Revision as of 01:32, 17 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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 easily 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)

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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:

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:

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)

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:

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: