Revision as of 15:37, 18 March 2011

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Decoupling

1) To depersonalise the discussion, the concrete behaviour of Dreadstar and Sandstein is decoupled from the general question of an overhaul of arbitration enforcement sanctions. Neither one's behaviour is enough to justify an ArbCom case in isolation, so they can be absolved (possibly with a slight reprimand if considered necessary) immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Stephan Schulz is not a party to the case, so I doubt that this suggestion is in the right place; perhaps a clerk could move it to the talk page?

  I have no objection to procedurally decoupling the issue of admin conduct (although I have a different opinion about how that should be concluded, as outlined in my evidence submission) and issues related to AE more generally. But the latter topic is not really a dispute to be arbitrated and might be better addressed in a more open format such as an RFC.

  I also suggest that the underlying pseudoscience-related dispute between QuackGuru and Ludwigs2 (and their respective friends) be detached from this case, as it is either not ripe for arbitration, or if it is, it is likely so complicated that it deserves a dedicated case.  Sandstein  21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree that Sandstein's behavior is not enough to justify an ArbCom case. as far as I can see he specifically abused ArbCom Enforcement because he wanted to stretch an unfortunate comment of mine into a 72 hour block. I understand that he was not trying to block you, so you may not care about that, but that kind of personal assault is not something I take lightly in any case, and particularly not when it is putatively done in the name of the arbitration committee. As people are fond of saying to me, wp:BOOMERANG applies. --Ludwigs2 23:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed to help focus the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Stephan Schulz has proposed, particularly concerning the specific actions of Sandstein and Dreadstar. I also agree with Sandstein that any ongoing dispute between Ludwigs2 and other editors should be dealt with through the usual steps in dispute resolution (RfC/U, etc). Until those steps have been tried, any detailed discussion of those disputes in an ArbCom case, and in particular this one, seems inappropriate. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to examine AE handling in isolation. I think, given Ludwigs' strong feelings on the matter, it would be only fair to examine the actions of Sandstein and Dreadstar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The "strong feelings" of an editor is not a sufficient condition to prompt an ArbCom case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't prompt it; I had it prompted upon me. If Sandstein didn't want his behavior examined he (a) shouldn't have blocked me on such irrational grounds in the first place, and (b) shouldn't have made an arbcom issue out of it when he was thwarted. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, this case is about "Arbitration Enforcement handling," and would never have been accepted as an ArbCom case on any other basis. Evidence and proposals should stay on point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question for Sandstein

What was your basis for the following:

(a) determining that Ludwig2's post was sanctionable

(b) that the sanction should be made under the Pseudoscience arbitration enforcement regime rather than general community-based sanctions

(c) that you did not respond to Ludwig2's question asking for specifics about your warning

(d) your position that failure to respond to your warning within 2 hours was sufficient reason to block

(e) that you provided no other description of what would be expected to prevent a block than to "show cause"

Thank you. Risker (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(a) It was a threat to disrupt Misplaced Pages in the context of a pseudoscience-related dispute. See related evidence.

(b) I am not aware of any community-based sanctions that apply to the pseudoscience topic area. If you mean, why did I not make a "normal" block based on the blocking policy and general user conduct policy, the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions remedy appeared more immediately applicable to the situation at hand, because it makes clear that compliance with our conduct rules is particularly required of editors working in this topic area:

"Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages'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."

Reliance on the Pseudoscience remedy, therefore, made the reason for the block more immediately clear than reliance on any more general policy would have.

(c) That was a mistake, as I have said in my evidence submission. Given that I had previously clearly enunciated, in the same thread, my specific concerns about Ludwigs2's threat, I assumed that Ludwigs2's non-response to these concerns reflected either a refusal to address them, or a lack of understanding that such threats are harmful. In retrospect, it would have been better, for the sake of clarity, to explain my concerns a second time.

(d) I did not take the position that failure to respond to my warning within 2 hours was sufficient reason to block. As explained in my evidence submission, I asked Ludwigs2 to respond within two hours of his next edit (that is, within two hours of his next being online), rather than within two hours of my message. Also, the reason to block was not failure to respond to a warning within a specified time, but making threats of disruption in the pseudoscience topic area (see subsection a, above).

(e) Rather than "please show cause why you should not be blocked for your threat", I could have said something to the effect of "please withdraw your threat or you may be blocked". But that would not have been very helpful, I believe, for the purpose of preventing repeated threats. What I sought to effect with my message was that Ludwigs2 would realize by himself that his threat was disruptive and withdraw it, rather than having to do so under the explicit coercion of the threat of a block. A clearly coerced withdrawal would not necessarily have reflected understanding on the part of Ludwigs2 that his conduct was inappropriate and must not be repeated.
But as I have said in my evidence submission, the warning could have been phrased better. Something like the following would have been preferable: "At , I have expressed concerns that your threat to "shout down" and "shut up" others, and that "things will get ugly" unless others are sanctioned, is disruptive. Please address these concerns in that AN thread or you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions under the Arbitration Committee's Pseudoscience decision."
In addition, under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions remedy, an individual warning (and thereby an opportunity to undo every single potentially sanctionable act of disruption) prior to each and every enforcement action is not required, as the assumption is (at least in AE practice) that editors will heed the warning to conform to the expectations regarding their conduct as set forth in the remedy after being warned at least once (in this case, as recently as January) about the possibility of discretionary sanctions. I could have, therefore, simply blocked Ludwigs2 with no warning whatsoever. If I am mistaken about that, and the Committee does expect that an explicit warning be given prior to any particular discretionary sanction, together with an opportunity to avoid that sanction, I recommend that you change the discretionary sanctions rules accordingly.  Sandstein  07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by 86.149.164.188

Proposed principles

<Principle name>-Proposed_principles">

1) Arbitration remedies mean nothing if any admin is free to simply undo anything they personally disagree with. Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Dreadstar undoing

1) Dreadstar (talk · contribs · logs) undid a block which he knew was an arbitration enforcement action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It would be more factual to state that Dreadstar undid a block which he knew had been claimed to be an arbitration enforcement action. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dreadstar desysopped for 1 month

1) Because of his disruption of the arbitration enforcement process, Dreadstar (talk · contribs · logs) is desysopped for a period of one month. After one month, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

• I don't think we'll be heading in this direction regardless of what happens: historically, admin "suspension" have had poor results at best, and are difficult to justify as anything but punitive (which is rarely the right thing to do). — Coren  11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• UnprecedentedNearly unprecedented and a bad idea. Either an admin is trusted, or he/she is not. If he/she is, there is no reason for desysopping. If he/she is not, there is no reason for restoring it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not quite unprecedented, though it is rather rare; IIRC a similar proposal was made in the Abd-WMC case but failed. T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another example here. no comment on the proposal. John Vandenberg 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ludwigs2

Proposed principles

Adopting the 'gorilla cage' rubric for fringe topics

1) Acknowledging the following:

1. Readers come to the encyclopedia in order to learn about topics in their 'natural' context, not exclusively through the lens of relatively ill-informed critics
2. Skeptical commentary and other forms of criticism should be restricted on fringe articles to the amount necessary to act as barriers - to prevent naive readers from being convinced that the fringe topic's worldview is normal and correct - and should never extend to active debunking or other means of denigrating the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

• I'm not sure I understand what "natural context" is supposed to mean, could you clarify the concept? — Coren  11:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All I mean by 'natural context' is that we try to present fringe topics in such a way that readers can see them as they exist in themselves, and not exclusively as they exist in the minds of outsiders (of course, without allowing advocacy to take the page over). This is - again - what modern zoos do: they build 'habitats' rather than bare cages because they want to handle the animals naturally, with a certain amount of humanity and dignity, while at the same time keeping the animals from being an overt danger to the public. In the context of wikipedia this would mean creating a neutral description of what the fringe topic is about (what its adherents do, how they view the topic themselves, etc.) with appropriate framing to place the fringe topic in its proper context in the greater world (thus preventing it from absorbing the reader into its worldview).

An example: a few days ago (as part of an ongoing tussle at the Traditional Chinese Medicine article), BullRangifer (talk · contribs) complained that Herbxue (talk · contribs) had a COI and was a fringe advocate because Herbxue is (apparently) a licensed acupuncturist and a professor at a college of oriental medicine. Now it seems to me that a licensed acupuncturist and professor of oriental medicine would be a great asset to the TCM article in that he actually knows the material and can provide an accurate and detailed description of what TCM is and does. So long as there is no effort to (a) promote his own business or school, or (b) unduly promote TCM as a practice in general, where is the COI or advocacy? In fact, brangifer's complaint (which is a common kind of complaint from anti-fringe editors, and is to a large part the rationale behind MEDRS) is intended to force the TCM article to be described entirely through the lens of western scientific medicine, and more specifically entirely through the lens of skeptical criticism (since mainstream medicine doesn't have much to say about AltMed). in other words, brangifer et al want TCM to be described solely in the terms of scholars who do not know the subject well and have a decidedly jaundiced view of it to begin with. This is what I meant by the analogy of throwing it in a bare steel cage and plastering "stupid ugly dangerous animal" warnings all over it; this kind of thing produces acrimonious, argumentative articles which are painful to read and spurs the kind of synthesis from scientific sources that QG has engaged in, because editors keep reaching farther and farther to find sourcing for derogatory anti-fringe viewpoints.

One can describe a fringe topic fairly and neutrally in its own term without engaging in advocacy, and doing so produces a clear and informative article. This is, I think, what we want from an encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that my views and position are being misrepresented above. Ludwigs2 has not questioned me on this matter and has constructed several straw men above that say much more about his views of me, than about me. It stems from an assumption of bad faith. I'd rather stay out of this matter, but since he mentioned me, I want to make it clear that the only thing true about me written above is that I did mention the COI matter because at the time the editor who is now named Herbxue was part of a large and sudden influx of SPAs who seemed to be sock puppets and meat puppets. Many were and are still blocked. They admitted to coming in response to a blog post that said the article required fixing, and they, as professional acupuncturists, responded all at once. He declared his profession and intentions, and I warned that a COI existed and that editing should be done with care. It can most certainly be done, and is often a great asset when done properly. My comments were made in that historical setting. Herbxue and another editor remained and as long as they follow our COI policy they can edit. No problemo. At the time they didn't understand the policy and were actively attempting to make the article a sales brochure. That is of course a violation of NPOV. They are now potential assets to the project since we need their expertise, knowledge of sources, and POV to make the article more balanced. That is my true position, which is at odds with the caricature above. If Ludwigs2 will kindly refactor, I'll be satisfied. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The meme that any editor who practices some form of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) professionally automatically has a COI has occasionally been brought up by anti-CAM editors, but to my knowledge has always been shot down. For instance there was ScienceApologist's frivolous report of an acupuncturist. You should know about it since you commented in a later AN thread about another such report, in which this was referenced. (By the way, I find the role of Kww in that thread and in the present case interesting. This editor had so far stayed below my radar.)

While we don't automatically defer to expert editors, they are of course our most valuable resource, and WP:COI#Examples is pretty clear that this is not what COI is about. ("Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.")

The idea that this is somehow not the case for fringe topics is part of the extreme anti-fringe position which holds that Misplaced Pages should not describe fringe topics in detail, except for the parts that can be debunked. Hans Adler 09:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It also applies to other editors, but is normally only mentioned when it's a problem, or when the editors involved don't know of the policy and have expressed intentions that would violate policy. Then it becomes relevant. The current situation was very much such a situation and a number were and are still blocked. Even the subjects of articles may edit their own articles if they understand our policies. When they show that they don't, they usually receive some form of warning/advice about the matter and many then become very valuable contributors. As I have stated many times, including above, we need subject experts on these very subjects. That they are often more interested in pushing a POV in a manner that violates policy is not my fault, and it's not improper to point it out. It's too bad it happens so often. OTOH, I have been fortunate to work with some of the most COI affected editors who ended up creating very good content, so I know they exist. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We should not try to convince readers of anything or prevent them from being convinced. Doing so is WP:Advocacy. An assertion in article that a subject is definitely "fringe" or "gorilla" can be NPOV violation if there is a dispute among experts if the subject or theory was indeed "fringe".Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Content issue so outside general remit of ArbCom. Also amounts to saying that certain special topics should get a sympathetic rather than neutral point of view. That's unacceptable, going against core Misplaced Pages policies as well as core Foundation policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Ludwigs2's statement. To arbitrators: This happens all the time and explains Ludwigs2's bad reputation. Whenever he speaks out against excesses such as repeating incessantly that a topic is pseudoscientific but suppressing much of the noteworthy information which makes it so, this is interpreted as pro-fringe POV pushing. Hans Adler 09:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is what Ludwig is proposing not a specific way of handling specific POVs? Because I read it essentially as saying to ignore WP:UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Then read it again without the assumptions of bad faith. Ludwigs2 is promoting a slightly softer approach for dealing with pseudoscience than what I consider ideal, but I can still see that this approach is perfectly reasonable. After all, it's the approach that standard encyclopedias such as Britannica take. We are actually a lot more sceptical than they are, at least in articles that get sufficient attention. See WP:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content for an Arbcom principle that also indicates that when treating fringe we need to strike the right balance between giving it undeserved credence and falling into Skeptical Inquirer style, and gives a good hint where that balance can be found.

Incidentally, for me the reason I don't consider what Ludwigs2 calls "active debunking" a good idea is that it tends to undermine all the sceptical statements in an article, making them ineffective. Hans Adler 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an "assumption of bad faith" and I slightly resent that implication. The point is that we can't treat a subject differently from others. NPOV and reliable sources are what matters. And making a "gorilla cage" would be treating them differently. There's been very little evidence that I can see of treating fringe subjects like the strawman you have created (among other differences, note that entities like SI are more than willing to engage in OR). I don't know precisely what you mean by active debunking, but if I understand the point, then I agree, not because it "undermines" the skeptical arguments but because it isn't NPOV. NPOV is what matters. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@ JoshuaZ: I don't know about bad faith, but I do think you are misrepresenting what I said. When we write about a subject like 'physics', we describe the topic neutrally, using sources that know the material well, and we get offended when when editors use sources which do not know the material well (like fringe sources) to try to take over the article. All I'm suggesting is that we treat fringe articles the same way - allow sources that know the material well to describe it, and restrict editors from using sources that do not know the material well (such as skeptical sources) from dominating the discussion. Of course, with fringe topics we have the complication that we need to contextualize them in such a way that they do not appear to be 'true', 'accepted', or 'mainstream' in ways that they are not, but that's easy enough to handle without giving the articles entirely over to critiques.

We do this naturally in almost every other area of wikipedia: for instance, we would not allow our articles on Islam or Buddhism to be written solely from Christian sources. Can you imagine what would happen to an editor who came along and said: "All Muslim sources are advocacy texts and therefore unreliable as sources, so we must write our articles on Islam solely from the perspective of reliable western/Christian scholars."? Yet this argument is almost a mantra on fringe articles. Why should that be? --Ludwigs2 16:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The problem with most of the fringe sources is that they aren't reliable. For example, they aren't subject to peer review like scientific journals and this is reflected in their lack of integration in the overarching body of scientific knowledge. That's why t you also get "experts" in these areas saying almost diametrically opposite claims about how their belief works. Many of these sources are essentially self-published. Moreover, we do treat mainstreams scholarship about religions as more reliable than random claims by people who happen to be members. A claim from a member of a religion doesn't make it more reliable. That's why for example our article on the Torah contains a large amount of material about the standard scholarly explanation of where the text arose. Yes, proponents of a belief can often be reliable sources for what they believe. But they are deeply problematic for statements about their own groups as a whole. Thus a sociologists or anthropologist who has statistics and largescale evidence to back them up is a better source for a community's beliefs and norms than individual community members. This doesn't mean we can't use say a homeopath as a source for about homeopathy but it does mean we need to be careful especially when we for example have one homeopath saying it works off of "quantum physics" and another says it depends on "energy vibrations". We don't need a special policy for any of this. This all follows from WP:RS/WP:V/WP:NPOV and other policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Joshua, you're missing the point. We do not need to worry about whether fringe science sources are peer reviewed because we should not be evaluating fringe sciences as true or false, we should simply describe them as they are. Peer reviewed journals are good sources for sciences because peer reviewed journals offer conventional, mainstream understandings within those sciences; peer reviewed journals have no special standing with respect to topics that lie outside those sciences. In other words, a peer reviewed medical journal would be a good source for the claim that 'magnetic healing bracelets' have no medical benefits, but it would be an abysmal, unreliable source for describing how 'magnetic healing bracelets' are supposed to work. That description is something one can only get from a fringe source.

So, we should use fringe sources to describe how fringe topics are supposed to work, and then use mainstream sources as needed to build a firebreak, so that no reader gets sucked into the fringe source description.

You - like a lot of anti-fringe editors - are confusing NPOV with 'truth'. You think to yourself "Peer reviewed journals are 'more true', and so peer reviewed material must always be better than non-peer-reviewed material." But in fact, peer reviewed material is only 'more true' with respect to a narrow range of subjects that are covered by the discipline. One can trust a medical researcher to know the effects that a given drug has on the body (if that drug has been tested), but medical researchers are no more reliable with respect to (say) the theory or history of Chinese medicine than they would be with respect to (say) the poetry of Ezra Pound (and here I'm assuming you don't want to apply MEDRS to Ezra Pound articles, correct?). Put bluntly, scientists generally don't have any useful information about fringe science except to the extent that they can tell us it doesn't work; If we want to talk about how it's supposed to work (even acknowledging that it probably doesn't) we have to look to fringe sources to explain it.

To my mind, if someone comes to wikipedia to look up a fringe topic, what they are mostly interested in is how it's supposed to work. We have an obligation as an encyclopedia not to let the article get carried away so that readers thinks it actually does work, but if all we're offering them for an explanation of how it's supposed to work is some snide commentary by a professional egghead who knows next to nothing about the topic, then we are one piss-poor, sorry-assed excuse for an encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm not confusing truth with neutrality at all, and the fact that you see it that way demonstrates that you really aren't listening or have some sort of anti-fringe straw viewpoint which you are pigeonholing viewpoints into. I agree that we need to explain to our readers how fringe proponents say their ideas work. And I agree that articles shouldn't have snark or snide remarks attacking those beliefs. Those are easy consequences of basic policy. That's almost trivial to the point of silliness. But on the rest you are wrong. The reason we care about peer review is because it is a good way to determine reliability. Misplaced Pages policy cares not one bit about truth. But, as far as we are concerned, peer reviewed journals are some of the most reliable sources out there. Yes, we can in some circumstances use fringe sources to talk about their beliefs about how their ideas work; that's a consequence of SPS among other things. And no, a medical journal would be more reliable about the history of Chinese medicine than about the poetry of Pound, precisely because medical journals sometimes delve into medical history. But do you know who would be better than both a medical journal and a practitioner? A historian. It isn't all just scientists and fringe believers. There are quite a few other sources out there. You've also completely ignored the point that different proponents of fringe beliefs make different claims about why they should work. If we have a large number of essentially SPSs or low reliablity sources giving different descriptions about how a given fringe belief works, then the best thing to do is to take the form of those beliefs that is most common, what's a good guide to which is most common? Well, that's a difficult thing to determine without engaging in original research, but in general mainstream sources which don't have a dog in the fight are a pretty good guide. Thus, for example one can find plenty of non-fringe sources talking about the history general principles of homeopathy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate it when people make me repeat myself, but as a gesture of good faith I will do so. Peer review makes a journal reliable for a narrow range of subjects covered by the discipline. Peer review is a process of expert verification; it is not fairy dust that gets sprinkled over articles so that they are reliable, always, everywhere, and for everything. I understand that 'reliable' is the new 'true' on wikipedia, and I don't even really care about that; but magical thinking about scientific journals is not helpful.

Now, I have no problem with a good historian, and would probably prefer a good, scholarly historical assessment of a fringe topic. I've never actually seen a skeptical editor try that, and the couple of times I've tried to introduce historian writings into fringe articles they were instantly challenged as being 'fringe sources': apparently even writing about the history of fringe topics makes one fringe. However, if the choice is between using a fringe source which knows about the topic and a mainstream source which doesn't, the fringe source would clearly be superior (except, as noted, for the narrow purpose of demonstrating the fringe idea doesn't work). If two fringe sources disagree with each other, we already have policy (wp:WEIGHT) that allows us to balance between them. I don't disagree that there are other sources out there - not that I've seen them used, mind you, but I have no objection to them - I'm just pointing out the steep limitations of peer reviewed articles. If what you're saying is that we should use whatever sources work best to give a decent, neutral description of fringe topics in their own terms - hurray! we agree! Is that what you're saying? --Ludwigs2 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course peer review isn't "fairy dust" and no one is claiming it is. That's a ridiculous straw man. The claim is that in general, peer reviewed articles are more reliable on average than almost anything else. I'm deeply concerned that after explicitly saying that we don't care about truth, you've now stated "I understand that 'reliable' is the new 'true' on wikipedia, and I don't even really care about that" I'm not fully sure what this means but I can't think of an interpretation that looks good at all. Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources. That's not negotiable whether or not you care. To confuse that with truth is a deep misundestanding of basic Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Have I misunderstood oyu?

Moving on to your second, less problematic but still misguided paragraph, I'd be very curious to see examples where you as you claim provided sources that were from historians that were dismissed as fringe. That would in general be problematic (barring other problems such as the historians being themselves deeply involved in the fringe belief in question.) But even that isn't at all relevant to anything being discussed here because that indicates a problem with editors not with policy. You seem to be thinking in terms of some form of WP:BATTLE where if you can show bad sourcing behavior by "anti-fringe" editors that somehow nets you points. You are correct that we agree that "work best to give a decent, neutral description of fringe topics in their own terms" except that I add in an important caveat, it isn't just the sources that work best, but the reliable sources that work best. And per policy and guidelines, more reliable sources work better. This is basic Misplaced Pages policy. It doesn't matter if there's a really detailed source out there on some personal webpage or blog. Even if that source would "help" a lot it is offlimits. We must foucs on reliable sources. And more reliable sources must be given more weight than unreliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, Joshua, I know precisely what reliability means: It means that we can generally expect a source to give accurate portrayals of a particular topic. A peer reviewed medical journal, for instance, is reliable for a certain subset of medical topics because the people who submit to the journal and the people who review the submissions are all medical professionals working in those areas of medicine. That's what makes it reliable. A peer reviewed medical journal is not reliable for any topics outside that certain subset of medical topics, because the people who submit and the people who review have no particular expertise for topics outside their subset. Statements like "peer reviewed articles are more reliable on average than almost anything else" are dramatically misleading: peer reviewed articles are highly reliable for claims made within their bailiwick, but are not remotely reliable for claims made about other topics.

Trying to make the claim that "peer reviewed articles are more reliable on average than almost anything else" in some general sense is just nonsensical. Going back to the TCM example: medical doctors do not study TCM, they are not expected to have any training in or knowledge of TCM, so an article about TCM in a medical journal - even if it passes peer review - is only highly reliable to the limited extent that it discusses things medical doctors in that specialty are qualified to evaluate. It may have some reliability outside of that (if, for instance, the doctor writing the article happens also to be a TCM practitioner of some sort), but that would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. If you try to push the claim that all medical doctors are always qualified to evaluate TCM because medical doctors are qualified to evaluate 'all things medical', then you have confused reliability with truth by asserting that doctors (because they know 'true' medicine, assumedly) are competent to evaluate something that they don't actually have any information or knowledge about. This is a very common move by skeptical editors on wikipedia - which is what I meant by 'reliable' has become the new 'true' - but the fact that lots of editors do it does not make it sensible. As I said, reliability is not fairy dust: a source is reliable for a particular purpose within a given context, and not outside it. Trying to claim a source as reliable outside its purpose and context is always original research.

with respect to the other... the one that springs to mind was from a while ago (back when I first started editing) on the QuackWatch page. there were a couple of academic sources (I remember a scholar named Ernst was one of them) that had written books on the history and anthropological significance of alternative medicine, and were overtly critical of QuackWatch and Stephen Barrett. QuackGuru and ScienceApologist (who is no longer allowed to edit) argued quite vehemently that these academic sources were fringe sources and that their criticism of QuackWatch and Barrett had to be excluded from the article. we went back and forth over that for weeks - Hans Adler might remember better than I; I believe he was one of the participants in that. I know I've run across more recent examples, but I'll have to dig them up if I get the time. --Ludwigs2 02:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No special favoritism for anti-fringe editors

2) Editors are not exempt from policy or sanctions simply because they are opposing what they perceive as fringe advocacy. in particular, defaming other editors by referring to them as fringe advocates, suggesting they have COIs, asserting that their edits are unreliable because of off-wiki activity, or otherwise trying to insist that they are unreliable people because of their editing choices should be sanctionable under wp:CIV, and violations of content or behavioral policy should not be overlooked because the violator is perceived to be fighting a good cause. Administrators who show a consistent bias in warnings or sanctions of this sort may be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, it is unacceptable to defame other editors by referring to them as fringe advocates. This is usually done without any proof. Besides, what should be defined as "fringe" belongs to content disputes.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe is a descriptor without intrinsic negative connotations. It is a neutral term as opposed to for example pseudoscience or crankery. Also, generally "defamation" is a technical term referring to spoken statements, and has no relevance at Misplaced Pages. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Telling that theory was "fringe" is fine (if supported by sources). Calling a participant of the project a "fringe advocate" is not a good idea.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement remedies only intended for article and article talk space

3) Arbitration Enforcement remedies are designed to allow easy handling of problematic behavior in article and article talk space, to prevent both the flare-up of disputes in given articles and the exportation of disputes to different articles. They are not intended to be applied to administrative pages, where discussion of long-term issues is normal, expected, and sometimes necessary for proper dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This begs the question that we will have to consider: are sanctions designed to protect the encyclopedia (that is, the article and article talk space) or the project (which includes all namespaces)? Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

QuackGuru engaged in OR

1) That:

1. QuackGuru engaged in wp:original research on the pseudoscience article, by using a literal reading of a non-significant portion of the abstract of an article on a different topic to make a broad, damaging claim about pseudoscience
2. QuackGuru pushed this OR tendentiously - with numerous examples of reverts, extensive IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and frequent unjustified accusations of policy violations against other editors - and has a long history of such tendentious editing on project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sandstein worked counter to project principles in an unreasoning effort to impose sanctions

2) That Sandstein ignored the core purpose of the project and abused his status as an administrator by ignoring and attempting to dismiss QuackGuru's en clair policy violations, while going out of his way to misrepresent a statement and misuse Arbitration Enforcement policy in an all-out effort to sanction Ludwigs2 for a relatively trivial mistake in language.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is a massive assumption of bad faith in this assertion and Ludwigs2's other assertions on this page regarding Sandstein's conduct. While I have disagreed with Sandstein on a number of occasions (and not so sure about the wisdom of this one), his neutrality is beyond reproach. He blocked Ludwigs2 for a perceived threat. Ludwigs2 and a number of other editors who are familiar with his editing and manners (including, admirably, some of his detrators) have asserted that this was not a threat but a rhetorical figure of speech. I am completely uninvolved, have never seen Ludwigs2 before, and my reading of his statement was that it was a threat, and its unspecified and vague nature things will get ugly sounded pretty serious to me. I do not want to express an opinion of whether the block was wise or not, but there is zero reason to think this is in ANY way connected to the content bias, anti- or pro-fringe, etc. And even if the sanctioned conduct was trivial, the 3-hour 3-day block was also arguably trivial. I think all parties who still demand sanctions will do well to get over it. That applies to both Ludwigs2 and Sandstein. - BorisG (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

3 days, not 3 hours. Dreadstar unblocked Ludwigs2 after 3 hours and 14 minutes. Also, AGF is not a suicide pact. Sandstein is regularly doing draconian and essentially arbitrary blocks. IIRC he has often given signs in such situations that he actually expects that someone will unblock, such as making threats for that case. (Will check later when I have the time, or maybe someone else can provide links.) This is not the first time he has run to Arbcom after one of his bad blocks was undone, either.

And you can't punish an editor for considering a certain type of exchange that is usually tolerated here as ugly, and warning that it is about to happen unless admins take effective measures against some bizarre POV pushing that is running out of hand because a number of sophomoric editors is enabling it. Interpreting "ugly" in this context as something block-worthy requires an assumption of bad faith. Hans Adler 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 3 day-block, not 3 hours. Still a small block for a small mistake. - BorisG (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement by Ludwigs2 was a threat of creating disruption, quite obviously. But this is not the point. What can be learned here? 1. Do not make statements. 2. Do not dispute your block. 3. Do not unblock a user if blocking admin disagree.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

let's be clear, here. the real problem is not the block itself (I can weather a 3-day block with little or no problem, if needed, and wouldn't have complained if it was actually justified). The real problem is that there was (a) no need for the block in the first place, and (b) that Sandstein ignored and excused a far more serious and direct policy violation by QG while exaggerating my behavior and abusing the spirit of AE just so he could impose a block on me. There's only a few things this can mean:

• that Sandstein is entirely incompetent as an administrator, which I personally don't believe is true
• that Sandstein was pissed-off at me for some reason to the extent that he would ignore all other consideration just to get me.
• that Sandstein was (intentionally or not) indulging an anti-fringe bias which made him favor QG and target me as the problem.

I've been resting my case on the third option, because the third option is the only one that doesn't demand that Sandstein be immediately desysopped. I'll welcome a fourth explanation of the facts, if you have one, but I don't have much use for explanations that ignore the facts of the case by simply saying what a great guy Sandstein is. I don't have any problem with Sandstein, personally - I'll happily cede that he's a probably great guy - but he's a great guy who f%cked up royally in this case, and I want to make damned sure that that kind of f%ck-up gets nipped so that it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else. good enough? --Ludwigs2 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the allegations above are absurd. Ludwigs2 has threatenned disruption, and Sandstein blocked him. End of story. Not responding to something else, even if more serious, is not a fault. This would have required studying the article history and talk page in great detail, plus reading the source that is not publicly available. Admins are volunteers, and Sandstein is not the only administrator on wikipedia. - BorisG (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a set of allegations, that is reasoning from facts in evidence. But, whatever: your opinion that it is absurd to expect an administrator to do his job correctly is noted; I'll be sure to remind you of it if-and-when you ever get blocked. --Ludwigs2 02:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. For the record, I did not express an opinion of whether the block was justified. I actually think it was policy consistent but hasty and unwise. But whether it is or not, it had nothing to do with QG, nor with any of the three reasons you've listed. Also, Misplaced Pages administrator is not a job. - BorisG (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Boris, three points:

• By saying "Ludwigs2 has threatened disruption, and Sandstein blocked him. End of story." you did in fact render an opinion about whether the block was justified. Unless, of course, you were thinking of that as a detached restatement of objective facts, like this was some nature program ("The Sandstein stalks its natural prey intently; a paradigm of evolution's brutal, efficient mandate" - yes, that was humor ).
• If you don't think the issue had anything to do with QG, that's fine, but then you must be claiming that Sandstein is entirely incompetent or that he was out to get me as a personal vendetta. there aren't really any other choices that I can see. His actions were too methodical to be considered a simple mistake.
• Administrators may not get paid, but they certainly have responsibilities to the encyclopedia, and they are generally expected to display higher-than-average standards of behavior. see wp:administrators.

You can justify anything by taking sufficiently far out of context. That's a major part of the problem here, both in what Sandstein did to attack me and what you and various editors are doing to defend Sandstein (and QuackGuru, for that matter). I think we've had entirely too much of that sort of thing, so I'd prefer if we kept the entire context of this situation in view at all times. --Ludwigs2 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pervasive air of favoritism to anti-fringe editors

3)

1. That there is a distinct and pervasive air of favoritism given to editors who take anti-fringe stances, such that they are effectively free to violate basic policy and the core principles of the project, only suffering warnings or sanctions in the most extreme cases after inordinately extensive complaints.
2. That there is a correlative excess in sanctions and punishments for trivial matters dealt out to editors who work on articles where these 'favorites' are present.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, I'm sure there's a perasive air of favoritism to "anti-fringe editors". That makes perfect sense given the long series of blocks that and final banning of ScienceApologists. Not having everything go one's way isn't an indication of bias towards the people one disagrees with. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning suggestions of an "anti-fringe coterie" or other claimed agendas, please note the point made about allegations of a cabal in the final decision of a previous ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the claim that "anti-fringe editors" enjoy favouritism is very much mistaken. Some "anti-fringe editors" may enjoy some respect as all-around valuable and experienced editors, but that is not, usually, based on their anti-fringe work. On the contrary, pro-fringe editors (otherwise known as POV-pushers) are treated with kid gloves for too often and far too long, especially considering that they very often are single-issue editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is right. In my experience it is almost always quite easy to deal with actual fringe advocates. What is extremely hard, due to the social dynamics, is dealing with stupid extremist anti-fringe POV pushing that is constantly trying to move articles further towards caricatures such as the following:

"Astrology is a pseudoscience that makes certain claims about influence of stars on humans which are too absurd to be mentioned in this article. As all pseudosciences, astrology is an immoral practice and a threat to public health. According to ..., progress in rooting out astrology is slower than desired."

