Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kossack4Truth (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 28 July 2008 (→‎Statement by Kossack4Truth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Barack Obama

Initiated by 74.94.99.17 (talk) at 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the following as a request for arbitration since the page is semi-protected. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
  • Rick Block: [2]
  • Kossack4Truth: [4]
  • WorkerBee74: [5]
  • Curious bystander: [11]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by 74.94.99.17

There appears to be a systematic effort to exclude any and all criticism and controversy from the Barack Obama biography led by Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo. Another user, Shem, was the previous leader of this effort but after being accused of having a WP:COI issue, he abruptly closed his account. Editors who attempt to add criticism to the article are verbally beaten into submission or reported over, and over, and over at WP:ANI until admins grow so sick and tired of seeing their names that they impose sanctions.

Most recently, Kossack4Truth received a topic ban from MastCell in retaliation for filing an ANI report and a 3RR report. Previously, he was blocked three days for issuing a warning to LotLE for a clear violation of WP:CIV. (These actions have a chilling effect on appropriate actions by editors to resolve disputes: warnings, seeking help at ANI, and seeking help at AN3. If editors are going to be punished for filing such reports, they may seek instead to resolve matters by edit warring or violating WP:CIV themselves, for example.)

WorkerBee74 has offered mediation but this is being refused here.

Noroton's conduct in this matter has been above reproach. I name him as a party only because he has accumulated abundant evidence of the misbehavior of all these editors, and would be very helpful to the Committee in resolving these issues. I have named Ncmvocalist as a party because at WP:ANI, he has been most strident in demanding sanctions against pro-criticism editors while shutting down complaints against anti-criticism editors, going so far as to archive such a report moments after it was filed against LotLE. (He is not an admin and has no right to archive such reports.)

Rick Block's bias in favor of the article's subject was revealed in a discussion on Noroton's User Talk page. Gamaliel's bias in favor of the article's subject was revealed in a discussion on WB74's User Talk Page. But which two admins have appeared at Talk:Barack Obama to supervise matters? Rick Block and Gamaliel.

I believe K4T's topic ban was unjustified. In his recent return to the article after his block and brief retirement, he was civil and constructive. The Committee is asked to review this topic ban and remove it.

On the other hand, if K4T's topic ban is justified, then a topic ban for Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo is also justified. They have edit warred. They have violated WP:CIV repeatedly. They have gamed the system. They have relentlessly filed report after report at WP:ANI until everyone who looks at that page is sick and tired of the whole matter.

Also, both the article and its Talk page have been semi-protected, allegedly due to racially motivated vandalism from IP accounts. It is no coincidence that all of the IP accounts participating in the discussion, including me, supported the inclusion of more criticism. I believe one of these three editors (Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo) was logging out to vandalize the page in an effort to get semi-protection and exclude IP accounts, tipping the balance of consensus in their favor.

There has also been a lot of talk at ANI about article probation, and I think it's appropriate in this case. The vandalism should be dealt with, not by discriminating against all IP accounts, but with lengthy blocks on the IP accounts that are responsible for the vandalism. I think the owners of a named account or two might suddenly find that they're unable to edit.

EDIT: I see below that Wikidemo has responded to someone who disagrees with him in one of his three usual manners: delegitimizing his critic, filing a WP:ANI report, or posting a note on the User Talk page of a friendly admin. This time, he's chosen option #1. I'm not a sockpuppet, and this is no ordinary content dispute. There are serious behavioral problems displayed here by Wikidemo and the pack he runs with, and the named admins and Ncmvocalist (admin wannabe) are hard at work enabling them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.99.17 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemo

Although the report itself is clear rubbish, and invokes a content dispute, there is very much a behavior issue behind it. Administrators may wish to look past the deficiencies of the request posted by the IP editor, and take up the case by way of dealing with the persistent problems on the Obama article pages.

Note: I noticed a problem here after copying the report over from the talk page, where I believed it had been filed as a mistake. After doing that Now I realize that the filing editor cannot contribute on this page because it's semi-protected. Are IP editors not supposed to participate in ArbCom cases? I have also Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new disruptive WP:MEAT and possible WP:SOCK of WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), to the list of involved parties.

Need for a solution A wave of disruptive edits from multiple accounts has brought progress on the article to a stop. We have spent the two months since the last page protection debating three main issues. These discussions stalled and restarted dozens of times after breaking down from wikigaming, incivilities, personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, pov-pushing, sockpuppetry, and other editing irregularities. Two months later, after making some progress towards civility and consensus, the same cluster of editors is stirring the pot again, and the result is more gridlock and frustration on one of Wikipedia's most important and most viewed articles.

Although blocks and bans of tendentious editors and sock puppet operators, and article probation, may succeed without ArbCom intervention, it could be argued that existing tools and procedures are have failed and are too weak ensure article stability. It is reasonable (but not absolutely clear) to think that stronger steps are now necessary.

Attacking the messenger Several of the parties here have lashed out at others, and even uninvolved administrators, for trying to deal with the problem. Administrators imposing blocks or offering warnings and opinions are accused of being political operatives, biased, and so on. A cluster of editors have called me and others a "whiner", liar, "obama campaign volunteer", "Obama fanboy", and goodness knows what else, all for helping administrators deal with their disruptive editing. Reflexive tit-for-tat administrative reports and behavior accusations are the norm here, and seem to be an attempt to confuse the issue so that people first viewing the dispute cannot quickly tell who is causing the problem and who is in search of a solution.

The report itself contains one assertion that is particularly farfetched - that the behavior of some editors is excused by provocation. WorkerBee74 and his (apparent) socks and supporters have developed an odd theory that their warnings, blocks, and bans are unfair. Their misbehavior, under this theory, is the fault the fault of editors they were attacking, because they had been provoked to the point of misbehavior in a plot to rid the Obama article of nonpartisans, so that the article could be "whitewashed" in favor of Obama. There are so many problems with this theory it is hard to begin. First of all, misbehavior is misbehavior. If two parties misbehave then they're both wrong - two editors fighting do not cancel out each other's misdeeds. Second, a good faith request for administrative action cannot be a behavioral problem. It isn't a mysterious plot to bring sanctions down on unwitting opponents; it's a direct, open request that administrators look at the behavior and apply whatever recourse they think is warranted. Administrators have their own independent, reasonable judgment. They're not puppets of complaining editors. If an editor brings a meritless request it will be denied. If they bring persistent meritless requests the injury is to the administrative boards and the administrators themselves will point that out. However, when administrators take up the request and seriously consider or apply remedies as a result, that confirms that the request was beyond good faith, it was probably right. The Obama articles have generated 10-12 WP:AN/I reports to date and a comparable number of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR reports. From these we have 4-5 editors blocked for sockpuppetry, a topic ban, some page protections, numerous editors blocked for disruption, and a recent proposal for article probation that may be growing stale. Most of the worst problem editors are now blocked or gone. One of the few that remains, WorkerBee74, was blocked 4 times in 50 days for wikigaming and incivility.[13] To accept the filer's position that this is all a plot, one has to find not only that these blocks and bans are unjust (due, it is claimed, to systematic bias of administrators), but they are so unjust that Arbcom should sanction editors merely for participating in the attendant AN/I discussions. In other words, the filer requests that ArbCom repudiate the body of administrators' behavior decisions, and instead blame the messengers who brought the reports. We shouldn't entertain conspiracy theories like that - far simpler to believe that the process is working and that administrators acting on reports have confirmed the behavior problems and acted accordingly.

I won't try to go too deep into the content issue - there is plenty of criticism of Obama in the Obama article; the opposition to posting blog rants and partisan attacks is a matter of content policy, weight, reliable sourcing, verifiability/accuracy, NPOV, OR, SYNTH, and occasionally BLP.

Sockpuppetry
There are several outstanding matters of sockpuppetry. In fact, despite denials from both accounts the IP editor bringing the report was determined to be a likely sockpuppet of an involved party, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). WorkerBee74 is believed to have engaged in ongoing sockpuppetry on the Obama talk page, gaming polls by voting in tandem with an IP editor, and using IP editors to claim support for his position and make attacks on other involved parties. He was found to be a likely puppet master (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth), editing among other things as the IP account that filed this report (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) and acting as WorkerBee74's alter ego to defend WorkerBee74 on this AN/I report.

I anticipate further attacks on me for bringing up these old reports. Some editors repeatedly misrepresent the outcome, claiming for example that I'm under scrutiny for my behavior, or that WorkerBee74 was never proven to be a sock puppet. Suffering retaliatory accusations is a cost of standing firm against disruptive editors, so I'm resigned to ignoring it. However, please do not let these editors cloud the issue. Their behavior is the problem, not article content or the behavior of article editors and administrators who they have antagonized.

Evidence for all of this is voluminous and will take a long time to prepare - it means compiling dozens of different reports, and long-term disruption of a number of different accounts. So I'll probably keep my comments brief until and unless it appears that there is some reasonable possibility that ArbCom will accept this case. Wikidemo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts I wholeheartedly endorse Noroton's comments, below. He's on the opposite side of me on the content issue (not that it's two clear-cut unchanging sides, but on certain issues) but a solid editor. As I say above, one may conclude that the problem is so bad it needs arbitration; one could also conclude that things will be just fine without it. There are solid, thoughtful editors on both sides. It's counterproductive to pit this as pro-Obama versus anti-Obama editors; that WP:BATTLE attitude is a big part of the problem. Rather, if there are two sides, it's serious editors who want stability, civility, and encyclopedic content, versus people stirring up trouble.

Statement by LotLE×talk

Basically, I just want to second all of Wikidemo's comments. The IP address posting this, from tone and timing, appears to be a sockpuppet of an editor has been trolling for addition of content to fit a political agenda (i.e. wants more criticism of Obama, just for the sake of having criticism of a politician s/he doesn't like). This is basically a content dispute, but one in which a few editors (mostly blocked or banned by now, at least in some identities) are willing to engage in edit-warring, lots of WP:CIVIL violations, 3RR, sock-puppetry, and so on to try to force in unencyclopedic anti-Obama material. Arbcom is probably the wrong place, but certainly anything that brings more administrators and generally experienced editors to keeping an eye on the underlying Barack Obama article (and related articles) is a good thing. LotLE×talk 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by marginally involved editor Coren

Whilst my sole involvement at this point has been to concur with the recommendation to sustain a topic ban against one disruptive editor on AN/I, a quick examination of the Barak Obama article and its talk page show a vast content dispute where a number of editors (on both sides) attempting to get the "other side" sanctioned to gain the upper hand.

I would suggest that allowing the ArbCom to be dragged into this mess as a bludgeon to silence the other side is a travesty that should not be allowed— normal administrative action to deal with disruption is still quite adequate to deal with the problem. — Coren (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:The Evil Spartan

I've been pointing out for quite a while, on several pages, that there is sufficient evidence that the multitude of single-purpose accounts POV pushing on this page are almost certainly socks of WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs)/Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs)/74.94.99.17 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page_again. Why this hasn't been enforced earlier by the community is a complete mystery to me.

It would have been nice if such an obvious case of sockpuppetry had been dealt with by the community; unfortunately, it has not, and I urge ArbCom to make a ruling on this, even if only a short one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Noroton

Oddly enough, after maybe a 14 different threads at AN/I and AN over this (just since very late May when I started getting involved), I now think this is premature. Most of the disruptive editors have been banned or blocked, and the job is largely done. I think this level of unprovoked, minor incivility is most of what we're left with, which doesn't seem worth ginning up the arbitration engine to swat down. (I should add that I don't follow any edit warring on the Obama page, and I recently took a break from the talk page.)

Yes, there's a POV problem with the page. No, it isn't really very bad, so it hasn't risen to the kind of behavioral matter Arbcom can deal with. There are actually some knotty problems about how Wikipedia should cover some things on the Obama page. It's not at all simple or perfectly obvious exactly how to cover Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko or Jeremiah Wright in this article, and Ayers and Wright are emotional topics. The discussions are inevitably long, hot and sometimes educational. That problem is systemic: it's inevitable that consensus-based decisionmaking on emotional topics will be difficult. I don't think Wikipedia handles controversial topics well -- we do it too slowly, with too much friction. A stricter application of WP:CIVIL and perhaps more structured ways of coming to consensus would help. And WP:BLP has turned into a shield for editors who want to protect WP:WELLKNOWN public figures even from fair, widely known criticism. These are policy problems that I doubt ArbCom would help with.

It seems to me that its important for administrators not invovled in the discussion and who are trying to act independently of whichever political side they support, pay ongoing attention to pages like this. Civility violations on these pages are like sparks in a dry forest and they need to be put out early and quickly. Editors who constantly provoke, edit war or otherwise misbehave need to be identified, warned and, eventually, banned from the page. AN/I is slow with that, but in its creaky way, it actually has handled most of the problem editors by now. MastCell has been very effective. If AN/I denizens aren't complaining that the Obama-related circus isn't too much of a burden for AN/I, let them deal with it.

I'd certainly welcome seeing the committee topic-ban a couple editors and hand out civility admonitions all around. Would it help the page much at this point? I doubt it. Do you have the time to delve into the 6-8 archive pages at Talk:Barack Obama along with the related pages and 14 AN/I threads? Look, you're slower and creakier than AN/I. But if this heats up again with new editors, consider it a systemic problem you may need to deal with. Noroton (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 74.94.99.17: Noroton's conduct in this matter has been above reproach. Not at all. I've said repeatedly that I'm capable of lapsing into sarcasm and responding to provocation with anger. I'm still working on that. I've done that with ArbCom members, too (not that I'd want either of them to recuse for that reason, in the off chance this is accepted for arbitration). I name him as a party only because he has accumulated abundant evidence of the misbehavior of all these editors, I haven't accumulated anything, although my talk page speaks for itself. and would be very helpful to the Committee in resolving these issues. Yes, its my fondest wish to spend week after week collecting diffs for a grateful Arbcom which I'm sure will avidly pore over every detail with care and be far better than anyone else at tweezing out how Editor A was goaded by Editor B, so that his lashing back a day or two later was not quite as bad as Editor C's unprovoked disparagement of Editor D who was a worse POV-pusher than Editor E because ... -- but I'm lapsing into sarcasm. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rick Block Our discussion on my talk page speaks for itself, although I don't think it's actually worth anyone else's time to read through. Anyone who looks at Rick's edits knows he's not a problem on that page. People have different perceptions of what is WP:NPOV. Those different perceptions are, themselves, points of view about NPOV on a particular topic, and they inevitably reflect our views on the topic itself. I'm sure Rick's view is sincere. His implication that I can't or won't check my own POV at the door, as best I can, is ... best judged by independent observers looking at my record while they attempt to check their own POV at the door, as best they can. Arbcom members and everybody else are welcome to idle away the hours searching my contributions history. I agree with Rick that Ncmvocalist's ideas at AN/I are good ones worth looking at. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rick Block

Let's see. We have (see talk:Barack Obama and its archives, and history of the Barack Obama page):

  1. a featured article about the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the 2008 US presidential election
  2. a handful of editors, led most recently by user:WorkerBee74 (a WP:SPA), insisting on adding "criticisms" to this article, specifically material about Obama's relationships with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers
  3. another handful of editors insisting that adding too many details about these "relationships" (and in the Ayers case, any mention at all) violates various sections of one or both of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and that these "criticisms" amount to guilt by association smear attempts

The first set of editors have resorted to edit warring, alleged sockpuppetry, obvious use of WP:SPAs, tendentious editing of the talk page, an RFC, and now RFAR to try to insert the disputed material while the other set of editors have responded with edit warring and numerous WP:ANI reports (with an unhealthy dose of WP:CIVIL violations on both sides).

The thread at user talk:Noroton#Rezko is cited as evidence of bias on my part (I did not respond to Noroton's most recent comments in this thread since he asked me not to, here). Rather than bias of mine, I think this thread shows a refusal on Noroton's part to acknowledge my suggestion that his editing was coming across as biased. Although Noroton is in general a very good editor, I still believe he has a pronounced anti-Obama bias (see Special:Contributions/Noroton).

This thread on ANI suggests an article probation be imposed on the Obama pages, but it was apparently archived before consensus was reached on instituting it.

I have taken (and will take) no administrative actions regarding these issues having participated in talk page discussions as an editor. I am now viewed by the "pro-criticism" editors as part of the "anti-criticism" crowd, since I have argued against including this material.

As I've mentioned several places, I'm watching both Barack Obama and John McCain. My agenda is to try to keep them from being hijacked for political purposes. I have suggested Jimbo take rather extreme action to prevent attempted use of the Obama and McCain pages for political purposes [14] and have asked for more admins to watch these pages [15].

I think ArbCom could help by instituting the article probation suggested at ANI. And more admins watching these pages, particularly admins accustomed to dealing with highly contentious pages, would be swell. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kossack4Truth

I'll confirm a few of the details that the IP editor has mentioned about me. I was recently topic banned for filing a WP:ANI report and a WP:AN3 report against LotLE. He/she has developed a style of low-level edit warring coupled with low-level baiting and incivility that is not constructive for the project. Before that, I received a three-day block for giving LotLE a warning about a series of more blatant WP:CIV violations. Noroton has documented LotLE's misconduct here.

If these reports and warnings are meritless, I fail to understand how or why I should be punished for good faith attempts to use the dispute resolution procedures that are prescribed for such situations: warning the offending editor, and making reports at ANI and AN3.

Also, how LotLE keeps getting away with this behavior is a mystery that I would like to see solved.

Coupled with this behavior is more low-level baiting and edit warring by Scjessey. His/her behavior has been just as problematic and has spread to other articles such as George Stephanopoulos. Noroton, whom even these editors agree has been honorable about these matters, accumulated a lot of evidence against Scjessey regarding his/her lying and gaming the system at the Stephanopoulos article to get WB74 blocked, and posted it at ANI sometime around June 30, but I've hunted for half an hour and can't find it. (Perhaps Noroton can.)

Wikidemo, for his/her part, reports even the slightest perceived infractions at WP:ANI, but only by those editors who disagree with him/her. There have been several such reports that resulted in no administrative action whatsoever. For at least one such report, Wikidemo didn't even get one response from an uninvolved editor. For this reason, I coined the phrase "whining exaggerated report" and I believed it to be accurate at that time. Die4Dixie has coined the phrase "disagree/ provoke/ report" and this might more accurately encompass the whole cycle of conduct.

To summarize: LotLE and Scjessey get us all wound up, and then Wikidemo reports us. Whether there's enablement at the administrative level is for others to determine. But the results are that WB74 and I keep getting blocked, and LotLE and Scjessey keep getting away with it, even though Noroton agrees that they've engaged in serial misconduct.

When I am separated from this tag team of POV pushers for whatever reason, I am constructive. I took a voluntary break from Obama-related articles, removed an obvious WP:BLP violation from Heather Wilson, and was promptly reported again here. But in that case, the community supported me. On the topic ban, I thought it was unfair but I took it like an adult and moved on, working on Jim McDermott constructively.

I have done my best since returning from retirement to be constructive, and an asset to Wikipedia. I was prepared to accept this topic ban despite its unfairness, and will accept whatever restrictions the Committee chooses to impose or endorse.

These three editors, however, are engaged in a tag team match to block any criticism or controversy from the Barack Obama article, and get any editor who disagrees with them removed. Their bias and POV pushing is obvious. This is not healthy for Wikipedia and particularly with such a high profile article, a remedy should be fashioned. As I said at Talk:Heather Wilson, we must not merely avoid bias. We must avoid the appearance that we might be biased. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

I am not going to bore you all by going over the same, tired details. I think it is fairly obvious that the reporting editor has filed this report as a way of influencing a content dispute.

I am particularly annoyed that "anti-Obama" editors (for want of a better description) have repeatedly dragged my user name through the mud and claimed I have been provoking them and edit warring. I was once blocked for edit warring (April 21, 2008) but I invite anyone to examine my contributions to verify this was a one-time event. I can only conclude that I have received this special attention because my dedication to preserving the neutrality of articles by fair application of Wikipedia policy has stymied efforts by this "group" to reshape the articles to further a political agenda.

