60 and includes most of theirs. Posturewriter (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter[reply]

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

• Awaiting statement from Posturewriter. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like the parties are primarily focusing on the content issues, which arbcom does not deal with. I'll look at the behavior issues more closely though, not sure what my stance is yet. Wizardman 07:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} at 11:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ameliorate! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SemBubenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[12]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [13]
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Abuse_of_administrator_tools
• Relates to long-term abuse of administrator tools

Administrator SemBubenny, formerly "Mikkalai", has for over many years been deleting articles related to specific phobia. Often these deletions are outside of policy, process and on numerous occasions were made without providing a deletion reason. This thread on ANI provides most of the information related to this. The gist of the situation is that SemBubenny believes these articles are garbage, that he is entitled to delete them as long as he restores them when asked and that there is nothing wrong with him pushing his point of view. SemBubenny has been unresponsive about this, choosing to blank his talkpage during a discussion about his deletions (which is what prompted me to start the ANI thread). During the discussion at ANI SemB admitted that unilateral deletion was wrong and stated what he would have done in hindsight:

"After reading the arguments presented here and in the section below, #DYK hoax article?, I admit that my course of actions was wrong. I still insist that an occasional deletion of a silly article created by and anon is well within WP:IAR. However since the creation of fake phobia articles is a rather persistent and ongoing problem, I should have invited other wikipedians to a discussion how to deal with this problem in a systematic and consensus way."

However, on November 20 2008 (17 days after the ANI thread) SemB deleted Kabourophobia and yesterday (January 25 2009) he deleted Metathesiophobia - his deletion summary states "wiktionary" however the article has, from as far as I can tell, not been transwikied (and this is the second time he has deleted the article without discussion).

Given SemB's unwillingness to fully discuss this issue, his reneging on what he said at ANI whilst admitting he was incorrect to delete the articles (meaning an RFC would be a waste of time), his continued and long-term abuse of the delete function and that there is no other process of reviewing administrator actions I offer this to the committee.

@ Carcharoth - This is not a content issue (the subject matter is an irrelevancy), this is an administrator deleting articles because they conflict with their point of view (see the diff above). It would be a difficult situation if any administrator was permitted to delete any articles they wish with the only recourse to be DRV.

@ Vassyana - The only thing I can see coming out of an RFC is an assurance he will stop deleting articles like this, SemB already provided this and then continued along the same track. I therefore fail to see what an RFC would accomplish.

I think that the position of Ameliorate! has nothing to do with improvement of wikipedia content (he apparently thinks that the article "Kabourophobia is a persistent fear of crabs" is something to be vigorously defended up to RFA) and is aimed solely against the perceived admin abuse, disregarding the existence of be bold rule. Since his vigilance is impossible to deceive even with my name change, in order to prevent further waste of time of other people I hereby declare that I comply with Ameliorate!'s demands and what is more, I am removing phobia topics from my watchlist.

To all other withchunters and hound dogs with long memory: be it known that I removed myself from all other areas of former conflicts. I would have removed myself from phobia topics earlier if I expected that Ameliorate!'s zeal is so unquenching and sleepless (he even came back from being retired in order to give me a beating). Until now the creators of phobia pseudo-articles used to be gone without trace. - 7-bubёn >t 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: if you think an article might be borderline for speedy deletion, WP:PROD can be tried first, falling back to WP:AfD. It is possible to AfD a group of articles at once if the arguments for deletion and the subject matter are closely related. This may be more efficient than arguing about speedy deletions. If there are a few tendentious accounts that habitually object to valid speedy deletes, they should be dealt with under the disruptive editing guideline. You can leave evidence on my talk page if you want me to review such accounts. I see nothing arbitratable here.Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see by SemBubenny's reaction, he does defend that those articles he deleted are not encyclopedic. But I think why Ameliorate! opened this case was not the question about whether those articles should be deleted or not, but on the way SemBubenny did it, citing WP:BOLD as a reason to ignore speedy deletion criteria. As it is within ArbCom's authority, I think the question that should be answered by the Arbitrators is whether ignoring a policy like WP:CSD citing reasons of WP:BOLD or WP:IAR does in fact constitute an abuse of admin privileges. The problem I see is not those articles, it's the fact that SemBubenny repeatedly ignored all appeals to not delete articles outside the deletion policy and yet continued to do so. If he deleted Wikipedia citing "silly article" as a reason, I doubt anyone would doubt that this were abuse. Just because the articles he deleted are less "important", does not mean the deletions are okay, does it? So I think an ArbCom ruling as to if and if so, how far WP:CSD can be ignored by admins would be helpful, not only in this case but in further cases where admin's decide to ignore the criteria and just delete things.
@ Vassyana: The ANI thread that Ameliorate! cited is pretty community-feedback-y imho and several users there agreed that those deletions were incorrect and he should stop doing them. I have to agree with the filing party that an RfC will probably yield the same responses (and SemBubenny ignored the community's response to stop it on ANI as well). SoWhy 21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ bainer: Actually, policy does not allow deletion of dictionary definitions unless transwikied (see A5). They are never covered by A3 though because all reasons derived from WP:NOT are explicitly listed at WP:CSD#Non-criteria. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recuse on the phobias issue - took part in ANI thread on the phobias, and gave SemBubenny (Mikkalai at the time) advice on his talk page. Additionally, don't think deletion of phobia articles out of process needs to be dealt with by ArbCom (AfD and DRV should handle content issues like that). If the deletions get regularly overturned, then that would be a problem. Will check back here to see if SemBubenny makes a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Ameliorate - the majority of your request is focused on the phobia articles (none of which seem to have been undeleted). If you are aware of deletions that SemBubenny has done unilaterally that were later overturned, then please add that to the request. See the comment by bainer for the reasons why the deletion of these dicdefs were probably supported by policy. In addition, see here and here for the argument that these are fake phobia definitions, and that by having these articles in Wikipedia, we are supporting content spamming. Other ways to resolve the phobias issue are to use PROD instead of immediate deletion, or to "assemble a list of any unreference-able phobia stubs and AfD them all at once" (from the ANI thread). Essentially, I agree with SemBubenny here about the phobias, which is why I've recused. For the general "administrator deleting articles" issue, suggest you ask SemBubenny to use (valid) CSD deletion reasons in the deletion logs, or to use PROD tags, or a mass AfD for unreferenced phobia articles. If that fails, a summary motion here requiring SemBubenny to do this, may resolve that issue. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At the current time, I am leaning strongly towards declining this request. An RfC has not been attempted and I see no indication that SemBubenny would be unresponsive to community feedback. I will wait on further statements before making a final decision. Vassyana (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject at this time. There are two issues here. The first is that SemBubenny is not going to be winning any awards for congeniality; his communications skills could do with some improvement. The second is the propriety of the deletions; looking at the ones linked above, and the ones linked from the ANI posting, almost all of them are mere dictionary definitions, which don't really count as proper stubs (and are thus eligible for speedy deletion, criterion A3 I believe) and quite a few had sourcing problems. There are deletion debates for some of these pages and the results seem to back up SemBubenny's deletions, save for those that have been expanded beyond mere dicdefs. Neither of these issues are suited to arbitration. The former (save perhaps more evidence being presented here) is something for RFC. As for the latter, as indicated it's my understanding that policy supports deletions of mere dicdefs, so if that's something people here want to change they should raise that at the appropriate policy page. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claims of admin abuse coupled with behavior shown in the diffs, especially problems in communicating with an admin, really concern me. I'd like to see more hard evidence at along this line. It is crucial that admins communicate when concerns are brought to them about their actions. As for the phobia articles themselves, which is a separate issue, I checked "Papaphobia" and it is in Webster's online, so that to me is a valid phobia. I also checked "Kabourophobia" and it is not in Webster's online, so that one is questionable. However, as my colleagues have stated, what to do with the articles themselves is a community issue and they offer good advice on this, so I reject hearing that issue. As for the admin abuse issue, I await more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at conduct of parties, though note that there will be no rulings on content. Wizardman 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Wizardman. We can help here better than the Community can, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I'm not certain, but I think there may be an issue here which we should look into. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator of the original motion)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

{Add them here, if they exist.}

[14] - Elonka.

Not much to say here: I just think that it would be far fairer on Elonka to give her a full case, not a summary judgement. From what I've seen, this issue has been highly divisive, but I see no evidence that Elonka acted in bad faith. As such, a much more subtle process is needed. I hope - and rather believe - that no actual actions against any users would be required: Setting out some clear principles should be sufficient.

The original motion follows. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd that you would do this without discussing or informing me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short version:

1. Just tell Elonka that citing SV to claim talk page edits are sacrosanct per AE and intimidating others with that is silly. AE is about AE; not drama-causing talk page lists.
2. Clarify (aka Clue) that administrators are not exempt from the recommendations of WP:DR;
3. Remind Elonka to give the advice of other editors serious thought and answer their questions about the reasons for controversial actions.
4. Inform Elonka that putting "warnings" on other editors' pages does not magically make their comments unworthy of consideration; rather it calls into question her motives in "warning" those who have expressed concern about her actions.

• Comment: Elonka doing a thankless job - no argument. No one perfect - no argument. Elonka is the only one on the freaking planet, however, who has interpreted the SV decision to mean that any edit of hers is protected by AE and anyone who even questions it is in danger of blocking, banning, de-sysoping, etc. I mean, seriously. This is absurd. Its not on the AE Rfc, and it shouldn't be there, because no one but Elonka remotely thinks that. No one but her edit warred to keep a much hated list on a talk page, arguing that she was doing AE and no one could even complain. Someone needs to clue her. I realize you're all declining, saying Oh go do the AE Rfc, but this is not covered in that Rfc, and if Elonka ignores 30-40 editors on the article talk page and her talk page, she isn't going to pay any attention to an Rfc on her action, either.

The simple solution is merely to have ArbCom enforcement done by multiple people so that a whole group would have to be declared biased during the process. If it gets to the point where such a thing would happen, chances are that a greater solution would be needed. The current situation does not need Arbitration. It needs people to be able to relax. ArbCom only does the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC, I changed my comment below (in the clarification section) to rephrase "wheel warring" into edit-warring, if you missed it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully suggest ArbComm members consider keeping the case open and reserve judgment on whether to accept or decline until after the results of the RfC are known? If past history is any indication of the future, the RfC's conclusions seem unlikely to change Elonka's behaviour and we'll likely end up here again. However, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recuse if this gets accepted, but Shoemaker's Holiday is reminded that he should probably notify all those that have commented on the clarification below that he has duplicated their comments; multiple people have since retracted their statements (myself included) as they didn't mean to make those statement for full-case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise; done now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathematically impossible to open, archiving in 12-24--Tznkai (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept; as I stated while this was a request for clarification. I agree with my colleagues, however, that this should be held in abeyance of conclusion on the special enforcement RFC; but I feel that the dispute warrants examination of impartiality and propriety of behavior. unsigned vote by Coren at 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC); noted by - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}[reply]
• Comment. I removed all statements copied from the clarification, except for those made by parties who've commented additionally in this request. Vassyana (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. General issues can be handled by way of clarification. Issues involving individual administrators can yet be resolved through normal dispute resolution and community discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Totally agree with Vassyana. Also, posting an RFAR and reposting of ongoing clarification statements while an RFC is in progress was not the best way to handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the RFC I'm talking about: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement, not one specifically on the special enforcement remedy. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I do not believe Elonka did anything wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and comment: Elonka has received some feedback on her actions in the motion below, which is generally supportive, or provides some alternate paths that may be considered in similar situations. In the motion below, it is apparent based on the comments of several individuals that there is room to provide some clarification and additional guidance to administrators who have taken on the challenge of Arbitration Enforcement. The ongoing RFC is intended to identify issues that admins and other editors have encountered with AE, and come up with ideas to address them. While I would prefer to wait until the RFC closes to make significant changes in practice, if those who have an interest in AE would like to comment on the two motions proposed by my colleague Vassyana, it may be reasonable to proceed with those two issues in advance of the completion of the RFC. Risker (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Risker. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Risker. Elonka has been doing a thankless job in difficult circumstances: none of us is perfect and all of us are volunteers. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, due to ongoing clarification request below and AE RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I think the problem is the SlimVirgin case, not Elonka. Should hopefully be cleared up by RFC. Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Wizardman 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - other active processes preclude this being a last resort. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - this is being handled by the motions below in the clarification request, and by the discussions at the RfC on Arbitration Enforcement. Any individual concerns about Elonka's actions need more attempts to resolve disputes before coming to arbitration. Also echo the calls for more admins to get involved at Arbitration Enforcement. Teams of admins rotating between particular cases is one option. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [15] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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

Your link from James is from 2004, but Jimbo confirmed he is bound to the AC in 2007: [16] That is the precedent. rootology (C)(T) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have attempted to analyse the oppose !vote here. I believe this supports the case that Jimbo did not act against consensus, but also demonstrates that comments like this reflect consensus rather well: "Suppose the plan were to simply replace the current semi-protection feature with the flagged-revisions feature? So that everything would be as it is today, with the added simple benefit that anonymous ips and new users would be able to edit things that today they are not able to edit?... Suppose further that, because the feature is softer, it could be used in a slightly broader set of cases. What set of cases should those be?"

I say this not as a Jimbo fan. My main interaction with his talk page has been to complain about the latest fundraiser gimmick, and his conduct in this story has been less than perfect. To err is human, to so badly split infinitives, not divine. Geometry guy 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See also [17] and [18]. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions states that "declarations from Jimbo Wales except when overruled by the Arbitration Committee, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status". This is a libel issue so definitely falls under this definition. Asking the arbcom to override simply because you disagree with Jimbo's action is not what the overruled-by-arbcom exception at WP:CON is for. See also comments here. Reject this case, go ahead with the trial, and if it turns out it actually doesn't work (as opposed to removing people's right to edit, or whatever the hyperbole is these days), then we can talk about it. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've resisted commenting here because RFAR runs into the very problem we are trying to fix here: a small set of people may have an outsized impact on what should be a community decision. My only request is that the committee undertake a motion to ask the Foundation (or Jimbo) to declare officially that Flagged Revisions are being trialed due to legal concerns, should that be the reasoning behind jimbo's action. Alternately, if this is not the motivation (and it doesn't appear to be from Jimbo's comment on his talk page), the committee should ask Jimbo to refrain from muscling through changes to policy against obvious opposition. Where we stand now, with the 'approval' of the trial based on some quasi appeal to legal issues, is unacceptable. Our motivation for moving this trial ahead is not community support nor is it strictly foundation dictum--it is neither fish nor foul and that is not a method of governance we should submit to. As a followup, we need to ask ourselves what happens when we are on the wrong side of history again? When this extension is trialed, can we expect to be trumped again should we have concerns about its implementation?

Simply put, Arbcomm needs to ask Jimbo if he exercised his authority as the founder in closing that debate or if he was merely an interested party. No veto is necessary, we just want the committee to request an answer.

As an addendum, I'm well aware that Jimbo has a talk page.

Not to recapitulate the adoption debate, but where has the foundation's lawyer stated that we face legal exposure if we do not switch to flagged revisions? We've seen a lot of legal woes raised about BLP problems and I don't doubt that BLPs impact peoples' lives in an outsized fashion. Nevertheless, these complaints are old vino in a new skin--we have heard them all before when creating a user generated encyclopedia and when covering living persons. We are all free to speculate as to possible legal exposure but we should not undertake such wide ranging changes (nor endorse their commission by fiat) on the basis of amateur speculation.

Edit

Also, opponents of flagged revisions are not "(physical and intellectual) children". I resent that.

That's fine. If we want to claim a moral imperative for making a choice, I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is the pseudo-legal argument being forwarded--people who aren't lawyers (or, at the very least, aren't the foundation's lawyer) making vague claims about legal liability as a means to force adoption of a wide ranging change. Further, even if we accept the obvious, that we have an obligation to present BLPs in a neutral fashion that respects the subject and if we accept (the community has in policy at least) that this imperative supercedes some 'wiki' notions, we don't have to accept that flagged revisions solves this problem or is even the best solution to this problem. Drawing the lines to portray supporters as just and mature and opposers as petulant and myopic doesn't help things. It is not a given that this course of action is some unambiguous good thing.

Either way, we are getting away from my main point. If the committee sees (and it seems that they do) this decision by Jimbo as a normal action (rather than some intervention on behalf of the foundation), then there is little for them to do.

That's all well and good, but it operates on the somewhat fanciful premise that criticisms of fiat money do. If, for some reason, all of us (at the same time) agreed that the greenback had no value, then it would be worthless. It's a great thought experiment but in practice no immediate widespread suspension of belief could occur (even in cases of hyperinflation the game is a little different). We won't all suddenly lose trust in the dollar after having trusted it implicitly all our lives.

Likewise it is a poor hedge against undue authority to note that we could all refuse to acknowledge Jimbo's power here. It is doubly a poor test of the righteousness of a particular exercise of that power if we set the bar for community acceptance at the "immediate and total repudiation" level. Even more to the point, that isn't the kind of response we want. I don't suspect that Jimbo is some cruel dictator. He's (apparently) a nice guy, he's responsive to criticism (I would have pulled my hair out reading his talk page for 8 years), he's mindful of the anti-authoritarian nature of the community, he's perceptive, and he's forthcoming with details about his motivations and projections for the future. Those are all good qualities from a boss cum overlord. If he had few or none of those qualities we might expect that he would lose the confidence of the community over time. Since he has all of those qualities, a "loss of confidence" doesn't occur, but that doesn't mean that we should treat that as the threshold for pushing back against some of his actions.

If we are asking the community (or the committee) to respond to a particular action the question hinges upon the propriety of the action itself. We have to be willing and able to push back against specific actions (should that be necessary), otherwise the apparent safety of "no confidence" from the community at large is toothless.

I am aware of a specific case where a single sentence was added to a biography, something like, "He was fired from his last job when pictures were discovered of him wearing women's underwear." This remained in the article for 4 months, until the subject called Cary to complain. He said that the bio was brought up at a job interview, and he lost the job due to the false information. By that time the checkuser data on the editor had expired. Interestingly, just a few days after the article came off protection (some months later) the same vandalism was added. Since it was such a specific claim, and was not a reversion but a re-wording of the info, I believe it was added by the same person. I checkusered and identified the individual and notified Arbcom.

Sooner or later some smart lawyer is going to figure out he should subpoena checkusers for their private files instead of just the Foundation. Sooner or later some checkuser is going to have to fly halfway around the world to testify in a libel trial about the identification of the editor responsible for the libel. Sooner or later, someone is going to make a plausible claim that Wikimedia's common carrier immunity should be pierced, causing thousands of dollars in legal fees. If 60% agreement is not sufficient to approve a test, then it is time someone took important decisions out of the hands of (physical and intellectual) children and let the grownups take over. Thatcher 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I know from my own experience that Wikipedia biographies have caused real life pain and financial damages to their subjects. We adopt changes not only because they are legally required, but because they are the moral and ethical thing to do. Thatcher 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, your points are valid - however... Yourself and the checkusers have shown due diligence and reasonable care, the standard required by common law. There is certainly a theoretical possibility of international subpoenas being issued, but their enforcement is somewhat fraught. I'd prefer to see someone other than yourself or Jimbo opine on the legal risks entailed, perhaps the foundation counsel. Everything about this site indicates due diligence and reasonable care, we all pay attention, we have organized patrolling structures, we have reviewers who take out the questionable stuff, and we have me who says "nah, dunna look good, me push undo clickything". Yes, we have errors, but in the present context, a four-minute error flagged by the MSM, that sounds more like a pretext than a rationale.

That said, I do recognize the sensitivity of BLPs, and I acknowledge the need for a delimited trial. And on the subject of majority vs. consensus and 59% vs. 75%, I have to point out that when Joe Clark received a 67% endorsement, he didn't find it sufficient. [19] That's the difference between looking at the numbers and looking at your own principles. And yes, he went on to lose the leadership convention - but he set a standard for "consensus" a little bit higher than the US Senate.

There truly are stranger things in the world than in our philosophy Horatio. As much as I respect Jimbo and also the many other concerns around BLP: like the proposed case just above, I question the timing. We're doing this now because the Washington Post said we should? P-sh-aww sez I. Franamax (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being one of the peoeple who makes a useless statement on a case that has nothing to do with them...

If all of a sudden, every single person in the community on enwiki decided that they did not think Jimbo should have any power anymore, he wouldn't, partially because I believe that he would respect everyone's wishes that he has no power, and partially because the only reason his actions and statements are not immidiately overturned by the community is because people still think he has power (were this to happen, he'd retain his technical userrights, but that's not the focus of his "power"). He has power because people think he has power. He retains power because people still respect his opinion and view him as a founder of Wikipedia, and think that what he say matters. So with that view in mind, I don't see what this has to do with the Arbitration Committee, other than that they're members of the community themselves. And for the record, I'm more than comfortable with the power that he possesses. I, for one, welcome our founding overlord :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge acceptance of this request, or a decline superseded by motion, for a finding on whether m:Founder:Jimbo Wales has the right to impose policy upon en-WP because it is really rather apparent that he has. It is also apparent that ArbCom has the facility to overturn any decision by Jimbo that does not have the support of the community and/or some other interested parties, but that is not the basis of this request. Should it become the basis of the Request, then I would urge it be declined for all the foregoing discussion (both here and in other places). However, I would re-iterate that the request at the top of this section does need answering in the affirmative so we can all get on with improving the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either we operate by consensus or we do not; either Jimbo has the authority to decide policy in the absence of consensus (which is most cases) or he does not; either ArbCom has the power to advise him or it does not. In this case, ArbCom has asserted the second proposition in all three alternatives. I will consider whether I am more disapppointed in him or in them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. If, as Signpost says, Jimbo has been taking technical advice from the Washington Post political blogs, I would be much more disappointed in him; it is not clear they are a reliable source on American politics; they certainly are not a reliable source on experiments in Wikipedia policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this cannot be decided by arbitration, and it has not been decided by the late RfC (any new RfC is likely to come out about the same, after all), what can it be decided by? Or are Jimbo's decisions and actions, like the former American president's, above review? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Ted Kennedy#What happened. If FR had been in effect on the article when Kennedy collapsed, his death would have been added, and sighted, twice.