In my experience, even the most blatant pushing in this direction is supported uncritically by many editors. When Ludwigs2 gets involved they tend to form a mob. If arbitrators doubt this claim I can provide extensive evidence. Hans Adler 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, our article (currently, but for a while) says "Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies can explain or predict fate, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters", something that seems perfectly reasonable to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that. I believe pseudoscience was once mentioned in the first sentence, and that was also fine. Some astrology fans are currently hoping to rewrite the article to a more sympathetic point of view, but they are easy to deal with. For a real example look at BullRangifer's absurd attempt to categorise ghost in Category:Pseudoscience and some of the RfCs surrounding it. I am travelling today, but can provide links to problematic discussions tomorrow. Hans Adler 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this. That's definitely not "a real example". It's an old matter, had good sourcing (National Science Foundation, so go blame them) approved by many others, but is no longer a relevant issue. I dropped it and it's unfair of you to even mention it. I'm not a pusher of fringe or pseudoscientific POV, and your mention of me here is only an attempt to smear me. Please drop this line of thought as it's totally unnecessary and detracts from what's really important here. Please refactor and notify me so I can do the same. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not unfair to mention this here. You and QuackGuru behaved in fundamentally the same way: pushing obviously false claims into pseudoscience-related articles based on blatant out-of-context quotations from sources that are reliable, but not for the claims in question, and then refusing to discuss anything but whether the sources are reliable in general terms and whether the cited passages are literally present. And the resulting dynamics in the community was very similar in both cases.

The disruption was more widespread in your case, and you even managed to manufacture something that looked like support with your confusing RfCs. So in a sense you were successful. On the other hand QuackGuru was more successful in that he got his opponent blocked.

By the way, this matter is not properly closed so long as the astrology article still makes your bogus claim that the NFS "published a statement" on 10 practices or beliefs. If you had what it takes to understand why you were wrong, there would be no excuse for not cleaning up your mess. Hans Adler 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

QuackGuru admonished

1) QuackGuru admonished for engaging in original research and tendentious editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sandstein admonished

2) Sandstein admonished for

• explicit abuse of Arbitration Enforcement policy to implement an highly questionable and completely unnecessary block
• failing to do due diligence with respect to QuackGuru's policy violations
• Overt favoritism to anti-fringe editors, to the detriment of the encyclopedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

• In regard to all 3 items, no. In regard to the first item, over time ArbCom enforcement practice has expanded from article talk pages to other discussion pages, such as for example user talk. This expansion hasn't been reflected in the wording of the sanctions, which I think led to a good faith misunderstanding. In regard to the second item, I completely disagree. And in regard to the third item, I disagree even more strongly. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Phil, I don't understand the grounds on which are disagreeing with the last two points.
    1. Sandstein explicitly dismissed QG's actions at two or three different points. Are you suggesting that QG did not engage in a policy violation? (and if so, have you read my evidence on that point?) Or are you suggesting that Sandstein as an administrator is entitled to selectively enforce policy violations at his discretion?
    2. I need to finish my evidence on this, but it seems self-evident that there is a bias here. If nothing else, note that brangifer was never so much as warned for making multiple personal attacks in this post (false accusations of COI, false accusations of advocacy, false accusations of vandalism) despite the fact that he was doing it at ANI, and I asked twice , for an admin to warn him. The only reason he wouldn't be warned for this is that no one actually perceives these insulting statements as improper, which is the very definition of a systematic prejudicial bias. I am frequently warned for making far less pointed comments; he has never to my knowledge been warned over things like this, though I've seen him do it dozens of times (and I've seen other editors and even admins engage in this kind of personal attack with impunity more times than I can count). --Ludwigs2 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The only reason he wouldn't be warned for this is that no one actually perceives these insulting statements as improper - no, the reason is that enforcement is systematically arbitrary and somewhat random. This is particularly true of Sandstein, who tends to apply very heavy-handed sanctions with an "Respect my authoritah" air and who is not particularly good at listening and generating goodwill and understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

QuackGuru topic-banned

1) QuackGuru banned from Fringe, Alternative Medicine, and Pseudoscience topics broadly put, for a period of 6 months. Reinstatement may be made at an earlier date if QG demonstrates a clear understanding of the the correct use of wp:V, wp:RS and wp:WEIGHT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's not a good idea to bring your conflict with QuackGuru to the picture. Believe me. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Without any signs that these claimed problems have been addressed through the standard processes of WP:DR, there seems to be to be no reason at all to make any suggestion of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As Ludwigs2 has argued convincingly (and this is also my impression), standard dispute resolution is not working because of the large number of hardcore anti-fringe admins and editors who keep supporting each other uncritically and regard QuackGuru as an ally and Ludwigs2 as an enemy. The fact that Ludwigs2 was blocked for reporting QuackGuru's OR pushing says everything.

Also see Risker's acceptance vote for this case. Hans Adler 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) @ Hodja: the way I see this, Sandstein tried to block me so that QG could continue a long-term pattern of policy violations unhindered. Those policy violations seem to me to call for some form of sanction, no? However, I will consider the issue further once my head cools a little, because I am admittedly pissed off a the moment.

@ Mathsci: Considering the number of dispute resolution procedures that QG has been subject to over his editing career, it seems self-evident that no DR process will ever have any effect on his behavior (either because he will refuse to participate as is his norm, or because a coterie of editors will appear - as they always seem to do - to defend or dismiss his actions on procedural or emotional grounds). At any rate, this is just a proposal, which I am fully entitled to make and the committee is fully entitled to ignore if they so choose. I would really like to see him get a topic ban of some length, if only to convince him that he is not completely immune to sanction for his (as everyone recognizes) outrageous behavior. But I will leave it up to the committee to do what they think is best. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You probably noticed that QuackGuru is nowhere to be found, and he made zero comments at arbitration pages. I think that's because he is smart. Please look at title of the case. It is not about you or him (and this is good news!). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Sandstein

Proposed principles

Reversal of arbitration enforcement actions

1) Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

• Agree with Martinp - worth restating. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Proposed as a restatement of current AE policy. Verbatim copy of the relevant part of the Trusilver decision as also reproduced at WP:AEBLOCK and in the {{uw-aeblock}} template. In my opinion, no convincing argument has been advanced for changing this rule.  Sandstein  19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Uncontroversial but worth restating in this instance. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistently questionable arbitration enforcement actions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed as a restatement of current AE policy, also from the Trusilver decision, but appending "by the Committee" to make clear who is doing the asking or restricting.  Sandstein  19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• At best unnecessary, at worst unhelpful. It is a clear fact that the Committee may do this. We are also a community organization, so that I would assume that the community might - in an extreme case - ask an administrator active in AE to desist, and I would hope that this administrator would do so. This does not mean, of course, that the baying of individuals, especially those unhappy with AE provisions against them or their compatriots, means an AE administrator should change. It strikes me that the Trusilver motions got it exactly right; at best this restatement is equivalent (then unnecessary); at worst it enacts additional perceived protection for AE actions, which is also unnecessary and may be harmful. (BTW, on rereading, I am slightly concerned that "consistently" is too high a bar; I think it should merely be "repeatedly", however it should be the Committee that decides that) Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Dreadstar

1) Dreadstar undid a block () that had been made pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and that had been explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, without either the written authorization of the Committee, or a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard. Dreadstar did so under circumstances in which they were, or should have been, aware of the requirements for undoing arbitration enforcement actions. When other editors made Dreadstar aware of these requirements (), Dreadstar declined to undo their reversal of an arbitration enforcement action ().

Comment by Arbitrators:

• Would prefer "Dreadstar undid a block that had been explicitly noted as being taken to enforce an ArbCom remedy, without either the written authorization of the Committee, or a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard." PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per my submitted evidence.  Sandstein  19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Generally support, though I would leave off the last sentence, given the total of the evidence provided. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 and QuackGuru

2) The dispute concerning pseudoscience between Ludwigs2, QuackGuru and others that indirectly led to this case is unripe for arbitration. Editors should continue to attempt to resolve it by way of normal dispute resolution and may, if required, request the enforcement of applicable provisions of the Pseudoscience case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed. Nothing in the evidence so far makes clear that the underlying dispute is more than a content dispute combined with the usual (at least for WP:AE) ideological battlegrounding, incivility, etc. that can be dealt with at the AE level or (one can always hope) through consensual dispute resolution. There is also currently insufficient useful evidence for findings and remedies about this matter.  Sandstein  20:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Unnecessary. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dreadstar desysopped

1) For failing to comply with the requirements for undoing arbitration enforcement actions, Dreadstar is desysopped . He may regain administrator privileges through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

• There was an element of good faith misunderstanding by Dreadstar, who I think genuinely believed the block was outside of the provisions of WP:ARBPSEUDO, which defines the area of conflict as 'articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted', to the extent that he felt justified in undoing the block. I think he should have established a clear and sustained consensus prior to the unblock, however he has apologised. In this context, I think some form of advice, reminder, or admonishment could be appropriate, but I don't consider a desyop, temporary or otherwise, to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that Dreadstar may have believed in good faith that the block was out of scope of the arbitration case. But it is hard to see how (given the clear {{uw-aeblock}} warning) he could have believed in good faith that he was allowed to unilaterally unblock on this basis, and harder still to see how he could have refused in good faith to undo his mistake after having been reminded of the rules. The apology, one has to remember, was made only after this case was filed.

  If you do not enforce, by way of a sanction, the Committee's bright-line rule that enforcement actions must not be undone at will even if one believes in good faith that they are incorrect (much like one must not unblock oneself even if one believes in good faith that one's block is incorrect), you essentially strip arbitration enforcement of its effectiveness. Because there is a good faith argument to be made for almost any unblock. And as a result, you may see many more cases like this one if you condone conduct such as that by Dreadstar.  Sandstein  17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein: With all respect for the great work you do at AE, this response is a perfect example of the polarization you sometimes bring to situations you are involved in. You answer PK as if Arbcom has only a binary choice of remedy, either "desysop (at least temporarily)" or "do not sanction and in fact condone". In fact there is a wide range of possible remedies, with "condone" being one extreme (clearly off the table), "do not sanction" being another, and "advise/remind", "admonish/warn" being softer - and in my opinion more appropriate - types of sanctions than "desysop". In my opinion, you took a similarly needlessly polarized view in your evidence, where you stated that the suboptimal communication around the block of Ludwig did not "excuse or mitigate" DS's inappropriate unblock, seemingly without being open to the possibility that it might not excuse but may well mitigate. This "black or white, no shades of grey" approach may be necessary to be an effective arbitration enforcer in many instances, to fight against wikilawyering and wars of attrition. It is also a characteristic rhetorical style in adverserial proceedings. However, in other situations it may well escalate conflicts - and in particular, underlies the type of frustration which led DS and earlier Trusilver to inappropriately reverse your actions. Martinp (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a wide range of possible remedies, and another sanction (such as a restriction on undoing blocks or AE blocks) may also work, but a mere reminder or caution would not have a sufficient deterrent effect on others to maintain the effectiveness of AE. Your point about my approach is taken, but this does not seem like the place to discuss it.  Sandstein  06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Respect for ArbCom decision, and enforcement actions, comes from well-reasoned, transparent, insightful decisions and reasonable explanations. In a project driven by good-will and volunteers, and based on consensus, it cannot come from sanction-based deterrence. This is not a police state. And this should not become a police state. Your block was bad. Even if you do not buy this, you cannot deny that it was badly communicated. If you produce situations where natural justice and slavish adherence to some rules conflict, or seem to conflict, the root cause of this conflict is not that people are violating the rules. Sanctioning editors acting in good faith based on selective reading of some rules (note that WP:IAR is policy) is counterproductive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Martin and Stephan. Sandstein, with respect, the problem arose here because of black-and-white thinking, so more of the same won't resolve it. Ludwigs approached WP:AN, frustrated, to ask for help. That was the right thing to do. Instead you told him AN was not for dispute resolution (which is false), then blocked him because he made his frustration too plain, and thereby violated some policy or previous decision, or whatever it was, so that suddenly that violation had to take precedence. Then the same response to having your block undone: focusing on how that happened, not on whether it was a bad block, and trying to get someone else into trouble. So now we're all on the process treadmill. And did the problem Ludwigs approached AN with ever get sorted? No. This amount of effort for that result makes no sense to me. SlimVirgin 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, same remedy as in the Trusilver case. The instant case is even more clear-cut than the Trusilver case, because unlike in that earlier case, Dreadstar's reversal of an AE action occurred in explicit contempt of very clear and well-publicised rules. If Dreadstar's admin record is otherwise unblemished, and I have no reason to assume that it is not, getting back the tools by either of the two methods should be relatively easy. Alternatively, the Committee may prefer to impose only a time-limited desysop to begin with, should they come to the conclusion that there are significant mitigating circumstances.  Sandstein  19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• The number of administrators willing to participate at WP:AE is already low. If this remedy, or an equivalent, does not pass, even fewer will be willing to do so. CIreland (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Before I read this, I thought Sandstein was just making mistakes. CIreland, I'm sure seeing someone desysopped after entering AE for the first time will be a good way to encourage more admins to try it. Is WP:BITE entirely restricted to those who are new to WP, and does it have no relevance to (purported) mistakes of those trying to learn or new to a process? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Grossly disproportional and unreasonable. AGF, this was a good faith mistake and thus should not be sanctioned. Dreadstar's apology is enough. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overkill. An admonishment is warranted (possibly with a restriction to not overturn any admin actions if the Arbcom feels this is necessary), but in the circumstances of the case a desysop is unnecessary. In the Trusilver case, the AE-reversing admin was very forcefully stating that his principles required him to do the action, while in this situation Dreadstar has apologized and recognized he should have acted differently. There is no need for ArbCom to use the strongest penalty in its arsenal. To anticipate the objection to my point of view, Sandstein's evidence has shown that by and large AE sanctions are both fairly applied as well as rarely subject to reversal, through discussion or unauthorized Cowboy action. So there is no need to "assert authority" forcefully and make an example of someone - an admonishment to indicate "we mean it" is adequate. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Martinp here. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• The only danger here with leniency is that others may view policy as toothless. Given the hearing that this transgression has gotten, I don't think anyone will confuse any result here with leniency. I agree with Martinp as well. Admonishment is best in this specific situation, and future situations may yield different results. aprock (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• While I almost entirely agree that Sandstien is correct in this dispute, desysop is too much. Noting even in Sandstien's related principle that admins face a sanction "up to and including desysopping". If an admin with a good record who has apologized for his isolated mistake is given the highest possible sanction then under what circumstance is a lesser sanction warrented? If the block is upheld and AE sanctions are re-affirmed then there is no reason to call for Dreadstar's head. Admonishment tops... maybe even just a reminder if the Arbs were feeling lenient. 158.35.225.240 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Draconian. Even if the findings are that Sandstein is 100% in the right, there's no reason to jump straight to desysop. Given the facts a "warning" or "admonishment" should sufice if Dreadstar is found to be 100% in the wrong. Honestly this proposal illustrates Sandstein's heavy handed approach to enforcement.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Per Cube lurker. Moreschi (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement procedure