I completely support the substance of the comments made thus far by User:Wikidemo, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Coren, User:The Evil Spartan and User:Rick Block. If this POINTy report goes any further (it is my understanding that this process is not to resolve content disputes) I hope it will lead to more administrative input and tighter controls for what is obviously an incredibly popular subject. Be happy that this will all be over in November! -- Scjessey (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Recused; I've commented on the AN/I thread taking a specific position, and will make a comment above. — Coren (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2

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

Question by Cla68

The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors: Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. A post-decision motion [21], passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles. The exact verbiage in the passed motion is:

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

  • a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
  • a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet [22] for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this [23] remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case? And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback

I don't understand the need for this. The original ArbCom case closed over two years ago. The only remedies concerned HK and his sockpuppets. Those blocks were logged because they had an escalation clause. Cberlet was an innocent party. Why would this block be logged - what purpose would it serve?

While we're on this topic, we might as well get a determination about the applicability of this motion to current editors. In particular, Polly Hedra (talk · contribs), who posted this message.[24] I simply deleted it as unhelpful and left a message on the user's talk page. However, since this matter is being contested it's worth making sure that remedies are applied evenly. The user is unremorseful.[25] As for being potential sock puppets of HK, there are several editors whose edits are very similar to HK's in that they only edit LaRouche-related articles and articles that LaRouche has a strong POV about, and they consistently promote that POV. Due to HK's clever puppet mastering (see the first RfAr), it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior.

FWIW, I received notes from Cberlet asking that the biography of Chip Berlet be deleted, and apparently signalling his intention to leave the project.[26][27] I'd guess that being punished while those who've baited him are unpunished might be a cause.

Comment by User:Marvin Diode

It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment [28] by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.

I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Dtobias

The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motion merely affirmed that, while way back in 2004 it may not have been entirely clear that policies like no original research and neutral point of view were ordinarily enforceable without going so far as having an arbitration case (for interest, here is a contemporary revision of NOR, and here's one of NPOV), by 2007 those principles had long since passed in to the general corpus of policy, and the existence of special remedies in this subject area in no way meant that general policy did not also apply. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This strikes me as petty and unnecessary. As per FayssalF, this is unhelpful; and per bainer, normal policy is handling these issues just as well anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: /Homeopathy

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

  • N/A


Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that the evidence page is still deleted. As this is pretty much a gross deviation from the norm, and as the last statement about it was Flonight's over a week ago, I figured it was time to go here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As I replied to a query on my user talk page, I asked on ArbCom and got good replies about the reason. I'm still looking into the situation so I can make a good choice about what to include in the undeleted version. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Daniel: better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is too vague. As Eastern Europe makes clear, the term "Eastern Europe" is something rather ambiguous and definitions differ.
To Martintg: it's not bloody misanthropy. Chimpanzees are welcome to edit Wikipedia provided they grok the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and verifiability. If people can't manage this, then they have no place here, no matter if they offer an ethnically diverse viewpoint from Alpha Centauri. Good articles are not written by competing teams of POV-pushers. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by recent edit-war patterns, it's articles relating to the conflicts between Russia, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Romania, and Moldova that are most in need of this. I suggest this as the "area of conflict" for now. AFAIK Baltic-Russian articles have gone quiet since the Digwuren case, but this may flare up again, so we should keep the option open of extending the area of conflict to include these states, as well as any others - such as Czech Republic and Slovakia - that may need it in future. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [29] [30] [31] [32] with support by another well known user [33] [34], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had produced (actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. Soon, he got me, too, with Another Eastern European spat (originally titled Another Eastern European flamer, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list" when he defends him, like in Darwinek's case. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to Gadu Gadu instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgment, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this might be a good idea if the area is clearly defined (e.g. Russia-Ukrainian conflict). But the definition of "uninvolved administrator" is terrible. There are many highly opinionated administrators who edit in the area. They will simply block all others. An "uninvolved administrator" should be someone who never edited in the area of conflict! Biophys (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the discretionary sanctions in the Digwurien ruling only drive away several good editors like Turgidson, but they did not really resolve anything (as Moreschi said). However, this amended ruling will only make things worse unless you can deal with nationalist administrators who edit in the area of conflict. For example, this administrator threatened me with block while making himself his fourth revert in 24 hours here. If this ruling was already accepted, he or his allies would simply block me or anyone else for a year, and this is it. Giving so much power to Moreschi is fine. But giving so much power to nationalist administrators is not a good idea. That is why I insisted on a different definition of "uninvolved administrator".Biophys (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [35]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [36],[37],[38]

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the other person banned in this case, Petri Krohn, is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion piece "Estonia is a fascist apartheid state"). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay "The Plague". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. Regardless of one's opinion of Sarah777, her rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay "The Real Plague" raises some valid issues with Moreschi's views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Wikipedia. We all want to build an encyclopedia without drama, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and applying discretionary sanctions aimed at particular national groupings is a step in the wrong direction. Martintg (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Moreschi: assigning the bad behaviour of individuals to national groups, then characterising it as a "plague", is not misanthropic? I sympathize fully with what admins like yourself are up against, particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama in his usual style in support of his compatriots, right or wrong. If only Kirill had at the very least widened the definition of involved admin and narrowed the scope to specific topic areas, like Russia, I could support this motion, but as it stands, I can not. The problem with this approach is that mere assumed membership of a group is then sufficient to cast suspicion. Institutionalize this approach by adopting discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe and the result will be disastrously clear. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biophys is right, if this remedy is adopted, the definition of involved admin needs to be expanded, being an admin doesn't magically make one forget their national origin or the desire to defend their view. Even Kirill admitted to me his background made him sensitive, which was a surprise to me since I originally assumed he was American born. Not an issue for me, ofcourse, but I do wonder if this sensitivity has led to the introduction of sanctions that are more draconian and wider in scope than they really need to be. Martintg (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from this debate may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I support Moreschi's idea of adding WP:ARBMAC-like solutions to Digwuren's case. This would vastly improve their effectiveness.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

Remedy 11, "General restriction" is superceded by the following remedy:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

This might be too radical a suggestion, I know, but might it be possible to adapt something like WP:ARBMAC to provide set of tools that could be applied generically, without having to trigger a full-scale arbitration to achieve that end? I don't think it would be appropriate to allow an individual arbitrator to impose such a regime by him- or herself, but perhaps it could be triggered if there was a consensus among uninvolved admins that there was a problem requiring the application of the ARBMAC tools. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

Daniel's motion is far too wide in scope. I'm afraid it will have the effect of shifting the power from ArbCom to the legions of IRC-recruited admins, with bans randomly flying like rifle shots in passing. This is based on a flawed idea of justice. I don't agree with Piotrus that the EE field is plagued by "a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users". Those are not a problem that requires ArbCom's involvement. It is plagued by a few long-standing and dedicated editors whose sole aim is to glorify their country and to skew the perspective with their tendentious editing. For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions, for it would go a longer way toward lightening up the atmosphere than any of the proposed motions. Since I had not been editing English Wikipedia between November and June (apart from inserting interwiki links to my articles in Russian Wikipedia), nobody can call me the mastermind of all the problems, as Piotrus had insinuated in the previous cases. If nothing has changed for the better, what was the purpose of ArbCom's ousting me out of English Wikipedia during the Digwuren case? That screw-up highlighted ArbCom's incompetence and inefficiency, and the proposed motion will have a similar effect. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording from biophys

Per this diff, Biophys suggests the following change to the proposed discretionary sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking for is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill (prof) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision supersedes the "General restriction" remedy, but does not affect any other provisions of the case, or any sanctions already imposed under the "General restriction" remedy.

There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one who has abstained), so six votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill (prof) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This wording seems to work better and give more clarity to all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Long overdue. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, as previously discussed. James F. (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[39] administrators' noticeboard,[40] and fringe theory noticeboard.[41] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [42]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelantalk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [43].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

The following remedy is added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker

Do we seriously need a horse and pony show over this? The fact of the matter is, the encyclopedia comes first. In an encyclopedia, established facts backed up by evidence comes first. Scientific academia is making a more significant effort than the alternative to adhere to the scientific method and prove their stuff (through a rigorous review by envious researchers who want to do no more than to destroy other researchers). Alternative thought still has a place in articles, but while it still is alternative, then it should be regarded as such. Violations of the principle of undue weight should be treated with editorial treatment so that due weight is restored. People should be blocked from editing articles when their edits are more trouble than it's worth. MessedRocker (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill (prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.

There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill (prof) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above; the clearest wording for this type of remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Again, yes. James F. (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not yet convinced of the wisdom of these sanctions in this context. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=228376677"