• In one case Newbie A and Anon B added his death in different spots. An admin reverted Anon B, but that would have sighted Newbie A's vandalism.
• After semiprotection, a long-established editor added Kennedy's death date to the first line of the article with an edit summary rvv. He may have been confused on which way he was changing it; he may have been wrong on the facts, but he did. These would happen under FR too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We operate by consensus, except when we do not. When this project works well, it's because it's pragmatic and because it does the right thing. Those opposing this move to implement ... for whatever reason... badly miss the point. Sorry if the characterizations used to describe some opposers smart a bit, but they fit. Thatcher's analysis is just right. Get out of the way, opposers, or this project will go down. Sooner or later someone with some smarty pants lawyers will bring it down. Which will be a shame, but if I get subpoenaed you bet I'm going to comply, unless the WMF is prepared to defend me. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ArbCom needs to figure out how best to take/not take, rule/not rule to enable the right outcome. If useful precedents are set, great. But right now this particular outcome is more important than nuances. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to those arbs who recused: Rethink your decision. Having an opinion about the substantive matter is not and should not be a bar to doing the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sensible to require widespread WP:Consensus before irrevocably instituting a new technical feature and process that has large-scale impact on the project. But when a proposal such as FR fails to meet the very high threshold for declaring "clear consensus", but has strong majority support from a large portion of the active community, that support should be read as a clear consensus for a limited trial of the proposal. In other words, a simple majority should be sufficient to authorize a limited trial of a feature or process, but a clear consensus should be required for taking action without a trial. I think this approach is consistent with the spirit of WP:Consensus, respects the majority's wishes, gives the community a chance to see the feature in action instead of having to argue hypotheticals, and gives us a framework for any future proposals to implement large-scale changes across the project.

If any part of this dispute falls within Arbcom's remit, it would be the interpretation of WP:Consensus and its application to the community discussion and Jimbo's decision. I think the committee could, by motion, declare whether Jimbo respected the spirit of WP:Consensus. Should it declare in Jimbo's support, it could also legitimately state the necessary constraints on a limited trial (scope, duration) so that it does not become a fait accompli as many in the opposition to FR fear will happen. By interpreting the degree of consensus in the discussions, the committee can provide guidance on the extent of the trial and help assure the proposal's opponents that the proponents will not overstep their mandate.

Full disclosure: I voted to support a trial of FR. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we were turning on the Flagged Revision feature in Russian Wikipedia, there was some mess as well. So I would comment using my experience.

Never forget that consensus is not something established by voting. According to the policy, Polls are structured discussions, not votes. I've read the poll, and find that it indicates a deadlock similar to that we encountered in Russian Wikipedia:

• We can't move forward due to lack of details in the implementation proposal;
• We can't write more details before we move forward and turn on trial.

The opposing voices are based by very different assumptions, which are contradictory to each other. Some argue that the trial proposal is too harsh; others say it's too mild. They both vote "oppose", but the compromise between them is the actual trial proposal. This deadlock had to be solved.

Also there are some fears that are actually void, because experience of German and Russian Wikipedias proves that these fears do not come true. For example, there is no any even weak signs of using FR for POV-pushing. FR didn't harm egalitarian nature of Russian Wikipedia in any aspect. There are no significant conflicts involving reviewers at all in Russian Wikipedia!

Therefore, the consensus is not just formal 60%, it really exists, and it's much much higher that these "virtual" 60%.

Finally, is Jimbo a right person to certify the consesus in this case? I suppose yes. He is reasonable and respectable person capable to state a consensus, and the community in general agrees to accept his statements. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to argue with the observation that much of the decision making at this site is in the hands of intellectual children. For example, a lot of users who are blatantly not lawyers like to opine at great length about legal risks of not following their preferred course of action. A good start to the general problem: ArbCom could require alleged legal opinions to come from--well here's a radical idea--lawyers. It's my understanding that the foundation in fact employs one for precisely such purposes. --JayHenry (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting discussion above about the nature of Wikipedia consensus, and about the role of Jimbo. There is a sense that some people are looking for a Rubicon, the crossing of which will mark the start of a civil war. Others are indicating that it's not always possible or desirable to have a fixed mark against which all varying circumstances are measured, that we have to use good sense and judgement at times.

This request for arbitration is based on these questions:

• a) is there community consensus for the extension?
• b) can Jimbo can override the wishes of half of the community?

The answer to both questions has been given in the comments above, and can be found in Wikipedia:Consensus. Yes, there is consensus, and yes Jimbo can in certain circumstances, and this is one of them, rule against the popular vote. There is nothing here for ArbCom to consider; though it was appropriate to ask the question. SilkTork *^YES! 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone whose vote was not canvassed by the poll (I found out about it three days after the poll concluded, due in part to a mixup with watchlist notices where three polls were advertised at the same time and I voted on the wrong two), I'd note that an admin with 59% support would never be promoted. Why, then, are we imposing major cultural change on the encyclopaedia with 59%? I should note that I have strong opinions with regards to BLP and that it is a problem we must address, but I am concerned about the technical aspects of this particular solution and the fact it could be gamed by POV users with standing to oppose good faith newcomers. Orderinchaos 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • The community is looking at this more closely now, and while a case might be beneficial, it's ripe for drama as well. Withdraw accept. Wizardman 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Decline. I have not seen anything sufficient to overcome my misgivings noted above. Vassyana (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Reject at this time. Vassyana has largely captured my thoughts on the matter. Risker (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 the community to engage in attempting to solve them before bringing the issue here. Jimmy Wales' role might be more usefully discussed as part of a broader discussion of arbitration policy later this year. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know little about flagged revisions, having failed to find time to read the extensive discussions on this, but the argument over the switching on of a Mediawiki software feature reminds me strongly of the WP:ROLLBACK poll and how that feature got switched on. It is difficult to predict, at the time of switching on, whether a feature will be successful or not, and ironically some of the voices calling for this feature to be switched on were fiercely opposed to ROLLBACK being switched on, and vice-versa! I don't agree with those saying this is "only" switching it on, or "only" a trial. Once such things are switched on or trialled, it becomes far harder to reverse things even if there are problems (it can become a fait accompli). If there was a similar result of 60:40% in favour of switching the feature off after a trial, I wonder what people's reactions would be then?
  • I do agree that this request is not really about flagged revisions, but more about Jimbo's role, and how consensus should be judged in such situations. My feeling is that we need a pool or panel of trusted users that can be asked to stay out of such discussions and judge consensus when the discussions have concluded (similar to how admins close AfDs and bureaucrats close RfAs). It should be made clear at the start that such a process will be used to close the discussion, and all participants should agree to abide by the decision made. I don't think it is acceptable for someone who has taken part in a discussion, or authored the proposal being discussed, to close that discussion. Equally, such proposals should not be opened for discussing or polling until a closing date has been agreed, and a method for closing the discussion has been announced or agreed.
  • My personal view would be to rework the proposal until a clearer consensus can be obtained. I'm also unconvinced that this will be the panacea some people are saying it will be. Ultimately, the only thing that will really solve the BLP problem is a drastic cull of the problematic articles (to reduce the workload of articles to watch) and a lot more people working on the problem, instead of ignoring it. I'm also unconvinced that this is not simply replacing one backlog with another, similar to what happened to WP:New Page Patrol (large backlogs with some pages dropping off the list before being patrolled). Apologies if these arguments have been raised before.
  • In summary, I'm unlikely to accept the request, but agree that various issues need looking at. ArbCom may be able to help with that, but while individual arbitrators should be free as editors to support or oppose the feature, I feel it is outside the remit of the committee to support or oppose the turning on and off of software features.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline for now. Would be willing to vote on motions clarifying certain aspects of all this, and would vote to accept a case in future if a poll to switch the feature off (with a similar result) were filibustered by Jimbo. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject This is premature. The community has not worked through its options yet. I'm not convinced using flagged revisions is a matter arbcom should review either. I also agree with much of what Vassyana and Brad said. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Jimbo was acting in his traditional capacity as founder/leader/etc in making the request, as well as acting on the results of the poll. Per the 2007 announcement, the Committee can review such decisions. We have not been asked to do so before, and we have no policy or practice ready for doing so. However, in this type of situation recourse to the principles of judicial review in administrative law would seem appropriate. Here, there was an adequate basis for making the decision (strong support in the BLP-protection poll, less strong but still solid support in the subsequent flagged-revisions-specific poll). There was ample opportunity for people to participate in the poll. It was clearly reasonable for Jimbo to assess the consensus in the way that he did. The decision isn't inconsistent with any policy. There's no indication the decision was made for some nefarious purpose. There were no special procedures that Jimbo ought to have complied with but didn't. We have the ability to overrule such a decision, but we will not do so without cause, and no cause has been shown sufficient to warrant review of this decision. --bainer (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse per Cool Hand Luke. As for the role of User:Jimmy Wales, I must say that it is not something like an issue affecting 10 or 100 articles or users. That issue touches the whole project (at least the english version) and cannot be (re)defined by an arbitration case. To disucuss that issue the community needs deep analysis and both good insight and foresight with some ideas —things the arbitration process cannot provide because of its nature. I'd prefer an RfC for that since RfCs are gaining back their role and importance —slowly but surely. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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)

Elonka notified

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". [20] 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)[reply]

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"[21] (difs being added) claiming, in effect, it is "political" or "personal"I suppose she has now discounted any and all concerns B, I, or any other editor to whom she has given "warnings". This has the clear appearance of disenfranchising people in order to dismiss their concerns. She is, and I am borrowing content from another editor here "using that system the power to block editors they are having personal disputes with, and to ignore advice from other admins" ("that system" being AE). Elonka is almost always within the letter of civility - yet her ABF and general attitude of I am the uninvolved admin simply doing AE while accusing others of bias, false motives, "listening to gossip", and all manner of other ills (difs avail, see prev. note) has had a chilling effect and is intimidating others. She has been informed, by many, of this - here is my attempt in which I expressed concern that You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. - this was a day or so before she "warned" me and listed me as such. She is giving the distinct impression of editing by proxy. By intimidating editors and supporting those whom she approves, she can shape an article without ever making an edit. Add to that the AE club she wields at every turn, and I am appalled at the overall effect on articles Elonka chooses to "enforce" and on Wikipedia in general.

- thanks in advance for your patience on the difs.

• Comment about the list: pls note that I did not remove the list, which might be implied by Elonka's expanded statement which she linked to ("Then admin KillerChihuahua came in and deleted things again"). Her statement "very disappointing to see administrators edit-warring with administrators in this way. I'd also contacted KillerChihuahua and B to advise them of the SV motion, but they were less than cooperative." does not recognize that it was her list which was causing the disruption and strife and divisiveness; that no editor removed any part of the list more than once, and most only stated their strong opposition to the list on the talk page or Elonka's talk page; that Elonka in discussing her "warning" states that "KillerChihuahua and B ... were less than cooperative" which frames our difference in interpretation of the SV ruling as B and myself not "minding" or bowing to her authority, based on her interpretation, rather than allowing for any valid disagreement; and lastly she seems more concerned bout how civil I was in an edit summary which criticized her actions than in addressing the actions themselves. Unfortunately this is fairly standard for Elonka - when criticized she cites CIVIL and does not address the concern.
• Comment about Elonka's extended statement in general: IMO a bad idea to have the bulk of a statement elsewhere, especially as Elonka has a history of deleting her sub-pages. Either she should trim or simply post her statement here as is, so it is in the history of this page.
• On the list and edit war: After Elonka added the list, it was removed by editors: QuackGuru[22], ThuranX[23], Cameron Scott[24], B[25] and restored by Elonka twice[26] [27] and Jayvdb once[28] 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?"[29] on his talk page from Elonka. It has been discussed to the tune of 3,155 words on the talk page there[30] in addition to Elonka's talk page, including sections she has blanked, ANI, etc. I'd say its fairly clear the list has been a problem.
• Elonka's assertion - you're joking, right? If your edits are not "protected" you think it is encouraging you to block or ban? I have no words for how bizarre I find this assertion. Don't block or ban any more than before, and don't petition ArbCom for rulescreep to give you more authority. Really. Just warn when its appropriate, and only block or ban when that's appropriate. You don't need a bigger stick.
• Comment to Shell: I have no idea what you're talking about. I was concerned about the interpretation Elonka had given the SV ruling. You're talking about something else.

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 ([31]).

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

: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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Seems to me that [32] is just a bit threatening, and [33] is at best unhelpful. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My preferred outcome would be:

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

The clarification given to date is welcome, but unfortunately Elonka's response "So I will do my best to adapt to the community norms, even though I think that this will result in more severe admin actions than necessary. --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2009" looks very much like a threat to engage in WP:POINTy blocking of editors on the same dubious grounds as she has been issuing warnings. As I've commented on her talk page,[34] that would clearly be disruptive, and I hope that is not her intention. As discussed at ANI,[35] her intervention under the AE banner created a new dispute over her request for suggestions about sanctions, and subsequent decision to ignore the clear majority of responses to introduce her sanctions anyway. The arbiter's comments on discussion of admin actions is significant, as attempts to discuss these issues with her are met by actions such as deciding that the concerns are being raised by an "involved editor" and can be ignored.[36] As I recall, she has shown some willingness to rotate admin attention to dealing with controversial areas, and it appears to be time for her to step back from the pseudoscience area and let others deal with it, at least for a reasonable period. . dave souza, talk 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• Recuse I have taken admin actions on both sides of this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in agreement with FloNight. [redacted] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Brief reply to Shell Kinney: Not at all. [redacted] Vassyana (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• My views here are that the general issues with Arbitration Enforcement should be addressed at the RfC, while individual problems should be dealt with by dispute resolution or a request for arbitration if all other options have failed. My view is also that the "don't overturn an ArbCom enforcement action" motion was meant to apply to specific actions about named individuals, not to broad topic or article management. Some motions clarifying that one way or the other would probably be good here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support

1. Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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

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

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

Support

1. Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Communication is key when acting as an administrator. — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. absolutely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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

---