2) Administrators are advised not to take arbitration enforcement actions other than in response to a request at WP:AE by another editor. The request must state the reasons for which enforcement is requested and must include diffs as evidence for any assertions of misconduct. Before enforcement action is taken, the editor against whom enforcement is requested must have been notified of the request and must have had an opportunity to respond to the request. These rules do not apply to enforcement actions that are necessary to stop repeated disruption that is ongoing at the time of the enforcement action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed as new AE policy. These procedural safeguards mostly represent current practice at WP:AE (see {{Arbitration enforcement request}}) and should help allay concerns about the possibility of arbitrary or capricious application of AE. I normally decline to take AE action outside of the context of a request at WP:AE, and had I followed this rule in the instant case also, chances are that it would have evolved in a less dramatic manner. Centralizing AE actions at the noticeboard also allows for easier review and supervision of AE actions.

  The "emergency clause" at the end makes clear that this does not apply to cases where immediate intervention is needed, such as an ongoing edit-war. But even then, any immediate AE sanctions should only go as far as is needed to stop the immediate trouble (e.g., a short block), leaving more longterm sanctions (such as topic bans) to be decided at WP:AE.  Sandstein  19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Restricting these discussions to AE seems like overkill. Sometimes there will be an edit war reported at WP:AN3 to which Arbcom case remedies could apply. In my opinion, admins who close AN3 cases should still be allowed to take arbitration enforcement actions. Here are a few examples where the action taken at AN3 seems correct. Anyone sanctioned at AN3 who doesn't like the outcome may still appeal at AE. The more structured decision-making at AN3 appears to make it more suited to this role than ANI, which occasionally has a wild-west atmosphere in which the participating admins may not have a shared vision of the correct protocol for admin actions. AN3 also has the tradition that the mover of the action is different from the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Appreciated self-reflection by Sandstein, and probably good policy. However unnecessary as an Arbcom-enacted remedy. Also in the category of food for thought for AE administrators: recommend where possible a less legalistic tone, and a slightly greater bias towards bilateral communication (recognizing that warring parties may try to game this, of course). In this instance, if instead of Ludwig receiving a cryptic threat to "show cause" within 2 hours of something, he had received a simply phrased note reminding him that he was not supposed to do X and Y, his contribution at AN violated that, and he should redact it in a timely manner to avoid an AE block, we probably wouldn't be here. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that Sandstein has said subsequently substantially the same as my "Also in the category..." thought in his answer to questions posed to him at the top of his page. I will say that at first when I read Sandstein's evidence I was concerned with what I personally perceived as an overly legalistic tone as well as a lack of self-awareness. However, on rereading the evidence and other contributions during the case, I am convinced that self-reflection on what could be done better has been performed by all parties to this case, and thus from a procedural point of view very little beyond an admonishment of Dreadstar's incorrect action is needed as a formal remedy in this case. However, I do get the feeling that the incorporation of elements such as those raised above into informal but explicitly stated AE standard operating procedures, and indeed perhaps the greater codification and discussion with the community of such procedures in an informal setting after the closure of this case, might be of benefit. Such procedures would of course not excuse anyone from overturning an AE action even if he/she believed such procedures were not followed, but their establishment would help establish clarity about what are reasonable expectations of "fair dealing" and provide greater consistency of AE enforcement as well as better structure for appeals based in part on process than substance. Martinp (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overkill. In addition to what EdJohnston said, what if an administrator came across an edit war that they think is best dealt with by an article-level 1RR? What about a  Confirmed checkuser finding at SPI? Or suppose someone made a complaint at ANI to which all relevant users have responded already? (Let's assume that the facts are clear and the violation is plain.) Requiring a pro forma AE report in those cases just adds a layer of bureaucratic paperwork without any added value. The real question is whether the user has notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any sanction is imposed. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Because only the Committee can enforce the proposed remedies, no enforcement provisions are required.  Sandstein  20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Mjroots

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) A clarification is made in respect of the forming of a consensus. A time span of 3¼ hours seems to be on the short side to me.

As noted at {{uw-aeblock}}, the template contains a message that Admins are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

To me, part (b) needs to be expanded upon. It could say something like (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI) obtained over a period of at least "x" hours), with "x" being a figure to be decided by consensus. I would suggest a minimum of 8 hours, with a maximum of 24 hours (such time to be counted from the first raising of the issue at AN or ANI.

With this clarification, Admins would have a clear guide that time needs to be allowed for adequate discussion, and that such blocks are not to be hastily reversed, even if they appear to be wrong. This amendment would not prevent the blocking admin from unblocking at any time should they decide that consensus is clearly showing the block was wrong, or a successful unblock appeal is made by the blocked editor (in the latter case, the unblocking admin within the timescale decided upon would be the blocking admin). Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think 24 hours is customary to allow editors from different time zones the opportunity to comment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: